Bengt Freden

Even if 85B is the correct filter for converting Tungsten 3400 K° stock to daylight 5500 K° (or in some cases, to even 'higher'/cooler light, up to 6000 K°), I think it makes good sense to use the 85A filter for the negative stocks. I very often see scans or video clips from negative stocks, that I personally think look too warm or brownish. A difference of 200 K° must be very easy to correct in post if you are deliberately color-grading your footage anyway. Furtermore, if there is a very slight difference in density between the two filters, negative stock will only benefit from getting a little bit more light. In fact, many experienced cinematographers recommend that you overexpose by 1/3 of a stop to get a slightly denser, richer and slightly more contrasty negative, with a grain structure that is 'tighter', especially in the shadows. Just as David says in his post above (200 ASA exposure for 7219 Vision3 500T with an 85B). If I am to shoot with Ektachrome reversal films, on the other hand, I would definately choose the 85B filter, as these films often are a bit blueish (especially in the shadows on a bright sunny day) - in fact, in the middle of the day (noon), Ektachrome might even benefit from further filtration (81 series gelatine filters 81, 81A, 81B, to 81EF). In the early morning or late in the evening, though, an 85A (or even an 85C filter) might be better. To determine this more exactly, the use of a color temperature meter (Minolta or Gossen) could be better than just guessing the values. Bengt F, photographer

David, If you are still looking for 120m/ 400' black daylight spools, there is actually one for sale on eBay at the moment, at $9.99: http://cgi.ebay.com/1-NEW-16mm-400-METAL-T...1QQcmdZViewItem Grab it while it´s there! Cheers, Bengt in Stockholm ;)

Hi Nick, Have you found an 85B 2x2" glass filter for your Kinoptik Tegea lens yet? I happen to have an old cemented (2 glasses) 85 2x2" filter from an ARRI ST bellows matte box that I bought about a year ago. I think the filter is made by KODAK Eastman in Rochester. If you are interested, send me a PM. Please note, though, that it is an 85 and not an 85B filter (the more common variant). Best, Bengt F

Hi Hunter, The newest test (200') seems slightly less sharp, especially on the edges and especially to the left side (the grass behind the golf ball, for example) - could that be partly due to the fact that you are working on a bigger aperture with 7201 stock and a polarizer, or could it be the scan? Perhaps I am being slightly 'picky' but I think I see a 'band' of lower resolution along each of the shorter frame lines (the edges to the left and right). In addition, the overall resolution and contour sharpness is not as good as in your first test (600'), in my opinion. Could it be the comparatively lower resolution of the image we are watching on Vimeo? Do you know who makes the Illumina prime lenses, by the way? And, do you now the reasons behind the slightly un-orthodox new 'curved' film gate in the Aaton A-Minima and why they decided to not have a pressure plate behind it? I have read that it has to do with steadiness and registration (which is reportedly unprecedented in this camera) but I don´t know how? Thanks again for sharing your fine test footage. Best regards, Bengt ;-)

Well, David, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_film It seems that there is some kind of consensus on the width of the Super16 camera gate being 12.52 mm, just as you mentioned in one of your posts. That´s a bit wider than the one I found. There may, of course be slight variations in the width of the camera gate from different manufacturers (Aaton, Eclair, ARRI, Ikonoskop A-CAM ...) but I believe that SMPTE has set up some kind of standard for this format, too? Could you clarify? Thanks. Bengt :-)

This link to film formats might be relevant to the ongoing discussion, although all measurements are in inches or tiny fractions thereof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_...ts#Film_formats David, I am beginning to be a bit uneasy about the width of the camera gate for Super16, in relation to what we have talked about. I have seen many different figures for this width. Do you know what the SMPTE standard is for the native camera area, in Metric mm please? Thanks. Bengt :-)

David, Thanks for including the link to the Panavision Depth of Field calculator. I went to the calculator, for a lens of 10mm focal length: I set the subject distance to 3 meters (say a person in a Mid Shot), the aperture to a pretty 'normal' value of f=2.8, and the format of choice to Super16 (HDTV-transmitted 1.78:1. Circle of Confusion 0.0005mm) I got a depth of field for this relatively wide lens (at 2.8) of 1.4 meters to infinity: http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/ref...lcFOVresult.asp That is a pretty good depth of field, even if the best resolving power is of course at 3 meters and slightly beyond. Best, Bengt

