Ultra-16mm -- Viable for Digital Intermediates?

[Vivian Zetetick]

 

It seems that one camera sales/conversion shop ( http://www.cameraspro.com/super16.html ) and one film-to-tape lab ( http://www.tfgtransfer.com/ ) are officially supporting the Ultra-16 format as a viable alternative to super-16, mostly for the creation of digital intermediates. These two companies may or may not be in bed together.

 

http://www.cameraspro.com/ultra16cameraspro.html

 

As an ultra-low-budget 16mm filmmaker who owns a standard-16mm camera, I've researched conversion to super-16, and it seems expensive and perilous. My own camera, the Bolex EBM, can be converted to super-16. Unfortunately, the 10mm Kern-Switar wide angle lens does not cover the super-16 frame, and the POE 16-100 zoom cannot be used below 25mm without vignetting. In my case, this makes super-16 conversion a rather lame prospect if I want to use my own gear. I am not a professional. I do not make Hollywood-style movies. But the idea of shooting widescreen 16mm and finishing digitally is attractive.

 

However, I have read (online, mind you) that most standard-16 lenses, like the Switar 10mm and POE 16-100, will cover the ultra-16 frame without vignetting, and that the ultra-16mm image rivals that of the super-16 as a digital intermediate.

 

Though there was one illuminating discussion last year regarding the use of ultra-16 on a super-16 feature production, I'm wondering, has anyone else followed an ultra-16 production through the paces toward a digital master? -- or, better yet, a film-out from a digital master? What were some of the issues involved?

[Matt Pacini]

If you search the archives, there's a bit of discussion about this (do the archives still work to get to the old posts?)

 

I'm going to do this, as soon as I can find spare gates for my CP16R and Canon Scoopic (haven't found any yet!), and because I'm starting a low-cost film scanning service and will be able to scan 16mm, Ultra16 & Super 16 with no problem.

 

It's not as big an image area as Super16, more like somewhere between regular 16 & S16, but any extra image are helps.

 

Matt Pacini

[John Pytlak RIP]

Just remember you are on your own when you use a non-standard format. You may be considered either a visionary pioneer, or... You do limit yourself to the vendors who are supporting that format.

[Jarin Blaschke]

Someone please advise as to what Ultra16 is. Thanks.

[David Mullen ASC]

Basically you are filing out the regular 16mm gate so that it exposes a wider picture slightly in both directions, rather than in one direction like with Super-16. The problem is that the wider picture can't be as tall as Super-16 because it has to fit under the perf. So the net size is somewhere between regular 16mm and Super-16. Considering that Super-16 is only about 15% wider in one direction than regular 16mm, I'm not sure if Ultra-16 is worth the bother since it's not even as big as Super-16. Sure, every little bit helps... but being a renter, not an owner, I can just rent Super-16 gear if I needed to.

[manny]

Greetings Vivian,

 

For a while I researched the possibilities that were available for my N16 gear to upgrade. Chose to follow the S16 route as don't want to find myself without processing lab, if I need a second unit it will be easier to find another S16 than an Ultra 16. I found it worth, but that is depending on one's intentions, to upgrade to S16 and change my three turret c mount of my RX5 to a PL mount. You are right about it being expensive. But the choice of available gear is plenty, and of recent, excellent quality. Also if I need another piece of gear, and I am in bum xxxx nowhere, I will easily find a PL mount S16 solution or accessory. Invest a little at the beginning but save in the long term so to speak.

 

Regards

Emmanuel from Munich

[John Pytlak RIP]

Ultra-16 format:

 

http://www.cameraspro.com/super16.html

 

http://www.tfgtransfer.com/home.htm

 

http://tig.colorist.org/pipermail/tig/2003...ber/003824.html

[Matt Pacini]

Manny, you don't need any special lab to process any 16mm film.

It's all the same as far as processing goes.

Ultra16 makes "some" sense, but only if you're going with a digital intermediate.

After that, there's nothing inherently "ultra16" about it.

I'm interested, because I'm setting up my own film scanning business (for my own stuff as well, obviously), and it's not any problem to widen the area being scanned on my equipment.

If you're doing a blowup directly from the neg, telecine, etc., then yeah, it's a concern.

 

But we all have to remind ourselves, that Super16 was far more of a deviant 16mm format until it was finally accepted.

