Ultra-16mm -- Viable for Digital Intermediates?

[Mitch Gross]

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.

JP at Aaton experimented with this a bit a couple of years ago but then abandoned it. There are some definite negatives to this, the biggest of which is that you must go through a DI in order to extract the image as there are no optical printers set up with the proper magnification ratio glass. That and you're going to be wasting a bit of the image area on the sides in order to get a properly framed blow-up (not too bad, I think it was around 10%). 1.33 is actually the ideal blow-up proportion but the only glass made in this ratio is either very expensive and large projection lenses or relatively low-quality video adapters. There are some newer 1.33 anamorphics out there for a little less, but the smallest unit one could work with and get decent results from is the Panasonic adater for the DVX100 at $800, and it will still look pretty fuzzy when blown up to 35mm.

 

The ISCO 1.5x glass of which you refer is projection lenses adapted for shooting. They simply mount in front of the regular lens and both lenses need to be focused constantly--a real pain. The only lens that JP found practical would vignette anything wider than a 25mm. After recropping to 1.85 that lens would yield the equivalent of about a 16mm, which is not particularly wide. In the end it was deemed to really not be worth it because the imaging was greatly inferior and it was a major pain and not a small expense to work with the system.

 

JP was chiefly experimenting with putting a 1.5x adapter on a Super-16 lens to get 2.40 widescreen images. Without bringing back this discussion (those interested can look back in the 2003 and 2002 archives) I can tell you that JP decided that this wasn't really worth it either, and that it was easier and better to simply crop the S-16 frame to get the wider frame. Others have successfully shot regular 16mm with 2x anamorphic lenses and then cropped the excess frame area to get a 2.40 35mm print. Note that the cropping in either of these systems is almost identical in negative area used. The theoretical advantage of the 1.5x adapter system is that it would use the most negative area for the finished blowup, but the restrictions of the system were considered too great to be worthwhile.

 

Seriously, there are so many ways one can attempt to work around the norms. But one must be very careful that these solutions do not present greater problems or do not incur greater costs than the problems they are esigned to avoid.

[Christian Appelt]

Mitch,

 

great information on that format test, I didn't know that. You are certainly right about all these problems.

 

I would not recommend going 16mm/1.5 anamorphic, but the same goes for Ultra 16! But there may be a film project with a style that lends itself to such experimental formats, for example when you have many scenes playing in long shots, little or no need for focus pulling and so on. There are good movies shot with just one or two prime lenses, but the content would have to fit the style.

 

Many small films go through Digital Intermediate for 35mm release, especially in Scandinavian countries. I would imagine that there'd be little trouble in converting 1.5x anamorphic 16mm to 35mm.

 

As for the optical printing, IIRC there is a 1.5x printing lens made by ISCO, so it should be (in theory) be possible to unsqueeze 1.5x/16mm in duplicate printing.

 

Isco printing system

 

But as we know, finding a lab, setting up special processes and making tests will cost a lot of time & money, so let me repeat: I wouldn't really recommend it any more than Ultra 16, but with DI it is a way.

 

Regarding Iscorama: I did not mean only the adapter lens (which is not a projection lens initially), but ISCO made a block anamorphic lens for SLR photography. I know that a filmmaker here in Germany had one adapted for his Eclair NPR years ago, but I am unable to find his name at present.

 

If I had to do a low budget project (and I have been through it), I would go one of these ways:

 

1. Have a good 16mm camera converted to S-16 (Bolex or Arri), blow it up to 35mm wide screen.

 

2. Try to get your hands on a 35mm TechniScope Arriflex. This will save film stock and processing, postproduction can be done on video/NLE, and the printing up to 4-perf is the last step when you really get distribution.

 

3. Shoot 16mm standard frame, but with a 2x anamorphic lens like KOWA 8-Z (=16-H). Accept the limitations in lens choice and handling, use low speed stock for finest grain, stop down your lens at least two stops from wide open.

This negative can be printed up to 35mm scope with slight masking on the left/right.

Check that the printer is set up properly to full height anamorphic frame (on 35mm), NOT for 16mm to Academy 35mm!

 

I have seen shorts made that way, and it looked very, very good because the filmmakers accepted and respected the limitations.

 

4. Buy a Konvas 35mm camera, three anamorphic primes or one zoom lens, get to know the camera and its "bugs" intimately, then shoot on short ends and recan materials. Never had any trouble with it except when using too old high speed stock.

This will cost more during shooting, but will be least expensive when you need a print or want to do distribution on your own - just plain contact printing with no optical gadgets.

