Ultra-16mm -- Viable for Digital Intermediates?

[Vivian Zetetick]

In all fairness, I think the statement...

 

"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..."

 

...is not quite giving the proposed format a fair hearing. I could think of many more possible advantages to shooting ultra16, for the low-budget filmmaker.

 

For one thing, if you intend to edit film workprints on a flatbed editor, with the goal of having negatives conformed and an optical projection print struck, it seems that you can have standard 16mm workprints made for use on a standard flatbed editor -- you just make yourself aware that there is a bit more image on either side of the frame. The center is still the center. This is not possible or the case with super-16. Super-16 requires a flatbed editor modified for super-16 to be practically usable.

 

I have access to the facilities of a nearby university which has around 5 standard 16mm flatbed editors, but not one is a super-16 flatbed -- and they even have a 35mm flatbed.

 

I called ColorLab in MD about shooting super16. They said if I shoot super16 they will provide super16 workprints only. If I want my workprints optically "blown down" to matted standard 16 for editing purposes, they will impose a huge fee for the process. This would of course undermine my low-budget MO.

 

They only other way to get an optical release print from your super16 originals (if you don't want to use an expensive digital intermediate) is to have digital workprints made -- the film is printed on digital tape with KeyKode numbers burned on the screen. As anyone who operates on a low budget knows, digital workprints are not cost effective for a low-budget MO. The low-budget filmmaker often has to shoot things piecemeal -- over the course of a few months or few years -- and labs impose large minimums for digital workprints each time they have to fire up the machine. If you want to edit your workprints on a computer, it's best to film the whole film in one go, and have the lab do the whole film-to-tape transfer at one go. That will save you the most money.

 

But you wouldn't be shooting 16mm if you had the most money. You have very little. So what do you do? ColorLab told me they will just keep my negatives in storage for me! When I'm done shooting my super16 film -- after 6 months or a year -- they will make the digital workprints all at once, if I have the cash. This is not acceptable, and if the original film is damaged or otherwise unusable, you just can't wait until the very end to find out.

 

As a low-budget 16mm filmmaker who works for himself and by himself (just like a poet or painter has to) I have to mastermind the entire landscape of my productions. Not just one bit. I write the script, find willing actors, build the sets & props, shoot the film on my own equipment, edit the film, etc., all with my own money.

 

Yes I could shoot standard 16 and be happy -- and I have been. But if a proposed widescreen format like Ultra16 will integrate into the standard 16mm production path at ONLY the cost of the conversion, it becomes a huge savings over Super16, and the result, as has already been pointed out, is a native 1.85:1 image which needs no cropping for blow-up to 35mm. It should also be possible for a lab to go the less-expensive route and blow-down Ultra16 to a matted 16mm optical print. ColorLab currently offers this service for conformed super16 originals -- and it seems like an attractive cost-saving measure.

 

So some of the benefits of Ultra16 for the low-budget filmmaker who owns older standard 16 gear, if the format were supported along the whole production path, would be no new lenses, no special editing equipment, and no digital workprints or intermediates. You just pretend like it is regular 16 the whole way -- and at the end you have a widescreen print struck. That's the idea, anyway. But again, the path is a bit overgrown right now because not many have begun to walk that way.

 

I still maintain that, if it were a viable path, more film would get sold and Ultra16-friendly labs would do even more business.

[Oliver Gläser]

Mitch, your right. Nobody is saying ultra is better. I would shoot super over ultra any day of the week however that isn't always an option and if the choice is between reg16mm and Ultra then I would choose ultra. If the choice were between super and ultra then of course I would choose super. Thanks mitch

 

Oliver Gläser

[Mitch Gross]

"it seems that you can have standard 16mm workprints made for use on a standard flatbed editor -- you just make yourself aware that there is a bit more image on either side of the frame. The center is still the center. This is not possible or the case with super-16. Super-16 requires a flatbed editor modified for super-16 to be practically usable."

 

Or you could just be aware of the extra area on one side of the frame in Super-16. I have seen people edit this way no problem and remember that with a workprint one can always look directly at the film itself with a loupe or simple magnifying glass to see the image.

