Oliver Gläser

Every piece of glass you put between the film and the sensor will reduce your sharpness. Any single pole dimmer from a home depot or the like, wired into your AC at or after your 'on' switch is a VARIAC and will eliminate the scan line. The vignetting is the result of both the lens on the projector and the light source you are using. I believe if you want the best quality possible, then you are approaching this in the wrong way. I would recommend looking at a 'Workprinter' (although there are many issues I have with them also) and you will be well on your way to better quality. Here is an example of super16 and ultra16mm material off of my Film scanner. I can tell you, I have compared the quality to that of the local labs (same footage scanned twice - once on a RANK and once by me) and the image is easily comparable. Newsreel Productions Super16mm scanning reel Good luck in your future endevours.

Rainmaker in Vancouver, I know for a fact has a Y-Front scanner. Also people have told me in the past that the BL can be converted to Super16mm with great difficulty, but it is possible. one more thing, I, a user and I suppose advocate of the benifits of Ultra16mm, have never suggested that the format is superior to S16mm but that it is simply a viable and cheaper alternative. That being said, if I thought it worth while and could afford to do so, I would not hesitate to spend the money on Recentering and widening my gate, buying new lenses and be done with it, because Super16mm is a much more widely accepted format and because of greater image size, superior... but since I don't have the tens of thousands of dollars to be able to afford this... and Ultra16mm has never let me down... I think I'll stick with Ultra 16 for the time being. Oliver Glaser

wow, so many 'know it alls' wasting so much time writing about stuff they really have no idea about. Just because some of them say it is so does not make it so... I am assuming that I am one of the "only one or two people on the planet" using this format and I have had great success with it. I work in Vancouver as a DOP on mostly Indie films. I have used this format with much success for several low budget features. I shoot in Ultra 16, (all my cameras have been converted without ever having an issue with the format) on my Eclair NPR and ACL cameras then process with Technicolor and transfer with Rainmaker to HDCAM and MiniDV, Offline the MiniDV, Online the HDCAM and then at some point the producers print from the HDCAM back to 35mm. My ground glass has markings on it so that I can judge where the image is cropped, and everything is cropped to 1.85:1 for the eventual blowup. We (the filmmakers that I have been working with) have found this an economical way to shoot for HD edit and eventual blowup. The fact is there are many great older camera's like my Eclair's (which I would prefer over anything but the latest Aatons or Sr-3's) that allow filmmakers to shoot film product (which is one of my goals - keeping film relevant under the advance of HD origination) on perfectly good cameras, with great glass, economically. My main production package has everything that a clairmont or panavision super16mm package has but costs the producer a whole lot less money. I have colour video taps, transmitters, filters, follow focus, mutlisync speed controllers and motors (tobin's on both cameras), superspeed primes .... and on and on. Any of you would be hard pressed and I think may even find it impossible to see the difference between my super16 (or any super16mm) footage and my Ultra16mm footage, which i have seemlessly cut together on several shows. And whats wrong with using a slightly older camera if it is well kept and in excellent condition, and it work as it should? It's the end product that matters and know one would know from what camera my footage came from unless I told them... which I proudly do! companies like Camera's Pro are now supporting it as an option, ( www.cameraspro.com/ultra16cameraspro.html ) and there is a US post house, i think TFG transfer that does Ultra16mm transfers. The more people do use the format the more it will become readily accepted. For a post house its as easy as machining a spare super16 gate to open up the .7 of a milimeter on the perf side of the frame. Given enough business and knowing that this will not affect their bigger clients, why would they not do this? anyway mark. Considering the camera that you have and that Super16mm is virtually out of the question for it, I think that a conversion to Ultra would suit the bill nicely. Goodluck and happy shooting. sincerely Oliver Glaser cinematographer

I have a 9.5 - 95mm lens, the second such that I have owned... It is been immaculately maintained and the glass is great. Both lenses have always been very very sharp and versitile. They focus closely, are very sharp, resolve colors nicely, are reasonably fast and are fairly contrasty... however, it all depends on how they have been maintained. Make sure to collimate the lens, but if the glass is clean and clear and you take care of it, you may find that you like its properties. Oliver Glaser

of course any 12 v DC battery wired correctly to your cables is fine. with 4 pin xlr that means 4 is positive and 1 negative.

