Solving the 16mm Ratio Dilemna on a Budget-Thoughts?

[Peter Gilabert]

Having a decent cond. CP-16R reg 16mm camera, I feel like these are my options for a wider aspect:

A) Go anamorphic. Pros: can always sell the lens if the camera dies, as Cp-16s can.

Cons: they cost twice what I paid for the camera, complicated, a headache, can I even put an SLR Magic Adapter on a -say Ang. 12-120? Maybe there's some cheap anamorphic 1.33 I don't know about?

B) go Ultra-16. I actually had the idea of buying a junky CP-16, removing the gate and filing it down myself to replace my current. If I over-file, just fix the framing in the editing program, worst case scenario, I put the old gate back in. It looks like two screws basically remove it, what could possibly go wrong? Heh.

C) shoot low Asa stock and re-frame later. Pros: the cheapest solution. Cons: I have a bunch of old stock I'd like to use, I bet it'll look too grainy.

Arrgghh, I just can't decide which solution is the most economical and/or the least headache- inducing. ?

Of course I could say screw it and stay 4:3, I just wonder how many projects in that ratio are ever taken seriously at all. (The idea is for an independent feature).

I know there are other solutions, (renting S16, etc) just wondering what others have experienced dealing in this area?

[Mark Dunn]

Option C) doesn't require you to buy anything. You just need some sort of viewfinder mask. With modern stocks you could always crop widescreen from standard ratio. I did it as a student 35 years ago with 7247- grain wasn't a huge problem even with that. We had a letterboxed print to 1.66. It does effectively make your wide angle a bit less wide for a given height of field of view.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Mark Dunn

[Peter Gilabert]

Good point Mark.

I was just worried it might look TOO grainy, especially with old stock. I'll test and see if I can live with it. Thanks.

[Tyler Purcell]

Big thing to think about is the 1.33X anamorphic lenses designed to give you 2.40:1 aspect ratio on S16, are cost prohibitive expensive. These aren't the 2x lenses designed for 35mm cameras, which you can get crazy good deals on if you look hard. If you're worried about budget, anamorphic should be thrown out.

 

Cropping the top and bottom changes the field of view and honestly, it just doesn't look good. I've done quite a few 2.40:1 aspect ratio productions shot with my blackmagic pocket camera which has the same frame size as S16 and identical field of view. It just doesn't look right, it looks nothing like the 1.66:1 frame. So cropping in my opinion isn't worth it either. Even if you shoot NEW stock, you're looking A LOT of your image.

 

Unfortunately, with super 16, the standard 1.67:1 aspect ratio is kinda what ya gotta run. There have been a few anamorphic S16 films as of recent and they are so bloody noisy, it's not even funny. If you cropped the frame top and bottom, you'd be blowing up the frame quite a bit and it would be MUCH more noisy. Plus you loose quite a bit of resolution in doing that. To keep the resolution high of the source material, I try to deliver stuff shot on S16 in the original 1.67:1 aspect ratio. I'd rather have bars on the sides -which shows the entire negative- then top and bottom because achieving that wider field of view is critical to the "cinematic" look. Some distributors refuse to accept anything but 1.85:1 or 2.40:1 which kinda sucks. I had one show bounce back because I delivered in 1.67:1, but they eventually caved in realizing that was the format.

 

In terms of Ultra 16, it's no different then cropping the top and bottom in post, you're loosing quite a bit of your frame. You could cut the gate on both sides, to use the physical limit and get maybe 1.70:1 out of it, but I don't expect anymore. Ultra 16 doesn't solve any problems.

 

So what are the solutions to this formatting issue?

 

- Change your mind... yea it's nice to have a wide screen look, but that look comes with high cost and if you're trying to save money shooting S16, you've gotta play the narrow gauge format game, rather then try to force the format to do something it really doesn't like to do.

 

- Shoot with 2 perf 35mm. You can get short ends for around the same price foot by foot of 16mm. Since you're in CA, getting a camera isn't too difficult either and the image quality will be much better. It's more like a Super 16 field of view, but 2.40:1 aspect ratio, which is pretty cool.

[Peter Gilabert]

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback Tyler, but I fear you missed my original point: I HAVE reg 16 NOW and just want 1:67 / 16:9 etc. in the first place.

Just trying to figure out a way of avoiding the expense of going super16, especially since I have a CP-16R.

I know 1.33 anamorphic takes 4:3 to 1:67:1 (or 16:9 Or whatever it is) or so, that's good enough for me,

My question revolves around: pursuing that, i.e.a good example of using a certain anamorphic adapter to take 4:3 to a wider more acceptable aspect.

