Any advice on which Super 16 camera to buy?

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

Do you think a GSMO provides as steady a picture as an Arri SR?  I have thought about other 16 mm cameras like a Bolex or a Beaulieu for the immediate present, but I'm concerned about those cameras because from some footage I see on YouTube I see a bit of unsteadiness in the picture, like sometimes a very slight undulating or wave motion

Don't know, they're so rare, I've never even seen one in person. I assume they use the same movement as the CP16, but that's just an assumption. 

A properly serviced SR without a worn gate, is pretty stable. The SR3 gates drop right into the SR1 and 2, which practically eliminate any gate issues. The biggest problem with the older SR's is Super 16 as most had botched conversions. So don't think about S16 with an SR1 and 2. I've had mediocre luck with SR1 and 2 stability FYI. SR3's are way better stability wise, they don't use the same bering for the registration pin, which is a problem on the older SR1 and SR2 cameras. 

I wouldn't trust YouTube for anything. Gate weave can be introduced by the scanner, as much as by the camera. So take that with a grain of salt.

In terms of the "smaller" cameras. My personal Bolex EBM was "ok" registration wise. It uses side rail springs to hold it tight in the gate. I find the Beaulieu 2016 to be better because it doesn't slide the pulldown claw against the film like the Bolex does. So the film is held in place more consistently. The Beaulieu seems to be completely bulletproof, I bet it would run a million feet of film before it showed a single sign of wear. Plus the one thing I like about the 2016 is that its electronics are a bit more modern, so they're easier to work on. The Bolex EBM/EL electronics can be a mess and they don't offer any benefits. No Crystal, no Meter, No super high speed, none of that. 

In terms of the commercial cameras, properly serviced SR3 and 416 are the best stability wise. I'd put the Aaton cameras second, but they don't really compare as they don't have registration pins. For stability, SR3 and 416. But honestly, I post stabilize everything anyway, there isn't a single shot I won't do that to because frankly, I like smooth camera work. If you want jittery camera work, nobody will notice the slight wobble in the film frame. 

The CP16 is ok stability wise, closer to the 2016 Beaulieu than the Aaton's. I assume the GSMO is the same. 

The M/S series Arri cameras are decent registration wise. 

The Arri 16BL can be good, if you have it tuned, but man they can be a nightmare. 

The worst camera ever is the K3. But that's another story for another time. LOL 

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

38 minutes ago, Samuel Preston said:

My sr3 advanced has a rock steady image with an unnoticeable amount of gate weave, but i’m not sure how an old sr compares directly with a bolex or beaulieu in terms of gate weave.

No comparison, a properly serviced SR3 will kill any of those Bolex/Beaulieu cameras. Heck, it'll kill a properly serviced Aaton as well! 

[Dom Jaeger]

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Unlike digital cameras, film cameras all look the same as the lens and stock are what creates the image, not the camera body itself.

This is a view often bandied about, and while it’s certainly more true for film cameras than digital cameras, there is definitely a potential difference in image quality because of the camera used. 

A pro camera like an Arriflex is built to higher tolerances with sturdier materials, with many fine adjustment possible. Things like gate flatness and perpendicularity with the mount, mount flatness and centering, flange depth accuracy and vibration isolation, registration accuracy, pressure plate tolerances, guide materials etc all help to make sure the film is placed very accurately in the gate for exposure. Amateur cameras will not have this level of mechanical accuracy, so you can get variations in how well each frame is held and evenly exposed, and how flat the frame sits. It’s also much easier for amateur or older cameras to cause scratches or bruises, to have light leaks, lose their loops or have stability issues due to wear or just poor registration. 

Then you have the viewfinder system. An Arriflex or Aaton viewfinder will allow you to focus much more accurately than other cameras, the mirrors are perfectly flat and the ground glasses bright, and they can be set to the very fine tolerances (0.01mm) required to perfectly replicate what’s being exposed on the film. So you’re much more likely to have a focussed image recorded. 

