16mm + Anamorphic : What's the answer?

[Jay Young]

While I LOVE theoretical discussions (I have a degree in theory), I can save you a lot of trouble on my part by saying that I have decided to officially go with regular 16mm and a 2x anamorphic lens, giving me something in the neighborhood of 2.74:1, which I may "fix" digitally bringing it to 2.66:1 - I have to do more tests.

[John Sprung]

There is a thin thin strip of unexposed film on the side of super16 film that supports the film on the aperture plate -

 

Correct. This strip is 0.020" = 0.5mm wide. That's really cutting it close.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Mullen ASC]

Don't forget that film has keycode and edgecode info on one edge which limits the ability to use the full width of the negative.

[Chris Millar]

Don't forget that film has keycode and edgecode info on one edge which limits the ability to use the full width of the negative.

I think you hit claw before code - maybe claws don't scratch that much ? and/or certain claws don't slide on the base on the way up...

 

So one direction you've got a support limit and the other you've got edge code limit (or claw)...

 

So film with no code and a nice claw movement - you could go pretty wide huh

 

But once these limits are put in context with every other factor involved its all a bit theoretical as john suggests... that time of the year I guess ;)

Edited January 15, 2011 by Chris Millar

[John Sprung]

- maybe claws don't scratch that much ? and/or certain claws don't slide on the base on the way up...

 

Hardly any cameras have claws that slide on the film. The only one I know of for sure was the old Eclair CM-3, which had a ratchet claw on the emulsion side.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Millar]

Hardly any cameras have claws that slide on the film. The only one I know of for sure was the old Eclair CM-3, which had a ratchet claw on the emulsion side.

Aside from some early models - all H16 Bolex

 

getting off topic though huh :lol:

[Paul Korver]

I believe Panavision has a 1.33 or 1.4 anamorphic lens for S16mm that uses the entire S16mm neg. We did a DI recently that was shot in this format. I remember the producer saying it was a lot less than going with the Hawks.

 

And as for Ultra 16mm we work with it all the time. I have yet to see claw scratches... only scratches from if you use the wrong processors. But as David points out edgecode is issue... as well as having some negative area available to support the film as it passes through the gate. We now have the ability to scan U16mm at up to 4K resolution which is admittedly overkill for all but the finest grain S16mm but still pretty cool.

 

-Paul

[Chris Millar]

And as for Ultra 16mm we work with it all the time. I have yet to see claw scratches...

-Paul

I don't think it extends into that area ;)

[Vincent Sweeney]

http://www.vantagefilm.com/file/pdf/equipment_41.pdf

 

Hawk lenses link. (They need a wider one. Maybe a 9mm)

[Chris Burke]

http://www.vantagefilm.com/file/pdf/equipment_41.pdf

 

Hawk lenses link. (They need a wider one. Maybe a 9mm)

 

 

vincent,

 

did you see this test of these lenses on vimeo, a student short called posterest. there is thread on these boards about it. Anyway, they used an 18mm 1.3x and it looked quite wide. They have a 14mm 1.3x which would yield a little bit wider than an 11mm horizontal field of view

[Joseph Zizzo]

does anyone know who has these in LA?

 

thanks.

[jeroenvanderpoel]

One Hawk anamorphic (prime) lens with a squeeze factor of 1.3* will cost you for rental about 700 euro's (per day).

In europe there is only one rental station, its close to the boarders of tjechoslowakya.

They couldnt rent me 1 lens, because they wanted to rent the whole prime package. So it was to risky for them.

These lenses are 40.000 euro's per lens. And while (becides the aesthetics of the format) 16mm is a low budget format,

I guess these lenses will not become populair. Besides that, i think that a 1.3 squeeze factor is almost nothing, so you will have lack of a anamorphic look, and next to that shooting anamorphic on s16mm will limit you to only 1 particular lens package..

Another problem is that lovers of these wide angle lenses will be excluded.

So in the end I had to choose the 3perf 35mm format with a 2.35:1 ground glass, and i was very happy (while the shoot took place at night) that I was able to reframe in the post. Besides that, the shoot was done with one shot, on a 60m camera track, and was happening after the magic moment. Because the actors made some stupid **(obscenity removed)** up, i had to redo it for a third time, and had to push the film 2 stops..

I was happy with the result, because we were in a big need of a unpolished look..

Resolution has (in my opinion) much to do with grain, and the way you shoot (if you use close ups, it always looks to your brain less grainy, visa versa).Black swan was quiet impressive, It looked like they didnt over crank the film in terms of overexposion (to tighten up the grain). The lighting wasnt that contrasty, and they used speedy films.. So in my opinion: if you need resolution: Choose a film like 50d 100t or 200t, make use of zeiss ultra primes. And dont go to wide in terms of a shot(oh but i love a 9mm range lenses). And make use of a good scan (DI), and give your film (unless you dont like the bit more melancholic look) a bit more blue (tungsten film in daylight,or hmi lights, or tungsten with full ctb). Hope this make sense.... (35mm can look damm grainy as well)

[b k moorty]

low budget? want to save on neg COST, less tech. hurdles, no lab hurdles,

go for regular 16 with Anamorphic adaptors, shoot direct Anamorphic in 16mm,

go for regular blow-up, get Anamorphic/cinemascope print for theatrical release,

No D I required, save on D I cost also,

[Will Montgomery]

One Hawk anamorphic (prime) lens with a squeeze factor of 1.3* will cost you for rental about 700 euro's (per day).

