Ultra 16 ?

[Stephen Williams]

The colorist I work with in Dallas has no problem with Ultra-16. They can see the entire film and then zoom and crop according to what is needed. Super 16, Ultra-16, Super-Duper 16 & Crazy-Wacky 16 are all supported (ok, I made the last 2 up).

 

She did say in general that Super 16 is slightly easier for her to work with but it really doesn't matter.

 

Their machine is called a "Y-Front" which I believe is a modified Rank Cintel machine.

 

Hi,

 

It is possible that a Y-Front or Millennium Telecine can handle it. There are very few Y-Fronts around.

 

 

Are you kidding? That is the most unfortunately named piece of hardware, ever.

 

 

At IBC a couple of years ago, they gave away underwear with the slogan 'The Passion for Y Fronts'. The front of their telecine was a 'Y' design!

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

Hi,

 

It is possible that a Y-Front or Millennium Telecine can handle it. There are very few Y-Fronts around.

 

Stephen

 

With the Millennium being the succesor to ITK Y-front that might be true but I don't know. (you could call DuArt and ask if their Y-front would handle this format).

 

-Sam

[Hal Smith]

Stephen,

 

Is optical letterboxing an added expense item, or just a matter of the lab putting the right gate in the optical printer? I'm a little concerned that MY letterbox as shot might not match theirs - where does one find the correct standard for letterboxed 16mm? I can imagine spending a bunch of extra $$$ in post because one has letterboxed camera negative that, when conformed, didn't match a lab's "one size fits all" letterbox gate.

Edited January 4, 2006 by Hal Smith

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen,

 

Is optical letterboxing an added expense item, or just a matter of the lab putting the right gate in the optical printer. I'm a little concerned that MY letterbox as shot might not match theirs - where does one find the correct standard for letterboxed 16mm? I can imagine spending a bunch of extra $$$ in post because one has letterboxed camera negative that, when conformed, didn't match a lab's "one size fits all" letterbox gate.

 

Hi,

 

Its just the gate mask, costs nothing. I can't remember the measurements off hand. Call your lab.

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

The problem for me is I want to make Films but Its expensive who knows when the creative process in me may become obsessional enough that I devote all my energy to this.. and what if at the end of it I have something really good? BUT You cant distribute it or do anything with it because it cant be Blown up to 35mm..OR The studio wont except anything less than super 16 or equivilent or some other reason holding it back..

 

I will never get the chances or breaks working in the Industry everything I do has to be done by me Im not one of lifes butt kissers and Im my own person If I make films it has to be my rules My vision and because I dont have the resources to do this Properly I have to count costs to me the Super conversion is a lot of dosh and the Ultra isnt.. The standard academy frame is a problem because its out of fashion..Other than that I think its as good as any format

 

It must be annoying to those that are financially above this.. Perhaps Film is only for those that have had success with it or part of the Establishment Perhaps My lack of finances make me an Irritant?

 

However one thing I know ULTRA would give me More Picture for little Money More Future proofed and better Quality EVEN if it was not Utilised and just an academy frame was taken the fact is its there in the wings..

 

An e-mail I had from the 8mm site told me they could telecine ULTRA16 it was a question of just pulling back on the Film a simple enough Procedure..

 

As for a gate to blow up to 35mm.. Bet one is made in the future..

 

 

I hate to back quote this much but....

 

Starting from the last, I wouldn't make that bet at all.

 

I totally sympathize with your position - but to my way of thinking, that's the LAST reason why you should get distracted by an anomalous format.

 

Yes "Post House A" or "Post House B" may be able to accomodate. But as an *Independent* who _must_ leverage resources, it really seems to me the last thing you want to do is lock yourself in to a FEW choices in your post path wether that be optical printing, telecine, or scanning (and you might reasonable want to keep ALL those options open for any given project, now or in the future).

 

You have to weigh the slight increase you'd get in neg area with "Ultra 16" against the following:

 

In reg 16 or S16 you can go anywhere. You can choose any telecine & colorist in the world.

I can tell you in no uncertain terms I'd take a state of the art machine/great colorist/smaller neg area over a larger neg area / unknown quantity colorist /old Cintel ANY day of the week.

 

Why not, as Stephen so reasonably suggests, make your camera / lens investments to optimise a standard format ? Best lenses, sharpest neg stocks. THAT will pay off and you don't have to ask anyone to reinvent the wheel.

