Steven Davies Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I'm throwing ideas out because I'm interested in shooting 2.39 with standard 16mm film, which would thus require 2x Anamorphic Lenses with a 1.19 Frame on a standard 16mm strip, specifically this means fitting the largest 1.19:1 rectangle possible on 16mm, single perf or double, whichever gives more room efficiently without compromising steady feed. 1. Is it possible? 2. Who could manufacture such a film? 3. What would it cost? Thanks for reading this madness. -Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Mosness Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Hello, If you do a search on these forums, you'll find some more info on this, since people have wanted to shoot scope aspect ratio with 16mm before. But briefly I'll mention that the native aspect on standard 16mm is about 1.37. This is because the gate on the camera. There's no reason to try to manufacture a 1.19 gate on a camera, it wouldn't benefit you. Not all anamorpic lenses are 2x. There are 1.75x that would turn 1.37 to 2.43, and that's going to be the closest. This is assuming you're putting an anamorphic adaptor in front of a prime or zoom lens. There's another option right now, though, and that is starting with a super 16mm camera with a 1.67 gate plus 1.33x anamorphic lenses, then a tiny bit of cropping and voila, a scope aspect ratio. Hawk makes 1.33x lenses(expensive) Check the Letus adaptor for super 16 for under 2 grand. As far as far as "who could manufacture such a film", we're all using the same 16mm film. No one is going to make anything new for an experimental format. No need to reinvent the wheel. We've got single perf, and double perf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dorland Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If you don't have the budget for using Hawk anamorphics, you can always crop from a 2K scan of the 1.37, or preferably 1.66 frame. Not ideal, but it gets the job done. Â In this example I used 500T, but with 50D you could get a very respectable image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If you shoot with a regular 16mm camera which has a TV safe action area on the ground glass, using the side lines of the safe action area and the top & bottom lines of the projection aperture will yield a 1.17:1 frame. Â The difference between 1.19:1 & 1.17:1 is quibbling. Â ---LV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Davies Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 Thanks everyone, much more informed now. Gracias. All of your ideas are great but just two more crazy questions, and I'm sorry Phillip Mosness, but If I were to modify a 16mm gate to 1.19, then all that's required is the Anamorphic adapter, correct? And from there it's possible to scan then unsqueeze in computer or blow up to 35mm and project w/ Anamorphics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Davies Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 Also, to Dan Dorland, I found your scan of the 1.37 quite beautiful but no offense, I do want to use anamorphics to maximize coverage of the film in order to reduce grain. Brilliant idea, though and your results were very good. But I think I'll just go for the adapter to go in front of the lens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Mosness Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 As I mentioned before, there's no reason to try and modify a smaller gate for this idea. Any image that falls outside on the edges will just be cropped off during the transfer process to get the 2.39 aspect ratio. The unsqueezing will happen during the scan to digital. I think most post houses can do this Aslo, the wider a lens you use, the more likely you'll get vignetting since the anamorphic lens will be mounted in front of your main lens. If it's maximum coverage and grain reduction, i'd continue to suggest super 16 with a 1.33X adaptor like the one from Letus as a possible option, although I haven't seen any super 16 footage from this set up yet, just video. http://letusdirect.com/cart/letus-anamorphx-adapter.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Davies Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 The super 16 is then minmally cropped after anamorphosis, how would you frame with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 30, 2014 Premium Member Share Posted January 30, 2014 You'd have to do some math, take the aspect ratio of Super-16 and multiply the width by 1.3X (if using a 1.3X anamorphic like a PL-mount Hawk 1.3X or that Letus adaptor). Then compare that number to 2.39 : 1, if that's want you want to end up with, and figure out how much the Super-16 image needs to be trimmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Davies Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 Got it. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The crop, if using 1.3x is the same as the 16:9 frame lines. Between there and 1.85 gives you the scope ratio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.