16:9 anamorphic on an R16

Scot McPhie · June 6, 2004

I've been reading about feature distribution and it seems pretty clear that the distributors really want film first, preferably 35mm then Super 16 - or at the very least 16:9. Since converting an R16 to Super 16 is troublesome has anyone used a 16:9 anamorphic lense on one - I've got the Angineaux 12-120 lense has anyone ever fitted one to that - or do you know if there is a suitable one available? I know ones are getting made now for HD cameras perhaps they could be used.

Scot

David Mullen ASC · June 6, 2004

The ones made for consumer DV cameras are not really adequate. There is a new rear-mounted Canon 1.33X anamorphic extension tube for video lenses but it requires that the image be flipped in the video camera.

You're better off simply framing regular 16mm for cropping to 1.78 if you can't get a Super-16 camera. Use a good lens and slower film and I don't think a lot of people are going to notice the difference.

Rachel Oliver · June 6, 2004

www.widescreencentre.co.uk

Hope this link works, check out the Iscorama -54 16/9.... It is very big and covers most zooms but needs a bracket to hold it infront of the lens,

However listen to David, with the new slow speed stocks grain is vastly improved so a 16/9 crop of standard 16 looks pretty good!

hope that helps

Olly

David Mullen ASC · June 6, 2004

Of course by "good lens" I mean something like Zeiss primes for 16mm or new 35mm cine lenses or a modern 16mm zoom, not an old Ang. 12-120mm. That's soft enough without making it worse by sticking an anamorphic adaptor on it.

Mitch Gross · June 7, 2004

You're talking about taking a camera & lens worth maybe $500-$1000 and trying to spend hundreds if not thousands more to what will effectively lower it's image quality. Don't start with a molehill camera if you plan to build a mountain movie. Besides, that camera canot shoot sync sound and only holds 100' daylight spools--200' with a clumsy accessory mag.

You would be far better off purchasing something inexpensive such as a CP-16 or Eclair ACL and having this converted to Super-16. You'd likely save money in the end by rolling longer film loads and shooting proper sync sound. Plus you'd get a nice clean 16:9 image, which is what those distributors want, not some fuzzy version thereof.

Scot McPhie · June 7, 2004

Thanks for all the replies and advice everyone - it seems it's not really a worthwhile option to pursue - I think with my current budget level at the moment I'm going to just have to frame for 16:9 and get it cropped.

Scot

cal godot · June 7, 2004

The ones made for consumer DV cameras are not really adequate.

What is inadequate about the anamorphic adapters being made for DV cams like the Canon XL-1? Is it the quality of glass? Or do you find the addition of a front-mounted anamorphic always detrimental? (I was thinking of trying the XL-1 anamorphic with my Scoopic, as they are both 72mm diameter.)

You're better off simply framing regular 16mm for cropping to 1.78 if you can't get a Super-16 camera. Use a good lens and slower film and I don't think a lot of people are going to notice the difference.

How do you go about framing & shooting 4x3 as 16x9? Do you use a matte box and matte cut to the proper aspect? Is there perhaps some way to mark the frame lines within the viewfinder (which I supose depends on the camera)?

Sam Wells · June 7, 2004

How do you go about framing & shooting 4x3 as 16x9? Do you use a matte box and matte cut to the proper aspect? Is there perhaps some way to mark the frame lines within the viewfinder (which I supose depends on the camera)?

No no precision on a matte box.

Some folks use pencil on the ground glass. I actually use Scotch tape on the gg in my Arri S finder, "primitive but effective" the edges show 1.85

-Sam

Mitch Gross · June 7, 2004

What is inadequate about the anamorphic adapters being made for DV cams like the Canon XL-1? Is it the quality of glass? Or do you find the addition of a front-mounted anamorphic always detrimental? (I was thinking of trying the XL-1 anamorphic with my Scoopic, as they are both 72mm diameter.)

Both.

cal godot · June 10, 2004

For some reason, chopping off the top and bottom of a 4x3 frame to create a 16x9 frame bothers me. Aside from the "how to" problems, which perplex me somewhat.

Am I alone in this discomfort? Is this an absurd emotional attachment to two slivers of "wasted" frame? Or is it my typically human resistance to new ideas?

