Does anyone here have anything BAD to say about Ultra 16?

[Doug Palmer]

 

 

 

 

 

Dom, I want to finish my film in 2.35:1 and I feel that U16 would work better for this, because I would need to crop the top and bottom of S16 anyway.

 

The other thing is, I hear people don't finish in 35mm anymore. I heard cinemas are projecting digital files. That's a shame. But if that's true I don't have to worry about blowing up from U16 to 35mm if I ever make anything worth trying to distribute. ;-)

2.35:1 ratio I feel is probably better done on U16, and if possible use some of the extra space either side on the 16mm film strip. The problem being of course the wretched code numbers. What film stock were you thinking of using ? Obscure ones supposedly exist that don't carry code numbers (I don't mean the outer numbers for conforming, although they are far too big IMHO). Perhaps Kodak could be persuaded to supply films without the code numbers.

 

It's a shame that 35mm isn't shown more in cinemas. Though as you say, digital file will be cheaper. And then later maybe you could go back to the 16mm neg and go for 35mm.

[Samuel Berger]

 

What film stock were you thinking of using ?

.

Doug,

 

Unfortunately in 2017 (if you are reading this from the future I hope things have improved) the choices of color filmstock in 16mm are severely limited. You got 50D, 250D, 200T and 500T and that's it. I think Fuji stopped producing motion picture stock. I BELIEVE IN UNICORNS was Super 16 shot on expired Fuji stock but they were aiming for pushing the medium to the limits as an experiment.

 

I would like to see what Wittnerchrome reversal looks like in 16mm. There's a few samples online but they are ruined by improper compression.

 

But thank you for expressing your opinion on U16, I agree.

[Samuel Berger]

Re-reading David Mullen's posts. Yeah, never mind the anamorphic.

 

So now that I own a Techniscope camera I've had to really think this through and re-read my own old posts as well, since I can easily get caught up in a million different directions and get lost if I don't take notes.

 

My daughter's first grade teacher used to tell her, "start with the end in mind", and I have to say that's not a bad idea. I want to shoot features in 2.35:1.

 

With Ultra 16 I can fill in the gaps whenever needed, in my Techniscope films. This is because there will be places where I need to steal shots and that's harder to do with a mouse-eared camera that sounds like a blender (70 db at 3 feet away).

 

Nothing wrong with S16, in fact I had been thinking of getting a Super 16 camera like the Aaton XTR but I'm going to put that off. I need to concentrate on immediate goals, not on accumulating gear.

 

Also I have about 6 magazines for the Eclair NPR, at $325 each for conversion, that'd be a fortune to convert to S16. I'm better off with Ultra. And of course I don't own a single PL mount lens so it's time to start saving for that 25-250.