 

-Sam

[Mark Williams]

35mm is 1.37:1 then you crop it to what you want, or shoot anamorphic.

 

1.66:1 can be obtained from reg 16! What is the problem?

 

Stephen

No problem By using Ultra you can now use a Super 16mm Gate at the telecine stage and get a 1:66:1 aspect ratio that increases your film area in the middle of Super 16 and standard My invention which I have named

 

"16PlusTM"

 

This will mean cropping less and achieving more width This means Potentially higher quality for transfer to HDV or Blow up to 35mm already the Paths are in use so a higher quality new format done and dusted

[Mark Williams]

No problem By using Ultra you can now use a Super 16mm Gate at the telecine stage and get a 1:66:1 aspect ratio that increases your film area in the middle of Super 16 and standard My invention which I have named

 

"16PlusTM"

 

This will mean cropping less and achieving more width This means Potentially higher quality for transfer to HDV or Blow up to 35mm already the Paths are in use so a higher quality new format done and dusted

The gate is machined out by .7mm on the same side as super 16mm This simple act means you will gain back the third of the Picture area you would lose from cropping standard 16mm This will mean you no longer have to sacrifice a Third of your picture.. A Third more Picture will make a difference to HDV and blow up to 35mm.. This working in conjuntion with better film stocks Is a fantastic opportunity to Upgrade a 16mm Camera for little Money!

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I was under the impression that ARRI made a 16mm ultra-scope lens, am i wrong?

 

YES.

In the 50s Arri made a series of Ultrascope lenses for 35mm. The shortest was 40mm. On the long side for 16mm work and quite large and heavy, though not as much as a Panavision Primo or an Arriscope from the 90s.

 

There was a 76-300mm zoom which uses a Som Berthiot Pan-Cinor. For 16mm use, if it wasn't on the soft side, it might be suitable for filming lions running down antelopes on the veldt.

 

There's one on eBay now, but otherwise hunting down older anamorphis is quite a chore. & pricey.

 

The shortest easily obtainable Soviet anamorphic is 35mm, still too long for general 16mm use and still big.

 

---LV

[Oliver Gläser]

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

[Oliver Gläser]

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

Edited January 4, 2006 by theDirector007

[John Pytlak RIP]

Do keep in mind that the film has latent image identification information like Kodak KeyKode printed along the edge. Standard SMPTE 271 specifies the position of that printed information, and it can nominally extend up to 0.292 + 1.334 = 1.626 millimeters from the edge of the film, plus an additional tolerance of up to 0.076 + 0.076 = 0.152 millimeters --- which means the latent image letters of KeyKode can reach up to 1.778 millimeters from the edge of the film, or almost halfway into the perforation area. The proposed image area of "Ultra-16" is very close to this exposed area.

 

When perforating film, the perforator shuttle and pilot pins are actively working in the perforation area, and likewise, the camera claw and pins are active in that area. And the root diameter of transport sprockets touch this area as they move the film. So there is a chance of scuffing between the perfs.

[Mark Williams]

Thanks Oliver its great to hear from someone working with it.. :) Your post was proof Ultra is do-able.. I got the feeling that you are on the front line, resourceful and Independant..

 

Have you had anything bad happen with Ultra?

 

Does anyone know how to remove the gate from an arri BL?

 

Do keep in mind that the film has latent image identification information like Kodak KeyKode printed along the edge. Standard SMPTE 271 specifies the position of that printed information, and it can nominally extend up to 0.292 + 1.334 = 1.626 millimeters from the edge of the film, plus an additional tolerance of up to 0.076 + 0.076 = 0.152 millimeters --- which means the latent image letters of KeyKode can reach up to 1.778 millimeters from the edge of the film, or almost halfway into the perforation area. The proposed image area of "Ultra-16" is very close to this exposed area.

 

When perforating film, the perforator shuttle and pilot pins are actively working in the perforation area, and likewise, the camera claw and pins are active in that area. And the root diameter of transport sprockets touch this area as they move the film. So there is a chance of scuffing between the perfs.

Hi John Whats your opinion on Ultra? I havnt yet heard of anyone having problems with it.. Good advice regarding tolerances..

[Guest Pav]

The main reason I got into Ultra 16 was because I wanted a 16mm camera but a wide 16.9 final image. But most Super 16 cameras that I came accross were either too complicated or expensive or both, basically out of my reach.

