A Modest Proposal...

[Guest Ian Marks]

Being the ?big plans, no budget? type, I?ve been looking into shooting Super-8 for transfer to video. I have access to 16mm equipment, but I'd like to do something on the cheap. Over the years I?ve seen a handful of short films shot on Super-8 Kodachrome by people who took great care to light and shoot properly and who had a high quality transfer done, and have been pretty impressed with the results. The availability of Super-8 negative stock from Pro8mm would seem to expand my options and allow me to circumvent Kodachrome?s contrast and latitude issues, although with the negative stocks one is forced to use Pro8mm for processing as well.

 

I live near Pro8mm in Burbank and picked up their demo DVD, and while I like the look of the Kodak Vision stocks, there is a definite problem with image steadiness. Literally everything on the Pro8mm demo DVD is unacceptably jittery. If this is supposed to represent the best image obtainable using Super-8 negative stock, there?s a real problem. After some research on the internet, it seems to me that the thickness of the Vision film may be the cause. Shooting Double Super-8 would seem to be an option (because the cameras have a "real" pressure plate), but then the film choices become severely limited. And of course DS8 cameras are less than plentiful.

 

Another issue I have with Super-8 is the 1.33:1 aspect ratio. I much prefer a 1:85 letterboxed look on video, but am loathe to crop out 26% of the Super-8 image area when it?s so small to begin with. Hi-def video also employs a wider aspect ratio.

 

I came up with the following idea, and I would like to invite comments (and please forgive me for being so long-winded). Please, folks, tell me if this is nutty idea or if it holds water?

 

What if one were to modify a clockwork reflex Bolex by reducing the dimensions of the gate horizontally by half? The pulldown stroke would be modified to advance the film by half its current distance, so that each frame would be the full width of the standard 16mm frame but half the regular height. The viewfinder could simply be masked to conform to the new format. This essentially would be a 16mm version of Techniscope, and would render a very wide frame with an aspect ratio of about 2.66:1. For lack of a better term, I?m calling this proposed format ?Extended 16? (?E16? for short?).

 

I know we normally think in terms of trying to increase picture area, rather than reduce it, but in this instance I?m looking for an improvement over the image quality of Super-8, while (hopefully) providing greater operating economy.

 

Using Pro8mm?s price sheet as a guide, I see that the cost of film stock and processing for Super-8 and Standard 16mm are roughly comparable (a 50-foot cartridge of Super-8 Vision 2 stock with processing is $35; a 100 foot roll of the same stock in 16mm is $40).

 

This is a ballpark comparison, of course, as the cost of 16mm film varies widely depending on the manufacturer and seller, but the point is that one can spend nearly as much shooting Super-8 negative stocks as shooting standard 16mm. For someone who has access to a 16mm camera, there is little financial incentive to shoot the smaller gauge.

 

However, by using the Extended 16 format one would literally double the running time of a roll of 16mm film. In other words, the cost of film stock and processing would be cut in half. A 100 foot roll of 16mm film would yield the equivalent of 200 feet of standard 16mm footage, and so on.

 

There are some other benefits to this approach as well: One would have to carry half as much film and reload half as often. With film traveling at half the usual speed, the camera should be dramatically quieter. (Bolex owners: try running your camera at 12 fps to see what I mean.) I suspect that the camera would run much longer on a single winding, too, assuming you weren't using an electric motor.

 

On top of the financial savings, there should also be an improvement in image quality over that obtained with Super-8. I need to sit down with a calculator and pen to work out the exact numbers, but from the looks of my (admittedly unscientific) napkin sketch, it looks like E16 would provide an increase in picture area of about 33% over Super-8 when both are cropped to 1.85:1. The added picture area to the left and right would also allow for significant repositioning of the picture during telecine or scanning to digital intermediate. One obvious obstacle to all of this working is that telecine and scanning machines would have to be adapted to the new format ? maybe someone with a deep understanding of telecine could comment on the feasibility of this.