 

Of course everyone can invent a new format, and I have much sympathy for those which in German language we call "bastler", which translates as "handicraft enthusiast" and means (part derogative, part lovingly) someone who likes to experiment and build things with whatever materials he gets his hands on. (In English, I have read the expression "tinkerer" in that context, does it mean the same?) For some people the fun lies in the process, not in the finished film. :rolleyes:

 

So to all inventors out there: Unless you have to make a living making films or have spent all your money on that magic first feature, do whatever you like. I am looking forward to that revolutionary Single 8 VistaVision format, but IMHO filmmaking is hard enough so think about it before you go nonstandard ways. :)

[Mitch Gross]

filmmaking is hard enough so think about it before you go nonstandard ways.  :)

Perhaps the smartest thing written in this entire thread! Why do people insist on making things so much more difficult?

[Mitch Gross]

I would not recommend going 16mm/1.5 anamorphic, but the same goes for Ultra 16! But there may be a film project with a style that lends itself to such experimental formats, for example when you have many scenes playing in long shots, little or no need for focus pulling and so on. There are good movies shot with just one or two prime lenses, but the content would have to fit the style.

 

THAT'S A LOT OF LIMITATIONS TO IMPOSE ON A FILMMAKER.

 

Many small films go through Digital Intermediate for 35mm release, especially in Scandinavian countries. I would imagine that there'd be little trouble in converting 1.5x anamorphic 16mm to 35mm.

 

YES, BUT AGAIN THERE ARE LIMITED CHOICES IN LENSES AND OTHER PRODUCTION ISSUES.

 

As for the optical printing, IIRC there is a 1.5x printing lens made by ISCO, so it should be (in theory) be possible to unsqueeze 1.5x/16mm in duplicate printing.

 

AND THAT GETS YOU AN INTERMEDIATE THAT THEN NEEDS TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER OPTICAL STEP TO GET TO A 35MM 2X ANAMORPHIC IMAGE. THAT'S TWO OPTICAL STEPS WHICH ARE BOTH EXPENSIVE AND ADD HEIGHTENED GRAIN AND CONTRAST AND LOWER IMAGE CLARITY AND TWO DIFFERENT ANAMORPHIC SQUEEZINGS TO TWO DIFFERENT COMPRESSION RATIOS. tHAT HAS TO BRING ABOUT A NUMBER OF ARTIFACTS AND IMAGE DEGRIDATION, JUST LIKE TAKING DIGITAL VIDEO THROUGH MULTIPLE COMPRESSIONS USING DIFFERENT CODECS.

 

Isco printing system

 

But as we know, finding a lab, setting up special processes and making tests will cost a lot of time & money, so let me repeat: I wouldn't really recommend it any more than Ultra 16, but with DI it is a way.

 

YES IT IS POSSIBLE, BUT DON'T KNOW IF THE LOSSES OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS.

 

Regarding Iscorama: I did not mean only the adapter lens (which is not a projection lens initially), but ISCO made a block anamorphic lens for SLR photography. I know that a filmmaker here in Germany had one adapted for his Eclair NPR years ago, but I am unable to find his name at present.

 

If I had to do a low budget project (and I have been through it), I would go one of these ways:

 

1. Have a good 16mm camera converted to S-16 (Bolex or Arri), blow it up to 35mm wide screen.

 

2. Try to get your hands on a 35mm TechniScope Arriflex. This will save film stock and processing, postproduction can be done on video/NLE, and the printing up to 4-perf is the last step when you really get distribution.

 

YES, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT TO PEOPLE THAT THIS IS A NOISY CAMERA THAT IS ONLY GOOD FOR MOS USE. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SHOOT SYNC SOUND USING 2-PERF THEN THEY CAN CONTACT MULTIVISION235 IN AUSTRALIA WHICH HAS TRANSFORMED A NUMBER OF PROPER PRODUCTION CAMERAS TO 2-PERF. OF COURSE THERE IS ALSO THE HIGH COST OF AN OPTICAL OR DIGITAL INTERMEDIATE TO GET TO A 35MM PRINT. FOR A SMALL MOVIE IT MAY VERY WELL BE CHEAPER TO SHOOT NORMAL 4-PERF 2X ANAMORPHIC AND DO A SIMPLE CONTACT IP.

 

3. Shoot 16mm standard frame, but with a 2x anamorphic lens like KOWA 8-Z (=16-H). Accept the limitations in lens choice and handling, use low speed stock for finest grain, stop down your lens at least two stops from wide open.

