ultra 16mm help?

[jasarsenault]

Hello all. I am relativly new to film making. I have a few year experience and have just finished my second, low budget half hour, 16mm documentary. I am beginning my third and have been thinking about shooting in a wider format. I had originally thought about super-16mm.

 

I have an eclair npr, but the cost of renting a super 16mm or converting to super 16 with new lenses seems a bit costly. Then I heard about ultra 16mm where they shave your gate to wider format similar to super 16mm. If this can be done well and cheaply with results it would be great. I could keep my camera and lenses while shooting with a wider look.

 

I did a bit of research and didnt find much. Sounds great, but is it? What are some of the problems I could get into? I don't and can not afford to ruin my camera! Should I simply check with the lab that I deal with to see if it is a problem with them? If it is not, are there any other things I should be careful of?

 

Any help would be much appreciated. Any sites, links or advice?

 

Jason Arsenault

[Josh Hill]

The problem with Ultra-16 is that it is not a standardized format. I know in some previous posts about Ultra-16 (and there are many, do a search in the forum) there are discussions about trasnferring and such.

 

Personally, I would never widen my own gate, or pay someone to do it for me if it has to do with filing away ... which I believe it does. Call Visual Products (www.visualproducts.com) in Ohio and ask about their S16 conversions for the Eclair NPR.

 

It would be a much safer route to go with Super-16. Its a standardized format, blows up nicely, doesn't cost more in filmstock or transfer than R16, and is an all around good investment if you do a lot of shooting with your camera.

 

Ultra-16 is iffy, no standardization, and to my understanding few telecine companies actually support it.

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually, if this project is for telecine only, or a DI, I see less of a problem with a widened 16mm gate than if this project planned an optical printer blow-up to 35mm. I think the standardization problem becomes more critical if you plan on a traditional film post. Many telecines can "zoom out" a little to see more of the 16mm frame. Don't know about the Spirit though but I think it should be able to resize a 16mm frame, compared to its fixed relationship between the CCD and the 35mm frame.

 

But I agree that it's always safer to go with standardized formats if possible. Also, the Ultra 16mm gate is not exactly as big as the Super-16 gate.

[jasarsenault]

Thanks for the reply. Few more questions though. I realize that super 16mm is the best way to go, but I am worries about the price of the conversion, especially since my camera is getting old. Also, if i get my camera converted from reg 16 to super 16, does this mean I need new lenses ( I have a set of primes.). What am I looking at for extra expense after the conversion?

 

As for ultra 16, it seems relatively cheap, and I get to keep my primes. I realize that it is not a standard format, but if the lab I use has not problem with it, will there be any other problems? I would like to have the option to finish on video widescreen or blow up to 35mm if the option should ever arise. Would I be able to do this with ultra 16mm?

 

Also, any idea on the full price of a 16mm conversion. If it is affordable, this is of course the route I will take.

 

Thanks,

Jason Arsenault

[Josh Hill]

What kind of primes do you have? I know CP Ultra Primes cover S16 on all lenses 16mm and up.

 

I know Visual Products overhauls their cameras before doing the conversion, so that would add to the life span of the camera.

 

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with R16 ... not enough to want to go to Ultra-16 and risk damaging your gate/camera in the conversion process or possibly losing some post production options. You can always frame for 1.78 or 1.85 and matte it down. You lose some resolution that way, but its a wider format and doesn't really cost you anything. Then when you're ready for S16 you can get the conversion done.

 

I've been debating getting my CP16R converted to S16, but decided that I should just get an overhaul. I don't use the camera enough to justify the expense at the moment, but it does need an overhaul. Later I intend on getting a PL mount for it, and then later than that possibly converting to S16.

[jasarsenault]

I have a set of cooke kinetal primes. I agree, I love shooting in 16mm. Just curious about options.

Jason

[Mister X]

Here's a nice breakdown on Ultra 16, as compared to Standard 16 and Super 16:

 

http://marylandfilms.com/16mm_Super16_Ultra16-compared.html

 

According to a recent e-mail that I received from Guy Bodart at Cameras Pro, all of the Kern primes cover the Ultra 16 frame.

[jasarsenault]

Just curious. If I was not happy with the ultra conversion am I stuck with it? I hear I can still shoot reg16 fine, so is there really any risk. What kind of cost would there be if I had to replace my gate on my NPR?

Jason

[Josh Hill]

I think that chart is a little biased toward Ultra-16. It says you can take R16 and U16 off of the same negative. Well, I was under the impression that most S16 cameras had guidelines for S16/4:3/TV Safe, which means you can still take the 1.33 frame from the S16 negative. (I just noticed that S16 says you can shoot both R16 and S16, but it doesn't use the "Like two formats in one" tagline.)

 

The chart also promotes U16 for not having to crop any of the image to blow up to 35mm at 1.85, but even though you don't have to crop the image, the image size is smaller than that of cropped S16.

 

Take a look at the disadvantages at the bottom. S16 "Can only use single perf film." But I don't see that as a disadvantage. I was under the impression that most 16mm was being made in single perf anyway.

 

Ultra 16: "Sending it to the wrong lab may scratch film." "Many telecine's and other gates aren't made for blowing up U16."