Thanks for the reply, David, One whole stop? WOW! Well, that´s a language I understand. I am sorry if I wandered a bit off-topic with my ranting about different formats and aspect ratios. Knowledge and Experience rules once again! However, the difference in depth of field between two relatively wide lenses, such as a 10 and 12mm, might not be that great, unless you are shooting at near full aperture or very close up. The difference would of course be more noticeable or significant if you switch to longer focal lenses or if you move close to a subject with an environment behind. And of course, if you are working at night with fast T1.3 lenses at full opening, this further exaggerates the difference. I just read in David Samuelson´s "Hands-On Manual for Cinematographers" (p. 217, 2nd ed.) that there are a number of factors that determine the depth of field, the most important being (in this case for LESS depth of field): • Longer focal lens • Larger lens aperture • Smaller acceptable Circle of Confusion (one of the posts in this thread were dealing with high-resolution lenses - my comment!) • Close plane of critical focus • LARGER FILM FORMAT - other factors are for example; the resolving power of the lens in use, the quality and luminance of the lighting (hard/softer contrast, brightly lit objects), the addition of diffusion or fog filters, and the resolution of the presentation system. In summary, I am inclined to accept now that there may be a slight depth of field difference between Std.16 and the WIDER Super16 format. However, I do not think that there is a difference with regard to Ultra16, because if the conversion is done to 1.78:1 standard, both formats could be inscribed in the same image circle and you would use the same lens - for example in the Canon Scoopic 16 MS camera, where the zoom lens is permanently mounted to the camera, and where you may switch from Std.16 to Ultra16 (in a converted or modified camera) and back on the same roll, depending on how you choose to scan or crop the native camera image. Best regards, Bengt

David, Thanks for your professional input - it is much appreciated. I will share my late night pencil scribblings from a week ago, when I tried to figure out the differences in various 16mm camera gate sizes and aspect ratios. The HDTV standard 1.78:1 or 16:9 is the most interesting to me, as I don´t do any work for big screens. These are just very basic and downright simple format comparisons, of ACTUAL camera gate measurements, where I have drawn in the cropped formats for 1.78:1/HDTV - be my guest if you want to make it even more academic or mathematic: I still don´t think that there are that big differences btw the Std.16 vs. the Ultra16 or even Super16 formats, with respect to depth of field, with comparable focal lengths (or even the same lenses). Cheers, Bengt F

Beautiful test footage, Hunter, It´s so liberating to see 'test' footage that isn´t just brick walls, test charts or other kinds of still lifes. The quality is absolutely stunning, right out into the far corners. There is a very enchanting, postive and flowing feeling to it. Even the lens flare is etherically beautiful on the backlighted close shot of your little kid - what a sweet kid, by the way. I also like very much the various camera angles and the obvious mobility and ease of mounting the camera almost anywhere in really tight situations. Thanks for sharing. What is the widest focal lens that you tested for this shoot, by the way? Cheers, Bengt F, photographer

Hi Bernie, Thanks for the figures on Ultra16. Ultra16, in my opinion, is a smart way to adopt film cameras to 16:9 TV. I have a question re the camera gate modification: If you machine out the sides of the camera gate to 11.66 mm width, does that still leave the film manufacturer´s edge identifications and edge coding intact? When do they start to interfere with the negative area? I should think that the height of the camera gate, by the way, in all cases would remain the same (about 7.5mm), as there is no machining done here? Another one: How many Ultra16 conversions have you done to date? Thanks, Bengt F, photographer