This negative can be printed up to 35mm scope with slight masking on the left/right.

Check that the printer is set up properly to full height anamorphic frame (on 35mm), NOT for 16mm to Academy 35mm!

 

I have seen shorts made that way, and it looked very, very good because the filmmakers accepted and respected the limitations.

 

4. Buy a Konvas 35mm camera, three anamorphic primes or one zoom lens, get to know the camera and its "bugs" intimately, then shoot on short ends and recan materials. Never had any trouble with it except when using too old high speed stock.

This will cost more during shooting, but will be least expensive when you need a print or want to do distribution on your own - just plain contact printing with no optical gadgets.

 

AGAIN JUST TO NOTE, THE KONVAS IS AN MOS CAMERA THAT MAKES A LOT OF NOISE AND IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR SYNC SOUND SHOOTING. INSTEAD ONE COULD RENT A SYNC SOUND PACKAGE FOR THE LENGTH OF THE SHOOT. WHY DO PEOPLE FEEL THEY NEED TO OWN ANYWAY?

 

Of course everyone can invent a new format, and I have much sympathy for those which in German language we call "bastler", which translates as "handicraft enthusiast" and means (part derogative, part lovingly) someone who likes to experiment and build things with whatever materials he gets his hands on. (In English, I have read the expression "tinkerer" in that context, does it mean the same?) For some people the fun lies in the process, not in the finished film. :rolleyes:

 

YES, TINKERER IS FAIRLY CLOSE.

 

So to all inventors out there: Unless you have to make a living making films or have spent all your money on that magic first feature, do whatever you like. I am looking forward to that revolutionary Single 8 VistaVision format, but IMHO filmmaking is hard enough so think about it before you go nonstandard ways. :)

 

SO TRUE.

My responses are inside your quoted post in CAPS.

[Matt Pacini]

(DM):

".... 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. ... "

 

(MP):

Exactly what I'm trying to provide with my film scanning business.

If I can scan your entire film at 2K resolution for around what it would cost you to telecine, how could that possibly be a bad thing?

 

And Mitch, you're right about asking how I'm going to store all this info, it's one of the problems I'm ironing out right now before I'm up & running. I'll probably start with Cineon files and several mass storage options, but not going out to any kind of videotape.

I suspect that much of my business will be in scanning just portions of lower budget films for FX work, commercials, music videos, etc., and not necessarily scanning peoples entire footage for features, so it won't always be a big problem.

And going out to 35mm neg is my next project! Maybe next year!!!

 

I think this whole Ultra16 discussion is being looked at incorrectly, as a "Ultra16 vs Super16" argument, and I don't see it that way at all.

It's just an additional alternative to get quality footage for less cost, that's all.

I mean, that's the ONLY thing that's driving the DV market, right?

Cheaper, but certainly not better.

 

I could pop over to the video section, and comment after EVERY single post:

"hey, just shoot 35mm film, why are you guys settling for an inferior product and reinventing the wheel?",

and be equally (if not more so) correct that all the statements being made against Ultra16, right?

 

It's just another format. Nobody's saying it's better that S16, but that maybe it's better than reg16, that's all.

 

Matt Pacini

:)

[Mitch Gross]

Matt--

 

I do understand your point about Ultra-16. It's really that I just see it as such a limited solution that it's just not that worthwhile to me. Super-16 is a viable professional format. Regular 16mm is all but dead as a format. How much life can there be in Ultra-16mm? I understand the limited uses that you and others see for it, but it is just that--limited. Limited to very old equipment and finishing in a very specific fashion. You can do it, but I just don't see much of a market for it. The only people who will ever want to use it are the people with little to no money, and they'll likely want to get out of it as soon as possible and move up to something bigger. Why would anyone want to get into a business with that as a customerbase?

[Matt Pacini]

Exactly correct, Mitch.

I'm not offering film scanning exclusively to Ultra16 shooters, by the way, and you're right, it doesn't make sense for large companies to spend any money accommodating this format, but for me, it just means spending an afternoon widening my gate, and I can scan not only reg16 and super16, but ultra as well.

 

I don't see it as replacing Super16 for anyone but those of us bottom feeders who can only afford the older reg16 mm gear, and are willing to spend a little time or money to get our cameras modified.

At best, I see it as a viable replacement for Regular16mm.

With the newer fine grained film stocks, and as was mentioned in an earlier post, shooting on lower speed stock, one could shoot Ultra16 footage that would look as good as Super16 footage shot on ISA500 for instance. (obvioiusly under optimum conditions; good glass, expert shooting, etc.)

