Jump to content

Ultra 16 telecine?


Guest jeremy edge

Recommended Posts

Guest jeremy edge

Just curious,does anyone still transfer ultra 16mm or is it dead?

Tfgtransfer no longer does it.

 

I have a couple people that ae also curious about it.

 

Just thought I would ask...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeremy edge
You might try calling Glenn Shank at Video Post and Transfer in Dallas.  I know he was looking into getting a gate for one of their machines.  I don't know if they actually got it though.

 

VP&T web page.

 

Thanks!

i talked to glenn and he was all about it but not sure if they still have a gate though.He said its been some time since they had a request for it so he's checking on it.

 

moviestuff can do it with their work printers if it is reversal.

 

You know, everone seems down on this because its not standard but you know theres only one place in the country to get super 8 negative processed.that doesnt stop people and it doesnt stop dwayne's because when you are the only person who does a service you get ALL of that business.

 

i think ultra 16 could be a similar phenomenon.i would have no problem with establishing a relationship with one or 2 transfer houses that do go work at good prices and being limited because of the format.I'm betting some low budget filmakers would feel the same. But it seems everyone always dismisses this because "its not standard".Well, that doesnt mean it wont produce good results.

 

If we stuck with this way of thinking in the audio world,we would only have dolby digital and there would be no dts .But unfortunately there is no big company pushing for ultra 16s voice to be heard like dts stuck up for its format... so it could be dead permanetly,and that could be a shame. Especially since the camera modifications and modifictaions in telecine are fairly simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The trouble is that the only argument for Ultra-16 is when you have to buy cameras made over 30 years ago and adapt them to widescreen.

 

The majority of the professional 16mm market are using more modern cameras that are Super-16 or switchable to it.

 

So you're talking about a new format that caters to the poorest filmmakers, not to the average film production that can afford to rent a camera or buy something made in the past twenty years. We've had Super-16 since the early 1970's! So there is little incentive for the labs or film stock makers to support the Ultra-16 format; it's not a marketshare that is particularly attractive. Plus it's not equal in negative area to Super-16, but somewhere between Regular 16mm and Super-16 since you have to fit the wider frame under the sprockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...considering that the vast majority of low-budget 16mm projects are going to end up on 4:3 standard-def video (with letterbox bars, if "widescreen"), is anyone really going to notice a difference between cropped reg. 16 and Ultra-16 (or Super-16 for that matter)?

 

There's not much arguement if the project is for HD broadcast or 35 blow-up, but let's face it, how many low-budget 16mm projects go there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeremy edge
...considering that the vast majority of low-budget 16mm projects are going to end up on 4:3 standard-def video (with letterbox bars, if "widescreen"), is anyone really going to notice a difference between cropped reg. 16 and Ultra-16 (or Super-16 for that matter)?

 

There's not much arguement if the project is for HD broadcast or 35 blow-up, but let's face it, how many low-budget 16mm projects go there?

 

These arguments ,(and as im new to this board I still dont understand when you bring this up it turns into a vs argument with super 16)are very valid to those with tons of $.But there are TONS of filmakers who want to shoot in native widescreen who cant afford it.This should be a cropped 16mm vs ultra decision not a vs super 16.That is the big question.and if you could pay a local machinest to change your gate size for say $100 its more like"Why the hell not?" if you CAN get better results why not do it?

 

Now I'm into music video,others into short films.There's no question if you were going to make a 90 minute feature and you had a micro budjet 16mm would even be an option because you could'nt afford the film.If you could afford the film for it you wouldnt sweat the extra few thousand for a super 16 camera.

 

I think you guys missed the question though...what I wanted to know was if there was a few transfer houses that still had the equipment(gate etc.)to do it and who would do it for a nominal setup fee?

 

I don't really care if it gets worldwide acceptance or not.I just care about getting the best results for my projects done within my financial means.And if 2 years from now theres no one who still does it...so be it ,I bite the bullet and buy a super 16 or shoot straight 16.