Re. differences in depth of field in Std.16 vs. Super16 or Ultra16: I should´t think that the difference in depth of field would be that great, if noticeable at all. Even if you do need slightly longer focal lenses for Super16 than for Std.16, the height of the frame/camera gate is still the same. The Super16 format is roughly 2mm wider on one side. For Ultra16, with the image width increase only in between the perforations (roughly 0.7mm on each side), there are many Std.16 lenses that would cover still this format, too. Which means that in Ultra16, you are using a wider image instead of the 'higher' image of Std.16. If you draw an image circle, this is quite obvious. Perhaps depth of field is very slightly shallower in Super16 compared to Std.16 but I doubt it would be noticeable up on the screen. I have checked the diagonal measurements for all three 16mm formats (the uncropped negative or camera gate area), and a 'normal' focal length for each of these formats would be roughly: Std.16 (ratio: 1.37:1): 12,5mm (which is the 'wide angle' setting on a Canon Scoopic zoom lens!) Ultra16 (ratio: 1.78:1): 13mm Super16 (ratio: 1.65:1): 15mm As a format comparison, the 'normal' focal length for Super8 is 7mm (vs. SuperDuper8/ MAX-8 where it is 7,5mm). So, going by this, there is a 2.5mm difference in focal lenth between Std.16 and Super16, but only 0.5mm between Std.16 and Ultra16. Going up or down in format size, to 35mm (or 65mm!) or Super8 is a different story, though. You would have noticeably shallower depth of field (selective focus) for 35mm and longer/deeper for Super8mm. Best regards, Bengt F, photographer

Hi Joe, If you need to have an expert´s eye on this, I can recommend sending the camera to Bjorn Andersson, at FILMKONSULT, in Stockholm, Sweden. He could re-collumate the delicate back-focus distance from the focal flange of the lens to the ground glass and the film gate, so they are exactly the same. At a wide angle setting (6mm) and full aperture (f=1.4 or 1.2?) and infinity focus, the correct focus tolerance is perhaps 1/100th of a millimeter. Furthermore, if you take the gel filters out (one clear and one 85A daylight filter), the C-mount of the camera body will have to be adjusted for the shorter focus, and the focal flange distance re-collumated. So, if you let Bjorn take a look at it, he will see if the filters are fogged or dirty, and you could save yourself doing this all over in the future. Bjorn, who has worked at Beaulieu in France, is regarded as THE most knowledgeable BEAULIEU technician there is anywhere in the world. Best regards, Bengt F, Stockholm ;)

Hi Damien, The exact same thing happened to me - I got an e-mail just the other day informing me that "it will take a long time to get the item from our supplier" and today I got a PayPal refund of $4.99. In Asia, it is a deadly sin to loose face in front of a customer . . . I think this might be some kind of evasive or easy-to-grab explanation for an error or a misprint in the listing. I searched the seller "DSLR Baby´s" web store in China and it seems that they have stopped selling this item, because I cannot find it now: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/dslrbaby_Step-...Q_sidZ802295041 Anyway, I just sent an e-mail this "June" in China and asked them if they could order it from their supplier. If this ring does exist (I am beginning to wonder if it does . . .), then I am prepared to wait a while for it. I told them so. It would be nice to have a really thin 52mm to 50mm step down ring for the Kowa lens, that doesn´t add so much to the distance between the lenses. I am sorry that I led you astray but I had no way of knowing that this would be the disappointing result. However, I will let you know if this ring can be found, from this supplier or from another. 'Til then, Take care, Bengt ;)

Beautiful footage, Alex, One of the best sequences I´ve seen in Super8 in a long, long time - not the dark, mushy, unsharp and wobbly hand-held sequences that somehow has become synonymous with amateur or pro-sumer Super8 filmmaking. Which is a pity, with so many good monopods, tripods & fluid heads, and low-priced stabilizing systems (like the FigRig) around. I was impressed by the brightness and vivid colors - has it bean tweaked or saturated in post a lot? It looks almost as though it was shot on negative stock because the shadows are so detailed. I noticed that you were scanning at 25 fps - are you going to add sync sound? Very, very nice. Could you tell us a bit more about the technocal aspects of the filming and the telecine? Thanks for sharing, Best, Bengt F ;)

Hi Damien, That´s great - we will try it out and post our experiences. I pray it will fit. There are options for larger filter threads, too: For those wanting to experiment with the Bell & Howell Kowa 2X lens and the Beaulieu- or Leicina Special-Schneider Optivaron 1.8/6-66mm, Beaulieu-Schneider 1.4/6-70mm or Angénieux T1.4/6-80mm zoom lenses, there is this 62mm step-down to Series VII adapter ring: http://cgi.ebay.com/Filter-adapter-Ring-62...Q2em118Q2el1247 For lenses of this large front filter thread, it will probably result in some 'tunneling' or edge cut-off at the wider focal length settings, but I know that 'super8man' Michael Nyberg has tried it on his Bell & Howell MS45, which has the same size - scroll down this page for the grey B&H camera. He uses the zoom between 15-20mm focal length for a 'tunnel-free' image: http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/super8_39.html Scope is the way to go! Cheers, Bengt F ;)