 

To summarize, here are what I see as the advantages of this approach:

 

1. Improved registration over Super-8. No ?jitters? using negative stocks.

 

2. System compatibility with existing Bolex accessories.

 

3. True crystal sync capability (using accessory motors such as those from Tobin).

 

4. External magazines permit 22 minutes of continuous shooting at 24 fps.

 

5. Real ground glass focusing. No more squinting at an aerial image and guessing at depth of field.

 

6. Lens interchangeability - and a huge selection of compatible lenses.

 

7. Extended run times per film.

 

8. Use ANY 16mm stock ? Kodak, Fuji, Efke, Foma, whatever.

 

9. Process wherever you want.

 

10. Serviceability. Bolexes can be serviced worldwide (and are still made).

 

11. Modification to Extended 16 would probably be reversible.

 

And most importantly:

 

12. Improved picture quality due to larger usable image area.

 

13. Significantly lower film and processing cost.

 

Okay, end of idea. Any feedback?

[Guest jeremy edge]

"

3. True crystal sync capability (using accessory motors such as those from Tobin)."

 

You cut the image in half then the speed changes....therefore a new motor would be designed.

 

"4. External magazines permit 22 minutes of continuous shooting at 24 fps."

maybe

 

"9. Process wherever you want."

Good luck launching a new format ....many of us believe "ultra 16" was a great widescreen idea but trying to get people to do something not standard you're in for a battle.

 

"10. Serviceability. Bolexes can be serviced worldwide (and are still made)."

Well, doing exreme mods kinda limits your servicing options right?

 

"11. Modification to Extended 16 would probably be reversible."

maybe "

 

Honestly it sounds like this is kind of like the 2 perf idea for 35mm which is cool but in 16 not many people want to screw around with new formats as there is already super and standard 16. Most people shoot 8 for the "look" and why would you want to degrade 16 just to save a few bucks...I mean the extra qaulity will be worth it.

 

If you like widescreen check out sleepalways.ca

 

Mitch Perkins does some incredible stuff and his movie is quite good.

He widens the gate of super 8 cameras and does his own transfers.he did a camera for me and im getting ready to process some film form it this week.

 

Sounds like that might be the answer you are looking for.

And I do believe kodak has come out with some new stocks so you are not limited to "PRO8" stocks. check out the super 8 section on kodak.com

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/f....4.10.4.4&lc=en

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Check out this discussion:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=2959

 

scroll down to read my post w pics

Edited March 15, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Guest Ian Marks]

"3. True crystal sync capability (using accessory motors such as those from Tobin)."

 

You cut the image in half then the speed changes....therefore a new motor would be designed.

 

- If the camera used for the modification were, say, a Rex 4, I don't think this would be a problem. I think you can use the Tobin motors on the 1:1 shaft of either the 8mm or 16mm version of this camera interchangeably. The gearing inside each camera is different, to provide for either a 16mm pulldown stroke or an 8mm pulldown stroke.

 

"4. External magazines permit 22 minutes of continuous shooting at 24 fps."

 

maybe

 

- What do you mean, "maybe?"

 

"9. Process wherever you want."

 

Good luck launching a new format ....many of us believe "ultra 16" was a great widescreen idea but trying to get people to do something not standard you're in for a battle.

 

- I also think that Ultra 16 is a great idea. But why couldn't you have Extended 16 processed at any lab?

 

"10. Serviceability. Bolexes can be serviced worldwide (and are still made)."

 

Well, doing exreme mods kinda limits your servicing options right?

 

- Part of what I like about the Extended 16 idea is that the modifications aren't that radical. The lens mount does not need to be recentered from standard 16 and the viewfinder optics do not need to be widened. Both are simply masked. The camera would be 90% stock, and I believe that most of the mods would involve drawing from the 8mm Bolex parts bin to achieve the 8mm pulldown stroke.

 

"11. Modification to Extended 16 would probably be reversible."

 

maybe

 

This would have to be determined. If you start with a $750 camera, possibly a $500 modification, and then save a few thousand dollars in film stock and processing over the course of several projects, then maybe an irreversible modification isn't such a bad thing. One can buy another unmodified Bolex body, after all.

 

George S. - I find it very validating that you proposed essentially the same idea because I've read your posts and respect opinions. By starting with a 16mm camera, one would not have to recenter the lens mount, and would not have issues with trying to widen the viewfinder's image.

 

I whipped up a pair of little graphics to illustrate the "extractable" images from Extended 16. I'm going to try to attach them to this message. BTW, I it looks like 1.85 extracted from Extended 16 would provide a more than 45% picture area than 1.85 extracted from Super-8. I think this is close to the increase in picture area when going from Standard 16 to Super 16, and this may be a good indication of the degree of improvement obtainable when moving from Super-8 to Extended 16.

