What is so good about Super 16?

[Gregor Mac]

What is so good about Super 16?

 

I know you get more picture, better quality, easier to frame your shots for blow up to 35mm.

 

But its quite expensive to shoot and buy (not to hire) everything in Super16 compared to 16mm.

 

Isn't 16mm an "academy" size film? It seems a lot of effort to convert cameras.

 

I think that 16mm, even pro cameras and anamorphics, are within reach of most people here. To convert everything seems tricky and expensive, especially to anamorphic.

 

Let the converters and Super16 afficionados sell their old stuff - won't it be cheaper then to buy the 16mm equipment?

 

If I wanted to go to the expense of Super 16, I may as well shoot 35mm right?

[Kevin Zanit]

Well you are right and wrong.

 

Shooting S16 really has no price difference from a regular 16 camera (as far as rentals go).

 

The expense is in the lab work.

 

But let?s say your target release is HDCam:

Shooting S16 gives a close aspect ratio to HD. You use more negative space, and get better quality than regular 16. There is no tradeoff money wise in the scenario. I can rent a Panaflex Elaine with a 16 or super 16 gate for the same money.

 

Now, shoot the same project in 35. Not only is the raw stock more money, but you use more film (1000' of 35 is about 11 minutes, 400' of 16 is about 11). These savings transfer into all the post work as well. Less film to process, cheaper to process, less footage to telecine, etc.

 

35mm cameras and lenses are more expensive than their 16mm counterparts.

 

The area where this gets gray, as you said, is in the optical step if you wish to go to a print. It is very expensive to blowup the s16 to a 35mm release print. It is one of those things that you have to weigh the prices differences item by item.

 

If you are not sure that the project will ever see a theater screen, than s16 is a great option.

 

Kevin Zanit

[Marty Hamrick]

Here in Florida we have a director,Victor Nunez.He shoots all of his films in super 16.It's a subjective choice for him.He says the look of super 16 is better suited for what he does and he likes the smaller equipment which he says,makes for a more intimate and less intrusive setting than 35mm.It's a matter of personal choice for many,not budget.

 

 

Marty

[David Mullen ASC]

If you're a renter like I am, then there's no cost difference between renting and shooting Super-16 and regular 16mm -- and for 35mm 1.85 projection, Super-16 provides 40% more negative area than regular 16mm cropped to 1.85, which is not insignificant.

 

So a better question is: Why regular 16mm? You can get better widescreen quality with Super-16 and the same 4x3 quality, so it does both well, whereas regular 16mm only does 4x3 equally as well.

[Robert Hughes]

So a better question is: Why regular 16mm?  You can get better widescreen quality with Super-16 and the same 4x3 quality, so it does both well, whereas regular 16mm only does 4x3 equally as well.

 

100 million 4:3 TV sets in the USA - they aren't going away any time soon. Cropping and pan-and-scan issues still exist in S16. Every post house in the country can work R16; those that do S16 charge a premium. And every R16 ready lens works on any old camera, new or old, without expensive overhaul.

 

If I were buying new, I'd go S16. But don't let the trade mags and advertisers fool you - 16mm is still a valid medium.

[Tenolian Bell]

Every post house in the country can work R16; those that do S16 charge a premium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I so far working in (NY and LA) have found no extra charges for S16 over R16. Even if you place a letter box in telecine there is no letter box fee.

[David Mullen ASC]

I so far working in (NY and LA) have found no extra charges for S16 over R16. Even if you place a letter box in telecine there is no letter box fee.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never encountered extra post fees for dealing with Super-16 instead of regular 16mm -- why would there be?

[Dominic Case]

I know you get more picture, better quality, easier to frame your shots for blow up to 35mm.

This seems to have been a convincing argument for most people in the past 30 years.

It's a mystery to me why people in the USA still cling on to standard 16mm. No-one else does. It's dead.

[Lindsay Mann]

I'm sure this is probably discussed somewhere good, but I haven't found it yet: What does shooting anamorphic with super16 entail? Would I only do it if I were going out eventually to film? Otherwise, I'm assuming the telecine would squeeze the image onto whatever format I chose. Do people do this? Shoot S16mm with anamorphic lenses?

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm sure this is probably discussed somewhere good, but I haven't found it yet: What does shooting anamorphic with super16 entail? Would I only do it if I were going out eventually to film? Otherwise, I'm assuming the telecine would squeeze the image onto whatever format I chose. Do people do this? Shoot S16mm with anamorphic lenses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not usually. Almost all anamorphic lenses for film cameras have a 2X squeeze, so even on a regular 16mm camera, you'd get a 2.66 : 1 aspect ratio when unsqueezed, so there's no need for the wider Super-16 negative. You'd have something like a 3.36 : 1 aspect ratio when unsqueezed.

 

You'd need film camera lenses with a 1.33X squeeze like the anamorphic adaptors for video use.

 

I shot a comparison test comparing regular 16mm with scope lenses to Super-16 with normal lenses cropped to 2.35, both blown-up to 35mm anamorphic. You have to crop the sides of the 16mm anamorphic frame from 2.66 to 2.35.

 

I never saw the results -- they are at Metropolitan Labs in NYC and I'm in LA -- but the difference in quality between the two approaches was minimal and it's a lot easier to shoot and crop Super-16. The only reason there to use anamorphic is if you want those optical artifacts.

 

It might be different if there were some high-quality 1.33X anamorphic cine lenses. There is a new Canon 1.33X anamorphic rear adaptor for B4 video lenses that might be adapted someday for Super-16, who knows?