 

I guess we'll all know for sure, if and when a bunch of us convert our cameras, start shooting, and seeing the results!

 

Matt Pacini

[Oliver Gläser]

I just wanted to reply regarding Ultra 16mm.

 

I was the DP that posted a message on the forum a few months back regarding shooting Ultra 16mm on a Feature film. that film was Hooligans and should be released in the fall.

 

The film was primarily shot in Super16mm on an Arri SR3 however I brought along two Eclair NPRs, converted to Ultra 16mm as my B and C cameras. In total about 1/3 of the footage shot in the production was shot in Ultra.

 

The idea from the start had always been to go to the digital intermediate stage and digitally blow up from a HD Master tape to 35mm. For this Ultra 16mm was ideal. As you all know, super 16mm must be cropped slightly to fit the 1.85:1 aspect ratio of North American 35mm projection standards. Ultra 16mm however is already 1.85:1 native. This means that the difference in size between the two images is only 3% at transfer. As long as you stay in the digital realm the difference is inperceptable.

 

I have never said that Ultra16mm is better than Super16mm. There shouldn't be an argument there. Many of you seem to put down the format for no good reason. Ultra will never surpass Super, however its merits cannot be denied. Its a great way to take older, still great camera's, like CP's, Eclairs, Arri's and Bolex's and relativly inexpensively revitalize them. I would take my Eclair NPR over an Arri BL, SR 1 or 2 anyday ( CA mount convertable to anything, including PL, Variable shutter, etc)

 

For those of us who own cameras or want to own them and don't have 10 grand or more to plunk down on a Super16mm camera, we now have the option to make our equipment more viable for the indy film industy.

 

Don't tell me its because of the lenses. There are a huge range of fanstastic older lenses that are available in the arri B and standard mount that can easily compare to many of todays modern PL mount lenses. Ultra gives the option to frame for both ultra and reg 16 using older reg 16mm lenses.

 

Hey if you can afford to buy an Aaton, or Arri super 16 mm camera great. if you can afford rental house prices, great, but frankly I like to have a camera at my disposal that I can pick up and shoot anything at anytime for myself or others that can compare to Super16mm footage shot on cameras more than 5 times as expensive. Most things go out to the digital intermediate stage these days anyways so it makes sense. No need to throw out good old gear.

 

Peace

Oliver Gläser

cinematographer

[David Mullen ASC]

So if you had no problems with the Ultra-16 format, what exactly does Kodak have to do to "support" the format? It sounds like current stocks work fine with it.

[Mitch Gross]

Most things go out to the digital intermediate stage these days anyways so it makes sense.

Oliver,

 

This is really the only statement in your post that I take issue with. I'm guessing that perhaps 3% of productions are currently getting DIs, and by the end of the year that could perhaps go up to 15% as prices drop. But DIs are certainly still much more expensive than standard optical printing, especially for Super-16 blowups. I welcome the day that DIs are the same or perhaps even cheaper, but it currently just isn't the case.

[Matt Pacini]

The thing that's not being mentioned here, is that if you convert to Ultra16, (unlike S16) you haven't switched your camera over to a new format - just added one.

You're still taking the regular 16mm frame, so you can still post exactly as you always have, unless you want the wider image area.

Even if there were absolutely zero post capabilities for the format, it's not an entirely bad idea, from the standpoint that you've got this extra image area to the sides being taken, that at a later date can be Di'd if you want.

 

I think this is really a class issue:

You DP's who have all your gear paid for when you shoot, hell, this just sounds plain crazy.

But us bottom feeders on micro budgets, or those of us who love shooting even when we're not getting paid for it, and need to, (or like to) shoot on older cameras, this sounds quite inviting.

 

Matt Pacini

[Mitch Gross]

The thing that's not being mentioned here, is that if you convert to Ultra16, (unlike S16) you haven't switched your camera over to a new format - just added one.

My Super-16 Aaton can shoot regular 16mm no problem, and I often do for video finish. Same with most S-16 conversions. BTW, if you think S-16 conversions are so horribly expensive, search the web for some fresh info. There's a website somewhere where a guy gives detailed instructions on how to convert a Bolex yourself (daunting but possible) and Les Bosher does complete conversions of Eclair NPR cameras for under $1000, and that includes a new PL lens mount (much cheaper without the new mount).

 

Any S-16 camera can still be used to shoot regular 16mm, same as any Ultra-16 camera. And it will cost the same on either format to take advantage of the extra image area--actually probably less in S-16 since it is the more common format.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Les Bosher does complete conversions of Eclair NPR cameras for under $1000,

> and that includes a new PL lens mount

 

In that case I can't see what the issue is. Who wouldn't spend that kind of money on something so fundamental?