Hi all, I searched eBay.com for step-down rings and, guess what, I found this: http://cgi.ebay.com/black-52mm-to-50mm-52-...idZp1638Q2em124 A 52mm camera lens to 50mm filter thread black step-down metal (aluminium) ring, for $1.00 + shipping! I just bought one and there are over 80 of them left. Enough for everybody with a Kowa H-16/8-Z Prominar 70mm anamorphic lens . . . I cross my fingers and hope that this might be the right one - if this is the correct 0.75mm pitch thread on the inside, I can fit the Kowa H-16 Prominar (with the chrome barrel) to any of my manual Nikon F Nikkor AiS SLR still camera lenses, for which I have a C-mount adapter to the Beaulieu 4008 ZM II (or Beaulieu R-16). I am thinking that an 18mm, a 20mm, or a 24mm Nikkor wideangle lens might be just right, if there is no 'tunneling' in Super8mm. Stepping down from 52 to 49 and smaller, or up to 55 or 58 is a piece-of-cake and adds very little to the distance between the A-lens and camera lens. The Kowa will have to be supported by a lens bracket and rods, though, or else the C-mount in the Beaulieu will bend out of focus. Now, we´ll just have to see when the little ring arrives from Hong Kong . . . Cheers, Bengt F ;)

Hi Damien, This is interesting - I would be interested in stepping in on a joint order if you can find someone who is willing to make those adapter rings. I have recently bought a 46.5mm to Series VII adapter ring on eBay, which I will try to fit to the Angénieux 1.9/8-64mm zoom on the Beaulieu 4008 - it seems to be usable from around 15 - 17mm focal length and up. However, I must agree with Bernard that prime lenses probably are a much better start as they are simpler lens constructions and less prone to distorsion problems found in zooms, particularly at the wide end (barrel distorsion) and at the extreme telephoto end (pin-cushion distorsion). So, a Schneider-Leicina Macro-Cinegon 1:8/10mm would probably be ideal, also because it is so small in the front filter thread (39mm). I recently bought both the Kowa 16-H 2X (or 8-Z in Europe) with the unusual M50 back thread and also the Bell & Howell all-black Kowa 2X version (same 70mm lens), which apparently has a back thread of about the same thread as a Series VII adapter ring (about 54mm?). Michael Nyberg has some very interesting close-ups of his step- and rotating split-ring combos on his site - here is a Series VII to 52/52 to 62mm combo (©photo by the same): After a bit of web browsing on anamorphic lenses, I found some very interesting adapter rings at 'FFR-Film' in Idstein, Germany, for the Kowa 2X lens (and others, like the East German-made Rectimascope lens, which is larger), for example very sophisticated projector mounts, for both the Beaulieu 708 EL Stereo and the Elmo ST- or GS-1200 sound projectors. They look heavy-duty and sturdy enough. There is also an interesting CS barrel adapter for the Kowa 16-H/8-Z, for 52mm, 55mm, and 58mm lenses. They are expensive (at EUR 45,00) but they look really solid to me - web link: http://www.ffr-film.de/index.php?page=anam...amp;language=de Cheers from Stockholm, Bengt F ;)