Ouch. Somehow I bet there's not a ton of demand for them.

[Samuel Berger]

While I LOVE theoretical discussions (I have a degree in theory), I can save you a lot of trouble on my part by saying that I have decided to officially go with regular 16mm and a 2x anamorphic lens, giving me something in the neighborhood of 2.74:1, which I may "fix" digitally bringing it to 2.66:1 - I have to do more tests.

 

I'm kind of leaning that way myself. I just don't have any idea which adapter to get. My research has indicated that this would be the choice:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1195988-REG/slr_magic_slra50_1_33x_anamorphot_50_1_33x.html

 

However, the thread size is 62mm. My Angenieux zoom has a 72mm thread. I imagine this would severely impair the results.

 

I do have an adapter that allows me to use M42 screw mount still lenses on the C-mount. Maybe I could use the 50mm prime on there. But, I'm told that stacking adapters is a bad idea 100% of the time.

[Simon Wyss]

Regular 16 image aspect ratio is 4 to 3 or 1:1.333. No such thing as 1.37

 

ISO 359, projectable image area on 16 mm motion-picture prints, dimensions and location:

Image width 0.380 in

Image height 0.286 in*

 

*One thou was given as margin, 0.380"/0.285" equals 1.333.

[Jesse Solorzano]

On 1/14/2011 at 2:20 PM, Jay Young said:

While I LOVE theoretical discussions (I have a degree in theory), I can save you a lot of trouble on my part by saying that I have decided to officially go with regular 16mm and a 2x anamorphic lens, giving me something in the neighborhood of 2.74:1, which I may "fix" digitally bringing it to 2.66:1 - I have to do more tests.

Im about to attempt this myself.

Curious how your go with it turned out, and if you might have any tips for a newb?

[Robert Hart]

2x from a Ishico Proskar anamorphic projection lens with the original B and H lens projector adaptor remachined to 52mm 0.7mm filter thread is doable to some Nikon stills lenses or CP Ultra T* 25mm in standard 16mm - just. You have to remove one of the end stop screws in the Ishico lens to achieve infinity focus as they were set up for limited distance projection throws. The clarity is not anything to write home about. This clip was shot on a 4.6K camera with a Nikon lens. For 16mm film you want the image to be the sharpest and clearest it can possibly be. Homebrew solutions like projection lenses most likely will not work unless you desire a distinctly distressed look.

 

[Robert Hart]

Here is another clip with the Ishico lens to the sensor on a SI2K video camera which is very slightly smaller than a Super16mm film frame. You will observe slight corner vignettes which are not apparent when viewing through a standard 16mm film camera viewfinder.
 

 

 

[Mark Dunn]

The second one is much sharper- is it possible the anamporphic was off vertical on the first one, or your focus was off (second shot is much closer).

Your cat looks very concerned- had she just seen the first clip or something??

[Robert Hart]

The second one is to a 16mm film camera lens and near-to 16mm sized sensor so optically it was probably a better match. The anamorphic lens was in a closer couple with the prime lens as it was handheld in place than with the remachined B and H lens adaptor wich adds about 5mm separation.

I may examine making a sleeve mount which will enable a closer couple to the camera lens. this will also enable a more convenient orientation adustment. The Proskar anamorphic lens was designed for 50mm focal length projection lenses for 16mm so may have been a better match for the 16mm format. .

As for the cat, there were stray cats hanging around at the time so she was in a state of high tension. She was dangerous to be near when so stressed because she would freak out at the slightest movement nearby and rip into the nearest thing in sight which might be the foot or the leg if it was close handy. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Robert Hart

[Robert Hart]

For sake of experiment, I fitted a 1:33 anamorphic adaptor on front and a custom Laowa 1:33 rear anamorphic Nikon F-Mount to PL-Mount adaptor on the back of a Nikon stills lens to attempt a near-to 2X anamorphic effect. It appears to be doable ith lenses in the focal lengths 50mm and longer. With a 40mm there appears to be a corner vignette. The combination yields a crisper result than using a 2X anamorphic projection lens.  With a PL-Mount to PL-Mount rear anamorphic adaptor and a decent PL-Mount anamorphic lens on the front more realistic results than my Nikon experiment might be achieved in lieu of going the high cost of rental route.

[Raymond Zrike]

I’ll hopefully get a chance to try Laowa’s new set of small anamorphics soon. Seems like a pretty good match with super-16. They’re 1.5x, so that would yield an aspect ratio of 2.49, about as close to 2.39 as you can get. The set is a 27mm, 35mm, and 50mm which is a usable set of focal lengths for super-16, even if it lacks a wide.