anamorphic super 16

[Thanasis Diamantopoulos]

I am going to shoot a short in super 16 format and the producer-director ask me if i can do in in anamorphic s16. I realy have never done something like that i don't even know if there is anamorphic s16 if there are any lenses available for that and what to do at post if i can print on 35mm and wich aspect ratio. I anyone knows or if there is other post.

[james smyth]

Could they mean have it telecined in NTSC anamorphic? I can't imagine what they could mean by anamorphic 16:9 unless there are they want a 2.35 image or perhaps a lens exists that will make s16 a perfect 16:9.

[David Mullen ASC]

Could they mean have it telecined in NTSC anamorphic? I can't imagine what they could mean by anamorphic 16:9 unless there are they want a 2.35 image or perhaps a lens exists that will make s16 a perfect 16:9.

 

Yes, it's confusing what they mean by "anamorphic" and to achieve what aspect ratio for what final presentation format. Do they mean anamorphic lenses for a blow-up to 35mm anamorphic (2.39 : 1), aka "scope"? Or do they mean for transfer to 16x9 "anamorphic" NTSC/PAL video, which is 1.77 : 1?

[James Erd]

The only anamorphic lens I know of are for regular 16mm.

 

Like this one which is c-mount...

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=012

[Guest Ian Marks]

The only anamorphic lens I know of are for regular 16mm.

 

Like this one which is c-mount...

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=012

 

 

Actually, that one is intended to go in front of the taking lens.

[James Erd]

Actually, that one is intended to go in front of the taking lens.

 

I have never used one :D In any case this one looks suspiciously Rube Goldburge to me, coming from a still photography background as I do.

 

I have always preferred spherical lenses, and not so much for their price, but for their simplicity. I admit simple isn't always better but when ever I see one of these things for sale I always remember the old adage:

 

There's always a harder way :blink: you just haven't thought of it yet :D

 

That's not to say that anamorphic lenses don't have anything to recommend them by. If it's the only way to solve the problem, then you just have to go for it.

 

by the way does any one know what the final aspect ratio would be using this attachment on a super 16 camera? I have to wonder what kind of issues are going to present themselves in post.

[Clive Tobin]

...by the way does any one know what the final aspect ratio would be using this attachment on a super 16 camera? I have to wonder what kind of issues are going to present themselves in post.

The normal anamorphic lens used in 16mm projection has a 2:1 expansion ratio. So your 1.7:1 (more or less) super-16 ratio would come out to an awkward 3.4:1 aspect ratio. Other expansion/compression ratios have been made but are uncommon.

[James Erd]

The normal anamorphic lens used in 16mm projection has a 2:1 expansion ratio. So your 1.7:1 (more or less) super-16 ratio would come out to an awkward 3.4:1 aspect ratio. Other expansion/compression ratios have been made but are uncommon.

 

3.4:1? That does sound awkward, and possibly expensive to deal with in post.

[David Mullen ASC]

3.4:1? That does sound awkward, and possibly expensive to deal with in post.

 

No, not particularly -- whether you were planning on scanning / telecine transferring the Super-16 footage or blowing-up using an optical printer, dealing with a 2x squeezed image is no big deal. The only problem is deciding what to do with the 3.4 : 1 image after it is unsqueezed. Do you want to letterbox the image to 3.4 or crop the sides to 2.35? But there are no additional costs to do this -- cropping & resizing are basic features of the process anyway. And Super-16 is not a projection format, so it has to go thru some sort of conversion or transfer process.

[adam berk]

so about telecine.... super16 CAN be transferred to anamorphic NTSC? I've only worked on one film project so far (super16) and it was an HD transfer.

 

If super16 can be transferred anamorphic to ntsc, are there only certain telecines that can do it? Or does any super16 equiped telecine have the capability?

[David Mullen ASC]

so about telecine.... super16 CAN be transferred to anamorphic NTSC? I've only worked on one film project so far (super16) and it was an HD transfer.

 

If super16 can be transferred anamorphic to ntsc, are there only certain telecines that can do it? Or does any super16 equiped telecine have the capability?

 

It would be a 16x9 transfer, which is "anamorphic" in standard def (NTSC/PAL) but not in HD, which is native 16x9. Most telecine houses can do 16x9 transfers to standard def video.

 

Your typical widescreen DVD of a theatrical movie is 16x9 "anamorphic" standard def video.