Hi Paul, So, you got lucky, too? My 'new' Canon Sound Scoopic 200 SE is the apple of my eye at the moment. Very quiet, runs smoothly and seems to be quite rugged overall. I really like that it has a registration pin (like an ARRI) for the best image steadiness. But the light meter is not responding in the AUTO mode in my camera, so until I get that fixed I have to use my SPECTRA Professional meter, take separate readings and adjust the T aperture manually. My camera has a large external 12 volt lead-acid battery, which seems to be sufficient enough. One thing annoys me, though - it doesn´t have a thread for the cable release in the trigger as the later models (M/MS) do. I have to get this fixed as well, if I can find an experienced repair technician here in Stockholm, who has Scoopic parts. This is my camera: Re. 200 ft standard metal daylight spools or A-Minima plastic 200 ft daylight spools: I hot some empty A-Minima spools from a professional cine lab here in Stockholm. I tried one in the camera - I have no core adapters yet (I found one on eBay, though), so I made one from a black rubber plug. I put it on the camera´s small feed spindle and the A-Minima spool on top of it. It works just great but only on the feed side - on the take-up side, the somewhat larger spool touches the socket for the tripod thread at the bottom of the film chamber, and does not move. So, A-Minima spools are OK on the feed side, if you want to down-spool 400 ft core-loads to them in the darkroom. I dismantled the A-Minima spools (you just twist them apart) and made a slit in the center core with a fine Japanese saw - so now it will be easier to put the film onto the spool in the darkroom. The size of the A-Minima core is exactly the same as the standard small 400 ft plastic core (orange or white). This is my camera opened up with both 200 and 100 ft spools - by the way, I am going to use wide black Gaffer´s tape along the edges of the film chamber lid, when I have fresh unexposed film in the camera - you never know . . . : If you have a hard time finding 200 ft black metal daylight spools (with the small square hole), you may order them from Wittner Cinetec in Hamburg, Germany - their web site is excellent, just scroll down this page for the black 200 ft daylight spool: http://www.beaulieu.de/pages/16_azub2.php?rubr=16_azub2 However, with a bit of tenacity, I actually managed to find both two split reels (for re-spooling 400 ft film), a core adapter and some empty 200 ft metal daylight spools (with cans and black bags) on eBay.com, so I´m set to try both kinds of spools soon. Good luck with repair manuals - try eBay! Cheers, Bengt ;)

Hi Paul, Thank you for your thorough reply. This clears up many of the questions I had as to what happens in the far corners of the image, when the sides of the gate are machined out for Ultra16. So, 0.75mm is the max on each side if you want to keep the edge coding intact - that´s great, that means that there is almost 1.5mm of extra image area (compared to about 2mm in Super16). I suppose edge burning of the film can be avoided if you are experienced in the loading of your camera in complete darkness. Re. shadow vignetting; perhaps that can be adressed or corrected somewhat in post, if you really want to, in software like for example After Effects? I agree that shadow vignetting is more distracting to the eye that sharpness vignetting. I have been experimenting a little bit with a 77mm center filter on my Super8 Beaulieu 4008 in the telephoto end of the 6-66 zoom at near full opening, to see if this can be corrected. However, you loose a lot of light doing this, which requires a faster stock. Re. sharpness vignetting; it´s interesting to hear that this is more of an issue in the extreme telephoto end (75mm). I haven´t got any experience of working with this lens yet, but it seems incredibly sharp in the viewfinder. I have to make some tests myself on fine grained film at different focal lengths and apertures to find out what it looks like in the corners. Zoom lenses are obviously a compromise, and I they often tend to have sharpness issues somewhere in the range of focal lengths. Sorry about my bad English; what I actually meant was if you could see a more pronounced distorsion in the WIDER format of Ultra16 - that is, if the extra space accentuates or exaggerates some of the inherent optical issues in the zoom lens at certain focal lengths. In some lenses, the barrel or pin-cushion distorsion or curvature becomes more pronounced as you reach the outer limits of the lens circle. I think I have spotted a certain pin-cushion distorsion at the telephoto end and possibly barrel distorsion at the wider end. But this of course only becomes really obvious if you shoot a house, a fence, or something with straight lines along the edges of the format. I had a very friendly e-mail reply from Bernie, by the way. He couldn´t say for sure about the gate in my 200 SE camera without actually seeing it, so I am going to send him some very close photos of the gate from different angles, showing the registration pin and hole. This may clarify some issues but I might have to send it to him anyway, to be really sure whether a modification is possible or not. Thanks again, Bengt ;)

Hi Rolando, Thanks for your reply. Aha, the KOWA 2X lens - that is a big and heavy one, right? I was especially impressed that the horizon was perfectly straight even when you tilted the camera way down and the horizon was close to the upper edge. I look forward to seeing a test with the Scoopic very much. In the test with the video camera and the LA7200 Panasonic lens you see a certain curvature of straight lines (barrel distorsion) near the edges of the format, but then again, that might be the video camera lens. You have many creative approaches to filmmaking - it seems you have a complete film studio at your home. I also like the way you let your small kids learn about the magic of film, for example in 'The Little Projectionist'. Thanks again. Bengt ;)

