New Format

[Paul Bruening]

Does this already exist? If not, what do you like better: Sixteenoscope or Scope16? Since you'll lose real estate top and bottom for 1.85:1 crop, why not lose a slight bit more top and bottom but gain more back on the sides?

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

It does not exist, probably because because there will be a lot of scratching of negative.

 

Stephen

 

Does this already exist? If not, what do you like better: Sixteenoscope or Scope16? Since you'll lose real estate top and bottom for 1.85:1 crop, why not lose a slight bit more top and bottom but gain more back on the sides?

[Paul Bruening]

Mitchell's pull-down and pin registration are below the gate. There's room in the aperture plate to chop out the gate. If well polished it shouldn't scratch the neg. Getting DI would be a problem. But, any new format has troubles.

[Mitch Gross]

This would be a variant of the Ultra-16 concept. Actually, I believe in the eighties someone did some ski or surf films this way and then 4-walled theaters with a specially rigged projector and synced magtrack.

 

It could be done, but ........ why?

 

And I would call it something like Widescreen-16mm as anamorphic has nothing to do with it.

[Stephen Williams]

Mitchell's pull-down and pin registration are below the gate. There's room in the aperture plate to chop out the gate. If well polished it shouldn't scratch the neg. Getting DI would be a problem. But, any new format has troubles.

 

I was thinking more about the sprockets & rollers scratching the film, not the gate.

[Saul Rodgar]

This would be a variant of the Ultra-16 concept. Actually, I believe in the eighties someone did some ski or surf films this way and then 4-walled theaters with a specially rigged projector and synced magtrack.

 

It could be done, but ........ why?

 

And I would call it something like Widescreen-16mm as anamorphic has nothing to do with it.

 

Right. If Ultra 16 is already taken, how about Uber16? Pano16? :P

[John Sprung]

IIRC, doesn't 16mm have edge numbers or other factory latent image stuff in the space vertically between the holes?

 

As for having perfs between rather than alongside the frames, the old 9.5mm format did it that way, with the sprocket holes in the center. That was problematic, in that any feed failure tore up the middle of the picture.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

Hey John,

 

Good call:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keykode

 

I guess asking the Yellow God to turn off the keykoding machine might be fruitless.

 

Here are some numbers to think about:

 

S16

@ 1.85:1, .493 x .266, Area= .131

@ 2.39:1, .493 x .206, Area= .102

 

Scope16

@ 2.39:1, .591 x .247, Area= .146

 

T-scope:

@ 2.39:1 .868 x .373, Area= .324

 

The numbers ain't shabby for Scope16. Plus, you get all that room for a data block. Darn keykode!

 

Though, I guess you could run the frame right up to the edge of the keykode and right up to the other edge of the film. I don't know what the math would be on that since I don't have specs on keykode dimensions.

[Paul Bruening]

I guess asking the Yellow God to turn off the keykoding machine might be fruitless.

[Paul Bruening]

Mitchell's pull-down and pin registration are below the gate. There's room in the aperture plate to chop out the gate. If well polished it shouldn't scratch the neg. Getting DI would be a problem. But, any new format has troubles.

 

Plus, you could run double-perf on a Mitchell and get flawless registration. Something that 16mm really needs.

 

So, more real estate than S16, better registration, and scope ratio. With V3's resolution and some decent lenses, this isn't a terrible idea. Just imperfect.

[Paul Bruening]

Holy smokes! What if you could buffer the audio and flash a time overlapped, digital, audio track (SDDS-like) into that large data block?

 

Less film wasted on slating as well. No more sync gear wired up to everything. Put the XLR mic inputs right on the camera and have built-in phantom power like on a Canon XL2. I like the way this is going.

[Paul Bruening]

...and, if you shoot only color stock, the audio data could be in grades of relational color allowing for greater data presence for the space. You could pack a hell of a lot of data into that space. Maybe 8 tracks of 24 bit sound or something completely over the top like that. Since the camera is flashing the data, it is not picture exposure sensitive. You could set a compensator for push and pull processing. I think you could maintain densities without too much trouble.

[Mitch Gross]

I'd rather suggest Vista-16, which would turn the camera on its side with a frame twp perfs long. Plenty of room for data along the top (non-perf) edge. But then again, I'd still say you're nuts for pursuing it.