 

The biggest issue that I see with this idea is the lack of support - I don't really care about projectors and the like, as I'm thinking strictly in terms of telecine or digital scan from camera negative. As far as telecine goes, since the film would advance precisely half as far with each frame as with standard 16, this doesn't seem like it would be an insurmountable engineering challenge.

 

Finally, this is just an idea I'm kicking around. I do have a Rex 4 that I'm considering having modified in this way, if I can determine that it's feasible and affordable, but again, I'm interested in what other people have to say.

[Patrick Neary]

>As far as telecine goes, since the film would advance precisely half as far with each frame as with standard 16, this doesn't seem like it would be an insurmountable engineering challenge.<

 

It's not an engineering challenge, it's an economic challenge.

 

Probably everything about this scheme would have to be home-brewed (except processing, but you could do that too, while you're at it.)

 

It's kind of a fun idea though.

 

What if you just masked the gate of a regular-16 double perf (oops, does kodak even make double perf anymore?) and ran the film through twice, flop the roll just like regular-8? That would be easy to crop in telecine, you just re-mount the roll after "side-1" and run it through again, same crop...i think... hmmmmmmm. maybe worth trying out...

heyyyyyy, that just might work....somebody else go give it a shot! ;)

[Patrick Neary]

and as further proof of how easily distracted I am today, Kodak does still sell double perf 16mm, and your new frame size would be .404x.147 (with an .0005 allowance for frame line between the two new frames.)

 

call it "mini-scope" and please send all royalty checks to my PO box.

 

:)

[John Pytlak RIP]

It's always best to use production methods that follow well established standards (SMPTE), and have the infrastructure within the industry to allow a choice of vendors. For example, most labs offer a full menu of Super-16 post production services, and there's lots of experience handling the format and competition for your work. With a "niche" or non-standard format, the choices are fewer. Just because you have an old camera you can modify to a custom format doesn't mean that is the best or least expensive way of making a movie. :rolleyes:

[Guest Ian Marks]

"Mini-Scope".... hmmm. Pretty catchy.

 

Mr. Pytlak makes a valid point, of course, but it's interesting that he used Super-16 as a point of reference. Wasn't there a time when Super-16 was the "non-standard" format? I seem to remember that people were discouraged from shooting it because of the paucity of Super-16 flatbed editing consoles, interlock projectors, and other postproduction stuff. Now that so much can be done in the digital realm, those concerns seem pretty quaint.

[Patrick Neary]

that would be the beauty of "floppy-16" tm (i'll keep trying)

 

You're using all of the well-established 16mm infrastructure. You just need to mask your gate (or have a new one milled) and add a frameline to the viewfinder. And remember to flop the roll of film after running it through once. And you'll have to bear the giggles of your telecine colorist.

 

and yes, when Rune Ericson invented super-16, there was no infrastructure to deal with it. correct me though if I'm wrong on that.

[John Pytlak RIP]

The Super-16 revolution took years to become established worldwide, but the advantages for widescreen production were significant, especially with regard to image QUALITY. Rune Erickson developed the system for his market, and the world took note. Unfortunately, many new formats never go beyond "niche" or "Mayfly" status, or "One Shot Wonders":

 

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/mayflies.htm

[Patrick Neary]

oh, no question, this is a mayfly! (thanks for the very entertaining link!)

 

Probably invoking Super-16 into this equation is a mistake. As Mr. Pytlak points out, S-16 was striving for a better quality than regular 16, where it seems like someone would be interested in pursuing "Tiny-O-Vision" (I'm still trying) for reasons either aesthetic, economic (maybe it would be cheaper than shooting super8, maybe not) or just for the DIY fun of playing with an odd format.

[Guest Ian Marks]

Patrick's "floppy" take on the Extended 16 idea is really ingenious - correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that eliminate the need to modify the camera's advance mechanism? It just becomes a gate and viewfinder issue. This would mean that scads of cameras that don't lend themselves to Super 16 conversion (think Arri S - rock steady mechanism, easily accessed groundglass) could find new life shooting "Giggle-Flop 16." And think of all the ancient Cine-Specials and K100s in attics everywhere. I wonder if this would really work? I suppose any frameline funkiness could be cropped out in transfer?

 

In reality this isn't like inventing an entirely new format, but just a way of economizing on film and processing. In terms of quality and overall cost, it falls somewhere between super-8 and 16 (and made possible, in part, by the advances in film technology). Its appeal would be to people who might otherwise be forced by budget constraints to shooting on Mini-DV.