Hey, Rolando, I had a look at the other YouTube clips. I was impressed with the anamoprhic (CinemaScope) video test: http://se.youtube.com/watch?v=GxkwEqHexVI&...feature=channel Did you do that one with the Panasonic 16:9 LA7200 lens, too? Did you try it with the Scoopic on 16mm film? I am interested because I have just bought a Scoopic. In case you did, was the resolution/sharpness good with this lens on the Canon zoom? !Muchas gracias! Bengt ;)

Paul, Re. the Ultra16 conversion and the registration pin gate in my Canon Sound Scoopic 200 SE: I took a really close look at the movement of the pin (with a lupe, and the camera moving slowly on film) and it is obvious that it is the slightly conical pin that actually holds the film in place rather than the pin engaging all four edges of the bottom hole next to the gate. There is, in fact, a good deal of space around the pin in that hole. So, I think it would be quite safe to say that even this camera model (the Sound Scoopic 200 SE) would be a good candidate for an in-between-the-perf-holes modification. If performed with great care, widening the camera gate (to the right) wouldn´t interfere with the pin movement at all. After all, the 0.7mm widening of Ultra16 isn´t much wider than half the perforation hole on the film, it is, in fact, less. Any further views or experiences on Ultra16 conversions? Best, Bengt ;)

Hi all, Have you noticed that this Ultra16 thread is the second-most viewed thread under the 16mm heading recently? This interest must account for something . . . I think we will see a lot of Ultra16 or similar between-the-perf gate modifications in the near future, as the struggling indie or documentary filmmaker´s answer to the costly Super16 format. It seems very simple and straightforward to me - shoot Regular 16mm or Ultra16, or both, for projection or HD telecine. You just have to think a bit when you are framing your image in the viewfinder, and know from previous chart testing and experience how much to add on the sides, to keep the format corners clear from matte boxes, French flags & eyebrows, microphones and glass filter rings. Bengt F, photographer Stockholm, Sweden

Hi Paul, I think that Ultra16 is the most interesting thing since DoP Rune Ericson invented Super16 in Sweden in 1969. I am, in fact, seriously considering an Ultra16 conversion for my Scoopic 200 SE. However, I need more info. I have been enlarging the Canon Scoopic image on your web site and drawn a lens circle and it is obvious that if the lens covers the Regular 16mm image, it also covers the narrower Ultra16 1.78:1 (HD telecine) image. This is, in my opinion, pretty amazing as it opens up a choice of lenses which you don´t have in Super16 and on top of this, there is no need to re-center the lens mount or the viewfinder image by 1mm. True, Super16, at 1.66:1, is a much larger format (probably also with a lot higher resolution in an ARRI SR3 Advanced precision gate with a Zeiss 'Ultra 16' prime lens) but the cost is quite another and, furthermore, when you compare the cropped 1.85:1 aspect ratio (for example for a 35mm DI 'blow-up'), the difference is not that significant. I have a couple of additional questions: 1. Did you machine out the absolute maximum of steel on both sides of the Scoopic gate/s, or did you want to preserve edge coding, etc, and just settled for 0.7mm on each side? In my Scoopic 200 SE model, the registration pin enters the lower perforation hole on right side in the camera gate (just below the camera gate when viewed in the camera), but it does so from the rear so there seems to be room for some machining above the hole which it enters, if you get my drift. If it is possible to machine out just a little bit more to each side, that would probably be useful as a maximum 'clean' native 1.85:1 format. Your view on this? Do you think it would be unwise to tamper with the registration pin hole? 2. It is apparent in the demo and in the Scoopic image that there is quite a bit of both pin-cushion and barrel distorsion at different focal lengths in the Canon 12,5 - 75mm zoom lens, at least at the close distances to the test chart - would you say that these line distorsions became more pronounced when photographed with the longer format? 3. Did you experience corner vignetting at infinity focus in the widest focal length (12,5mm), or at any other specific focal length? This is of major importance to know before attempting such a conversion, as the lens cannot be taken off the camera. Thank you. Best regards, Bengt :)