[James Erd]

The only problem is deciding what to do with the 3.4 : 1 image after it is unsqueezed. Do you want to letterbox the image to 3.4 or crop the sides to 2.35?

 

It seems like shooting anamorphic on 16 or Super 16 is a bit of a stretch [ sorry :blink: ] for the medium. Plain old 16 is great and being able to shoot Super 16 on the same camera gives my camera new legs, but I'm not sure if I could get much more with an anamorphic lens.

[Thanasis Diamantopoulos]

Yes, it's confusing what they mean by "anamorphic" and to achieve what aspect ratio for what final presentation format. Do they mean anamorphic lenses for a blow-up to 35mm anamorphic (2.39 : 1), aka "scope"? Or do they mean for transfer to 16x9 "anamorphic" NTSC/PAL video, which is 1.77 : 1?

HI

 

 

The produser told me that there is a rendal house in London wich we can rend anamorpic s 16 lenses .

Hi did it on a project that i have never seen that . You thing that there is any opion to blow up squeez s16 to 35mm 1:2,35 ? I can understand transfered to video but direct prinding ?

[Bernhard Zitz]

The only anamorphic lens I know of are for regular 16mm.

 

Like this one which is c-mount...

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=012

 

It's not c-mount. C is only the name of the thing, it's just a ordinary 2xsqueeze adapter mostly used on projectors. As mentioned you would end up with 1:3.32 aspect ratio.

 

Theoreticly 1.5x squeeze would be best on S16, you end with 1:2.49. Might be a hassle to find such a lens or adapter and have something that's confortable to use. I planed to use a iscorama 1.5x adapter this way but haven't done any tests yet.

 

After all the discussions I read, the best method to do 1:2.35 on S16mm seems to shoot with normal lenses, and crop it. If you do telecine in SD, transfer it 16/9 anamorphic.

 

The movie "Aaltra" was done this way. It's B&W, shot on S16 and released in 35mm scope. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405629/

[A. Whitehouse]

I dont know if it helps but I shot a R16mm film using 35mm anamorphics earlier this year and was surprisingly pleased with the results. But as it has been pointed out the negative area is similar to cropping S16mm and we were doing a video finish. As far as blow up I have seen cropped R16mm 2k scanned blowups to anamorphic prints and its amazingly grainy (admittedly that was the nature of the projects style ) but I have also seen incredible stuff 1:2.35 from S16mm. There are not that many (in my experience and admittedly Australia has all of zero anamorphic lenses onshore bar the ones I used I think) PL or bayonet mount anamorphics out there but people in anamorphic friendly territories might know better than me.

If you can find a R16mm Arri out there (or aaton!) then it could yield a good result. Hope this helps...

 

Sasha

Edited December 15, 2006 by S. Whitehouse

[David Mullen ASC]

You can use standard 35mm PL-mount 2X anamorphic lenses on a Super-16 camera, but to get to 2.35, you will be using even less width than Regular 16mm in the end, since the unstretched image is 3.36:1 on Super-16 and 2.66 (or 2.74) on Regular 16mm.

 

In 35mm anamorphic, you only use a negative that is slightly less than 1.20 : 1 to get an image that is slightly less than 2.40 : 1 when unsqueezed. Same would be true for 16mm.

[Thanasis Diamantopoulos]

HI

 

I am a little confused righ now.

 

the questions are

1) can i shoot s 16 anamorphic?

2) are there any lenses for that? (i have to use only 35mm lenses?)

3) if i unsqueez on transfer to video what aspect ratio do i get?

4) can i print to 35 positive and in what aspect ratio will be after projection?

 

sorry for my bad English.

Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

HI

 

I am a little confused righ now.

 

the questions are

1) can i shoot s 16 anamorphic?

2) are there any lenses for that? (i have to use only 35mm lenses?)

3) if i unsqueez on transfer to video what aspect ratio do i get?

4) can i print to 35 positive and in what aspect ratio will be after projection?

 

sorry for my bad English.

Thanks

 

Haven't you been reading all the recent posts on anamorphic 16mm? We just answered those questions!

 

I'll repeat the info because I like wasting my time...