Then you have the mount - a PL mount allows you to use the best lenses available, solidly mounted with options like a follow focus or focus motor, lens support and matte box etc. All of which affects the quality of image. You can of course find great lenses in C mount or CP-16 mount or Cameflex mount or Arri Standard but they will be older and more limited, with great variation in condition.

Anyway the point is you can use plenty of older cameras for lots of things, music vids, experimental films, fashion shoots, student shorts or just learning to shoot film, but if you want to make narrative drama or anything that you hope gets distributed then you need to use pro cameras and lenses. The odd film shot on a Bolex gets some attention, but they’re few and far between. 

I know a few filmmakers who started with Bolexes or Eclairs and slowly built up a reel until they got some interest and could afford to buy an Arri SR2 or SR3. The quality of their footage jumped a level and they could actually start charging for their work. I also know people who spent years buying and selling various old bits of gear and wasting money on failed shoots who never got to realise the film they wanted to make because they got too caught up in the gear. If you’re a producer my advice would be to focus on the script and sets and casting and funding and either rent the camera equipment when you’re ready to shoot or find a DoP to collaborate with who already has some gear. Or buy a Bolex and start shooting for fun.

[Robin Phillips]

I think just to add, Im not sure if OP is fully aware of the need for crystal speed cameras for sync. you need crystal sync in order for the camera image to remain consistent in timing and thus be able to sync audio to. if your camera does not have a crystal speed controller either built in or attached externally, you will not be able to have sync sound with the picture

[Dom Jaeger]

1 hour ago, Samuel Preston said:

An Arri SR will have the same slight weaving motion, especially if unserviced/ with a worn gate. But also the older sr’s 1,2 and even 3 non advanced models have a gate that creates a less steady more ‘floating’ or as you described it wave motion image. 
 

My sr3 advanced has a rock steady image with an unnoticeable amount of gate weave, but i’m not sure how an old sr compares directly with a bolex or beaulieu in terms of gate weave.

Arriflex stability is generally excellent, even with older cameras, providing they’re in good condition. SR 1, 2 and first gen 3 use fixed side rails which can wear after many thousands of feet and introduce some lateral instability. I’ve serviced heaps of them, either by replacing the side rails or adjusting their position. Any old un-serviced camera can have issues. Some of the gate weave from Arri SRs can be introduced by the scan depending on how it registers too. But there’s mountains of perfectly stable old 16mm footage shot on these cameras to prove that they do not inherently have gate weave. A lot of SRs got worked to death since they were the industry workhorses in the 80s, 90s and 00s so if the movement is too worn you can’t do too much, but many were also properly cared for. SR3 Advanced and 416 uses a different gate design that basically never wears. These days a bit of instability between frames can be sorted in post anyway, the thing with an Arriflex is the film remains stable during exposure because of the registration pin.

In terms of avoiding S16 SR2s, I’ve seen a lot of perfectly fine S16 conversions of those cameras, like the P&S Technik ones, and even those that have machined early gates such that the support rail is not machined back tend to work just fine most of the time. There are more cowboys around these days working on pro cameras than there were back in the film days, most of the work done back then was pretty reliable. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Yes like several others are saying I think Super 16 isn't really needed most of the time. The film stock and scanning are so good that standard 16mm looks great even when cropped to a wider aspect ratio. I would only really contemplate needing Super 16 if I were shooting a narrative drama film that needed a little extra sharpness especially if viewed in a cinema or on a large screen at a short film festival. I'd imagine the difference would only be slight, and even for most short films standard 16mm would be fine. Here is a reel of 16mm 50D I shot recently (it's very short!) which was just a test of two cameras and lenses. Make sure to watch in HD 1080p. I really like the look I got with the Wollensak f1.9 25mm lens. However the Bell & Howell 240 camera I used with that lens, an amateur level camera, had quite a bit of gate weave that I fixed in Davinci Resolve. The B&H 240 camera footage starts at the second shot (the first shot is with a H16 M). I will later maybe take a picture of the gate and post it on a current thread I have of the Bell & Howell 240 camera in the Camera Systems and Formats section.