 

After some research I found the Cannon Scoopic 16M to be an easy point and shoot type of camera that is good and relatively cheap. But the snag is that it is virtually imposible to convert to Super 16. The more I read about Ultra 16 the more it made sense. Of course there are many people out there who told me that Ultra 16 is a waste of time. But come on it's cheap, simple and is as good as Super 16 and can make use of all the thousands of cameras that can't be converted to Super 16 and can introduce new people to use film in this digital age - it works so why be negative about it.

 

I did convert my Canon Scoopic 16 M camera to Ultra 16 successfully shaving just marginally under 0.7mm on both sides. This somewhat simple but delicate procedure was done by a jeweler.

 

It was easy to frame and film, I filmed tests with new markings in the viewfinder, and the developed film was not scratched nor did the exposed image interfere with any edge numbers. The only snag has been the telecine.

 

I tend to get my work telecined via a Rank or Ursa Diamond, the 16mm/Super16 gates on the machines in the post houses I use are not able to cover that extra 0.7mm of image between (below) the perfs. So I am looking for places, TK houses that have wider gates.

 

Pav

[Mark Williams]

Hiyah pav very Pleased to here from you Many times I have wondered How you got on.. This has been an interesting thread and a possible compromise found? Have you thought about asking a Film house to use the super 16 gate? You could get some benefit this way! :)

[Guest Pav]

A Super 16 gate allows ones side of the Ultra to be telecined without any issues. I dont see why post houses dont allow for Ultra 16.

 

The Canon Scoopic 16 M has a fixed lens which is a problem for Super 16 but I am thinking of shaving the gate out to Super 16 dimensions. I wonder how much vignetting there will be due to its fixed lens and whether the vignetting will be at all focal lenghs.

 

Pav

[Mark Williams]

Pav Just got an Email from Bonnie(Bonolabs) this is what she said

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for contacting us about Ultra 16. The format is currently under

testing here and we plan on processing and transferring to HiDef. Some

of our technical staff is away at a tech convention this week. I will

print out your e-mail and we'll keep you posted.

Cordially,

Bonnie Willette

 

:D :D :D :D

Edited January 4, 2006 by Mark Williams

[Mark Williams]

Pav Just got an Email from Bonnie(Bonolabs) this is what she said

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for contacting us about Ultra 16. The format is currently under

testing here and we plan on processing and transferring to HiDef. Some

of our technical staff is away at a tech convention this week. I will

print out your e-mail and we'll keep you posted.

Cordially,

Bonnie Willette

 

:D :D :D :D

Its important to note that its only in the testing stage though!

[Stephen Williams]

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

 

 

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?

 

 

Oliver Glaser

cinematographer

 

Hi,

 

Its fairly easy to convert Eclair cameras to S16, it seems strange not to do so in my opinion!

 

I don't think you realise how much a telecine gate costs! Many companies don't buy a S8 gate for that reason. With a tube telecine there would be patch size issues on the tube to think about.

 

Pav Just got an Email from Bonnie(Bonolabs) this is what she said

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for contacting us about Ultra 16. The format is currently under

testing here and we plan on processing and transferring to HiDef. Some

of our technical staff is away at a tech convention this week. I will

print out your e-mail and we'll keep you posted.

Cordially,

Bonnie Willette

 

:D :D :D :D

 

 

 

This answer sounds like it is from somebody who does not understand the question. It either works or it does not. A 5 minute test will give you the answer.

 

You might want to search CML, there was recently a comparision test from Bono.

 

Stephen

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

YES.

In the 50s Arri made a series of Ultrascope lenses for 35mm. The shortest was 40mm. On the long side for 16mm work and quite large and heavy, though not as much as a Panavision Primo or an Arriscope from the 90s.

 

There was a 76-300mm zoom which uses a Som Berthiot Pan-Cinor. For 16mm use, if it wasn't on the soft side, it might be suitable for filming lions running down antelopes on the veldt.

 

There's one on eBay now, but otherwise hunting down older anamorphis is quite a chore. & pricey.

 

The shortest easily obtainable Soviet anamorphic is 35mm, still too long for general 16mm use and still big.

 

---LV

 

thanks for clearing that up I could have sworn that I saw a 20mm-?? zoom ultra-scope lens somewhere, sorry about that.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Hi John Whats your opinion on Ultra? I havnt yet heard of anyone having problems with it.. Good advice regarding tolerances..