Having trouble finding specific examples of people using certain lenses/adapters to do that., on a CP-16R. Like, has anyone successfully used as anamorphic system to make reg16 wider with 1.33 and for how much and was it worth it or one big headache? Specific examples anyone?

Guess I'll just keep researching.

My other idea, as stated earlier is to grab a broken CP-16, take the gate out, file it myself for ultra16, and put that on my CP-16R.

Or, as suggested earlier, just shoot reg and re-frame later- for 16:9 or so -which may look crappy as noted by you.

Believe me I'm not obsessed with any wide screen stuff, just trying to take my awesomely wonderful but sad- could die any second cool old camera out of the Reg16 Zone without pulling my hair out or going broke.

Happy Filmsgiving!

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't you'd see any real resolution improvement from using a anamorphic adaptor in front of your lens to avoid cropping 16mm to 16x9 (i.e. you might be counteracting the improvement from a larger negative by using a less sharp lens) -- you'd see a slight improvement in graininess from not enlarging the image as much, but you'd have to ask yourself if that's worth the trouble of shooting with an adaptor.

 

If you had a PL-mount camera, you could try renting some 1.3X Hawk anamorphics, but the cost might not be worth it.

 

Perhaps a gate filed to Ultra-16 would be the best compromise...

[Tyler Purcell]

Sorry Peter, I missed "reg" in your first sentence. Usually people who talk about ultra 16, anamorphic and cropping the top and bottom, are looking for 2.40:1. I apologize for my assumption.

 

Super 16 cameras are very inexpensive today. I bought my Aaton LTR/XTR hybrid for $1500 bux, one just sold for $750 on ebay, so pissed I missed it.

 

I'm not a fan of the CP16R, I've shot quite a few things with one, including a music documentary with lots of interview material. I lost quite a bit of material due to a backplate issue that came up on our "B" camera as well. The non-orientable viewfinder also killed us in tight spots. It's a good straight 16 camera for $500, but if you're going to shoot a serious project, it's far better to invest in something more worthy of it.

 

Obviously the other solution is to simply modify the gate like you suggested, but you'd really need to use S16 glass if you did that since a lot of the wider lenses barley cover the straight 16 gate at minimal focus. I had a nice set of straight 16 glass that I tried to use on my S16 Aaton and was actually pretty shocked how far off it was, wound up selling it all on ebay in exchange for S16 glass.

 

So it's kind of a catch 22... I have very successfully shot and delivered 1.33:1 shot straight 16 material in a 1.75:1 aspect ratio before. It's actually pretty common with older movies to simply crop the top and bottom to meet the "HD" standards of today. It doesn't look THAT bad honestly, you're only scraping off a tiny bit of the top and bottom... unlike the 1.67:1 to 2.40:1 that I thought you were trying to do earlier - whoops. :)

 

Ohh... I just remembered, my college thesis film was made this same way... we had double perf B&W stock, so we had to shoot straight 16. So this is a 1080p telecine of early 7279 Vision 500T stock and Tri-x B&W stock. I cropped the top and bottom (zoomed up the image in post) to create this 1080p video. Someday I'll go back to the original source material and scan it, but this is about how bad it will get...

 

[Giray Izcan]

I don't see any problem with cropping top and bottom to achieve 2:35 aspect ratio. I shoot on 4 perf s35 and crop top and bottom to 2:35 all the time without any weirdness or problems.

[Peter Gilabert]

Oh, I get it,

Anamorphic is stretching the ORIGINAL recorded 4:3 image, and ultra16 and super16 record MORE image in the first place...so simple yet so profound.

I knew that. I'll just be...leaving ..now (runs out- slams door)

[David Mullen ASC]

A 1.33X anamorphic lens would use the whole 1.33 negative area to achieve a 16x9 image without cropping. Super-16 is actually a wider area than Reg.16mm so it would still be a bigger negative area even if you used an anamorphic lens on 16mm to avoid cropping.

 

Ultra-16 is somewhere in between, it ends being a little bit shorter than Reg.16mm because the image area has to extend between the perfs, so you crop a little top & bottom but gain a little on the sides.

[Peter Gilabert]

Yes Tyler,

It actually looks pretty decent cropped like that, at least on my phone (and I bet acceptable on a bigger screen).