I'm not suggesting ultra16 is gonna take off and get huge, just that it's not necessarily wise to knock new ideas with no other reason than "it's not supported".

 

Matt Pacini

[Mitch Gross]

But we all have to remind ourselves, that Super16 was far more of a deviant 16mm format until it was finally accepted.

I'm not suggesting ultra16 is gonna take off and get huge, just that it's not necessarily wise to knock new ideas with no other reason than "it's not supported".

I guess my issue is that there's already something better that's commonly available--Super-16. Back in the day there was only regular 16mm and 35mm. Super-16 was introduced as a viable alternative and it took a good decade to really gain acceptance as a proper format. If Ultra-16 had come out first it may have seriously slowwed Super-16, but the fact is that Ultra-16 is a lesser format to Super-16. The only reason to use it is to keep 25+ year old cameras and lenses functioning. It's not really a step forward in that regard and will always be looked at as a lesser, bottom-feeder format. Super-16 is available on modern, new equipment with state of the art lenses and accessories. Using old cameras, old lenses, old transfer machines (such as at TFG Transfer, state-of-the-art 1978 gear) to get an inbetween result and then spend a small fortune for a Digital Intermediate -- well forgive me if I'm not too enthusiastic.

[Matt Pacini]

Mitch, I agree with you 100% - IF money is no object.

But money IS an object.

Being able to use old cameras, old lenses, in my opinion, IS a vaible reason, because they're cheap, and often (though not always) very good.

I can't see why it's a great idea to throw 8 million 16mm cameras in the trash!

 

By the way, absolutely everything you said in your last post, could be said about digital filmmaking, and yet you've made films that way, and I suspect the reason DV was used on those, was that it was considered a comprimise in quality worth making for the cost savings.

 

What do you think is likely to result in a better looking product: DV or Ultra16?

And for guys like me, who only have to file a gate wider to get better images, then it sounds like a pretty good idea.

And even if you couldn't find anyone to post your film in Ultra16, you still have the exact original 16mm image there, so why not?

 

Matt Pacini

[Mitch Gross]

The only way to get the benefit of the Ultra-16 image area is to go through an expensive post phase. This stage (either optical or digital) will vastly outweigh any cost difference between Ultra-16 and Super-16 (your own personal scanner notwithstanding). Super-16 is better so that makes more sense to me.

 

No one is saying throw out all those 16mm cameras. But I hardly think there are 8 million of them out there, and that would be including all the very amateur home movie cameras that probably could stand to have the gate filed out anyway. Believe it or not there is a relatively small trade in the used 16mm camera market and production was never that huge even when all the local TV stations used the gear. The only cameras we're talking about that would even begin to make sense for Ultra-16 upgrade to attempt to use in 2004 would be Aaton, Arri (S, M, BL, and SR), Auricon, Bealieu, Bolex, Canon Scoopic, Cinema Products (CP-16A & R, GSMO), Eclair (ACL & NPR), Mitchell, Photosonics and perhaps some Russian cameras. Most of these I really wouldn't bother with, but even if I did I seriously doubt there would be more than about 20,000 cameras around. There's just not that many out there to throw out, and most of them are seriously old. This coming from a guy with a 20-year old Aaton S-16 camera body.

[Matt Pacini]

Good points.

I guess where I'm coming from is, I work on projects with budgets that can't foot the bill for camera rental, and there's absolutely no way possible that I can afford a Super16 camera any time in the future, so that's why I'm thinking about it.

I'm not delusional, into thinking this is gonna be "the next big thing", or even something that many people are going to do, but like I said, with my own film scanning setup, and the fact that I'm absolutely going to DI all my own stuff, I figure there's no downside, unless, that is, I ruin my cameras in the process! har har

 

Matt Pacini

[Matt Pacini]

Good points.

I guess where I'm coming from is, I work on projects with budgets that can't foot the bill for camera rental, and there's absolutely no way possible that I can afford a Super16 camera any time in the future, so that's why I'm thinking about it.

I'm not delusional, into thinking this is gonna be "the next big thing", or even something that many people are going to do, but like I said, with my own film scanning setup, and the fact that I'm absolutely going to DI all my own stuff, I figure there's no downside, unless, that is, I ruin my cameras in the process! har har

 

Matt Pacini

[Mitch Gross]

The fact that you are developing your own scanner sets you apart from everyone else on this topic. For everyone else, the cost of a DI so vastly outweighs that of any Super-16 camera rental that the use of Ultra-16 becomes a meaningless savings.

