Chris Burke Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Is there such a lens that would be a 1.32xxxxxx:1 ratio for super 16 cameras? this would give an effective 2.35 image area and not waste any of the negative. Could be quite an alternative to shooting 35. $$$ Anyone ever heard of one? Could it be made? z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgencio Martinez Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 There is a canon 1.33 adapter for HD. I wonder if it could work with Super16 and if there would be problems with the post process to 35mm There are several products designed for mini-dv but quality could be a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 I don't think that post would be a problem. Especially if you were to go the DI route. Is this canon adapter new or old? Can I find it on there website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Mastrogiacomo Posted February 13, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 13, 2005 Is there such a lens that would be a 1.32xxxxxx:1 ratio for super 16 cameras? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Panavision has some anamorphic primes. See the January 2005 issue of Kodak's IN CAMERA for an article titled "Jolly Good Show". It's an article about two music promos that was shot in S16 anamorphic. John Mastrogiacomo Spectra Video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 13, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 13, 2005 The article states that they used E-serie Panavision anamorphics, which have a 2X compression. You can use 2X anamorphics on 16mm; it's just that with regular 16mm you end up with a 2.66 : 1 aspect ratio and with Super-16 (as with the project in the article), you get nearly 3.36 : 1. The article stated that they had to crop a quarter of the image to get it back to 2.40 : 1. The only non-2X anamorphic camera lenses were the 1.5X lenses for 8-perf 35mm Technirama and the 1.25X lenses for 5-perf 65mm Ultra Panavision. I have heard of a 1.5X anamorphic ISCO projector lens attachment being put on a Super-16 camera. The only 1.33X anamorphics I know of are the attachments used on DV cameras and Canon's 1.33X rear-mount extension tube for B4 video lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Pincus Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 (edited) Panavision has some anamorphic primes.See the January 2005 issue of Kodak's IN CAMERA for an article titled "Jolly Good Show". It's an article about two music promos that was shot in S16 anamorphic. John Mastrogiacomo Spectra Video <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is also a set of anamorphics designed for 16mm use by Joe Dunton. This was about a year ago, and also appeared in an article in Kodak's IN CAMERA. But I'm not sure if they were intended for Super 16 use - I don't recall their compression ratios. Saul. Edited February 13, 2005 by Saul Pincus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Oliver Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Hi; I did once see the lens David mentione, the 1.5x Isco (Iscorama :D ), Mounted infront of a Switar prime on a Bolex with some serious bracket holding it steady. I don't recall the exact set up but it looked heavy, I see them knocking around in the UK every now and then. Olly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot McPhie Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Here's a set up I'm working on - it's a Beaulieu R16 with a custom shoulder mount and a 16:9 anamorphic lense from a Panasonic DVX-100 -- I know it's not the best set up in the world but at my budget level I think it will be fine! We're going to run a video spit from the viewfinder to the small camcorder. There's some more info on the web page for the short film it is being used for and on this thread at Shooting 8mm We're going to shoot the film at the end of March start of April - and I will post some frame grabs as soon as I can. Scot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted February 13, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 13, 2005 Hi, I have no idea why anyone would go to the enormous expense of shooting film, only to do that to it. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot McPhie Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 (edited) Here's why - economics! I just can't afford more - here's a breakdown of what it's costing me: We're shooting about 1000 feet - which is short ends which I bought for 16.5 cents per foot (don't know where you are - if you're in the US that's probably about 9c US) - so that cost me $165 developing is about 36.3 cents a foot (about 23cents US) - which will cost $363 the camera mount cost $40 to make (about $27 US) the anamorphic lense is costing about $100 for 10 days hire (or $65 US) the telecine is going to cost about $300 (or $200 US) the cameras mine - so don't have to pay anything for that So for approximately $968 or US$645 I get to shoot 16mm anamorphic for 10 days - I don't think at that money anything else will beat it. I can't buy or hire a Super 16 or HD camera for that money for that time (and I wouldn't want HD anyway) and I don't want to work in the 4:3 frame of standard 16 so this is the best way to go. Of course the image quality won't be the same as S16 or if I could afford a better anamorphic lense - but I can't - so I think this is great! Like I said I'll post frame grabs in a month or two once we've shot it. Scot Edited February 13, 2005 by Scotness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted February 14, 2005 Author Share Posted February 14, 2005 I don't have the practical experience many of you do, but I ask, can a 1.33 anamorphic lens be made? Why not? I think it would make for a great experiment. would save on film cost as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 This is like saying "can't you make a car yourself? It would save lots of money!" Lens design is an incredibly difficult thing to do. Leave it to companies with crazy amounts of $$$$ for R&D. MP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted February 15, 2005 Author Share Posted February 15, 2005 How much R&D is needed? We all know that anamorphic lens work, so why not just grind one to 1.33:1? I truly think that if such a lens existed, the resulting image would be comparable to three perf 35, just a lot cheaper. thoughts?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 why not just grind one to 1.33:1?Lenses are not made by hand as this suggestion seems to think, but on machine tools that must be set up for specific results, and to designs that must take a whole heap of factors into consideration. Using Matt's car analogy - why not call Ford and ask them for a car that's exactly like a current model - but one foot shorter. "We know internal combustion engines work, no need to redesign it all, just make the car a different size". "Oh - and we're doing this to save money on extending the garage, so it mustn't cost any more than a current production model." I don't think so. Incidentally, on a practical note, if you shoot at anything other than a 2:1 squeeze, you will be more or less committed to the DI path to get to 35mm - while you might be happy to build your own rig, you will have difficulty finding a lab that will do a blow-up from your non-standard ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot McPhie Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 (edited) Matt and Dominic are right but it can actually be done with prisms not just ground lenses - check this thread for more - it's another discussion of this sbuject with links to tutorials etc - I guess the question is the quality - you'd want it to be perfect before you used it on anything significant Scot Edited February 16, 2005 by Scotness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 I am not saying "why not make a car". Yes, I reckonize that there must be a whole load of work that goes into making a lens. But just the same. To those who could or maybe should. They are already set up to make lens.Why not? 1.33:1 is not 2:1 so, I guess that optical prints could be made. If you already have an anamorphic format which Super 16 is, than it wouldn't be that much of a jump up to 2.35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2005 Contact prints could be made of a 1.33X squeezed image, but since scope projection lenses unsqueeze by 2X, you wouldn't end up with the correct image. You'd need to optically convert the image from a 1.33X squeeze to a 2X squeeze (by adding an additional 1.5X squeeze?) and it would be hard to find an optical house capable of that, so a digital conversion would be the easiest method. Super-16 is a film negative format that usually uses spherical lenses. It is not an anamorphic format generally, and since no one makes 1.33X cine lenses yet, you'd either have to use 2X anamorphic lenses and crop horizontally to achieve 2.40 or spherical lenses and crop vertically to achieve 2.40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now