 

You know mostly the poorest of filmakers use super 8 and there is a lot of revitalized attention from kodak(articles about it on their website etc.)and others.

I'm glad the people using super 8 werent so easily deterred from using something that was not a "professional standard"

 

Let me ask you guys something ,do you think you could tell a 35 mm blowup of a super 16 image from an ultra image done the same way? What if somebody releases something done in ultra that is remarkable.That hasnt happened yet probably because whenever someone has the plan on the table,people swoop in and scare them out of trying it.Would it really chaff your a#@ to know that some guys with cheap cameras could produce the same results that you paid thousands in equipment for? Maybe that's the fear that causes people to knee jerk in dismissal and sweep something like this under the rug as fast as they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what I'm trying to point out is that "native widescreen" is only a frame of mind, if you're ending up with a 4:3 letterboxed NTSC product.

 

Put 1:85 or 1:66 crop marks on your Std. 16mm ground glass, and boom, you're shooting widescreen.

 

I've shot miles of Super-16 and regular 16 that ended up just this way (4:3 letterboxed standard def) and the differences between the two are for the most part unnoticeable. I can only think of a few super-16 projects that actually required super-16 because they were being mastered to HD for HD broadcast or in one instance, a 35mm film-out. The rest could have been shot regular 16 and letterboxed.

 

My point being...in the world of low budget, what's the point of Ultra-16, if regular 16 does just as good, without the headaches induced by non-standard (and apparently unavailable) telecine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeremy edge
what I'm trying to point out is that "native widescreen" is only a frame of mind, if you're ending up with a 4:3 letterboxed NTSC product.

 

Put 1:85 or 1:66 crop marks on your Std. 16mm ground glass, and boom, you're shooting widescreen.

 

I've shot miles of Super-16 and regular 16 that ended up just this way (4:3 letterboxed standard def) and the differences between the two are for the most part unnoticeable. I can only think of a few super-16 projects that actually required super-16 because they were being mastered to HD for HD broadcast or in one instance, a 35mm film-out. The rest could have been shot regular 16 and letterboxed.

 

My point being...in the world of low budget, what's the point of Ultra-16, if regular 16 does just as good, without the headaches induced by non-standard (and apparently unavailable) telecine?

 

Thats my other option,but you do lose surface area of the film by cropping like that,plus you really gotta watch how you frame becuase you dont want to crop and cut someones head off! lol

 

now what ,if you're going to dvd and you want people to be able to watch it on a 480p set with a progressive scan player?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm not arguing against the format -- I'm just explaining why it's never going to catch on, not something that caters to the poorest of filmmakers.

 

Try to put yourself in some post house's shoes -- do they want to invest in tens of thousands of dollars to adapt existing equipment... just so they can bring in more business from poor indie filmmakers that will more than likely ask them to cut a deal on their regular prices because the filmmakers are strapped for cash?

 

It's a marketshare that they can take or leave for the most part. They'll support them only to a point where it isn't costing them extra.

 

Plus it is for such a modest gain in picture quality between R16 and S16. Just to breathe new life into really old cameras.

 

I'm sorry, but you make it sound like Super-16 cameras are only for rich people, like it's an all-or-nothing situation: your only choice is between a state-of-art Arri-SR3 and a spring-wound Bolex. There ARE people selling used Super-16 equipment, you know -- it's been around for decades now.

 

We have this argument a couple of times every year but the result is always the same -- the Ultra-16 format is going nowhere for the reasons I stated. And as each year passes, the chances of Ultra-16 catching on become even more remote.

 

I don't care one way or the other -- I don't own equipment and the costs of renting and posting Super-16 versus Regular 16mm are the same. I don't buy into the notion that the only way one can make a movie is to first purchase every piece of equipment you need. If I raised only $30,000, let's say, for a 16mm feature, the last thing I'd do is first invest several thousand dollars of that buying a low-end camera and some questionable but cheap lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeremy edge
I'm not arguing against the format -- I'm just explaining why it's never going to catch on, not something that caters to the poorest of filmmakers. 

