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

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)

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!

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.

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?

Hey Alain, This thread is really old, but I'd like to know, did you ever make the feature your were planning on with the ultra-16 converted CP-16R? Been toying with the idea of either ultra-16 or anamorphic. -Peter G.

I was going to try this out but bought on an Ang. 12-120 instead. Fits fine on my CP-16R but haven't attached any Pentax screw m42 lenses (don't own one) but I'm guessing it acts like an extender and makes an m42 lens macro. Might be fun to play around with, not trying to make some big profit, just got it from someone here and don't really need it anymore, ends in a few hrs on eBay if anyone wants to grab it: http://m.ebay.com/itm/Rare-M42-Pentax-Screw

For cheap and quiet sync sound cameras the discussion usually involves the Eclair ACL or NPR, the Arri 16BL and the CP-16R. With a lens these tend to run from $750- $1300 or so.. I think any of these will do, it just takes patience to find a seller on eBay with a kit in good running condition. They all have pros and cons. You get a lot of bang for your buck with a CP-16R but your lens choice is kind of limited and if the electronics dry up its over. With the Arri 16Bl you've got a blimped lens, possible headache. The Eclair ACL with the later strong motors have a lot of fans and good lens choices. I've seen packages for $900 or so. If you need super 16 then you'll have to be really lucky cause those seem to go around 1,300 or more. I went through the same thing as you, I really wanted an Eclair but ended up getting a CP-16R instead because of what was out there when I had a budget. Don't forget to check your local craigslist as well, it's less competition of buyers and you can really see the product. Sometimes the prices are better and no shipping costs. So it's mostly patience, timing than pouncing on a great deal when it's there. Good Luck!

Oops I see you have an SR3 in the post title!

Sounds like you've been syncing your H6 to whatever sound your digital camera captured up to this point. Use a slate and make sure it's legible and also say what take it is. I always record on "stereo" w/ my H4n. It'll be easier if your camera records crystal but if it's just a "wild" motor wind up like a k3, Scoopic, etc. , I'd think you can finagle the sync later as long as you don't have a bunch of extended monologues dialog-wise. If your camera is loud (Non crystal-sync) you're gonna have to put a heavy jacket or something around that sucker to shut him up. Experiment with zooming and distances, it can be done; welcome to the pain in the ass world of vintage! Try to test a lav mic if you can too. Do those tests and if you stay organized with your takes you should be OK.

I addressed that problem with my CP-16R here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=72367&do=findComment&comment=464244 Just only use the inching nob to test the clearance but you may be able to use them like I did.

This is basically an editing exercise, but it was fun to take (mostly) stock and try to make a story, albeit maybe not overwhelmingly original. Still, really fun...

I got a nice running CP-16R for $375 (still needs a lens!) you'd need to have a little luck, watch eBay like a hawk then hopefully you'd get something good (eclair, arri bl, cp16r) you'd need at least a zoom h1 to record, then sync w/ a clapper you might squeak by for around $700 but that's rock bottom and hopefully no complications

Theres a slightly over-looked film called "Boccaccio '70" made up of 4 short-ish Italian directed segments, notable for Sophia Loren in one and Fellini's contribution, which is hilarious. Listen to Nino Rota's score to find out all about Danny Elfman. Another often forgotten film is "L'Atalante" an otherwise ordinary French Love story set on a barge but directed so imaginatively, really hypnotic. I don't know if it's too obvious to mention "Citizen Kane", because to me it's like the Big Bang, a great place to start...

David, essentially, yes. I enjoy it because it mimics my Reg 16 camera I have. I know many people get a film camera than get obsessed with having a Super 16 aspect ratio and I won't argue against it, but I am embracing the complete black border 4:3 look.

Oops I meant Filmic Pro.

I have no idea, but it may interest you to know you can get a cheap app called Video Pro which will give you the option to record video in 4:3 aspect, which is pretty fun.

Tyler, I have at least 3200 ft of Super F Fuji 8652 (250 Tungsten) in my freezer. My problem is I need a decent wide to normal lens for my CP-16R in CP or Arri mount. If you have something like that I could maybe trade, or just do a sale, let me know if we could help each other somehow. Best, Peter

Oh, that's good. Yeah, believe it or not I taped it with strong clear tape just catching the edge of the lens. Whatever works, right? Good luck Peter

P.S. If any of this makes you uncomfortable, then you can always have it looked at by a pro. I had nothing to lose by trying and it worked out somehow.

Yeah you can only imagine what's going on inside exactly. I think if you unscrew that middle large element part you might get a better idea of what's going on. It doesn't look any longer than mine, the question is: can that tiny black collar around the last element be removed or filed down. I think you can safely find out either way by unscrewing the large part between the arri mount and the small last element. Let me know if I can help more Cheers Peter

Hmmm... Well I don't think you have anything to lose by removing the collar, assuming it's making your back element bigger. Does it look like it can come off? Is there even a collar? As you can see by my first photo, the whole rear element on a 10mm Schneider unscrews as well. I'd need to see a photo if it's drastically different, if you'd like my feedback. I didn't dare touch any part of the main lens BTW, on the advice of Jean-Louis. The main thing is to find a safe sensible way to get anything protruding -away from the shutter, as I'm sure you realize.

Gregg, Yes, it sure does. I have an Arri to CP adapter attached w/ grub screws. That sits on the lens, in the mount and as you focus towards infinity that back element rotates, moving just a tiny (say 1mm or less I guess) bit closer towards the shutter. With the original collar around the back element and the adapter all the way on, you can't even get the lens in the mount. After removing the collar, I got it on and- using my inching knob, could focus halfway to maybe 1.5'. I could feel that back element kissing the shutter. So I just kept filing away at the sort of hard yellow edge of that tiny lens on the back and boom! It was all I needed, If I ever have to do it again though I'll be patient and wait 'till I have a proper size tiny screwdriver for removing that back collar so I don't strip it!

Ok Jay, HOW TO FILE (AND NOT) DOWN A LENS WITH A BARELY TOO LONG BACK ELEMENT FOR A CP-16R (A Photo Essay with Pictures) With the filed (dremel) down 'collar' next to it that fell off after I tried removing it other nutty ways: [/url]"> http:// and with the type of file I used to just makes the edge of the lens shallower, just FILE AWAY for a couple hours and voila: [/url]">http:// and NOW an out of focus close up: [/url]">http://http://s566.photobucket.com/user/colinsick/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsuwctyzzp.jpeg.html'> Yeah, that's clear tape holding the edges on, it may look stupid but it works. I tried gluing and it was a disaster from off-gassing into the inner element, I actually broke the outer edges of one of the little lenses in there by drilling and, well somehow- 'cause I guess I only need the center of the lens- it's OK. Because there's such a HUGE DEMAND for filing down obscure wide angle lenses for CP-16R 16mm film cameras, I'm now available to file down and tape lenses for such users at the unbelievable low price of 99 CENTS + TAX. I take Discover and all Library Cards.

Great information Dom! I sure learned a lot by having and solving this problem, at many points i thought it was hopeless, but it's pretty exciting to have that sucker sit in there and focus. I've been aware that there was some type of 'jump' in serial numbers for the Schneider when the rear element gets smaller, I for some reason thought it was around #8,000,000 or so judging by all the photos I've seen on eBay.... Nevertheless, I can almost tell now from a photo whether a lens will clear the shutter for my Cp-16R- just by looking. It's so tricky 'cause all this is going on inside an area that you can't see at all. I suppose now I could just measure my new filed-down back element distance and ask any potential lens seller to check that it's the same or less before making any further lens purchases. So I can concentrate on actually making films.