[Vivian Zetetick]

If there were a complete production path in place for Ultra16 -- as there is for standard 16 -- that would be a great cost savings for me, since I do not rent, I own.

 

If one good lab (such as FilmCraft in MI or ColorLab in MD) could get behind Ultra16, and were sure they could process it just like 16mm (without interfering with the added image area) & also provide workprints (standard 16mm for a flat-bed, or digital with KeyKode) then all that's left for the format to fly (correct me if I'm wrong) is a negative cutter who can also work with the format.

 

A "blow down" of the conformed Ultra16 originals to a matted optical 16mm print at ColorLab (which currently offers super-16 blow down) would be far cheaper than either Digital Intermediates or blow-up to 35mm. Wouldn't it?

 

And the benfit for me is that I work EXACTLY like I currently do in 16mm. All I've done is have the gate widened .7mm on either side. I compose shots with a slightly wider field of view in mind, edit workprints on a flatbed or computer, and the final print is matted optical 16mm (if I want an inexpensive solution) or 35mm if I can afford it.

 

(The CamerasPro site has the following to say about the KeyKode area:

 

"The gate is machined out by .7mm on both side increasing the width a total of 1.4 mm. How does that work? Doesn't that mean that you are going into the Perf area in at least one side of the frame and worse still the Keycode area? YES...and no. The finished frame vertically cropped to fit between the perferations and just inside of the key code area. This means that you can modify almost any older 16mm camera to shoot this format and use either dual or single perf film."

 

...I assume that means the KeyKode area is still usable.)

[Matt Pacini]

Well, I must admit somewhat of a bias here.

I'm for this format, not only for all the reasons other are (already own the cameras, can't afford Super16 cameras, etc.), but because my scanning service will be the only low-cost film scanning service available anywhere.

So the Digital Intermediate stage, that as you correctly state, Mitch, is way too expensive for almost everyone shooting 16mm, will be within the reach of all these people.

I don't have pricing down yet, but my goal is to get it down to somewhere close to what telecine costs now.

I'm in the testing & debugging stage now, so I can't offer the service yet for those of you who are interested, but it will be in the not too distant future!

So if Ultra16mm shooters can get their footage DI for around what it costs to telecine (or 16mm or Super16 for that matter), then this makes quite a bit of sense to me.

I'll keep everyone posted on my progress, and hope to have a website open fairly soon with samples & more details.

 

Matt Pacini

[Vivian Zetetick]

Doesn't Kodak have some sort of research department that could test fly this new idea? It seems like it would be in Kodak's interest to meet with a few labs, convert a few 16mm cameras to Ultra16, and take a test production all the way through Ultra16 to a 35mm release print.

 

Getting behind Ultra16 seems like it would be a boon for Kodak 16mm film sales, particularly if they could verify a production path which costs the same as 16mm.

 

If you're listening, Kodak -- I'll do it for you if you pay the expenses! ;)

 

This practice seems prevelant in the computer hardware industry, where specialized devices are tested with various computer systems & configurations, and the compliance results posted on the company Web site.

[Mitch Gross]

Kodak just laid off something like 15,000 employees. I don't think research on Ultra-16 is likely to be a high priority.

 

Matt, once your scanning system is up and running, what do you have in place for the material once it gwts turned into whatever type of digital file? Will it be compatible with most post systems, using Cineon files or the like? Will it be the equivalent of HDCam or HD D-6? How will people edit this material, color correct it and then what will they do with it? Do you have a way to turn it into some form of HD master or a way to burn it out to a 35mm print?

 

I'm not saying you don't have any or all of this. But I've only heard you mention your scanner, which is just one small part of the entire post path. Even if it cost very little to use Ultra-16 (or whatever medium) and then scan it to some digital format using your scanner, it's still an enormous cost to burn it out to a 35m film print. I can shoot HDCam and color correct and edit in a souped up version of FCP, but it's still going to cost $50,000 to burn out a 35mm print. A Digital Intermediate is just that, an intermediate step. It still needs to be finished.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't understand why getting behind Ultra16 would be a boon to Kodak's sales. It's not like you CAN'T shoot in regular 16mm and just frame for widescreen, nor just shoot in Super-16. So Ultra-16 only helps those owners of very old 16mm equipment who want to shoot widescreen but (1) don't want to just crop regular 16mm to do it; (1) can't convert these cameras to Super-16. To suggest that supporting Ultra-16 will increase 16mm production and Kodak's sales implies that these people with old 16mm cameras can't use them currently because they don't shoot widescreen, so these people are sitting on their hands not shooting anything.