do a test if you can... sounds like what you are after may be Bleach Bypass. The only way to know how to achieve what you want with the stock that you are using is simply to shoot that stock and get to know its characteristics. Check out bleach bypass though as it may give you a look that may suit what you are looking it, keep in mind that it is not perfectly predictable so always shoot tests... before every show... no matter how many times you have shot that particular stock before. Good luck Oliver Glaser

Hello there, My name is Oliver Glaser I am a DOP out of Vancouver Canada. A couple of years ago ( may have been three) I joined this forum and read about a very interesting idea that someone had been proposing at the time and had apparently tested called 'Ultra 16'. I was immediatly interested in the idea and researched it fully before finally converting several cameras to the format. I started with a Bolex M5, Machined the gate, shot some test rolls and transfered them. I found that just as described the format was ideally suited for shooting widescreen (1.85:1) aspect footage. Ultra 16mm is not intended for optical printing, it is however ideally suited for DI and digital blow up. For me the kicker came when shooting a feature film in Ireland shot partly on a ARRI SR3 Advanced in Super and my Eclair NPR's in Ultra and seeing that footage totally seemlessly cut together. As I have stated in previous posts on the subject time and time again, despite others reservations on the format... Ultra 16mm is a great format of those that have older cameras, lenses and are shooting with the intent to digitally blow up. It is also far far less expensive to modify your camera. I have modified all my cameras to shoot in this format and have always had fantastic results. the format has always worked great for me and after having shot over a dozen films on it ( long and short) I think that I have tested it as much as anyone could. like I said though this format is designed for Digital blowup. I shoot in Ultra, Transfer to HDCAM, offline a MiniDV timecode burnt in version, online the HDCAM and digitally blowup to 35mm. Just a note... regardless or super or Ultra, if you are going too 35mm as your end product, you are cropping regardless, the difference being that Ultra is designed for 1.85:1 transfer already. THe difference in image size is one of 3% of the finally cropped images. anyway, I think I have rambled on enough. I hope that this is of some use. I believe in my past posting on this subject I may have posted more techincal information. one last thing. if you have the money and it is feesable, convert to Super, it is the industry standard, however if this is not the case and you want to be able to shoot for theatrical blowup, give ultra a try, I think you'll find it a worthy alternative. Oliver Glaser

I love my eclairs!!! for more reasons that I can list I believe that they are the a filmakers camera. perfect for studio and location. THe NPR i prefer to the ACL and I have one of each. With Tobin Motors (My beat up old perfectone compact just died recently), Video taps ( mine is by AZ spectrum), Video transmitter, strengthend front iris mounts ( for the rods) arri follow focus, arri matte box. I use my NPR on a steadicam ( made by Basson steady in argentina) and on an amazing cartoni made Arri Gyro head (formerly belonging to stig Nygren, I think the spelling is right) and of course one of my favorite features... the variable shutter ( still not mastered in the SR3 to the same degree in my opinion) The ACL is great for the tiny size and convienience. but clearly made for a cinematographer. Thanks Oliver Glaser

Just a note. The ACL as is the NPR, are both capable of using A or B wind Film. The cameras take up the same way regardless and depending on your wind you will end up with a take up spool either emulsion in or emulsion out. Just a question for you john, when did Kodak stop making 200 foot daylight spools. I still have a couple of them in my ACL mags that I keep a tight hold on when the film goes to the lab. Is one still able to find them or only by luck? I suppose that one could concievably get A minima spools and then roll them over to 200 foot daylight spools for use in the mags. just a thought. Ordinarily I simply buy 400 footers and either myself or have the lab spool them down onto the spools and cores. If I do have them put on the large daylight spools then I simply take up to a core and never have a problem. anyway that's my two cents.... Ok maybe a little more. :D Oliver Glaser