 

I think that alone would discourage me from the format.

 

I think until Ultra-16 becomes standardized it is really a bad idea to convert it. There are too many "Shoulds" involved. "All lenses <i>should</i> work." And shaving off such a minute portion of the gate (.7mm on either side) is a risky proposition, unless you send the gate to a machinist (which you very well might). But if its not done right you could end up scratching your film.

 

Sorry to be so negative toward the format, because I'm sure Ultra-16 works fabulously well for some people. I would just never trust my 16mm camera to a format that cannot guarantee that all labs can process the film without scratching the image area, that cannot guarantee I can have my film trasnferred anywhere I want.

[DanStewart]

I would have thought using 7217 or 7212 in R16 and cropping the frame would get you so close it makes it wasted effort, especially for Tk only?

[Oliver Gläser]

take a look at the previous forum on Ultra. I would recommend it as a cheaper alternative. If you have a good machinest to mill the gate there should be no problem. The NPR is also very easy to replace the gate if the results are not to your liking. I have used the format for shorts and features all with the great results. Super is better, but Ultra is a great cheaper alternative. The advantage regarding framing is that Ultra is centered whereas super is offset. Use this and keep your current lenses. As noted it is designed for the DI enviroment. I have had 5 cameras including two NPR's Converted and all worked perfectly... just watch that the gate is clean, no burrs so there is no scratching.

 

Hope it works out for you

 

Peace

Oli OUT

[Xuefei24p]

I would give it a shot.

[Josh Hill]

I did read somewhere that Kinetals over 12mm cover Super 16, so all but your smallest (9mm?) should cover the S16 frame.

 

Thought I'd throw that in there because you were concerned about your primes.

[Matt Pacini]

The thing you guys who are negative on the format are forgetting, is that having your gate widened STILL leaves you with the standard 16mm format being imaged.

So you can shoot Ultra16 and have that wider image on the film, just in case the format DOES become standard in the future.

So it's not like you're stuck with footage that you cannot get telecined or blown up to 35mm.

The 16mm frame is intact.

If 2 years from now, or 20 years from now, the format gets popular, you have that extra image on your neg to use if you want to.

There's nothing to lose in that manner.

 

P.S. I've just had my CP16R/A gate widened (an extra gate I bought, actually, just in case!), and I'll be running some tests in the next couple weeks.

I'll post them when I'm done.

 

Matt Pacini

[John Pytlak RIP]

Does the Ultra16mm image ever interfere with the normal variablity of KeyKode and MRCode printing (allowed by standard SMPTE 271)? Position and density of the edgeprint can vary.

[Mitch Gross]

As discussed previously, widening the gate is not the only step. The rollers and other parts of the film path must be addressed to protect from scratching or bruising the new image area. And the groundglass remarked and the viewfinder alterred to cover the new frame. If you can't see what it is you're shooting then what's the point?

[jasarsenault]

Thanks for all the replies. It is an interesting option I was just curious about.

thanks

[Oliver Gläser]

the image area is just inside the keycode area being only .7mm wider on both sides of the regular 16mm frame. I have never had it interfere with and edge coding or had flare issues, scratching or anything else. its worked great for me.

 

OLI OUT

[anton foy]

Im planning on doing the conversion myself when I get my hands on a bolex.

 

I would do like this on Ultra 16: make a mold of the gate and make it in a tough plastic, file out the gate and keep the old gate under my pillow.

 

I rather want to convert it to S-16 but Im not that rich to make someone else convert it :(

 

But I've heard that the shutter also needs to be filed a bit and some gears must be changed, that means one fault and your camera is gone.

 

Anyway If someone should try converting to Ultra-16 you could try my mold idea, then you can always change back to the old gate. :)

[Mitch Gross]

I would never make a gate out of plastic--we're talking about tollerances measured in microns. Certain tasks are made for metal.

[Josh Hill]

Why would you want to file your shutter and make it SMALLER for a larger image area? And what gears would need to be changed? (Unless you mean rollers, which I believe was discussed previously.)

[anton foy]

Sorry I may be totally wrong about filing down the shutter but thats how my photographer friend told me.

 

On my super8 camera I made a mold of the gate in plastic to make it super-duper8 and it works fine. Thats why I assumed I could do the same with a 16mm camera but as Matt did (bought a secong gate just in case) would result in the same as the mold but better.

[Matt Pacini]

First of all, leave your shutter alone!!!!

 

I bought a spare gate for my CP16, and had a jewelery maker friend of mine widen it.

They have the tools, they have the expertise.

It looks absolutely, microscopically perfect!

Don't do this yourself.

I'm shooting some test footage now, so I'll post my results shortly.

 

Matt Pacini

[jasarsenault]

What does it normally cost for an extra gate? I have an NPR. Second, is it easy to change the gate yourself or do you need a professional?

Jason

[Oliver Gläser]

The NPRs gate is available, and is very easily removable by anyone who has a good working understanding of the NPR. Process comprises of removing several small screws, taking the Mag guides off and then simply (carefully) popping it off.

just look at it carefully and think through the process logically

Good luck

 

Oliver Gläser