The main thing though is that, digitally, gate weave and up and down jitter can be completely fixed. In my test reel you can briefly see a slight 'jump' effect in the footage, in the shot of the waterside with overhanging leafy branch and the guy cleaning his gear (or a fish -- not sure what he's doing)  in the distance. You have to look for the jumpy bit. This is where a particularly large side movement of the film wasn't able to be completely eradicated by the stabilizing feature of DR -- but that's an unusual case. Most gate weave etc can be completely fixed. And it may in some cases, as others are saying, actually be how the image was registered during scanning. In the case of this B&H 240 it must have been the camera however as the other camera used on the reel, an H16 M, had steady footage. Please forgive the pretty awful pan on the first shot. That white bird suddenly appeared and I started to film before I had the Manfrotto fluid head properly adjusted. Hope this contributes something useful to your quest for a camera. BTW I'm not advocating an amateur level camera -- just saying that instability can digitally be eliminated.

 

Edited February 24 by Jon O'Brien

[Travis Shannon]

If 4K is your max budget you can probably find an ACL if you wait long enough, I sold one that was s16 with a standard tap and pl mount for 6k last year. It’s not as reliable as an sr3 which is why it’s 1/3 of the price. You get what you pay for.

[Johnny Liu]

15 hours ago, Samuel Preston said:

An Arri SR will have the same slight weaving motion, especially if unserviced/ with a worn gate. But also the older sr’s 1,2 and even 3 non advanced models have a gate that creates a less steady more ‘floating’ or as you described it wave motion image. 
 

My sr3 advanced has a rock steady image with an unnoticeable amount of gate weave, but i’m not sure how an old sr compares directly with a bolex or beaulieu in terms of gate weave.

Thanks for the useful info about gate weave!  Nice to know that the SR3 Advanced is very steady

[Tyler Purcell]

2 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

Nice to know that the SR3 Advanced is very steady

If serviced. 

If not, it's pretty diabolically not steady. 

[Johnny Liu]

18 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Don't know, they're so rare, I've never even seen one in person. I assume they use the same movement as the CP16, but that's just an assumption. 

A properly serviced SR without a worn gate, is pretty stable. The SR3 gates drop right into the SR1 and 2, which practically eliminate any gate issues. The biggest problem with the older SR's is Super 16 as most had botched conversions. So don't think about S16 with an SR1 and 2. I've had mediocre luck with SR1 and 2 stability FYI. SR3's are way better stability wise, they don't use the same bering for the registration pin, which is a problem on the older SR1 and SR2 cameras. 

I wouldn't trust YouTube for anything. Gate weave can be introduced by the scanner, as much as by the camera. So take that with a grain of salt.

In terms of the "smaller" cameras. My personal Bolex EBM was "ok" registration wise. It uses side rail springs to hold it tight in the gate. I find the Beaulieu 2016 to be better because it doesn't slide the pulldown claw against the film like the Bolex does. So the film is held in place more consistently. The Beaulieu seems to be completely bulletproof, I bet it would run a million feet of film before it showed a single sign of wear. Plus the one thing I like about the 2016 is that its electronics are a bit more modern, so they're easier to work on. The Bolex EBM/EL electronics can be a mess and they don't offer any benefits. No Crystal, no Meter, No super high speed, none of that. 

In terms of the commercial cameras, properly serviced SR3 and 416 are the best stability wise. I'd put the Aaton cameras second, but they don't really compare as they don't have registration pins. For stability, SR3 and 416. But honestly, I post stabilize everything anyway, there isn't a single shot I won't do that to because frankly, I like smooth camera work. If you want jittery camera work, nobody will notice the slight wobble in the film frame. 