 

"They only other way to get an optical release print from your super16 originals (if you don't want to use an expensive digital intermediate) is to have digital workprints made -- the film is printed on digital tape with KeyKode numbers burned on the screen. As anyone who operates on a low budget knows, digital workprints are not cost effective for a low-budget MO. The low-budget filmmaker often has to shoot things piecemeal -- over the course of a few months or few years -- and labs impose large minimums for digital workprints each time they have to fire up the machine. If you want to edit your workprints on a computer, it's best to film the whole film in one go, and have the lab do the whole film-to-tape transfer at one go. That will save you the most money."

 

Not really true unless you are working with incredibly small amounts of material. Colorlab may charge differently (by the hour), but many labs will charge by the foot for video transfer work, with a basic minimum charge that you should easily be over even when shooting piecemeal. A standard rate at a New York lab (and this is a student rate, not some special deal that I as a steady customer arrange) is $.10/ft. to develop and either $.15/ft. for video dailies or $.21/ft. for film dailes, with a minimum charge of $100. For the video dailies that would be only one roll of 400' to meet the minimum. Video dailies are still cheaper even on smaller jobs.

[Matt Pacini]

I look at Ultra16mm this way:

 

You can treat it as if it's reg16mm you're shooting, but if later on, you want, or need a wider image, you have it sitting there between the perfs.

You don't have to do anything differently (other than obviously framing a bit wider when you're shooting) in post if you don't want the wider image.

 

BUT, if you do, and/or someone is funding the blowup to 35mm, and/or you're using my low-budget scanning service (har har, had to get a plug in there!), then you have more image area to work with.

 

It doesn't forever change the way you post, blowup, blowdown, etc. the way Super16 does, (not that that's a bad thing...), so there's no drawback - you still have a 16mm frame.

 

Matt Pacini

[Rachel Oliver]

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.

Actually The Vario-Switar POE 16-100 does cover S16! (With minimal vignetting on its widest angle when shooting wide open at F1.9) it was the replacement lens (12.5 - 100mm) that cannot cover the S16 frame size below 25mm, Bolex can convert the later lenses for a handsome fee but if you want to shoot S16 with a Bolex The older POE 16-100 zoom is a great option. A Peleng 8mm prime also covers S16 and could be a nice replacement for the old 10mm primes which do not cover S16. Hope this helps? (All be it very late and by now quite out of context :rolleyes: )

[Vivian Zetetick]

Have you verified this personally? The Bolex Web site ( http://www.bolex.ch ) states:

 

"The use of Kern fixed focus lenses of the current series, with the exception of the Switar f = 10mm 1:1.6, does not present any problems. This is not the case for the Vario-Switar zoom lenses traditionally supplied with our cameras: the old f = 18-86mm EE and OE models are unusable, the 16-100mm POE model can be used with some restrictions for the short focal length. The current 12.5-100mm and 12.5-100mm PTL models show a "port-holing" effect with focal lengths below f= 25mm."

 

If the POE 16-100 is mostly usable I am a happy man. I saw some super16 footage taken with the Peleng 8mm C-Mount for Bolex. The image quality looked great for my purposes but it's a rather wide lens. It's not comically wide, but almost.

 

I read that the Schneider Cinegon 10mm C-Mount Lens, which is most like the Switar 10mm, will cover the complete super16 frame.

[Rachel Oliver]

A confession..... I have not actually shot with the POE in S16 but I spent a long time researching if this vignetting really did happen. I got it on very good authority from Les Boscher (Great UK based camera engineer) and Andrew Alden (author of "The Bolex Bible") that the POE 16 - 100 only suffers vignetting at it's absolute widest angle when wide open at 1.9 in S16! Obviously it could be that they are both crazy old men who spend their days spurting out lies about lenses and such likes but I think they are telling me the truth! I think the Bolex quote about port-holing refers to the mild vignetting when wide open. However for your own peace of mind test test test or better yet find someone who can test for you. I will be "Upgrading" to this format with my REX-5 sometime this year and will report about the coverage of my own POE if you dont 1st.....

