16:9 on 16mm

[Aaron Tan]

Hello,

 

Here's the situation:

Due to budgetary constraints, I'm planning to shoot a short feature in 16mm which will be telecined onto DV. However I wanted to frame for 16x9 in the off chance there's a posibility of blowing up to 35mm or whatever... I will either be shooting with a Bolex or a Canon Scoopic.

 

Question:

Is there something I can use (a mattebox or lens hood) which will give me a guide of where the 16x9's top and bottom is so that I can properly frame each scene through the reflex viewfinder?

 

Or is there some other easier way of framing for 16x9 on a standard 16mm camera?

 

Thanks

[Tim Carroll]

We've done that with an Arri SR1 by taping off the fibre optics screen. I have used a Bolex Reflex and do not think it would be possible with that camera. Have never used a Canon Scoopic.

 

-Tim

[Daniel Tan]

Hey Tom,

 

In another thread, you mentioned about squeezing the image in 16mm anamorphic and unsqueeze it in post production just to get a better image area in the final output. This is done instead of a plain black bars crop on a 4:3 image area in telecine. As I have been getting ready to do a short film in standard 16 and like you have no funds to proceed with anything like super16, I would like to find out exactly what do you mean by squeezing 16 anamorphic. Are you talking about shooting in anamorphic and then unsqueeze it later? If so, what kind of lenses do you need? 2X?1.5? Where can you find those lenses? And also, the term anamorphic in 16mm, are you defining it as 16:9 or something else?

 

Pardon me if I get the concept mixed up. Hope somebody if not Tom can clarify on that.

 

Thank you

 

Regards,

Daniel

[Josh Hill]

I'm not sure they make anamorphic lenses for 16mm, and if they did they would probably be out of your budget.

 

Generally consensus is also that a DV anamorphic adaptor is not of good enough quality to be used on a 16mm camera, so I think that route is pretty moot as well.

 

I don't understand why you don't have the money to shoot Super16. The only difference is in the camera and lens. If you're renting a 16mm camera you should call up some different rental houses and see about talking them down on any S16 equipment (you'll be surprised what deals you can get just by talking to them a little about it, in the rental business the prices are rarely set in stone in my experience).

 

If you're planning to buy a Bolex or Scoopic you should put some of that money into rental instead of buying the camera (since you're looking at somewhere over 500 dollars for the cameras). Save a little bit more and with some luck and some talking you could probably get a good S16 basic package (lens, matte box, two mags, batteries) for a week or two.

[DanStewart]

I heard again about the anamorphics Joe Dunton has developed in London. I think they're for super though, and I don't know anything else about them except 'they're great'. Anyone had hands on?

[Mitch Gross]

Check the archives from a few years back. We discussed this extensively and David & I actually shot some tests. The anamorphics from Joe Dunton are simply an addition to his 35mm set, so they are 2x lenses. Having tried various schemes and seen the results, I still hold that shooting Super-16 and cropping to 2.40 is the simplest, least expensive and most effective method.

[DanStewart]

Really? I was told they were true 16mm and that they were 'brand new'. I'll check into it.

[David Mullen ASC]

You'd need a set of lenses with a 1.33X squeeze to fit 16x9 or 1.85 onto a regular 16mm frame.

 

All anamorphic lenses for motion picture use are 2X, so you'd end up with a 2.66 : 1 image on a 4x3 film frame once unsqueezed.

[Aaron Tan]

If you're planning to buy a Bolex or Scoopic you should put some of that money into rental instead of buying the camera

 

I would love to rent a S16 camera instead of purchasing a Bolex or Scoopic but rental prices here in Australia are probably not as good as those in the States.

 

For example. Renting something like an Aaton A-Minima for three days would pay for my Bolex or Scoopic, and that's without the lenses. I might try talking them down on their prices though. I never thought about that. Thanks.

[Josh Hill]

I would try renting something with a 400 foot magazine. A-Minima's are (from what I hear) loud and someone said in an earlier forum that in Australia its cheaper to buy 400 feet of film than 2 200' A-Minima spools.

 

You should also look for DPs in the area, or anywhere, that own their own equipment. You could probably talk them into letting you rent their equipment cheap if you're good at talking (people skills are vital).