Now as to the question of using this older film I have, well I'll give it a try and do a test for graininess - 'cause the alternative- well I'm not sure if sitting with a dremel tool for hours and hours trying to file a gate down just so I can be pissed off about wide angle lenses vingetting is worth it.

I will try and watch your whole film when I have a little more time.

Cheers, Peter

[Tyler Purcell]

Just put the lenses you have on now and see where they vignette. If you don't see any edge of vignetting on the ground glass, then you're probably OK. But... that leaves the question, how are you going to match the ground glass to the ultra 16 gate?

[Peter Gilabert]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ie55xnk4w4r9w3d/File%20Nov%2026%2C%209%2038%2013%20PM.jpeg?dl=0

 

That's my ground glass view. I'll see how close my widest angle comes.

[Peter Gilabert]

Yes David,

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't really think it through as far as HOW a 1.33 anamorphic adapter on a reg 16mm gate gets a similar aspect as a super16 gate by itself.

Two different ways to get to 16:9 (approx.) but not looking like each other in the end.

And then there's the red-headed stepchild ultra16, just sitting there all lonely...

[Tyler Purcell]

That's my ground glass view. I'll see how close my widest angle comes.

Exactly. My straight 16 wide angle when focused close, would vignette in the ground glass, but not on the frame line. You'd see a tiny bit of edge distortion, but only at the corners, never on the flat sides of the frame.

 

The Angenieux straight 16 zooms were notorious for vignetting when at their widest, even when not focused close.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Peter, are you developing an idea for a feature length project, or are you just itching to shoot a feature? None of the ideas about the format or lens system are meaningful without reference to what the film is. If you don't have a developed idea then what about teaming up with a writer/director/artist who has a great idea...

[Peter Gilabert]

Gregg,

Yes I am the writer-director in question, and the present cinematographer out of necessity.

If you or anyone else is curious, it's a comedy/thriller about a terrible inventor called "Fear of Life" and I've shot a digital teaser:

It could be described as if Woody Allen had to write a Twilight Zone episode.

I would love to shoot it on film but may have to shoot digitally and use film for dream sequences, etc. We'll see- I'm drawing up budgets for both scenarios.

It's written and I'm investigating resources.

 

Really appreciate all the helpful feedback, too.

[Tyler Purcell]

Interesting teaser... having just wrapped my 3rd feature in 5 years, this is what I've learned.

 

I think you should spend as little money as you can. My suggestion is to shoot digitally in 2k or 4k (not 1080p), this gives potential buyers no technical excuse to avoid your product. Also, without some known star power and a subject with mass audience appeal, it's difficult to recoup investment. So you've gotta think about it never being bought and simply recouping through your own marketing and distribution methods. There are literally thousands of sub $50k features made a year, all vying for the same audience. Unfortunately the DVD/BluRay market is officially dead in this country. So sadly, the ways to recoup investment are dwindling fast.

 

If you're just going out and having fun with friends (which is totally awesome and well worth it) then do anything you want. But if you really wish to make an impact in this industry and get recognized for your work, there is a very strict formula to follow and lots of hoops to jump through.

[Bill DiPietra]

Getting back to one of your original options, 4:3 seems to be making a bit of a comeback - especially with independent features like Ida (2013) and Son of Saul (2015,) which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film, last year.

 

Also, have you done any short films? Or are you jumping right into a feature?...

[Peter Gilabert]

Yeah, I have considered 4:3 and haven't totally ruled it out. Yes I have made shorts. Thanks for all the ideas about proceeding!

Best, Peter

[J. Winfield Heckert]

Im just wrapping up my first S16mm feature. I'd recommend selling the CP-16 and the old film. Reason being you are going to spend at least $7500 to process and transfer 50 400ft rolls needed to shoot a low budget feature. do you really want to spend that money on old film that will give you inconsistent and unknown results and camera where you'll have to throw away half the image to get a 16:9 transfer?

 

Super16 cameras are really inexpensive these days you should be able to completely outfit one with some lenses and accessories for under $5000.

 

I recommend purchasing film from Frame24 in the UK. they have new 400ft stock from Kodak for about $100 US.

[Peter Gilabert]

Yes J. Winfield,

I'm not going to spend a lot of money on actors and locations only to have sketchy film running through a sketchy camera...

Hence my leaning towards saving film for just specialty dream sequences, unless my budget allows me to go full force on film as opposed to digital.

Best of luck with your S16 feature, feel free to share your experience.

[Philip Kral]

Peter, as coincidence would have it... I've done all three options....... on my own CP16. The only difference is mine is the original CP16A (with the dogleg lens) and not the CP16R.