 

Phil

[Matt Pacini]

Ah, that's an easy answer:

 

1. Because not all S16 conversios cost $1,000. Most are around $2,000 +

2. Not everyone owns, or wants to own a Bolex or Eclair NPR.

3. $1,000 doesn't include all the new and expensive lenses you're going to have to buy!!!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of this negativity when we were discussing 2 perf 35mm, (multivision35, or whatever they're calling it), which has exactly ONE place that can post it (in Australia), and exactly ONE place that supplies the cameras!!!!!!!

All the arguments given against Ultra16mm can be given against 2 perf 35mm, plus the gear is not cheap or easy to get.

 

And I have to repeat, all these arguments can be used against shooting DV also.

Is miniDV a professional format?

Is it better than 16mm or Super 16mm?

Yet all you guys are shooting it, even though all these arguments apply to DV. !?!?!?!?!?!

 

Matt Pacini

[Mitch Gross]

Ah, that's an easy answer:

 

1. Because not all S16 conversios cost $1,000. Most are around $2,000 +

 

JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE. AND THIS COST IS STILL PRETTY SMALL COMPARED TO THE COSTS OF SHOOTING ANY PROJECT OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE.

 

2. Not everyone owns, or wants to own a Bolex or Eclair NPR.

 

AGAIN JUST AN EXAMPLE. THE ACL CAN BE UPGRADED INEXPENSIVELY AS WELL. THERE'S ONLY SO MANY OLD CAMERAS THAT ONE WOULD BOTHER TO DO AN UPGRADE TO, BE IT SUPER-16 OR ULTRA-16. THE NPR IS A PRETTY POPULAR CHOICE AND I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THAT IT'S A CAMERA THAT ONE COULD PURCHASE AND UPGRADE TO SUPER-16 FAIRLY INEXPENSIVELY.

 

3. $1,000 doesn't include all the new and expensive lenses you're going to have to buy!!!

 

CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU THERE, OTHER THAN TO NOTE THAT MOST OF THE BETTER OPTICS OUT THERE DO COVER SUPER-16 OR CAN BE UPGRADED FOR NOT TOO MUCH MONEY.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of this negativity when we were discussing 2 perf 35mm, (multivision35, or whatever they're calling it), which has exactly ONE place that can post it (in Australia), and exactly ONE place that supplies the cameras!!!!!!!

All the arguments given against Ultra16mm can be given against 2 perf 35mm, plus the gear is not cheap or easy to get.

 

I AGREE, AND I THINK I'D FIND IT A HARD SELL FOR IT TO EVER MAKE GOOD ECONOMIC SENSE FOR ME HERE IN NEW YORK TO EVER USE IT. BUT TO BE FAIR, IT'S REALLY JUST THE CAMERA RENTAL AS JUST ABOUT ANY GOOD VIDEO TRANSFER HOUSE COULD DO THE DAILIES, ANY GOOD OPTICAL HOUSE COULD DO THE BLOWUP OR ANY DI FACILITY COULD HANDLE IT. BUT I WOULD NEED A VERY GOOD DEAL ON THE CAMERA RENTAL TO MAKE UP FOR THE INCREASED POST COSTS COMPARED WITH SIMPLY SHOOTING IN ANAMORPHIC 4-PERF 35MM. ASSUMING ALL ELSE COSTS THE SAME, SAVING HALF ON THE FILM STOCK MAY CUT $25,000, BUT THE OPTICAL OR DIGITAL INTERMEDIATE WILL MORE THAN OVERPOWER THAT COST. SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW A SITUATION WHERE 2-PERF WOULD BE WORTH IT, AND I AND DAVID SAID AS MUCH IN THE PAST.

 

And I have to repeat, all these arguments can be used against shooting DV also.

Is miniDV a professional format?

Is it better than 16mm or Super 16mm?

Yet all you guys are shooting it, even though all these arguments apply to DV. !?!?!?!

 

ALL THE SAME EXCEPT THE COST ISSUE. DV IS OF COURSE MUCH CHEAPER TO SHOOT. BUT I STILL CONTEND THAT IF YOU KNOW THAT A 35MM PRINT IS INTENDED ALL ALONG, THEN WITH EVEN BASIC PLANNING SUPER-16 CAN BE THE SAME COST IF NOT CHEAPER THAN SHOOTING MINI-DV ONCE THE POST COSTS ARE ALL FACTORED IN. AND AGAIN, I'VE SAID THIS IN THE PAST.