 

I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US Its a 4-for-7/3-for-5 rental policy (you pay for four days and get it for seven, or three days for five). And some places are closed on weekends, so if you want to shoot on "Monday" you have to pick up the equipment Friday, for no charge over the weekend.

 

Check with Panavision Sydney, depending on what their rental situation is like and your total budget, you might be able to get a good deal on an S16 camera package with a zoom lens (here in he states my friend shot a low budget feature and Panavision rented him a 2 camera 35mm package, Gold II and Arri-IIIHS, for 2000 a week with lenses). Just give them a call and ask to talk to someone in rentals and state your position (low budget, shoot dates, etc) and see what you can work out. (They have many SRII for 550 a day, plus 210 for a nice zoom puts you at 760 a day, but you may be able to get them to give it to you for far less than that for a week depending on how much their renting at this moment, and that comes with matte box, follow focus, 3 mags, etc).

 

What you have to figure about the big rental places is that their equipment is already paid off. And while you'll have to get some kind of production insurance, the added expense will add significantly to your production. You may even have to save for a couple of more months to get the thing off the ground, but at least you'll be running and gunning with good equipment. After all, Bolex's and Scoopics aren't exactly NEW and they aren't exactly made for feature production. And they aren't S16.

 

Or try to get someone to pitch in just for the rental and tell them you'l lhandle all the other expenses (after all you're looking at about 3 grand American for film, 3 grand for processing and telecine for a short feature, at least).

[John Sprung]

Is there something I can use (a mattebox or lens hood) which will give me a guide of where the 16x9's top and bottom is

If you can get at the ground glass, you can draw the lines in using an ordinary pencil. Use vernier calipers to guide the pencil point. I did this on my Eyemo-Q. Not sure how easy it is to get at the GG on the Canon or Bolex. Check your work against a chart if you do this. BTW, the pencil lines can be washed off with water later if you want.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Aaron Tan]

The ground glass lines is a good idea. Thanks!

 

Josh,

 

I think I'm going to have to save up for a long time to afford rental equipment. The film I'm planning to shoot will probably have no financial backing apart from my own so that's why I'm looking more towards the Bolex's and Canon Scoopics, I might squeeze a bit maybe to get an Arriflex BL.

 

However I'll be patient and if I can manage to get some grant money or arts funding, I'll definately rent better equipment. Thanks for your advice.

[Aaron Tan]

One question:

 

If I were to shoot using an Arriflex 16BL, (because its cheap to rent) in terms of sound sync shooting, would it be passable quality? Or what are the general feelings out there regarding the BL?

[John Pytlak RIP]

The dimensions of the Super-16 camera image, and the areas "extracted" during printing or telecine are defined by standards SMPTE 201M and SMPTE 96:

 

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/

[Rachel Oliver]

One question:

 

If I were to shoot using an Arriflex 16BL, (because its cheap to rent) in terms of sound sync shooting, would it be passable quality? Or what are the general feelings out there regarding the BL?

I shot my graduation film on a BL. It was all that was available to me at the time and even though cameras I've used since make me laugh at it's difficult "tank" like size and weight the end results were as good as anything else around.... As long as your lens and batterys are ok you will be fine. I'd go with that over a Bolex or Scoopic anyday for large sync sequences.... For a start the motor is crystal sync as is (I believe?) and compared to a bolex it's much quieter (BL stands for Blimped I think!)

Olly

[Patrick Neary]

Hey-

 

The BL is/was a wonderful camera. You might also look at a CP-16, which is a pain to thread, but has 1.85 lines scribed on the GG as standard (I think they all were that way). Reflex CP's can be VERY quiet as well.

[John Sprung]

If I were to shoot using an Arriflex 16BL, (because its cheap to rent) in terms of sound sync shooting, would it be passable quality? Or what are the general feelings out there regarding the BL?

The pin registered movement of the BL is excellent, there's nothing better in 16mm. BL's are generally much quieter than their contemporary competition, the old Eclair NPR and ACL.

 

The downside of the BL includes the cumbersome blimped lenses, and an overall layout that's cumbersome for both hand held and dolly/tripod use. The machine is balanced for use on a head, but the finder is located for hand held, it's neither fish nor fowl. Can you find an finder extension for it?

 

For ease of use, the BL was a great advance over the 16-S in the blimp that I used on a WWII submarine. That was doing things the hard way.

 

 

-- J.S.