 

The best anamorphic lens to use with the CP16 4:3 to get a 16:9 ratio would be to use the Panasonic Anamorphic LA7200 adapter. It's a 1.33x squeeze (it was originally intended for DV cameras to bridge the gap between the industry switching over the standard of 4:3 to 16:9) it is literally an adapter so there is no need to headache double focusing (as the case with projector lenses) and the adapter has a filter screw so you can screw it onto the lens....focus... then realign the adapter without rails. The best part was, the threads to the adapter just happened to be the 72mm threads that the Ang dogleg lens already has. The only real con was that there was a bit of focus vignette at the corners but nothing distracting, that and the housing was very cheaply made, there's no support from the company if you break it. Abelcine in NYC repaired and refurbished mine at one point.

 

I've compared footage taken with it to my Super16 footage, no one seems to notice much of a difference of quality with the exception of the anamorphic artifacts.

 

Later I sold the adapter and had the camera modified by Bernie to Ultra16. It's not a bad idea (especially since CP16s aren't easy to do a super16 conversion) 4 years ago, I did a really quick and dirty test comparing Ultra16 to regular and super16 here https://vimeo.com/49814371 now that I look back at it, it makes me cringe a little. In the end, I think it was a decent investment, I've since upgraded to Super16 and I use it as a B-cam from time to time. But personally I'd rather keep it in mind for the ratio it was intended for: 1.85, since it's so close to the 1.85 crop of Super16. I'm not totally sold on the idea that it's good for 16:9.

 

When Ultra16 and Super16 discussions ran rampant years ago, quite a few cinematographers on here would agree it's not a bad idea to shoot low ASA stock and just re frame. It's been said that if shot well enough, it can be mistaken for Super16 and even 35mm. I tried it many years ago, but my eyes where too inexperienced for me to tell you what i could compare it as, I just know it didn't become the grain storm I was afraid of.

 

I've played around with older film stocks however, I can only say that I wouldn't re framing with old stock. In fact, I can tell you personally that unless you can verify that it was all purchased around the same time and under the same conditions that you probably shouldn't try shooting it and matching it together at all. Unless of course, as you said, it's for a dream sequence or a scene with a viable reason for a visual shift in quality.

 

Bill makes a good point with 4:3 (if you think it fits with the films storyline somehow), I saw American Honey this year and couldn't help notice they got away with filming in 4:3 too.

[Peter Gilabert]

Sorry Peter, I missed "reg" in your first sentence. Usually people who talk about ultra 16, anamorphic and cropping the top and bottom, are looking for 2.40:1. I apologize for my assumption.

 

Super 16 cameras are very inexpensive today. I bought my Aaton LTR/XTR hybrid for $1500 bux, one just sold for $750 on ebay, so pissed I missed it.

 

I'm not a fan of the CP16R, I've shot quite a few things with one, including a music documentary with lots of interview material. I lost quite a bit of material due to a backplate issue that came up on our "B" camera as well. The non-orientable viewfinder also killed us in tight spots. It's a good straight 16 camera for $500, but if you're going to shoot a serious project, it's far better to invest in something more worthy of it.

 

Obviously the other solution is to simply modify the gate like you suggested, but you'd really need to use S16 glass if you did that since a lot of the wider lenses barley cover the straight 16 gate at minimal focus. I had a nice set of straight 16 glass that I tried to use on my S16 Aaton and was actually pretty shocked how far off it was, wound up selling it all on ebay in exchange for S16 glass.

 

So it's kind of a catch 22... I have very successfully shot and delivered 1.33:1 shot straight 16 material in a 1.75:1 aspect ratio before. It's actually pretty common with older movies to simply crop the top and bottom to meet the "HD" standards of today. It doesn't look THAT bad honestly, you're only scraping off a tiny bit of the top and bottom... unlike the 1.67:1 to 2.40:1 that I thought you were trying to do earlier - whoops. :)

 

Ohh... I just remembered, my college thesis film was made this same way... we had double perf B&W stock, so we had to shoot straight 16. So this is a 1080p telecine of early 7279 Vision 500T stock and Tri-x B&W stock. I cropped the top and bottom (zoomed up the image in post) to create this 1080p video. Someday I'll go back to the original source material and scan it, but this is about how bad it will get...

 

https://vimeo.com/71441272

[Peter Gilabert]

I enjoyed your thesis film, nice ending.

So was there a particular reason you shot in B&W and color? Was that part of the assignment?