 

LOOK, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT IN WHATEVER FORMAT YOU CHOSE. I'M JUST PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE TO BE SURE THAT HONEST INFO IS OUT THERE FOR ALL FORMATS. WHEN FINISHING TO A 1.85 (NOT 1.66) FRAME, ULTRA-16 IS ALMOST AS BIG A FRAME AS SUPER-16 SO I SINCERELY DOUBT THERE WOULD BE ANY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE IN IMAGE QUALITY. BUT THERE ARE ALL THE OTHER ISSUES AND QUESTIONS WE'VE MENTIONED AND I JUST WANT TO BE SURE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE REAL DIFFERENCES ARE. SUPER-16 IS AN ACCEPTED PRO FORMAT AND YOU COULD SHOOT IT FOR YEARS TO COME. ULTRA-16 IS NOT AND IT'S INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY THAT IT WILL EVER CATCH UP (ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONVERATION THAT HAS EVER BEEN AFFORDED THE CONCEPT). BUT GO AHEAD AND SHOOT IT IF YOU WANT.

My responses in CAPS inside your quote.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure there are plenty of good arguments against 2-perf 35mm. But surely you can understand the appeal: nearly the same quality as Super-35 for a 2.35 blow-up but save 50% on stock. Plus the fact that the great Sergio Leone films were shot in 2-perf.

 

So where's the romantic appeal of Ultra-16mm? ;) A format that uses the oldest 16mm camera equipment to just get nearly the same quality of Super-16. And no famous films shot on it.

 

That's technically intriguing at the most but it lacks the sexiness of 2-perf...

 

Since I don't own ANY cameras, and it's a lot easier to rent a Super-16 camera than an Ultra-16 one, it's very hard for me to see the appeal. I really DON'T want to be shooting features on an old Arri-16BL, you know what I mean? And Super-16 is over thirty years old -- surely there must be SOME old cameras in that format that are affordable?

 

It just such a minor solution to such a minor problem that I have a hard time getting as interested in it as I would with 2-perf 35mm...

 

And it's not like you can't shoot with a regular 16mm camera and just frame for widescreen, so it doesn't exactly make a useless old camera useful again. It just gives them a little improvement in negative size, but IF it's coupled with the crappy old lenses that often comes with these old cameras...

 

But just like I haven't shot a film in 2-perf yet because of the lack of cameras and post support, I also don't recommend Ultra-16 for the same reason. But maybe some great indie film will hit the theaters shot in Ultra-16 and it will become the next big thing for people who can't afford to rent an Aaton.

[Oliver Gläser]

So where's the romantic appeal of Ultra-16mm?  A format that uses the oldest 16mm camera equipment to just get nearly the same quality of Super-16. And no famous films shot on it.

 

We'll see about that...Hooligans should come out in theatre in the Fall or Winter or 2004 and that was shot, by me in both super and ultra...not to say that I have the draw of leone but...hey you never know :D

 

This is really the only statement in your post that I take issue with. I'm guessing that perhaps 3% of productions are currently getting DIs, and by the end of the year that could perhaps go up to 15% as prices drop. But DIs are certainly still much more expensive than standard optical printing, especially for Super-16 blowups. I welcome the day that DIs are the same or perhaps even cheaper, but it currently just isn't the case.

 

Mitch,

Your right, of course. What I meant was that here in Vancouver, I transfer all my Ultra footage to HD and MiniDV for very little. I Offine in DV and then...if the producers have the cash they can easily digitally blowup to 35 from the HD master. So what it means to me is that since I rarely have my personal stuff printed it remains in a the digital realm. Perhaps we missunderstood each other. I shot Hooligans with this in mind and as far as I know that is still what the producers intend to do with it. We'll see.

 

Oliver Glaser

[Oliver Gläser]

I should have mentioned however that unlike Super16mm, Ultra 16mm was designed for the DI route. That is what I understand from the Website that used to be online by the supposed creator of the format. I'm just an advocate though, and for me the formatt has worked great. By the way, a Super 16mm Camera could also be converted to shoot all three 16mm formats with no loss in any of the aspect ratios...so any of you lucky guys who own your own super 16mm cameras and you want to be able to frame for all three formats...GIVE IT A TRY perhaps with a second gate. just an idea. :D

Oliver Glaser

[David Mullen ASC]

Ah, that makes more sense. I had assumed when you said "digital intermediate" you meant scanning at 2K, not making an HD master with the idea that it could be transferred to 35mm later.