Yes the Peleng is almost absurdly wide but I love it to bits.

Olly

[Christian Appelt]

Hm, wonder why vignetting should be more noticeable when shooting wide open, no matter whether it's wide or tele position on the zoom lens?

Would have expected just the opposite...

[Oliver Gläser]

Mr Pytlak,

I was just wondering, with all the interest that is obviously being generated by Ultra 16mm, this forum being an example, having been read more than any other posts on the site, that Kodak realize the potential for, and support the format as a less expensive alternative for independent film makers with older gear to S16mm. It seems to me that if Kodak recognized some of the merits of this format that it would motivate more than just small post houses to alter the gates on their scanners for Ultra 16mm (a very small expense), making the format more viable and spurring on filmmakers to pick up their older camera gear, modify and shoot in the format. I could think of dozens of cinematographers in my area that have older Reg16 Cameras that don't seem worth or would be impossible to convert to Super16mm that would convert to Ultra. Support or at least official information would really not cost Kodak much if anything, and would, I believe, spur on an even greater number of filmmakers to shoot 16 rather than video. This would convert to more film being sold, and therefore kodak making more money.

Just a thought.

I have never had a single problem with the format on my Professionally converted (still under 100 dollars) Eclair NPR which has been used to shoot shorts and feature in this format. Just wanted to know what you thought. I suppose that this isn't all that different to the slow build up of support for super when it was first developed. I just ask that it be considered and the pros and cons of it looked at before dismissing it without a fair trial.

Thanks for your time

 

Oliver Gläser

Cinematographer

[Dominic Case]

I can't see why anyone would even consider Ultra 16.

 

The benefit, apparently, is that it's cheaper to convert cameras as there is no recentering of the lens to be done. I notice that it's mainly in the US that interest is being shown. The rest of the world moved on from standard 16 years ago. It's no longer an issue.

 

A word of warning if you are determined, however. It took most facilities a long time to adjust to super 16, as image was being exposed in an area of the negative traditionally used for transport. Processing machines, synchronisers, telecines, printers, all tended to scratch the neg in that area, even after they had supposedly been modified. It took a while. Ask anyone who went through it in the 80s.

 

If you now want to use the perf area for image, you have a much bigger problem. There needs to be support for the neg somewhere! Expect negative damage. maybe not on every roll - maybe not in a lab that has pioneered this format - but in another lab that says" no problem of course we can handle all this". And in your camera if all you do is file out the gate. And so on.

 

Super formats are all about using the negative area more efficiently. Super 16 does that, by using the soundtrack area, and the full height that's available. Someone said it was only 15% bigger than standard 16. In fact it's 22% wider, and when you blow up to 35mm widescreen ratio, you use 47% more negative area than standard 16. Ultra 16 is limited in its height by having to fit between the perfs - so you are only exposing about 85% of the height available. You may as well stick with standard 16.

 

As for "can't afford to convert the camera to super 16" but planning to edit workprint on a flatbed. Why did everyone abandon 16mm workprints in the 90s when non-linear editing came in? It was cheaper, that's why!

 

Well that's my considered opinion.

[Oliver Gläser]

if you read over the posts you'd get it... why put it down. it seems very narrow minded to me. I admit its not for everyone, and super is superior in many ways...if you can afford it. for those who can't this is a great option. I say this because after many tests of camera, stock, lenses, processing and transfer I used the format to shoot a feature film to be released soon and there is no greater test than that for the format. It worked perfectly and as designed. Its really a niche type format... for some its great and for others Super would work better. I also have a High speed camera that is converted to Ultra that shoots over 3000FPS which I have used to great effect for several small projects. Due to the need for dual perf film there is no way to use reg 16 for this and achieve the same image area, and this footage cuts together perfectly with Super. As you say in the 80s there was problems until people caught on to Super16. Maybe it will take a few years for some people to really know and support Ultra...maybe never... doesn't mean it isn't viable. With some support it could do a lot for 16mm film making.

Hope you re-examine the info with an open mind. Happy St. Patricks day.