Perhaps I should just stick with 1.33 - it was good enough for Godard (most of the time) and Ozu. But I find myself automatically framing 16x9, even in my mind, and it feels like a more natural frame. Plus, as a Pythagorean punk and Fibonacci freak, I'm deeply attached to the golden ratio, which at roughly 1.61 is closer to 16x9 than 4x3.

(I think this is one of those notorious style vs. form vs. content issues.)

Scotness, have you pretty much decided to go with framing 16x9 and then telecining thusly?

GeorgeSelinsky · June 10, 2004

Perhaps I should just stick with 1.33 - it was good enough for Godard (most of the time) and Ozu.

I think there's nothing wrong with 1.33:1, and face it - it's more than likely you'll end up on tape with what you're doing anyway. We are in a way witnessing the twilight of the 1.33 aspect ratio though, with HDTV looming nearer on the horizon. The safe bet is to frame for 1.85 and protect 1.33. That said I don't always protect for 1.33 but then again, I'm going to be in the telecine bay.

You could always shoot 1.33 and then during the blowup have the 1.33 image included within the 1.85 mask. This way you won't have to go banging on the projectionist's door and getting frustrated that 1.37 is not an option there. What I'd actually consider if going R16 would be to shoot 1.66 and then during blowup frame the 1.66 inside the 1.85. Sounds like a decent compromise to me.

- G.

John Pytlak RIP · June 10, 2004

Most US theatres are equipped to show 1.85:1 "flat" and 2.39:1 "scope" aspect ratios. Depart from them at your own risk. Television is quickly evolving to 16:9. Even if broadcast in SD 4:3 aspect ratio today, future use will most likely prefer 16:9 for broadcast as well as DVD distribution.

You do have flexibility in that you can have an image within the established aspect ratios, with appropriate "letterbox" or "pillarbox" matting.

Sam Wells · June 11, 2004

For some reason, chopping off the top and bottom of a 4x3 frame to create a 16x9 frame bothers me. Aside from the "how to" problems, which perplex me somewhat.

Well Super 16 IS a solution to this, has been for ~25 years, no wasted slivers, so what's perplexing ?

-Sam

cal godot · June 11, 2004

Well Super 16 IS a solution to this, has been for ~25 years, no wasted slivers, so what's perplexing ?

Speaking for myself, I don't own a Super16 camera, and the camera I do own cannot be converted to Super16. Were I working with a larger budget, you're right: I'd rent Super16 and be done with it.

Actually, I'd probably just bump up to 35mm and solve every problem I could ever have. But sadly, I am not a wealthy person, and I actually want to keep my budget very very low even though it's not my money.

My concern with aspect ratio is not so much the projection or presentation as much as my ability to frame the scenes the way I want to see them. The most likely way I'll ever get any theatrical presentation at all will be because I convince someone to rent a theater and 4-wall it for a weekend, or if I get lucky and place in a festival.

Seadog · June 16, 2004

I'm with cal....it's only a matter of time before everyone ends with an aspect ratio equal to the golden ratio. We can't fight it. And those who have super 16 cameras will be happy.

Seriously though, it will be interesting to see if the 16:9 thing takes off. I personally don't like the 2.35:1 ratios because they are too wide. 16:9 does feel like a more natural ratio.

I've never used those anamorphic things, surely they can't be all bad? I'm very new to this whole film thing though.

Tim Carroll · June 16, 2004

I completely agree that 16:9 is a more appealing aspect ratio and the way I visualize when I think of the stories we are trying to tell on film. We're just taking our R16 camera, taping off the fiber optics screen to 16:9 and shooting with that framing on Vision2 stock. Then we are having the telecinist scan for our 16:9 framing for our finish on video. If we decide to go back and finish on film, we still have the 16:9 framing chart at the head of the rolls and we will blow up or crop to that.

You do lose some image space, but we do not have the money to have the camera, mags and lens converted to Super 16 at this time, and the schedule we shoot on (when folks are available) makes renting "cost prohibitive".

-Tim Carroll

John Pytlak RIP · June 16, 2004

Certainly it is possible to compose for a 1.85:1 or 16:9 ratio on regular-16mm and extract the appropriate image area on telecine transfer or for blow-up. But for image quality, "Size DOES Matter", and Super-16 will give more usable image area on the negative. The new Kodak VISION2 stocks help alot when you need to get every bit of quality out of a small image area.