 

Besides, what exactly does Kodak have to do with supporting Ultra-16?

 

What will boost 16mm production FOR THEATRICAL PROJECTION (i.e. 35mm prints) is getting the costs of digital intermediates down -- but that benefits ALL 16mm formats, regular, ultra, super, etc.

 

Super-16 has been around for over thirty years. We're talking about a solution - Ultra-16 - for people who want to use cameras from the 1960's and want to shoot widescreen 16mm for a marginal improvement over merely cropping regular 16 to widescreen. This is not a major problem in the filmmaking world that needs fixing right now. It's a subset of a subset of filmmakers. So it's crazy to think there is a lot of money to be made by Kodak if only they made Ultra-16 easier to post (which is hardly their area of expertise anyway.)

 

With all that's going on the world of filmmaking, trying to make the Canon Scoopic, let's say, a widescreen 16mm camera is pretty darn low on the list of important problems to be solved. Not being able to record a marginally wider frame (and shorter to boot!) is not what's impeding young people's filmmaking careers.

[Vivian Zetetick]

1960s equipment....They told me my Bolex EBM was made in the early 1970s!

 

David -- I'm everything you said in your first paragraph. That's a perfect description of me. I could shoot in regular16 and crop for 16x9 but would rather not, and I can't convert to super16 without getting rid of my lenses and buying new ones. Also, you correctly guessed that I am indeed sitting on my hands, not using my 16mm gear, exactly *because* I can't shoot widescreen. I don't want to spend a heap of money on film in a format which no one wants in a few years.

 

That's why for the last 8 months I've shot two short films in super-8! Why choose the *lesser* of two evils? If I can't have widescreen 16mm I'd rather have full-screen super-8.

 

I speak for myself of course, but Kodak would get more money from me if I could be sure there was a clear path through Ultra16 that cost the same as standard 16. I'd do the conversion next week. I truly suspect this to be true of other filmakers also. Please see my post at the end of page 1. I do not see why DIs would be necessary at all if labs/conformers supported Ultra16 in the same way they supported standard16.

 

Why wouldn't Kodak want to jump in and try it out? They're a generous organization, they support film festivals, students, etc. If it excites people and makes them want to dust off some gear and buy some Kodak film, who suffers? Have you visited http://8mm.filmshooting.com in a while? There's still a lot of people out there, with some really old gear, spending a lot of money on film.

[Tim Carroll]

Vivian,

 

I am not sure which lenses you have for your EBM, but anything above 26mm will work with the EBM after it is converted to Super 16. And Andrew Alden can sell you an 8mm lens that will work with your EBM after it is converted. So you would have the cost of the conversion, and the cost to convert your mags, and the cost of a wide angle lens. Then you would be shooting in an industry standard.

 

Last summer we shot a "widescreen" short film with a Standard 16mm EBM. We did it the "hard way", had a 4:3 telecine done and stretched and cropped it in FCP. The footage still looked far superior to 16:9 footage we shot with a Canon XL1s and a Panny DVX-100. And we have since found a telecine house right here in Chicago that will "widescreen" our telecine, so it will be native 16:9. And if we decide to finish on film, we will have them do it optically. It is not as good a Super 16, but it is a heck of a lot better than miniDV and even Super 8. And you can do this with your EBM, exactly how it is set up now.

 

I agree with David and Mitch, I can not see why Kodak would want to spend money developing an Ultra 16 standard, when you can do almost as well with Standard 16, and better with Super 16. Can't see what would be in it for Kodak.

 

-Tim

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't understand why one would simply refuse to shoot in 16mm if the negative can't be widescreen. Just by using the next slower-speed stock, you could make up the difference in graininess between cropping regular 16mm and shooting Super-16 in terms of a good blow-up to 35mm. And if it's just for 16:9 TV, you can also get away with cropping regular 16mm, so why wait? It's ridiculous to let the lack of a slightly wider negative with MARGINAL quality improvement over cropping regular 16mm cause you to put all of your filmmaking activities on hold! Make no sense to me. You do the best with what you have -- you don't sit on your hands and wait for a new technology to be invented.