One more thing about the K3. Great little MOS camera however I do not believe that there is a registration pin in them, and without one, your image will not be as steady as it needs be for compositing. Consider the strange look of one image moving, even if it is only slightly, while your plate (shot on video ) is rock steady. Just one more thing to consider. Hopefully the video route works out for you though. Oliver Glaser

get it tested and if the fog comes back to high (the lab will say N/G). This means that it is less sensitive and no good for printing, however if your intent is never to print and stay in the digital realm, then you might still be able to get away with overexposing it to compensate. Look and have the fog report explained to you, what the norms are and what your film is. I have used even older film given to me from people that was unrefridgerated yet uncracked and worked out great. Film that the lab said was N/G came out ok, if a little grainier. that being said there were also times when it was less than satisfactory to use. Short ends and recans are probably worse off then the rest. The only real way to know for certain is to get it snipped and fog tested and then to test it yourself by shooting and viewing some. Have fun. Hope it works out and you find a use for it. Sincerely Oliver Gläser

nope, just a tidbit though. a good friend of mine was the Stunt driver of the Blue mini in that film... Robin Webb... also on IMDB... thought I would share... LOL Oliver Gläser

I might suggest those chemical handwarmers that one can buy in hiking shops as a quick and easy, cheapo solution. They last a long time and if you have a camera barney you should be able to stick them up inside between it and the camera body, the same could be done in your battery belt or pouch... just and idea... Of course there are more technical, expensive and complicated solutions, but it seems to me that with a good supply of those little glove warmers your should be OK. have fun in the snow. Oliver Gläser

Congrats!! that was the camera that I was really hoping to get. Funny enough, I was offered that camera by (I think) the seller, saying that you backed out. I read your other post so I have no idea whats up. I hope you get it though. I wanted that camera just for the motor as a backup for my own. I have a highly modified NPR, converted to Ultra 16mm, Color AZ spectrum Video tap, Perfectone compact motor, Canon FD mount, aluminum iris rod support and 15mm rods, etc, etc, etc... I have used the camera to shoot several features and I love it. Other than with the motor ( the reason that I wanted yours ) I have had absolutly no problems at all. I now use it on a steadicam and continue to upgrade various parts as I go... Transmitter is next then FIZ. Good luck I hope you get the camera and happy shooting Oliver Gläser cinematographer

The NPRs gate is available, and is very easily removable by anyone who has a good working understanding of the NPR. Process comprises of removing several small screws, taking the Mag guides off and then simply (carefully) popping it off. just look at it carefully and think through the process logically Good luck Oliver Gläser

the idea looks very interesting. Perhaps if the stock were more readily made available as super16mm is then if could catch on. There does seem to be several very advanced parts of the refit that would make it harder to have done to most cameras as reasonably as *Ultra 16mm is to convert to. OLI OUT

the image area is just inside the keycode area being only .7mm wider on both sides of the regular 16mm frame. I have never had it interfere with and edge coding or had flare issues, scratching or anything else. its worked great for me. OLI OUT

take a look at the previous forum on Ultra. I would recommend it as a cheaper alternative. If you have a good machinest to mill the gate there should be no problem. The NPR is also very easy to replace the gate if the results are not to your liking. I have used the format for shorts and features all with the great results. Super is better, but Ultra is a great cheaper alternative. The advantage regarding framing is that Ultra is centered whereas super is offset. Use this and keep your current lenses. As noted it is designed for the DI enviroment. I have had 5 cameras including two NPR's Converted and all worked perfectly... just watch that the gate is clean, no burrs so there is no scratching. Hope it works out for you Peace Oli OUT

if you read over the posts you'd get it... why put it down. it seems very narrow minded to me. I admit its not for everyone, and super is superior in many ways...if you can afford it. for those who can't this is a great option. I say this because after many tests of camera, stock, lenses, processing and transfer I used the format to shoot a feature film to be released soon and there is no greater test than that for the format. It worked perfectly and as designed. Its really a niche type format... for some its great and for others Super would work better. I also have a High speed camera that is converted to Ultra that shoots over 3000FPS which I have used to great effect for several small projects. Due to the need for dual perf film there is no way to use reg 16 for this and achieve the same image area, and this footage cuts together perfectly with Super. As you say in the 80s there was problems until people caught on to Super16. Maybe it will take a few years for some people to really know and support Ultra...maybe never... doesn't mean it isn't viable. With some support it could do a lot for 16mm film making. Hope you re-examine the info with an open mind. Happy St. Patricks day. Oliver Gläser

I suppose for that price, you really can't lose, besides on bright days, depending on the stock that you are using, you'll be closing down past f16 anyway. get some ND filters for the front of the lens. and some sort of hood or mattebox. peace Oliver Gläser

