Masking 16mm to achieve S16mm
Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:22 AM
B camera to get non-synced cut aways, dangerous spots etc.. I know I could easy crop the image in a non-linear
editing program but I was wondering if the "electronic" magnification that maybe happens will amp up the noise in
the picture, either editing or the final product to an unexceptable level.
Would it be feasible to mask the lens in such a way as to
keep it all "in-camera". Is that a good plan? Any opinions?
A third answer should be that I shouldn't mix the two formats.
Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:27 AM
Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:52 AM
I think what you're asking is if you get a 4:3 transfer of regular 16mm and zoom in on it to fill a 16:9 screen will it add noise. The answer is yes. Mainly it will get "softer"; not so much more noise. What you do is ask the telecine operator/colorist to do this in the transfer stage (if you are going to HD). They can do that optically and with better equipment. Just expose your negative well and maybe use a slightly lower speed stock and you'll be fine. If you can sit in on the session you can direct them on framing up & down as well. I usually ask them to use their eye to frame each shot a little up or down based on what looks best.
Other option is to scan the 16mm negative at full 2K and do the cropping/framing yourself but that would be overkill.
Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:51 AM
Posted 19 February 2012 - 01:58 PM
It's probably not the best method due to the amount of information lost with downsizing the video to fit, but it's not too bad.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:20 AM
I never shoot above 200T or 250D film when I plan on going 16:9 on regular 16mm. And I tape the ground glass and shoot a 16:9 framing chart at the head of the first roll, that way the telecinist knows how I was framing when I shot.