 

You can put a 35mm PL-mount anamorphic lens on a Super-16 camera with a PL-mount, but you would have to deal with the fact that almost all cine anamorphic lenses have a 2X horizontal squeeze, and you'd have to deal with the lack of short enough focal lengths to get really wide-angle shots (35mm is the most common of the wide-angle anamorphic lenses, which is not very wide-angle on a 16mm camera -- you'd have to seek out some 28mm anamorphic lenses or wider.)

 

There are some old anamorphic C-mount lenses that appear time to time on EBay and whatnot.

 

It's SIMPLE math to figure out the aspect ratio of an image with a 2X squeeze to it when unsqueezed. Super-16 Full Aperture is 1.68 : 1, so a 2X squeezed image on that would become 3.36 : 1 when unsqueezed. Regular 16mm Full Aperture is either 1.33 or 1.37 depending on who you ask, which would be 2.66 or 2.74 when unsqueezed.

 

Video is either 4x3 (1.33) or 16x9 (1.78) so any other aspect ratios involve letterboxing the transfer within the 4x3 or 16x9 formats.

 

The 35mm anamorphic projection aperture is slightly less than 1.20 : 1, which is why when the 2X squeezed image is unsqueezed by the standard 2X anamorphic projector lens, the aspect ratio is just under 2.40 : 1.

 

If you use a standard 2X anamorphic camera lens on a Super-16 or regular 16mm camera, you can blow this up to 35mm and keep the 2X squeeze for anamorphic projection, but you have to decide how to fit the wider image onto the 35mm anamorphic projection aperture. Either you have to crop the sides down to 2.40 : 1, or you have to letterbox the image to hold a wider aspect ratio (like I said, on Super-16 Full Aperture, a 2X anamorphic image gives you a 3.36 : 1 aspect ratio when unsqueezed.)

[Thanasis Diamantopoulos]

Thank for all the replays.

Sorry David but my English are not the best .Some times my wife translates the posts for me.

BTW. I thing that the best advise is to crop the sides of the frames. I have to start the tests.

[David Mullen ASC]

Thank for all the replays.

Sorry David but my English are not the best .Some times my wife translates the posts for me.

BTW. I thing that the best advise is to crop the sides of the frames. I have to start the tests.

 

Unless you want to have anamorphic lens artifacts for the look, cropping the sides of a 3.36 image to get 2.35 won't give you any more quality than cropping the top & bottom of spherical Super-16 to get 2.35.

[Thanasis Diamantopoulos]

Unless you want to have anamorphic lens artifacts for the look, cropping the sides of a 3.36 image to get 2.35 won't give you any more quality than cropping the top & bottom of spherical Super-16 to get 2.35.

 

But i assume that croping s16 film and getting smaller exposed area on the frame loosing more quality blowing the negative to s16.

[Murthy SNB]

HI

 

I am a little confused righ now.

 

the questions are

1) can i shoot s 16 anamorphic?

2) are there any lenses for that? (i have to use only 35mm lenses?)

3) if i unsqueez on transfer to video what aspect ratio do i get?

4) can i print to 35 positive and in what aspect ratio will be after projection?

 

sorry for my bad English.

Thanks

1) you can shoot in regular 16 with anamorphic , not in s16,

2) using 35 anamorphic lenses are quite cumbersome/ very tedious & laborius,

INSTEAD anamorphic adaptor on basic 16mm camera lenses is more friendly,

3) with anamorphic image it after unsqueezing it is normal letter box on tv screen,

the ratio will be 2.40:1

4) with the (2) above mentioned method, you can get 35mm cinemascope release print, for

theatrical release, again ratio is 2.40:1

 

I am using the system with anamorphic adaptor for low budget feature films with Eclair NPR

the results are if not AMAZING, very very satisfactory,

[David Mullen ASC]

Please change your user name to a real first and last name, or at least sign your posts with one...

 

You must be using one of the 1.33X adaptors made for video...

[Jon Kukla]

Super 16 width: 0.493"

Height for 2.39 crop: 0.206"

Negative area: 0.102 square inches

 

16mm frame height: 0.292"

Required width for 2.39 crop when using 2x anamorphic optics: 0.349"

Negative area: 0.102 square inches

 

I'd say spare the trouble and crop the Super 16. Avoids the cost, slow speed, artifacting, and weight of anamorphic lenses. Also gives you more negative quality if you wind up chosing to do a 16:9 or 1.85 extraction instead of or in addition to the 2.39 one.

 

Clearly neither method is better than the other for negative real estate, though.