Firstly, I would use 16mm over HD...so my order would be 35, 16, HD, DV...but thats just me. I think now with the flood of crap being produced on Video ( and no just because you can make a movie, doesn't mean you should make a movie) that shooting on film makes ones product stand out. Of course the investment being greater would warrant working harder to bring it to the screen, this in turn would mean (hopefully) better stories. I personally think 16mm is the way to go, and with Kodak putting out new stocks in this gauge, I suspect they do too. You should try some of their new 16mm Vision 2 stuff, it has made me personally question whether or not I will have to shoot 35mm! The stuff looks fantastic and blows up great for theatrical release. You ask if there are any problems in selling 16mm...I would say no, on the contrary. Distribuitors are more likely to look at your film (in my experience) if they know it was shot on film as opposed to video. I believe that many festivals still also prefer film prints to video for screenings. Besides that fact, film (well shot and lit ) in my opinion, looks better than video( HD or DV ) in almost every instance. If you can, get a decent camera, like an NPR, ACL, or CP16R and some nice glass and do go and shoot, you'll see what I mean. And once you see these new 16mm stocks it will become even more clear. Consider Ultra 16mm if Super16mm isn't in your budget. Take a look at the forum for more info on that. Happy shooting Oliver Gläser PS. I guess to be fair there is a lot of crap produced on film also... just better looking crap :D

Mr Pytlak, I was just wondering, with all the interest that is obviously being generated by Ultra 16mm, this forum being an example, having been read more than any other posts on the site, that Kodak realize the potential for, and support the format as a less expensive alternative for independent film makers with older gear to S16mm. It seems to me that if Kodak recognized some of the merits of this format that it would motivate more than just small post houses to alter the gates on their scanners for Ultra 16mm (a very small expense), making the format more viable and spurring on filmmakers to pick up their older camera gear, modify and shoot in the format. I could think of dozens of cinematographers in my area that have older Reg16 Cameras that don't seem worth or would be impossible to convert to Super16mm that would convert to Ultra. Support or at least official information would really not cost Kodak much if anything, and would, I believe, spur on an even greater number of filmmakers to shoot 16 rather than video. This would convert to more film being sold, and therefore kodak making more money. Just a thought. I have never had a single problem with the format on my Professionally converted (still under 100 dollars) Eclair NPR which has been used to shoot shorts and feature in this format. Just wanted to know what you thought. I suppose that this isn't all that different to the slow build up of support for super when it was first developed. I just ask that it be considered and the pros and cons of it looked at before dismissing it without a fair trial. Thanks for your time Oliver Gläser Cinematographer

also consider that many labs will process your camera test rolls (within Reason ) for free if you plan on using them for the rest of the show. so go buy a roll of film and definatly test the camera. Beyond that, you could also use this film to test the stock that you intend on shooting. Regardless of what I am shooting. No matter how many times I have shot a particular stock, I always shoot camera, and stock tests of what ever I am going to be shooting in order to, at the very least, re-acquaint me with the particular characteristics of a specific stocks. It seems to me that you might be able to use that extra experience before going off and shooting for keeps. Make cheap mistakes... Hope I've helped. Goodluck and happy shooting. Oliver Gläser By the way, Bolex's, seem to run forever. as long as you know how to load it properly and that it fires when its wound up and the trigger depressed then you can be almost certain that the camera is fine. Check the lenses. Also be aware that older Bolex's sometimes require dual perf film. Most likely your will be fine but check that as well. Peace

Schneider lenses are generally very nice. My experience with c -mount Scneiders is limited to 25 and 50mm lenses and they are beautiful on an H16SBM. Although 4.5 is slow, I assume that you will be using the lens mostly outdoors for your surf shots? If so it should be fine. Try it on your bolex and see what it looks like on the focuser. Also take a close look at the element of the lens before buying. Holding it up to a light source, turn the iris and focus and check for any dust particles or worse fungus or haze. Do this from both sides. consider that you will be using this lens outdoors mostly, in uncontrolled lighting situations. That means that if the lens is dirty, scratched or whatever then wheneve there is a backlight that hits the element, those imperfections will be lit up and will flare. I hope that I have been of some assistance. Oliver Gläser

thanks Mitch, thats kind of what I was figuring but I thought I'd get a second opinion. I appreciate your input, its put my mind at ease again. :D Oliver