[xoct]

Literally everything on the Pro8mm demo DVD is unacceptably jittery. If this is supposed to represent the best image obtainable using Super-8 negative stock, there?s a real problem. After some research on the internet, it seems to me that the thickness of the Vision film may be the cause.

 

 

Mr. Pytlak, is this accurate information? Is Kodak's Vision stock's thickness effecting its steadiness? I hadn't heard that.

[Guest Ian Marks]

I realized that the "Floppy" concept wouldn't work unless one used standard 8mm (16mm wide) stock because on standard 16mm film you can't offset the film (when doing the "flop" by one half of a standard 16mm frame - a sprocket hole issue.

 

I was examining the gate on my camera last night and marvelling at how small the standard 16mm frame is to begin with, and I started to think that maybe I was crazy to think about reducing it further.

 

On the steadiness issue, I've watched Pro8's latest DVD demo over and over and I'll say again that it's jittery. Several years ago I had a VHS demo from them that didn't suffer from this problem, but that was all reversal stock. I am very impressed with the sharpness and grain structure of the images on the DVD, however.

 

BTW, their prices on 100' spools of 16mm film (which they spool themselves) are very reasonable when you consider that processing is included.

[Patrick Neary]

I realized that the "Floppy" concept wouldn't work unless one used standard 8mm (16mm wide) stock because on standard 16mm film you can't offset the film (when doing the "flop" by one half of a standard 16mm frame - a sprocket hole issue.

 

I was examining the gate on my camera last night and marvelling at how small the standard 16mm frame is to begin with, and I started to think that maybe I was crazy to think about reducing it further.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, it would work just fine.

 

I probably just didn't explain it well. You use regular 16mm film, double perf. By masking the bottom half of the gate, you only expose the top half of the frame on the first pass. When you pull your take-up reel (now exposed) and move it to the feed position, the full frame is flipped upside down, so to speak, so now you are exposing what was the bottom (unexposed) half of the frame, but through the top half of the gate. When you look at the processed film, you would see two widescreen frames "upside down" to each other in the place of where the regular 4:3 full frame would normally be. The offset occurs when you flip the take-up reel to the feed position.

 

And yes, it would be a very small frame, but larger than Super-8, if you wanted 16:9 or wider. And you'd be shooting with a better camera, better movement, and should be able to use any modern telecine.

 

My only question is whether you could convince the telecine op to play along.

 

I think I smell a music video, shot in revolutionary new whatever-scope!

[John Pytlak RIP]

The Kodak VISION2 Films that Kodak supplies in Super-8 cartridges is the same film used for 16mm. I have not heard of any issues related to thickness.

 

Steadiness is very dependent on the camera and telecine used.

[Guest Ian Marks]

Ah, I get it. That would work, but the optical center of the lens (or lens axis, or whatever) would not be over the center of the frame that way. No coverage issues, of course, but if you were to zoom you'd get a slightly weird effect. On the other hand, maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal to offset the lens mount to recenter the lens - but then you're getting into a more extensive modification.

 

I think it would be better to mask the camera aperture top *and* bottom, so that the optical center would remain centered over the new frame. Lens performance would be maximized (important given the small size of the new frame). In order to "flop" the film for the second run and not have the second exposure go right on top of the first run, you'd need to reload the camera so that the film was offset from its original position by half the height of a standard 16mm frame - which where the standard 8 film comes in (double the number of sprocket holes, if I remember correctly). Unfortunately, you wouldn't have the same film stock choices with standard 8.

[Matt Pacini]

Literally everything on the Pro8mm demo DVD is unacceptably jittery....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have the Pro8mm DVD.

It's jittery, not because of some problem with the camera or film, it's jittery because it's the most ridiculously shaky hand held footage ever shot!

I think they're trying to cover up their bad transfers, and hide how really grainy the neg stocks are in Super 8 compared to Kodachrome.

 

It's shaky WAAAYYYY beyond trying to be "edgy" or whatever. I mean, it's almost impossible to watch, it's that stupid.

 

Matt Pacini

[xoct]

How would Mr. Pytlak compare the Pro8 stock to what Kodak has to offer in its Vision2 stocks in terms of quality?

[John Pytlak RIP]

How would Mr. Pytlak compare the Pro8 stock to what Kodak has to offer in its Vision2 stocks in terms of quality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I won't. Read what others have to say.