 

Besides, if you really think that Ultra 16mm is going to help you make films, then why haven't you converted your cameras over and started shooting on it?

 

No one is going to reject well-shot regular-16 footage framed and cropped to widescreen over Super-16 -- because no one is going to know if you don't tell them and you use slower-speed film stocks. And with Vision-2 versions of 100 and 200 ASA stocks coming along soon, you'll be able to get the quality in regular 16mm what you would have been getting before in Super-16 with the old stocks.

 

Other than you, I really doubt there are a bunch of people who own regular 16mm cameras who won't shoot on them until they get converted over to widescreen. Ultra 16mm is not going to increase the number of people shooting in 16mm. It doesn't save them any money in film stock costs, which is the main hindrence. It just gets them a slightly wider negative -- I can't believe anyone is seriously not shooting while they wait for Ultra-16 to be more widespread. Exactly how is the lack of a wider negative impeding you? Are you afraid you can't get a good blow-up with regular 16mm? Are you trying to sell stock footage transferred to HDTV? Because the limitations of those old cheap lenses on your old cameras will be a bigger factor in image quality than the marginal gain from going from regular 16mm to Ultra-16. If this is all about the quality of a blow-up.

 

Regular 16mm didn't stop Robert Rodriguez, Darren Aronofsky, Kevin Smith, or any other number of indie directors from getting their start. And Ken Burns has shot most of his documentaries on it.

 

And why would Kodak spend money on a "new" standard that only applies to "old" cameras? And what does Kodak need to do anyway? Their products already work with Ultra-16.

 

I also have trouble understanding why someone thinks it makes sense to apply a (typically) $100,000 digital intermediate to a feature that couldn't afford to shoot in Super-16.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

>And we have since found a telecine house right here in Chicago that will "widescreen" our telecine, so it will be native 16:9

 

Wouldn't that be an implicit part of all but the lowest-end transfer setups?

 

And on another tack, Mr. Pacini's scanner will if nothing else allow easy transfer from film to at least DV, but theoretically anything he wants to put in an I/O card for, saving thousands on transfer fees.

 

Phil

[Christian Appelt]

If you want a wide screen picture and continue using your standard 16 cameras, there is another way. There's a number of excellent anamorphic lenses with an 1.5x squeeze (the Iscorama taking lens is quite good), so you will get a 1:2 aspect ratio.

 

When the camera neg is scanned, the squeeze factor can be changed easily to make either 1.85 or slightly matted scope prints in 35mm, for video/DVD the squeeze can be removed (letterbox) or used for 16:9 format release.

 

Advantages:

 

-No changes inside the camera, full use of standard 16mm frame

 

- Good image quality, much superior to standard 16 matted for wide screen

 

Disadvantages:

 

-Anamorphic adaptors will limit the use of wide angle lenses, but they get you the double taking angle anyway, so this is not as bad as it sounds.

 

-Focus pulling is difficult, anamorphic adaptor has to be mounted in front of basic lens.

 

I think that Joe Dunton of JDC Camera mentioned doing tests with such a 16/anamorphic combination (at Bradford Wide Screen Weekend 2003), he saw it as practicable solution for low budget production.

[manny]

Greetings everyon,

 

If Ultra was a decent option it would already have been exploited a long time ago. Sure S16 took a while to take off, but it is there because it is the best option. As far as processing and post-production it might be alright if the one existing lab or transfert hse is next door to you.

Frankly for a mere 600 USD I upgraded my Bolex RX 5 to S16. That was also done by an expert in the field. All I need is to change a couple lenses, the rest is identical. Then I will upgrade my Eclair gear, the lenses will be already there.

Why go a difficult path if a proven one is there right in front of you. When you own gear, in particular N16 you have to face some expenses. I call this investment. But Ultra 16 is not an investment in my opinion. And probably owning gear might not always be the right choice either but that is a another topic. One can go the Ultra 16, nothing against it.

Sorry for responding late but was on location shoot and with the new posting system it ain't that easy anymore. :(

 

Regards

Emmanuel from Munich