 

Shooting Ultra-16 with the plan to master to HD versus the plan to do a 2K digital intermediate and transfer it to 35mm are slightly different things, cost-wise. Because anyone who seriously has the money to plan a 2K digital intermediate can probably afford to shoot with a Super-16 camera. However, mastering to HD for home video is a little less ambitious.

[John Pytlak RIP]

When it comes to image quality, "Size Does Matter". So any format that increases the image area on the film should produce a sharper image, with less graininess.

 

The implementation of a new 16mm format is up to the camera manufacturers, the labs, and the users, not Kodak. Any new format must take into account the well-established SMPTE standards for film dimensions, printed image area, projected image area, scanned area, edgeprinting, etc.

 

As others have mentioned, Super-16 has become the preferred format today, with very well established infrastructure within the industry:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/index.jhtml

 

Kodak Entertainment Imaging (Motion Picture) had one of the best years ever last year, with record volumes of film being sold. Most of the stuff you see in the press relates to the changing business in consumer photography, with fast growing FILM markets in China, India and Latin America, and the need to provide new consumer digital imaging technology in more developed countries.

 

As far as "downsizing", here is a recent letter from Kodak EI President Eric Rodli to our customers:

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

January 22, 2004

 

Dear Kodak motion picture customer:

 

This week you may have heard some updates on Kodak's new business strategy, as well as plans to lower our cost structure.

 

The structural changes announced are not a reaction to temporary earnings or business pressures. In the consumer world, the digital reality is now, and Kodak has no choice but to adapt to the digital model, which is characterized by faster growth, tighter profit margins, aggressive pricing and swift product turnover.

 

Please do not interpret this as Kodak 'abandoning' film.

 

Refocusing our R&D investments applies primarily to our consumer and medical imaging businesses, where the demand for digital imaging products and services is growing rapidly. Reducing costs in these areas also allows for Entertainment Imaging to continue its efforts to deliver the best film products - and best value possible to our motion picture customers.

 

Entertainment is still a film business, and film will remain an important part of the imaging chain into the foreseeable future. The success of our VISION2 product proves motion picture film's continued viability in the marketplace, and justifies future investment in silver halide. Nothing approaches film for its quality, resolution, dynamic range, flexibility and archivability.

 

At the same time, EI is expanding its digital participation, and we are making selective and strategically important investments to do that. One such investment is the acquisition of postproduction company Laser Pacific. This broadens our participation in the TV post arena, and brings exciting new digital/hybrid competencies to Kodak.

 

We believe that, in our industry, digital solutions make the most sense in the post production arena?so that's where you'll see the majority of our digital participation in the short term. And this includes our silver halide investments, which are incorporating a full systems approach for more flexibility in post.

 

We're working hard to supply you with the technology for what we foresee as a film/digital hybrid world. As such, within Entertainment Imaging, Kodak?s commitment to and investment in film continues. In fact, we continue to dedicate over 70% of our motion picture R&D budget to film technology. Additional announcements later in the year will attest to that fact.

 

Know that we remain passionate about film building. We are committed to all our customers in the creative community and to developing a full range of tools and services to help bring your vision to the screen, more faithfully, efficiently, and at the highest levels of quality.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Eric Rodli

 

Eric Rodli,

President Entertainment Imaging

Senior Vice President Eastman Kodak

[Mister X]

Greetings,

 

Having looked long and hard at many options, I have become interested in Ultra 16 for a number of reasons. DV cameras, (even with anamorphic and native 16:9 chips), do not offer the resolution that 16mm film can provide. 35mm costs are simply beyond any low budget production, (except for Russian MOS cameras with their considerable difficulties in supplies and options). 16mm is the established format for low budget productions and standard television, but, it will not provide a widescreen image without severe cropping or the use of anamorphic lenses. Super 16 is an intermediate format, which either has to be blown up to 35mm, blown down to 16mm, or transferred to a digital intermediate. While I have seen many excellent feature films that were shot with Super 16, these productions had a budget that allowed for a 35mm blow up for theatrical distribution. What I often see Super 16 touted for is making your film production safe for widescreen television, but this can also be done with Ultra 16.