The CP16 is ok stability wise, closer to the 2016 Beaulieu than the Aaton's. I assume the GSMO is the same. 

The M/S series Arri cameras are decent registration wise. 

The Arri 16BL can be good, if you have it tuned, but man they can be a nightmare. 

The worst camera ever is the K3. But that's another story for another time. LOL 

 

 

Thanks again for taking all the time to write this and for all your insights into the different registration capabilities of the wide range of camera models you have experience with.

I do like the idea of a Beaulieu 2016, but doing some quick Google searching, it looks like a camera that does not come up for sale very often.  I have though about maybe getting a Beaulieu R16 as they are more readily available (and I believe I have seen crystal sync add-ons available for this model).

 

 

[Johnny Liu]

18 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

This is a view often bandied about, and while it’s certainly more true for film cameras than digital cameras, there is definitely a potential difference in image quality because of the camera used. 

A pro camera like an Arriflex is built to higher tolerances with sturdier materials, with many fine adjustment possible. Things like gate flatness and perpendicularity with the mount, mount flatness and centering, flange depth accuracy and vibration isolation, registration accuracy, pressure plate tolerances, guide materials etc all help to make sure the film is placed very accurately in the gate for exposure. Amateur cameras will not have this level of mechanical accuracy, so you can get variations in how well each frame is held and evenly exposed, and how flat the frame sits. It’s also much easier for amateur or older cameras to cause scratches or bruises, to have light leaks, lose their loops or have stability issues due to wear or just poor registration. 

Then you have the viewfinder system. An Arriflex or Aaton viewfinder will allow you to focus much more accurately than other cameras, the mirrors are perfectly flat and the ground glasses bright, and they can be set to the very fine tolerances (0.01mm) required to perfectly replicate what’s being exposed on the film. So you’re much more likely to have a focussed image recorded. 

Then you have the mount - a PL mount allows you to use the best lenses available, solidly mounted with options like a follow focus or focus motor, lens support and matte box etc. All of which affects the quality of image. You can of course find great lenses in C mount or CP-16 mount or Cameflex mount or Arri Standard but they will be older and more limited, with great variation in condition.

Anyway the point is you can use plenty of older cameras for lots of things, music vids, experimental films, fashion shoots, student shorts or just learning to shoot film, but if you want to make narrative drama or anything that you hope gets distributed then you need to use pro cameras and lenses. The odd film shot on a Bolex gets some attention, but they’re few and far between. 

I know a few filmmakers who started with Bolexes or Eclairs and slowly built up a reel until they got some interest and could afford to buy an Arri SR2 or SR3. The quality of their footage jumped a level and they could actually start charging for their work. I also know people who spent years buying and selling various old bits of gear and wasting money on failed shoots who never got to realise the film they wanted to make because they got too caught up in the gear. If you’re a producer my advice would be to focus on the script and sets and casting and funding and either rent the camera equipment when you’re ready to shoot or find a DoP to collaborate with who already has some gear. Or buy a Bolex and start shooting for fun.

Thanks for your knowledge about the better build of Arri cameras, better viewfinders, and the benefits of the PL mount.

That is maybe a good idea to start within my means with a lesser camera and then try to build up from there.  I am still thinking this all through

[Johnny Liu]

18 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

I think just to add, Im not sure if OP is fully aware of the need for crystal speed cameras for sync. you need crystal sync in order for the camera image to remain consistent in timing and thus be able to sync audio to. if your camera does not have a crystal speed controller either built in or attached externally, you will not be able to have sync sound with the picture

Yes, I am looking for crystal sync or a camera that is able to be modified for crystal sync (or accepts some kind of crystal sync accessory).  Thanks!

[Johnny Liu]

18 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Don't know, they're so rare, I've never even seen one in person. I assume they use the same movement as the CP16, but that's just an assumption. 