[Paul Bruening]

Thinking doesn't cost anything.

[Paul Bruening]

235

@ 3:2, 1.417" x .945", Diagonal= 1.703" (1.339"Area, 4.724"Perimeter)

 

Scope16

@ 2.39:1, .591 x .247, Area= .146, Diagonal= 0.640538, down-conversion factor= .376

 

Scope16 might just get away with a 3X reverse teleconversion. If so, you could use a Nikon f1.2 lens at f0.45 with a DoF of f1.2. Or, you could shoot at f1.2 (DoF of f3.4) on V3 at an ASA of 4,000.

 

Too bad Cinema Products isn't still in business. I could see all this system with a "CP16SC" label on the side.

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm quite surprised there was never a production-end equivalent to SDDS for single-system sound. Probably the closest to it would be Aatoncode. I don't think anyone's ever recorded digital sound onto camera negative. I suspect the need to do it and the technology to do it never quite coexisted.

 

P

[John Sprung]

Well, if you're going to turn off the latent image numbering and data, why not turn off the perforating machine, too? That way you can build cameras that advance the film using some sort of friction grip, and in addition to the image, expose their own registration marks just outside the frame. Scan for DI aligning to those marks, and you have much better registration than you can get mechanically, without the expensive and complex pulldown and registration pin mechanisms. And you can make your frames whatever size and aspect ratio you want within the width limitations of the film.

 

Years ago, I thought of adding that kind of latent image registration mark between the perfs on 35mm, but nobody thought it was worth the effort.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

I remember having that discussion with you some time back on some other crazy format. I agree. I think it's a great idea. Bring film into the digital age. It's still the superior capture medium. Integrate elements from other technologies and it just gets better and better.

 

Sod the nay-sayers.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Does this already exist? If not, what do you like better: Sixteenoscope or Scope16? Since you'll lose real estate top and bottom for 1.85:1 crop, why not lose a slight bit more top and bottom but gain more back on the sides?

 

There was an article in a 60s AC about this. Some Australian hobbyist converted his Bolex to it.

The sample frames in the article did exhibit Kodacrome edge ID.

 

Tony Shapps at WWW.WIDESCREEN-CENTRE.CO.UK would know more.

 

Paul:

Are you hunkerin' down in your storm shelter & developing cabin fever?

[Paul Bruening]

Hey Leo,

 

Thanks for the tip.

 

I'm about 7 hours drive north of New Orleans. The hurricanes break up into only wicked thunderstorms by the time they get up here. Oddly, we've been getting way more tornado action, lately. Sometimes it blows in with the worn-out hurricanes. Sometimes it just blows in. I keep hearing that it's the result of global weirding. Last three summers, previous, we've been in a drought. Last summer just about broke Atlanta. This summer we've had rain aplenty. The cattleman that owns all of the land surrounding my house has pulled three crops of hay off his land and will get a forth. Last summer, he barely got one. People think movie making is crazy and unpredictable...

[John Sprung]

I keep hearing that it's the result of global weirding. Last three summers, previous, we've been in a drought. Last summer just about broke Atlanta. This summer we've had rain aplenty. ...

These last two summers here have been abnormally cool and pleasant. The oranges that should have been ready for harvest last November/December are still on the tree, and finally sweet enough to pick. Stranger still, there were no new orange blossoms last spring. The rainy season between was nearly rainless. If this continues, it could devastate the roofing business here. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Brawley]

...and, if you shoot only color stock, the audio data could be in grades of relational color allowing for greater data presence for the space. You could pack a hell of a lot of data into that space. Maybe 8 tracks of 24 bit sound or something completely over the top like that. Since the camera is flashing the data, it is not picture exposure sensitive. You could set a compensator for push and pull processing. I think you could maintain densities without too much trouble.

 

 

It's the same as Aatoncode no ?

 

I prefer aatoncode simpley because then you don't have to have err...8 audio inputs on your XTR, not to mention all those VU's !!!

 

Double system sound is a brilliant way of working. Why have the sound department tethered to the camera ?

 

Plus you'd have to have a burned in each magazine . Don't imagine it could be encoded fast enough to do it in the gate. I also have a feeling Aaton's patent on aatoncode might prevent you doing it in the gate anyway.

