Patrick Cooper Posted October 14, 2022 Share Posted October 14, 2022 (edited) For those on a small budget and can't afford a Super 16 camera or the cost of a S16 conversion, there is an alternative option that was suggested by a forum member here in the past. And that is to film on a slow speed stock like Kodak Vision 3 50D on regular 16mm and crop to 15:9 or 16:9 in post. Though thinking about this more, I can see a bit of a dilemma. Obviously, you would need a pretty high resolution scan to begin with and from what Ive heard, a 16mm 4k transfer is prohibitively expensive. So most folks would probably be going with a HD scan I would imagine. With your NLE software, you would have to "zoom" in a huge amount to go past those two black pillars on the sides of the picture to end up with a cropped, widescreen image. And by the time you've done that, you would have lost a ton of resolution, resulting in rather soft looking footage. When it comes to exporting, the only viable option would be to output standard definition footage. I don't suppose there would be another way of doing this and ending up with good quality footage at a minumum of HD resolution? Hmmm....I wonder if some kind of anamorphic lens attachment might be another option worth exploring. Edited October 14, 2022 by Patrick Cooper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom Jaeger Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Talk to Callum at Memorylab about 16mm 4K scans. I think he charges AUD$77 for 100 ft (which is less than USD $0.50/ft so cheaper than a lot of US labs), and less for bulk or students. He has a Scanstation, very good scanner. For a bit over a hundred bucks you could test your theories - get a HD scan and a 4K scan of the same 100’ roll, then crop down to 16:9 and see how they compare on whatever medium you’re using to sharing your films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted October 15, 2022 Premium Member Share Posted October 15, 2022 2 hours ago, Patrick Cooper said: For those on a small budget and can't afford a Super 16 camera or the cost of a S16 conversion, there is an alternative option that was suggested by a forum member here in the past. And that is to film on a slow speed stock like Kodak Vision 3 50D on regular 16mm and crop to 15:9 or 16:9 in post. Though thinking about this more, I can see a bit of a dilemma. Obviously, you would need a pretty high resolution scan to begin with and from what Ive heard, a 16mm 4k transfer is prohibitively expensive. So most folks would probably be going with a HD scan I would imagine. With your NLE software, you would have to "zoom" in a huge amount to go past those two black pillars on the sides of the picture to end up with a cropped, widescreen image. And by the time you've done that, you would have lost a ton of resolution, resulting in rather soft looking footage. When it comes to exporting, the only viable option would be to output standard definition footage. I don't suppose there would be another way of doing this and ending up with good quality footage at a minumum of HD resolution? Hmmm....I wonder if some kind of anamorphic lens attachment might be another option worth exploring. We crop Standard 16 to 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 all the time. We scan at 4000x3000 and then crop the top and bottom in post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted October 15, 2022 Premium Member Share Posted October 15, 2022 The cheapest solution is to forget about aspect ratios wider than 4:3 and make interesting films instead. Four to three is the most dynamic format there is, it suits movement best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 7 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said: Talk to Callum at Memorylab about 16mm 4K scans. I think he charges AUD$77 for 100 ft (which is less than USD $0.50/ft so cheaper than a lot of US labs), and less for bulk or students. He has a Scanstation, very good scanner. For a bit over a hundred bucks you could test your theories - get a HD scan and a 4K scan of the same 100’ roll, then crop down to 16:9 and see how they compare on whatever medium you’re using to sharing your films. Those prices seem very attractive for 4k scans. I guess he transfers negative films and can offer the option of colour grading? Currently, I don't own an operational 16mm camera (my K3 died some time ago.) And I don't know the whereabouts of the 16mm films that I have shot in the past. I do have some super 8 films that have been transferred to HD and 4k. I guess with one of the 4k scans, I could export a HD version and crop both the 4k and HD clips and compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: We crop Standard 16 to 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 all the time. We scan at 4000x3000 and then crop the top and bottom in post. Ah yes, that's the kind of resolution I would expect to be ideal for such cropping. I guess you export as HD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 4 hours ago, Simon Wyss said: The cheapest solution is to forget about aspect ratios wider than 4:3 and make interesting films instead. Four to three is the most dynamic format there is, it suits movement best. Good point! All of my film footage (super 8 and 16mm) has been shot in 4:3 and generally, I'm fine with that. However, if I want to use 16mm in a commercial manner, others may not be so keen on that particular aspect ratio. For example, I notice with contemporary TV content, 4:3 is pretty rare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 (edited) I tend to agree with Simon. With digital cinema AR is less and less relevant. You'll see documentaries with the archive left at 4:3. Much better that fake widescreen barbarously cropped. But it does suggest a period look nowadays. I think "Wycliffe" (1995-ish) was the first UK drama to be shot in 16:9, protected I think for the intermediate 14:9. If you can get to see some episodes it's an interesting study in how cinematographic grammar was changing to accommodate widescreen TV- sizes of closeups, etc. plus it's got Jack Shepherd in it. Edited October 15, 2022 by Mark Dunn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Palmer Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 I guess it all depends on what the project's about. 4:3 is ideal for anything that shows height or tallness (think IMAX). Or for fast cutting of faces etc. And on TV nowadays there seems more freedom of allowing different ratios within a show, whereas before they may have cropped the 4:3 footage. Or if widescreen is desired, I don't know if you've considered Ultra-16 as a cheaper alternative to S16 (usually easier to mod). So then you'd have 1.85:1 ratio. Possibly wider, without going anamorphic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giray Izcan Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Unfortunately, u16 really limits you in terms of post. You are bound to one or two labs that handle the format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giray Izcan Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Unfortunately, u16 really limits you in terms of post. You are bound to one or two labs that handle the format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted October 15, 2022 Site Sponsor Share Posted October 15, 2022 1 hour ago, Giray Izcan said: Unfortunately, u16 really limits you in terms of post. You are bound to one or two labs that handle the format. Just about any film processor can develop Ultra-16mm without damaging the area between the perfs, I don't think any lab worldwide is running a Sprocket drive film processor at this point. I also don't know of any lab which does not have a Scan Station and scanning U-16mm is a pretty basic framing setup on the Scan Station. We often do 16:9 or 1.1.85 cropped scans of Standard 16mm and as long as the lens is good and the exposure is right they can look really fantastic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giray Izcan Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Cool.. last time I dealt with u16 which is quite some time ago, it was only you guys and Cinelicious handling the format. Thanks for the update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted October 16, 2022 Premium Member Share Posted October 16, 2022 16 hours ago, Patrick Cooper said: Ah yes, that's the kind of resolution I would expect to be ideal for such cropping. I guess you export as HD? We scan full frame 4000x3000, no overscan, we scan so the original frame fills the digital file. Then we put it in a 4000x2466 timeline which is 1.66:1 (roughly) aspect ratio and edit/deliver in that format mostly. Reframing as we go along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Palmer Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 I mentioned earlier Regular 16 or 4:3 for faces... also ideal for any kind of closeups where too much space either side becomes merely a distraction. Hopefully that is recognised commercially also, and I think I've noticed recently some 4:3 content in TV ads. Thanks Robert for Ultra-16 scanning information. I wonder how far is possible either side. I managed to go out further (2:1 approx) without hitting the dreaded edge-markings, but only by going into the non-perf area that S16 would normally use. So I guess that wider ratio would scan OK? 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.