A properly serviced SR without a worn gate, is pretty stable. The SR3 gates drop right into the SR1 and 2, which practically eliminate any gate issues. The biggest problem with the older SR's is Super 16 as most had botched conversions. So don't think about S16 with an SR1 and 2. I've had mediocre luck with SR1 and 2 stability FYI. SR3's are way better stability wise, they don't use the same bering for the registration pin, which is a problem on the older SR1 and SR2 cameras. 

I wouldn't trust YouTube for anything. Gate weave can be introduced by the scanner, as much as by the camera. So take that with a grain of salt.

In terms of the "smaller" cameras. My personal Bolex EBM was "ok" registration wise. It uses side rail springs to hold it tight in the gate. I find the Beaulieu 2016 to be better because it doesn't slide the pulldown claw against the film like the Bolex does. So the film is held in place more consistently. The Beaulieu seems to be completely bulletproof, I bet it would run a million feet of film before it showed a single sign of wear. Plus the one thing I like about the 2016 is that its electronics are a bit more modern, so they're easier to work on. The Bolex EBM/EL electronics can be a mess and they don't offer any benefits. No Crystal, no Meter, No super high speed, none of that. 

In terms of the commercial cameras, properly serviced SR3 and 416 are the best stability wise. I'd put the Aaton cameras second, but they don't really compare as they don't have registration pins. For stability, SR3 and 416. But honestly, I post stabilize everything anyway, there isn't a single shot I won't do that to because frankly, I like smooth camera work. If you want jittery camera work, nobody will notice the slight wobble in the film frame. 

The CP16 is ok stability wise, closer to the 2016 Beaulieu than the Aaton's. I assume the GSMO is the same. 

The M/S series Arri cameras are decent registration wise. 

The Arri 16BL can be good, if you have it tuned, but man they can be a nightmare. 

The worst camera ever is the K3. But that's another story for another time. LOL 

 

 

Also, thanks for letting me know that some of the "gate weave" in YouTube videos might be caused by the video transfer.  I never thought about that possibility!

[Johnny Liu]

17 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Arriflex stability is generally excellent, even with older cameras, providing they’re in good condition. SR 1, 2 and first gen 3 use fixed side rails which can wear after many thousands of feet and introduce some lateral instability. I’ve serviced heaps of them, either by replacing the side rails or adjusting their position. Any old un-serviced camera can have issues. Some of the gate weave from Arri SRs can be introduced by the scan depending on how it registers too. But there’s mountains of perfectly stable old 16mm footage shot on these cameras to prove that they do not inherently have gate weave. A lot of SRs got worked to death since they were the industry workhorses in the 80s, 90s and 00s so if the movement is too worn you can’t do too much, but many were also properly cared for. SR3 Advanced and 416 uses a different gate design that basically never wears. These days a bit of instability between frames can be sorted in post anyway, the thing with an Arriflex is the film remains stable during exposure because of the registration pin.

In terms of avoiding S16 SR2s, I’ve seen a lot of perfectly fine S16 conversions of those cameras, like the P&S Technik ones, and even those that have machined early gates such that the support rail is not machined back tend to work just fine most of the time. There are more cowboys around these days working on pro cameras than there were back in the film days, most of the work done back then was pretty reliable. 

Thanks for the further insights into gate weave and the reality of how old and how used some of these cameras are - and how that might increase the likelihood of instability/gate weave.

[Johnny Liu]

15 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Yes like several others are saying I think Super 16 isn't really needed most of the time. The film stock and scanning are so good that standard 16mm looks great even when cropped to a wider aspect ratio. I would only really contemplate needing Super 16 if I were shooting a narrative drama film that needed a little extra sharpness especially if viewed in a cinema or on a large screen at a short film festival. I'd imagine the difference would only be slight, and even for most short films standard 16mm would be fine. Here is a reel of 16mm 50D I shot recently (it's very short!) which was just a test of two cameras and lenses. Make sure to watch in HD 1080p. I really like the look I got with the Wollensak f1.9 25mm lens. However the Bell & Howell 240 camera I used with that lens, an amateur level camera, had quite a bit of gate weave that I fixed in Davinci Resolve. The B&H 240 camera footage starts at the second shot (the first shot is with a H16 M). I will later maybe take a picture of the gate and post it on a current thread I have of the Bell & Howell 240 camera in the Camera Systems and Formats section.