Oliver Gläser

[John King]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

 

I hate to enter this discussion late, but I am a new member here and it was exactly information on this new format that brought me here. After reading the threads I cannot see why anyone would be against the process if it can be helpful in 35mm blow-ups and ect. Indeed, Matt Pacini has summed up the case for me in his arguments that there is no need to throw away older cameras that are still good work horses. This is my case exactly.

 

For years I have desired to make films. The great obstacle for me back in the 1980s was the costs of equipment. I absolutely abhorred the idea of risking all to rent camera packages. Over the years I'd about given up on my dream. But several years ago, playing around on the computer, I found ebay, and checked out photography equipment listed there. Of course I found movie equipment among the listing and discovered that old 16mm cameras and related equipment that I had long dreamed of working with were suddenly within my price range. So I started buying them.

 

To date, I have several Bolex models, a Bell & Howell Filmo 70, and a Mauer 150. It is the Bolexes and the Mauer I am most thinking about for conversion to the Ultra16 format. Mainly the old Mauer 150 will be my primary camera for this film I am planning for this spring. It is already set up for the old 60Hz 'Pilotone' system which will be my venue to sync sound (see how primitive I am?)

 

Anyway, the prices asked for Super16mm cameras are still way beyond my reach, so this is about the best that I can do with the money I have. An old maxim of independent filmmaking that I find viable is to do whatever you can, and can afford to make the best film you possibly can, and that's what I intend to do. I'm not trying to be argumentive here but this is my situation simply put; This equipment (for better or worse) is simply what I have and so I am simply going to have to make it do the best way I can.

 

I know full well that I won't get the image frame that Super16 offers, but I can get close, and closer yet than the regular 16mm format would allow. Also I have editing equipment for 16mm film, a variety of syncronisers 3,4, and 6 gang, viewers, squak boxes, and even a Moviola AH-77 6-plate flatbed console. So I am editing on film, but my plan was to have the conformed negative transfered to digital formats for 35mm blow-ups, and burning to DVD.

 

So if Mr. Pacini is still posting here, and if he has his transfer business up and running I would be interested in talking to him about sending some work his way.

 

Thanks,

 

John Mark King

kin0pic_studio

[David Mullen ASC]

Don't you think for what you spent to own several 16mm cameras you could have shot a feature in 3-weeks and rented a modern Super-16 Arri-SR3 for the same price?

 

You have to understand that a system that reinvogorates thirty-year-old 16mm cameras and slightly improves the negative area being used is simply not going to be a large enough percentage of 16mm production for major post houses and Kodak & Fuji to support it, that's all. It's nothing personal, but it's similar to why Super-8 is not better supported. Filmmaking is a niche market and filmmakers using Super-8 cameras and Bolexes are a niche of that niche, and a niche that has the least amount of money to spend by their very nature, so as a market, they are not going to be particularly enticing to major companies to support.

 

This is just a way of explaining why Ultra-16 is not particularly supported and why it probably won't be, regardless of whether it would benefit some people. But nothing is stopping people from persuing this approach if they want to. But I suspect that as each year goes by and these old 16mm cameras get even older, and more and more used Super-16 cameras go on sale, Ultra-16 will be even farther from becoming supported by the post industry.

 

It's not a bad idea necessarily but I think it's going to have to be done by the people who want it without any outside support.

[Guest Robert Skates]

I teach cinematography. My students shoot regular 16mm. For years our telecine work was done on an URSA. We got a really good rate as most of the highend clients at the post house were using the SPIRIT. The URSA was taken out of service last year. Our transfers are now done on the SPIRIT. The quality of the SPIRIT combined with the VISION 2 stocks is nothing short of breathtaking. In the low/no budget world regular 16 is plenty good enough. The reality is your project will most likely only ever live on video. If you can afford S16 then by all means shoot S16 (ARRI SR3/AATON XTR w/ZEISS ultra primes). But if the choice to shoot S16 means an old zoom attached to a poorly maintained camera(ECLAIR NPR w/Angenieux 15-150), then forget it. If you enjoy the challenge of doing your own ULTRA 16 conversion then carry on knowing there will be some hurdles to overcome in post.