[Bruce McNaughton]

We convert all makes of 16mm cameras to super 16. I note that we have fewer USA clients than any other nationality and the reason for this is that the US is the last country to go to the 16:9 ratio (HD TV) The rest of the world is looking at a lovely wide screen image (cropped top and bottom on a 4 x 3 set but still a lovely image)

 

Bruce

[DavidSloan]

Unless shooting something which is going directly to TV, there is no reason to shoot 16. Even then I'd probably still go with a S16mm negative. There are no premium post costs on S16mm. Again, the only issue as Kevin pointed out is an optical blow-up. But when you're talking post you're always talking serious money; that's a given.

[Matt Pacini]

It's a mystery to me why people in the USA still cling on to standard 16mm. No-one else does. It's dead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I have a few disagreements with this logic:

 

1. If people are "still clinging" to Standard 16 (i.e. still using it), then it's not dead.

It's dead if it's NOT being used, not if it IS being used.

 

2. The vast majority of TV sets here are not widescreen, and a lot of material is shot, not intending to be in a theater.

 

3. For the same reason people "cling to" Super 16.

It's cheaper than the next better format.

35mm is better than S16, and 65mm is better than 35mm, and IMAX is better than 65mm.

People shoot on a given format because they can't afford (or the project doesn't warrant) the better, more expensive format.

 

4. A lot of us like to own our own cameras, and R16 cameras & lenses are much cheaper than S16 cameras & lenses.

 

Matt Pacini

[Glenn Hanns]

Shooting S16 really has no price difference from a regular 16 camera (as far as rentals go).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Here in Australia there is an extra setup cost to shoot regular 16. !

[John Pytlak RIP]

Size does matter! Especially when it comes to image quality.

 

"Future-proofing" a production generally means a widescreen aspect ratio (16:9 or 1.85:1). Very few theatres can properly show 1.37:1 anymore, and television is quickly evolving to 16:9, even in the USA.

 

Super-16 film fits the the widescreen aspect ratios very well:

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

[Robert Hughes]

Is it possible to modify a Moviscop for Super16? Does anybody still use 'em in the S16 world?

 

Has anyone modified an Auricon for S16? What all was involved? Did it work OK?

[Rik Andino]

I dunno about a Moviscope (you should just telecine S16 anyways)

But you can modify and Auricon to S16...and it'll work fine

 

Is it worth it? That's the question...probably not.

 

Something like a CP16 or an Eclair you might be better off modifying.

 

Or F**K IT! Just buy an SR or LTR! ;)

[Matt Pacini]

I'd love to convert my CP16R to S16, but it costs more than I paid for the camera!

 

MP

[Guest Y.M.Poursohi]

"But you can modify and Auricon to S16...and it'll work fine

Is it worth it? That's the question...probably not.

Something like a CP16 or an Eclair you might be better off modifying.

Or F**K IT! Just buy an SR or LTR! "

 

That is what I have been wondering myself. It seems that the price for the conversion of an older reg16 camera might be equal or a tad below a native super16. After much research I found out that the Eclair ACL II is probably the best candidate(among NPR, 16BL,bolex,CPR). An ACL II body with a pare of mags, the good 8-75 fps motos, and the the Kinoptic VF and a couple of batteries in GOOD condition is going to be at least $4000. I am not talking a basket on ebay, but one in decent shape with the basics(2 mags, Kinoptic VF, HD motor). Then add the prefered S16 HD144 kit and the cost of the installation and modification of the mags and quieting the motor, that'll be at least another $1500. Add in a mount adaoptor PL or Bayonet, rods, mattebox, and the base plate which you'll need; that is another $1000.

 

4000+1500+1000= $6500

 

So the number above you'll have a basic pkg with no tap, no S16 lens and no extra stuff(barney+300, FF+500 and up). That being said you'll have a nice S16 pkg at a price that is near used LTR54s. I know that they range in price but an LTR in a decent shape, 2mags, 2batts, rods and mattbox is not far above $6500. I am talking about one without a tap and other add ons.

 

Anyway I have been playing with numbers for a while and if I am so far off in figuers let me know.

 

Yousef

[Rik Andino]

Yeah you're about right with the ACL a good one in S16 will be close to 6K.

 

The thing is a good Aaton LTR7 (in S16) will be around 6K

But from what I've been hearing from Nathan Milford (from Abel Cine Tech)

An LTR7 might not be that much better than an ACL II

In fact I think the ACL II might be better.

(The ACL is lighter and can definitely do a higher fps rate than the LTR7)

 

& a good Aaton LTR54 or an early XTR will be between 10K and 15K

In that case the ACL will clearly be the most modest in price.

(Of course these cameras come with video tap, so without you can equal the price)

 

And an Arri SR1/2 are usually expensive from 10K and up depending on age.

And these ones might not even be S16...

However I've seen some deals on ebay

Arri SRs (1&2) going for under 5K which might be interesting...

Even if they aren't the best you can fix 'em and modify them for under 5K

And you've got yourself a solid S16 camera for an affordable price.

 

And the two reason the Arri SR1/2 are really good S16 cameras

Is because they're the most popular S16 cameras around

And they're the easiest to maintained,

Which is something that needs to be considered when buying a camera.

The ACL II is becoming harder and harder to maintain

(there's no real tech support for the camera since the company went under)

And any Aaton below an XTR is expensive to maintain.

 

So when you're doing the numbers you realize

Unless you're spending under 4K it's better to get a newer S16 camera

In the long run it'll be cheaper and worth it to just go with the better gear.

 

And on a personal note

The ACL II is still a decent camera to get if you want to modify to S16

I'd just see if I could get one under than 5K.

 

And if you only have a CP16R or another old R16 camera

And only have $2K then maybe you should get the modification...

Because a S16 camera will be more profitable than a R16 camera

Even a an unpopular one like the CP16R...

S16 is S16 and it's what people pay for...

 

Good Luck (Jesus this is a long thread)