The main thing though is that, digitally, gate weave and up and down jitter can be completely fixed. In my test reel you can briefly see a slight 'jump' effect in the footage, in the shot of the waterside with overhanging leafy branch and the guy cleaning his gear (or a fish -- not sure what he's doing)  in the distance. You have to look for the jumpy bit. This is where a particularly large side movement of the film wasn't able to be completely eradicated by the stabilizing feature of DR -- but that's an unusual case. Most gate weave etc can be completely fixed. And it may in some cases, as others are saying, actually be how the image was registered during scanning. In the case of this B&H 240 it must have been the camera however as the other camera used on the reel, an H16 M, had steady footage. Please forgive the pretty awful pan on the first shot. That white bird suddenly appeared and I started to film before I had the Manfrotto fluid head properly adjusted. Hope this contributes something useful to your quest for a camera. BTW I'm not advocating an amateur level camera -- just saying that instability can digitally be eliminated.

 

Thanks a lot for sharing that great footage you took with the Bell and Howell!  Also, thanks a lot for mentioning that there can be image stabilization performed on the footage after transferred to video.  I never thought of that!  And I have Davinci Resolve installed on my computer at home (I just haven't done much with it yet, so never even though about image stabilization).  Maybe I can start considering a Regular 16mm camera now as that would be much more in my immediate price range.
 

[Johnny Liu]

First off, I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my post so far.  A lot of you have written a lot - a whole lot - about the subject and it's been a great learning experience!  Thanks for the time you have put into your feedback.

I know someone who is selling a CP-16R that has been converted into Ultra 16 for a fair price and I am giving it some thought.  I was originally thinking I needed a 16mm camera that is in Super 16 format, but reading up more on Super 16 and Ultra 16 today - and the aspect ratios of theatrical releases and streaming - and I am thinking that I may not necessarily need Super 16.  In fact, Ultra 16 seems to possibly make a lot of sense.

It seems that (from what I can see), theatrical releases are either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.  Streaming releases are 16:9, which is 1.78:1, which is close to 1.85:1.  Ultra 16 is 1.85:1.  Super 16 is 1.66:1.  Thus, to get Super 16 footage converted to 1.85:1, you would have to crop off a little bit off the top and bottom anyways. 

Thus, I am thinking that Ultra 16 is not so bad then.  Am I mistaken?

[Johnny Liu]

I should have said, with Super 16, to get it to 1.85:1 ratio you would have to have black bars appear on the top and bottom or have black bars appear on the sides (I think)

[Robin Phillips]

1 hour ago, Johnny Liu said:

First off, I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my post so far.  A lot of you have written a lot - a whole lot - about the subject and it's been a great learning experience!  Thanks for the time you have put into your feedback.

I know someone who is selling a CP-16R that has been converted into Ultra 16 for a fair price and I am giving it some thought.  I was originally thinking I needed a 16mm camera that is in Super 16 format, but reading up more on Super 16 and Ultra 16 today - and the aspect ratios of theatrical releases and streaming - and I am thinking that I may not necessarily need Super 16.  In fact, Ultra 16 seems to possibly make a lot of sense.

It seems that (from what I can see), theatrical releases are either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.  Streaming releases are 16:9, which is 1.78:1, which is close to 1.85:1.  Ultra 16 is 1.85:1.  Super 16 is 1.66:1.  Thus, to get Super 16 footage converted to 1.85:1, you would have to crop off a little bit off the top and bottom anyways. 

Thus, I am thinking that Ultra 16 is not so bad then.  Am I mistaken?