 

Try to put yourself in some post house's shoes -- do they want to invest in tens of thousands of dollars to adapt existing equipment... just so they can bring in more business from poor indie filmmakers that will more than likely ask them to cut a deal on their regular prices because the filmmakers are strapped for cash? 

 

It's a marketshare that they can take or leave for the most part.  They'll support them only to a point where it isn't costing them extra.

 

Plus it is for such a modest gain in picture quality between R16 and S16.  Just to breathe new life into really old cameras.

 

I'm sorry, but you make it sound like Super-16 cameras are only for rich people, like it's an all-or-nothing situation: your only choice is between a state-of-art Arri-SR3 and a spring-wound Bolex.  There ARE people selling used Super-16 equipment, you know -- it's been around for decades now.

 

We have this argument a couple of times every year but the result is always the same -- the Ultra-16 format is going nowhere for the reasons I stated.  And as each year passes, the chances of Ultra-16 catching on become even more remote.

 

I don't care one way or the other -- I don't own equipment and the costs of renting and posting Super-16 versus Regular 16mm are the same.  I don't buy into the notion that the only way one can make a movie is to first purchase every piece of equipment you need.  If I raised only $30,000, let's say, for a 16mm feature, the last thing I'd do is first invest several thousand dollars of that buying a low-end camera and some questionable but cheap lenses.

 

You're right on many angles of course I'm not saying super 16 cameras are outrageously priced ,but they are out of reach for what I'm working on this summer. Especially if i wanted to have 2 cameras! for about 5 grand Visual products has a couple of nice camera packages for super 16 as well as i could maybe get a bolex ebm or sbm and get a conversion done and a nice lens for say around 3500 ish? But thats down the road. i havent seen much cheaper.The closest rental for me is 3 hrs away.

 

Right now i found one house that is interested .They've been wanting to try it out for some time now.they want me to send them a test reel and see how it looks.

i dont think its going to cost them a bunch of $ to setup.i may be wrong but they dont seem to think so either.

 

And yes i have yet another cheap camera for a second camera....a bell and howell filmo 70dr that I just scored that is pristine and has actually been recently lubricated and cleaned by the owner.And i also have an extra film gate for it. So i will file the new gate down and shoot some footage with it. we'll compare the ultra footage with a cropped 16 version of the same shots and see if we see a difference in grain and qaulity worth the trouble. If its marginal I'll put the original gate back in(or i might not even have to, to shoot standard again).

 

If it works out ,I'll post back the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeremy edge
One of the beauties of cropping reg16 for widescreen (again, talking telecine here) is that you have room to reframe up and down (unlike Super-16, or presumably Ultra16), so no worry about inadvertent haircuts!

 

Hmmm...you know this is something I've stressed over.

I dont have a telecine lab close to me....maybe 3 hours or more.if I send my rolls off to be done unsupervised I dont see how I could tell the lab to frame the image up or down wherever there is the least amount of cropping....that would require them to make an uncomfortable judgement call. Not to mention extra charges.So i would probably have to have them center the frame and hope i did my shots right.

 

The other option is to crop in post but if you ask me I think the increase in screendoor would be pretty obvious even on a dvd through a 480p display.

 

I've found a tremendous amount of people shoot footage on filmos and k3s with a widened gate and no recentering.If you ask me this is kind of a hard way to do things though. if my hand is forced though i may try it! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • 4 years later...

Seems a very old post.

 

Years passed, a few more Telecine Labs have popped in the scene. But all in USA.

 

I'm still in the looking for a Ultra 16 Telecine facility in Europe.

 

I have both Ultra and 16mm cameras.

But I'd stick to a native 1.85:1 instead of cropping. Honestly.

But that would be if its POSSIBLE. If not, cropping would be OK with a bit more grain.

 

I believe having the option to choose between regular and Ultra 16 would be nice.

In Europe, we still don't.

 

F

Edited by flavio filho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...