 

I've decided to buy a 16mm camera and convert it to Ultra 16. I can shoot single or double perf film, as I would for a regular 16mm camera. I should not need to modify anything more than the film gate and viewfinder of the camera. The film can be processed, cut, and printed like any other 16mm film, (without an intermediate step). Yet, I'll have that extra image on the original negative, if it is needed for a widescreen format. I'll have much better resolution and far more shooting options than most prosumer DV cameras, I'm not playing about with expensive anamorphic lenses and their distortions, and I don't need to blow up or blow down to an established format with Super 16. As I see it, I can shoot 16mm for very low budget production, but, (for the relatively small conversion cost to Ultra 16, compared to anamorphic lenses or a conversion to Super 16), I can provide a widescreen image, when it will be needed.

 

Presently, my principal concerns in converting to Ultra 16 are in finding what lenses are safe for this filming gate, (undoubtedly, far more are safe for Ultra 16 than for Super 16), and in finding labs that can handle the Ultra 16 format, (for when I do need to go to a digital intermediate). Any advice on these matters would be most helpful and welcome.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't believe Ultra-16 is any more viable for projecting a widescreen 16mm print than Super-16 is. Your post suggests it has some advantage over Super-16 if you plan on making 16mm prints - I don't see how. If you're talking about making a contact-printed low-con print or interpositive for telecine transfer, Regular 16mm, Ultra-16, and Super-16 are all the same. If you're talking about making a 16mm projection print with an optical sound track, Ultra-16 is not a 16mm projection format.

 

Your ONLY advantage with Ultra-16 is the ability to use old, cheap 16mm cameras that can't be converted over to Super-16 easily, cheaply, or at all. And I'm not saying that's not a real advantage, just not a particularly impressive one.

 

As for single or double-perf stock, most 16mm stock sold is now single-perf unless double-perf is requested.

 

And I still don't get this mentality of saving money by using over 30-year-old loud 16mm camera equipment converted to Ultra-16 with the plan on doing an incredibly expensive digital intermediate to blow it up to 35mm. Unless you are talking about HDTV as an intermediate step, not 2K, but even then, the laser recording costs of going to 35mm are really high. But then, I guess it's the same issue as with shooting in DV -- shoot on the cheapest format possible and transfer it to 35mm using the most expensive method possible.

[Mitch Gross]

And let's remember that not only can you not project Ultra-16, you also have no room for the soundtrack as this format invades that space. Same issues as Super-16, although there are facilities that have Super-16 projectors that properly show this format and can interlock separate audio. There is no such facility for Ultra-16.

[Oliver Gläser]

Ultra is intended for Blowup to 35, either digitally or optically just like super16mm. If you are shooting super16mm or Ultra for widescreen TV then you would stay in digital anyway.

 

All those woes about cost...who cares... we're cinematographers not producers or distributors. The film can be cut on video, on the cheap, and then shown to the distributors who can then pick up the tab for the blowup. these aren't costs that we need worry about. Nowaday you can even submit to film festivals in HD, DV or Betacam and they will project it that way. For me the most important thing is the origination, and origination on film, any gauge looks better than any video at this point and doubtless for years to come.I do think that the mods should be done professionally and the cameras should be calibrated thereafter.

 

Ultra costs less for all involved in the production and in the end, if an optical blowup is worth it, then a printer gate can be modified as quickly and cheaply as it was on the camera.

 

It seems that you guys are being more than the devils advocates against the format. If you look at the plus' and minus' of the format objectivly then you will no doubt see it more as those of us with less capital for camera gear. anyway i do appreciate all your arguments however I believe that I can honestly counter any detractors that you may find of the format.

 

One more thing...I don't think that anyone is saying that the format is any MORE viable only that it is a viable option for older cameras or for those of us who can't afford Super upgrades. also regarding dual perf stocks...If you want to shoot high speed stuff upwards of 350 FPS you need to get dual perf stock. As you know, dual perf is still able to be used to acquire an Ultra 16mm image. This means that you can shoot even at the highest (practical ) speeds on photosonics cameras and still capture a true widescreen image rather than having to severely crop reg16mm. I think thats all I've got for now.

 

 

 

Oliver Gläser

[Mitch Gross]

I think we've really ground this one into the dirt. I guess there is a window of use for Ultra-16, just that in my opinion it is an extremely narrow window between regular 16mm and Super-16. Others seem to find the window larger and just right for them, and I guess that's fine. But if anyone asks my opinion I will always argue for Super-16 as the better option because I truly believe it is and there has been nothing presented in this or any other discussion to make me believe otherwise. Before people give up on the idea of shooting Super-16 because they believe it will be too expensive, I suggest they fuly research what the real costs of moving to the format actually are. If they still feel that it is too expensive and Ultra-16 makes more economic sense to them at the time, then so be it. But I don't think moving to Super16 is all that expensive but the benefits to the format are substantial.

 

Enough from me.