FYI Ultra 16 as a format is not compatible with some film scanners. ones that can do overscan it'll be fine, but I dont think it works on a spirit or a scanity. ultra 16 is also not really a professional format, so there was never really a high end, precision conversion for that. you also may be a bit outside the image circle on some n16 lenses. I've been told before that ultra 16 can get some weird flaring sometimes. if something is wrong with the conversion you get, it may be problematic to fix.

You might be better off with a N16 camera, and just get into the practice of over exposing a little and/or doing a little post sharpening. there are some plugins out there like neat video that will let you de-grain, sharpen, and then mix back the original grain into the picture too.

If you want to go with that converted CP16, I would ask to see some footage from it that was shot with a wide angle lens just to make sure nothing funky is going on. I'd also check maybe with visual products what they would charge for basically a new camera inspection and service, that way you are all set up. 

I would also just check with at least Kodak lab in atlanta to see if they can do utlra16 on their scanstation. I believe they can, but you just want to make sure you're all good with whatever vendors you think you'll be relying on with this format

[Dom Jaeger]

Ultra 16 is a bit of a dodgy format honestly, a sort of cheap DIY attempt to replicate S16. Many of these conversions have been done by amateurs who just roughly file out the gate on both sides, though it should be OK if Bernie O’Doherty did it. The gate extends a bit into the S16 side, and also into the side where the perfs are, so you end up with an image that has the perfs cropping in top and bottom. On some cameras like the K3 this allows light leaks from the perfs, like this:

You end up having to crop the top and bottom to remove the perfs, and then crop in the left side to remove the perf flare, and you end up almost back where you started. 

Some cameras are a bit better with perf flare, but you still need to crop the height to remove the perfs. You can also sometimes get scratching between the perfs since the film slides over a support rail there, and there is an opening for the pulldown claw. It’s also the area where edge code is printed on the film stock. Here’s an Ultra 16 conversion by Bernie:

 

Below is roughly where the original 1.37 gate would be, to get a wider aspect ratio like 1.78 or 1.85 you also just crop top and bottom. As you can see, a good Ultra 16 conversion does give you a little more width, but as mentioned not all scanners are set up for it and not all wide angle lenses will cover it. 

I would definitely ask for footage from any Ultra 16 converted camera, to check how bad it might be.

The other thing to consider is that the original viewfinder optics and ground glass may not cover the expanded area, so you might not be able to frame accurately.

 

Edited February 25 by Dom Jaeger

[Tyler Purcell]

21 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

Thus, I am thinking that Ultra 16 is not so bad then.  Am I mistaken?

Ultra 16 is not really a "workable" format. It's kind of a gimmick. The concept is to use the area between the perfs, but that area isn't protected by the camera. So it can be damaged very easily by the camera. Also, because the lens isn't centered for Ultra, you will be getting unusual vignetting related to the Ultra format, you would not get on standard 16 as most standard 16mm lenses which are wider than 12mm will just barely cover the 16mm format. So if you use long lenses, it maybe ok, but the moment you go to zooms OR shorter than 12mm, then you're in trouble with any wider aspect ratio format using standard 16mm lenses. 

So yes, Ultra is a no-go for many reasons.

[Tyler Purcell]

21 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

It seems that (from what I can see), theatrical releases are either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.  Streaming releases are 16:9, which is 1.78:1, which is close to 1.85:1.  Ultra 16 is 1.85:1.  Super 16 is 1.66:1.  Thus, to get Super 16 footage converted to 1.85:1, you would have to crop off a little bit off the top and bottom anyways. 