[Mark A. Rapp]

Question:

Is there something I can use (a mattebox or lens hood) which will give me a guide of where the 16x9's top and bottom is so that I can properly frame each scene through the reflex viewfinder?

I hope this isn't too ridiculous a question (newb here...) but I'm interested in the same thing and I want to know how you know where to draw the lines? Hit or miss? Educated guess? Which is to say, what if you go too far in from the top and bottom? Then you've ruined the whole bit, right?

[Aaron Tan]

Hey Mark,

 

I thought about doing the same thing but I don't believe drawing lines would work unless its on the ground glass. I think someone mentioned the same thing in reply to this topic.

 

I was also thinking that maybe I could use the matte box and clip some bits of metal or black card to the top and bottom at the front of the box and frame out the 16X9 that way. I don't have a matte box so I can't try.

 

Good luck.

[John Sprung]

I want to know how you know where to draw the lines?

.... what if you go too far in from the top and bottom? Then you've ruined the whole bit, right?

The image on the ground glass is identical in size to the image on the film, so you can just look up the dimensions in the ASC manual or wherever. For Super 16:

 

Camera Aperture: 0.493" x 0.292"

HDTV Transmitted: 0.458" x 0.258"

NTSC Transmitted: 0.344" x 0.258"

NTSC Safe Action: 0.310" x 0.232"

 

Use a vernier caliper to guide your pencil. The marks can be washed off with dish soap and water, so you can do it over if you need to.

 

Make up a big accurate chart on a piece of foam core, and set up just like you were shooting the chart to check the accuracy of your work. These are very small dimensions, so it can take a few tries to get them right. You can also try shading or cross hatching if you want.

 

Shooting the chart is a good idea if you do it very carefully. It tells the telecine operator exactly where the lines are as you see them in the finder. But if you do it sloppy, like with the chart tilted, it can do more harm than good. If it's ambiguous, the telecine can get set up a little differently every day.

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Standards SMPTE 201M and SMPTE 96M specify the pertinent image areas for Super-16:

 

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/

[Tim Carroll]

Don't know if you can do this with the camera you are using, but what we did was this.

 

Make a chart with a very clear heavy black outlined 16:9 section in the middle. Tape it to a wall. Focus on it and center the 16:9 section of the chart on your ground glass or fibre optics screen. Now, draw a detailed sketch of the ground glass as it is focused on the 16:9 section of your chart, include everything you can see through the viewfinder.

 

Next, take as much of the camera apart as needed to get access to the ground glass or fibre optics screen, and using your detailed sketch as a guide, take Scotch Brand Magic Tape (the kind that is translucent) and tape off the top and bottom of your ground glass, leaving only the 16:9 section clear. Put your camera back together, check yourself with your wall chart, shoot the wall chart at the head of your first roll, and then go make your movie. Sounds a little bit scary, but it really is pretty simple. We take the tape off as soon as we finish principal photography, because it can get gummy after a while.

 

We also did a test roll to find out just how far we could go left and right of the "Safe" zone of our SR1 fibre optics screen, then took that into account when we lined up our 16:9 section, because we wanted to use absolutely as much of the negative as possible. And we are not worried about projecting the film because we are finishing digitally and we had our telecinist check to make sure he could get the whole image we captured.

 

-Tim

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I was wondering about this. Surely, so long as you shoot the same framing chart you used to line up you viewfinder, if you're finishing digitally it doesn't really matter. As long as you aren't so far out that you're costing yourself significant negative area, what does it matter exactly where the frame is?

 

Phil

[Tim Carroll]

Phil,

 

To get as much negative and as much information as possible, we wanted to use all the available frame on your SR1, and since the registration seems rock solid, we did a series of tests to see just how far we could go outside the lines on our fibre optics screen and still be in an area that our telecinist could capture. In essence, we are trying to get as close to Super 16 as possible, without having the camera converted, since we don't have the money for that right now.

 

Worked great for us on a short we just finished digitally. I think you are right, as long as you shoot a 16:9 framing chart at the head of the first roll, the telecinist can set up on that and you should be fine no matter where in the viewfinder you put the 16:9 frame. But like I said, we just wanted to capture the most information possible by using the greatest negative area we could.

 

-Tim

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yes, I wasn't questioning the maximum-neg idea. It's good that you had the money to do that test.

 

Phil