 

You would best served spending your time and resources on good glass. Shoot on longer lenses. Shoot at or near T2.8 in order to control your dept of field (keep it shallow). Shoot on the VISION 2 200T 7217. Shoot some tests of your actors & locations exposed normal, over and under. Get a really good supervised video transfer (SPIRIT). These steps will do far more for the quality of your image than ULTRA 16.

 

Robert Skates

 

(There is nothing wrong with the ECLAIR NPR, I love that camera, just making a point!)

[Tim Carroll]

Robert is so right. We have been shooting regular 16mm for three years now with two little pieces of tape on our ground glass for framing 16:9, and transferring it in telecine to 16:9 and outputting it to DVD. And anyone short of the best cinematographers on this forum would be hard pressed to tell the difference betweeen our footage and Super 16.

 

If we were blowing up to 35mm, yes it would be an issue, but if we had the money to blow our films up to 35mm prints for theatrical release, we would have the money to use Super 16. We don't have either.

 

-Tim

[Sam Wells]

I have to agree also that Robert makes very sensible points.

 

I'd take the best transfers *alone* over "bragging rights" re the negative area real estate of "Ultra 16"

 

As for DI, one can only *wish* DI was priced at a point where this format might have a tiny edge over straight 16 in terms of viability. The economic reality today is, the cost of shooting true S16 over reg or "Ultra" is nearly trivial compared to what a DI > 35 is gonna run you.

 

 

Where I disagree completely with Robert is the issue of long lenses. Why restrict yourself to one kind of perspective and not others ? It's like writing a poem or novel but limiting yor vocabulary by half.

 

Nor do I think deep focus is the root of all evil, I guess I'm in the minority today.

 

-Sam

[Guest Robert Skates]

I suggest longer lenses to simply further limit the depth of field. Not always possible or even appropriate. 16mm has more depth of field than 35mm. Longer lenses, shooting @ T2.8 will help give 16mm more of a 35mm look. My students often comment or ask why certain shots look more like a "movie" than other shots. Most often it's the shallow depth of field they are responding to.

 

Robert Skates

[Stephen Williams]

I suggest longer lenses to simply further limit the depth of field. Not always possible or even appropriate. 16mm has more depth of field than 35mm. Longer lenses, shooting @ T2.8 will help give 16mm more of a 35mm look. My students often comment or ask why certain shots look more like a "movie" than other shots. Most often it's the shallow depth of field they are responding to.

 

Robert Skates

 

Hi,

 

The focal length of a lens does not effect the DOF.

 

From David Samuelson's Hands on Manual for Cinematographers. page: 218* :

 

"Depth of Field remains the same, regardless of focal length so long as

the image size remains the same. There is no point in changing to a

shorter focal length lens, and moving in closer,

because if the image size remains the same so will the depth of field."

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

My students often comment or ask why certain shots look more like a "movie" than other shots. Most often it's the shallow depth of field they are responding to.

 

Robert Skates

 

1. I think Gregg Tolland, Stanley Cortez shot movies too :D

 

2. What Stephen said

 

3. I shoot with a 6mm lens and a pond looks like a lake Good for low budget films :D

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

"Depth of Field remains the same, regardless of focal length so long as

the image size remains the same.

 

While that's true, that once you change the distance to compensate for the change in focal length, to maintain subject size in frame, the depth of field is the same... the practical reality is that when using a wider angle lens, the same DISTANT background will look smaller in frame, and therefore harder to tell whether it is sharp or not, whereas with a longer lens, that far background is larger in frame and therefore it is plainly visible that it is not in focus. But in terms of the subject's depth of field -- how far foward or back of the point of focus it can move and still look reasonably in focus -- that doesn't change.

 

So longer lenses give the illusion of less depth of field; wider-angle lenses give the illusion of greater depth of field, even if the actual depth of field figures remain the same if the subject size is maintained by moving closer or farther away.

[Guest Robert Skates]

Hi,

 

The focal length of a lens does not effect the DOF.