I always wondered why people go down this path of "commercially acceptable" product in a world where 9 times out of 10, everyone's show will be presented on a streaming platform. Theatrical is such a dead medium, only the absolute top of the top tier films will ever get US releases anymore. So to pressure yourself into conforming to some theatrical standard, is just a useless waste of brain power. Also, there have been a few 1.67:1 native Super 16 mm releases. Jackie is the most notable of this and even on BluRay, it's got bars on the right and left, not top and bottom. It went global theatrical as well, all be it digitally. So it does not matter and frankly, formatting for 1.78:1 HD TV is what you'd wanna do anyway. You aren't cropping that much at all. The nice thing about a crop is that you have room to shift your frame around a bit, which is nice. So I actually prefer cropping over not cropping. 

[Tyler Purcell]

On 2/24/2024 at 10:28 AM, Johnny Liu said:

I do like the idea of a Beaulieu 2016, but doing some quick Google searching, it looks like a camera that does not come up for sale very often.  I have though about maybe getting a Beaulieu R16 as they are more readily available (and I believe I have seen crystal sync add-ons available for this model).

 

Na, don't bother with the R16, entirely different camera. Just keep your eye open. The 2016 does show up now and again. 

[steven jackson]

On 2/25/2024 at 12:03 AM, Johnny Liu said:

I should have said, with Super 16, to get it to 1.85:1 ratio you would have to have black bars appear on the top and bottom or have black bars appear on the sides (I think)

Deals are out there but you have to dig.  A super16 Eclair NPR converted by Les Bosher just sold on Ebay for 2300€ and amazingly,  It took two goes on Ebay for it to finally sale at that price.!  For info, I may be selling my Visual Products converted Eclair ACL II camera that comes with a pile of accessories and a newly serviced motor.  It's a gem of a camera.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I decided I could sell my CP16R camera too. have to move later this year and figured out I don't have time to shoot with the camera anymore so it has to go.  N16, the ultra rare video optics with an angle prism (no tap but you can figure one out by yourself), one good mag and one in mediocre condition for repair or parts. new belts installed, will include additional spare motor belt and mag belt.

it is a test camera I used for developing my 1-speed crystal sync electronics and has a 1-speed system installed which will be fine tuned before shipping. Single speed of either 24 or 25fps, no shutter parking but inching button is easy to use for shutter positioning and testing. additional speeds can be inputted via accessory connector. I can include a CP to Arri bayonet adapter for using most lenses with the camera, or alternatively can include a screw locked arri standard to cp adapter. Can sell a 10-150 Angenieux with it too if needed. The camera has the cool-and-sometimes-useful gelatine filter holder set for using in-gate gelatine filters. Butterfly shutter. the camera could use some CLA to make it run really nicely for large projects but it works pretty OK in current condition. Please note that the camera has all electronics updated to my 1-speed crystal sync system so it does not have internal battery leaks etc. issues, the only original electronic component is the motor drive itself. everything else is updated

[Johnny Liu]

On 2/24/2024 at 4:01 PM, Robin Phillips said:

FYI Ultra 16 as a format is not compatible with some film scanners. ones that can do overscan it'll be fine, but I dont think it works on a spirit or a scanity. ultra 16 is also not really a professional format, so there was never really a high end, precision conversion for that. you also may be a bit outside the image circle on some n16 lenses. I've been told before that ultra 16 can get some weird flaring sometimes. if something is wrong with the conversion you get, it may be problematic to fix.

You might be better off with a N16 camera, and just get into the practice of over exposing a little and/or doing a little post sharpening. there are some plugins out there like neat video that will let you de-grain, sharpen, and then mix back the original grain into the picture too.

If you want to go with that converted CP16, I would ask to see some footage from it that was shot with a wide angle lens just to make sure nothing funky is going on. I'd also check maybe with visual products what they would charge for basically a new camera inspection and service, that way you are all set up. 

I would also just check with at least Kodak lab in atlanta to see if they can do utlra16 on their scanstation. I believe they can, but you just want to make sure you're all good with whatever vendors you think you'll be relying on with this format

Thanks - for letting me know that I need to check if the video transfer service I use can support Ultra 16 or not.  Ultra 16 is looking like less and less of a great choice as I read your - and the next few - responses!