 

Wearing my SMPTE "hat" (I serve on several SMPTE and ISO TC36 Technical Committees), I must point out the pitfalls of using a non-standard format, as it may not be supported by most post-production facilities, and it may use an image area on the film that is at risk of being scuffed by equipment, or interfering with other standardized uses of that image area. As I mentioned, some of the area between the perfs is already being used for latent image edgeprint like Kodak KeyKode or Fuji MRCode. That area is also very likely to be "touched" by mechanical equipment like perforator shuttles, pilot pins, camera claws, and sprocket teeth, so you could someday encounter damage to the Ultra-16 image area between the perfs that you would have no recourse in blaming anyone but yourself, since you used a non-standard image area.

 

As mentioned, 40 years ago Rune Ericson's Super-16 was a "non-standard" format, but the significant advantages it offered (especially for new equipment designs) gave good reason for the SMPTE, ISO, and and film industry to standardize it:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why....1.4.3.16&lc=en

 

Unfortunately, I don't see the same "breakthough" technology driving Ultra-16, as it tries to squeeze a little more image area out of old 16mm cameras that can't be converted to Super-16, yet doesn't offer the significant image area advantage of a well established and supported format like Super-16. Without standardization, support for the format will not be universal, and may even be hard to find.

[Mark Williams]

John I find it hard to believe with the advent of HDV we arent doing more to compete against the competition

 

Although we know HDV cannot compete.. More and more people believe it can.. So anything that encourages 16mm must be GOOD?..

 

The cameras are aging but so are the newer 16mm In fact in ten years the Arri SR3 may be as common on ebay as the SR2..

We should keep this format for the new talent coming into film making.. For the future of film making in general.. Surely Ultra can only add to its health? Not as a saviour but another reason for someone not to go down a blind alley with HDV and pick film instead?

 

I understand your concern is only about tolerances and Warning people but even if the worst came to the worst people can still use the camera as a standard 16mm So they have lost nothing And surely the best route would be to buy another film gate and use that anyway?

 

Perhaps people could post here and let us know about there experience with this format? we could build up a picture of what cameras do well..

[Stephen Williams]

John I find it hard to believe with the advent of HDV we arent doing more to compete against the competition

 

Although we know HDV cannot compete.. More and more people believe it can.. So anything that encourages 16mm must be GOOD?..

 

The cameras are aging but so are the newer 16mm In fact in ten years the Arri SR3 may be as common on ebay as the SR2..

We should keep this format for the new talent coming into film making.. For the future of film making in general.. Surely Ultra can only add to its health? Not as a saviour but another reason for someone not to go down a blind alley with HDV and pick film instead?

 

I understand your concern is only about tolerances and Warning people but even if the worst came to the worst people can still use the camera as a standard 16mm So they have lost nothing And surely the best route would be to buy another film gate and use that anyway?

 

Perhaps people could post here and let us know about there experience with this format? we could build up a picture of what cameras do well..

 

Hi,

 

For some reason you're missing the point !

 

Stephen

[Mark Williams]

Hi,

 

For some reason you're missing the point !

 

Stephen

I dont think I am Just because I havnt adressed all johns thoughts does not mean I didnt understand his points.. It doesnt mean I agree with those points either.. And certainly not because John has said them does that make your re-iterating his points the right and only answer.. In fact this is why we have Variety and invention.. Human thought means adaptability ingenuity and a desire to better oneself and I for one will not be stopped by smart comments telling me they are right I am wrong So I will persevere with what you consider a Hopeless cause and hope that some here may have the courtesy to respect A democratic forum and good Manners..

[Will Montgomery]

It is possible that a Y-Front or Millennium Telecine can handle it. There are very few Y-Fronts around.

 

This one is at Video Post & Transfer (VPT) in Dallas (http://www.videopost.com/). It does an amazing job, but of course their color correction system and colorist makes all the difference too.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I dont think I am Just because I havnt adressed all johns thoughts does not mean I didnt understand his points.. It doesnt mean I agree with those points either.. And certainly not because John has said them does that make your re-iterating his points the right and only answer.. In fact this is why we have Variety and invention.. Human thought means adaptability ingenuity and a desire to better oneself and I for one will not be stopped by smart comments telling me they are right I am wrong So I will persevere with what you consider a Hopeless cause and hope that some here may have the courtesy to respect A democratic forum and good Manners..

 

You don't have to agree. By all means use the format, but recognize the risks of using a non-standard format. I respect your opinion and hope for the format, but just don't see many in the film industry adopting it.