 

From David Samuelson's Hands on Manual for Cinematographers. page: 218* :

 

"Depth of Field remains the same, regardless of focal length so long as

the image size remains the same. There is no point in changing to a

shorter focal length lens, and moving in closer,

because if the image size remains the same so will the depth of field."

 

Stephen

 

I was also trying to keep thing simple. Focal length does factor into depth of field relative to the distance from focal plane to subject. A 8mm @ 5' will have more DOF than an 28mm @ 5' Keeping the subject the same size while switching focal lengths and focal place to subject distance will equal similar depth of field. The compression/distortion factor associated with various focal length must also be taken into consideration. I may have made my point more clear by mentioning the spacial compression associated with longer lenses.

 

Thanks for keeping me honest. And for the record, I have nothing against deep DOF or wide lenses.

 

Robert Skates

[Stephen Williams]

Thanks for keeping me honest. And for the record, I have nothing against deep DOF or wide lenses.

 

Robert Skates

 

Hi,

 

As you said you taught cinematography I thought I should comment!

 

Cheers

 

Stephen

[Guest jeremy edge]

Tim Carrol.....

 

I just checked out your site.

 

Was "Novice" shot r16 then cropped for 1.85:1 ?

 

If so ,very sharp!

 

Did you crop in post or have the transfer "squeezed" then unsquezed in post.

 

Film stock, lenses ,telecine?

 

Looks real good.

[Mitch Gross]

I have nothing against Ultra-16 other than the fact that it is not quite as good as Super-16 and since that format is so well-established why bother. It may add some life to a less expensive camera, but that small savings pales in comparison to the costs needed in either format to produce even a modest amount of material.

 

I get this all the time--"I'm going to make a low budget movie--which camera hould I buy?" Well, none. And the money spent buying or renting a camera is small compared to the money spent on filmstock, processing and transferring/printing. That is where your money should go.

 

Feature film. TINY 5:1 shooting ratio, so 600 minutes of footage for 120 minute finished film. At roughly $20 per minute to buy the stock, get it developed and transferred to video for editing, that's $12,000. This is the same for any 16mm format (actually, Ultra-16 might be more because it is non-standard so there may be a setup fee for the transfer). Then there are optical or digital intermediates and the cost of getting 35mm prints. Now you're easily in the $100k zone. So you wanna pay $5000 on a 40+ year-old beater camera with ancient, yellowing lenses instead of renting a top-notch Super-16 package with some of the latest optics?

 

Penny wise, pound foolish.

[Tim Carroll]

Tim Carrol.....

 

I just checked out your site.

 

Was "Novice" shot r16 then cropped for 1.85:1 ?

 

If so ,very sharp!

 

Did you crop in post or have the transfer "squeezed" then unsquezed in post.

 

Film stock, lenses ,telecine?

 

Looks real good.

 

Thanks Jeremy,

 

Shot with an Arriflex 16SR, regular 16, with ground glass (fiber optics screen actually) taped off for 16:9, and a Zeiss 10-100 T2 Mk1 lens on Kodak Vision II 500T (not Expression). Shot a 16:9 framing chart at the head of roll 1 and had telecine colorist frame off of that.

 

The master plan was to have the whole thing transferred 16:9 squeezed and then unsqueezed and edit in Final Cut Pro to output to DVD for film festival release. Were going to do the whole supervised, color corrected transfer on a Spirit with a DaVinci. The tests we did that way turned out fantastic. Unfortunately we ran out of time and money. So what you see on the web site for the trailer is just straight 4:3 one light transfer on a Rank(Mike at Filmworkers/Astro in Chicago does fantastic one lights) that we cropped to 16:9 in FCP, which is a lousy way to do it, but you can see the results.

 

And the footage looked far better transferred 16:9 squeezed and color corrected in our tests. This is why I don't understand everyone going on and on about Ultra 16. It just makes no sense to me when you can get really great results with regular 16 and a good transfer. Sure, if you are blowing up for a 35mm theatrical release print there are going to be issues, but how many films shot on the types of budgets we are talking here, have any chance of ever being blown up to 35mm for a theatrical release. In my opinion, zilch.

 

-Tim Carroll