 

So then you'd have to have encoders in every magazine, and they would still have to be exposed properly for each stock. You would have to set the asa of each mag (like arricode) And you'd somehow have to take into account the variations of a couple of frames if the loop was short or long as well (like arricode)....seems fraught...

 

I don' think your idea would be all that viable, because the edge of the film is pretty fragile to handling from all the rollers in the processing machines and the cameras.

 

 

jb

[Paul Bruening]

It's the same as Aatoncode no ?

 

I prefer aatoncode simpley because then you don't have to have err...8 audio inputs on your XTR, not to mention all those VU's !!!

 

Double system sound is a brilliant way of working. Why have the sound department tethered to the camera ?

 

Plus you'd have to have a burned in each magazine . Don't imagine it could be encoded fast enough to do it in the gate. I also have a feeling Aaton's patent on aatoncode might prevent you doing it in the gate anyway.

 

So then you'd have to have encoders in every magazine, and they would still have to be exposed properly for each stock. You would have to set the asa of each mag (like arricode) And you'd somehow have to take into account the variations of a couple of frames if the loop was short or long as well (like arricode)....seems fraught...

 

I don' think your idea would be all that viable, because the edge of the film is pretty fragile to handling from all the rollers in the processing machines and the cameras.

 

 

jb

 

Could you explain further?

[John Brawley]

Could you explain further?

 

 

Which bit ??

 

Arricode is a good example of another similar idea that has tried to use the working edge of the film. On 16mm it's so tiny.

 

Arricode is burned as a barcode (not an matrix like aatoncode) on the working edge of the film, a bit like keycode. But it's plagued with problems because, that edge is very susceptible to damage from handling through the camera's rollers and processing. High speeds stocks are also often pressure fogged here. Perhaps if you're lucky, Dominic Case is reading and can elaborate more on the kinds of damage, but it's the first place handling damage will occur. It often happens and people don't know about it because it's not in picture area.

 

Recording in camera is also problematic. A recorder to burn the code is built into every magazine. For starters, that means you have to have a magazine with more expensive (and delicate) components and a not code magazine can't be used. No backward compatibility with other mags. Maybe you're building your camera from scratch do it doesn't matter.

 

Not only that, but the code image recorded in magazines has to be literally projected onto the edge area because it's not in contact with the film. Generally the only time the film comes into contact with a surface like that is in the gate itself. In the gate of the camera you can essentially contact print the barcode which is what aatoncode does.. So now you're projecting a tiny image onto the film, using different projectors in each magazine. When the projection lens is so small, you can easily have things ruined by a bit of build up or dust etc. it has to be cleaned regularly.

 

Then you have to individually set the brightness in each magazine so that the image is exposed correctly for each stock loaded. (it's set automatically by the lightmeter in aaton's)

 

Although supposedly the arri camera can work it out electronically, variances in loop size can also cause a 1-2 frame offset in sync. From memory the code is meant to be recorded about 14 frames from the gate. The camera never does seem to work it out and the offset is there and you'll have to manually check the sync with the time proven bit of wood being bashed together. Given that even digital cameras suffer from delay even in monitoring, do you think you can encode and matrix the image fast enough to have it recorded ?

 

From a sound point of view there's no reason to have to encode the sound onto the film, when a far simpler timecode can be used to chase. That way the sound recorder is independent from the camera, recording whatever number of tracks and bit depth. Just think about how often the sound drops out in cinemas on prints encoded in this way. Then extrapolate it to 16mm at 1/4 the size !! because the code is continuous in terms of frames, you only need to be able to read a single frame from a camera start and stop and you can frame count the rest to extrapolate the code in post (which is what keylink does)

 

I've seen many productions attempt arricode and very very few succeed in making it work.

 

It's no wonder Panavision bought into Aaton soon after they developed Aatoncode...

 

jb

[John Adolfi]

Does this already exist? If not, what do you like better: Sixteenoscope or Scope16? Since you'll lose real estate top and bottom for 1.85:1 crop, why not lose a slight bit more top and bottom but gain more back on the sides?

 

Trying to understand how Ultra 16 and Scope 16 differ, they look the same.

Any updates on this?