S16mm to 35mm Anamorphic print

[Patrick Jordan]

Hi there,

 

I am shooting a short film in a few weeks. We are shooting on super 16mm, the neg will be telecined to HD and this tape then sent to the lab (prob TODD AO in London) for transfer to 35mm. So far so good.

 

However the director has asked me to get an answer on the following question :

 

If we shoot the S16mm with a 2.35:1 groundglass for framing, then mask this off in post, can we blow up the part of the neg weve framed for onto 35mm anamorphic print squeezing it like Super 35mm so that when its projected with anamorphic lenses, it will unsqueeze on the screen to make an 'anamorphic' final image?

 

I understand we would be losing part of the neg, therefore affecting quality. Is it even possible to do?

 

I hope that makes some sense. I apologise for my limited knowledge on formats & 35mm transfers! Any help would be very much appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Paddy

[Michael Nash]

You should ask the facility that's doing the filmout what they need to create an anamorphic print. You most likely will want to transfer to HD "flat," letterboxing the image within 16:9. Your transfer house (if it's separate from the one doing the filmout) may be able to offer you some guidance as well.

[David Mullen ASC]

You should ask the facility that's doing the filmout what they need to create an anamorphic print. You most likely will want to transfer to HD "flat," letterboxing the image within 16:9. Your transfer house (if it's separate from the one doing the filmout) may be able to offer you some guidance as well.

 

Or transfer it unletterboxed, full-frame HD, but with a framing chart at the head of the project to show the film-out people how to crop to 2.35.

 

Make sure they are clear that you want to crop and record out to 35mm scope (anamorphic) because they will always assume you want a flat transfer.

[Christian Appelt]

Super-16 blown up to 35mm spherical widescreen makes use of the total negative area (when projected at 1:1,66, some cropping will happen at 1:1.85).

 

When you shoot Super-16 for 2.35/2.40 anamorphic release prints, you lose top and bottom area of the neg, PLUS the cropped neg is enlarged even more because the 2.35 screen image is larger than spherical wide screen.

 

The only way to use the full neg area AND have a 2.35 release print is to use an anamorphic converter in front of your camera (they are available in both 1.33x and 1.5 and may or may not be usable with your equipment with or without technical modification ;) )

 

Then you have a slightly squeezed neg image making use of the full Super-16 area. Keep it squeezed through the HD process until it is reformatted (to 2x squeeze) before film recording.

[David Mullen ASC]

There are no high-quality 1.33X / 1.5X anamorphic lenses made for cine use yet (unless you count the old 1.5X Technirama lenses and 1.25X Ultra Panavision lenses), and adaptors like the type made for DV cameras produce optically softer results, negating the whole point. You end up with a less grainy but softer image, which is not really an improvement over a sharper but grainier image. The converters you mention were basically made for projector lenses. It's not really a viable option for most people -- you can't go to a rental house and get a set of cine lenses with a 1.33X or 1.5X anamorphic adaptor.

 

There is the Canon 1.33X rear anamorphic adaptor made for B4 HD lenses, but I don't think it could be made to work on a PL-mount Super-16 camera.

[Christian Appelt]

I don't agree with that. I have shot a lot of slides with the Iscorama 1.5x adapter (the large version, not the projection attachment) and it can produce a very sharp image. Of course it makes work slower because of the double focusing. The Iscoramas has been used for years by photographers doing slide show travelogues, and some presentations on large screen looked very impressive.

 

Haven't tried the newer 1.33x adapters for shooting 16:9 video, do you consider them so low in quality?

 

It is important to use a high quality spherical lens because any anamorphic converter will enlarge the problems of the basic lens. I learned that when using SLR lenses, some older lenses were good enough for spherical use, but if you shot anamorphic with them, their weaknesses would become very visible in projection.

 

Just wanted to mention the alternative to simple cropping the Super 16, the question whether it makes sense has to be answered by the cinematographer involved. It depends on the light situation and what type of film stock is to be used.

 

If the use high speed film is necessary, I would try to get the maximum negative area when the image has to fill a huge 2.35 screen, and anamorphic may be helpful. If, on the other hand, the film has mostly daylight exteriors or can be lit to get a decent light level, I agree that cropping may be the better solution.

[Christian Appelt]

Some links on 1.5x lenses:

 

Optex 16:9 anamorphics

 

Panasonic Adapter (AbelCine)

 

Oywheesound.com

 

Anamorphic lenses and Compression Ratios

 

Cpt. Jacks Isco Page

 

Widescreen Centre: Iscorama 54

 

Anamorphic Lenses Compared

[David Mullen ASC]

All I can do is give out what I feel is practical advice. Any cine lens system that requires separately focusing the anamorphic attachment separately from the spherical lens is not practical for moviemaking, despite the fact that "The Robe" managed to do that. Anamorphic adaptors made for DV cameras have not been proven to provide sharper results than by just cropping, just smoother results from the lack of cropping pixels, but they come with a lot of limitations. I'm sure that an anamorphic adaptor would reduce graininess since there would be less cropping, but the question is whether there would be any advantage in the level of fine detail recorded, or not lost compared to cropping. The fact that out of all the Super-16 to 35mm anamorphic blow-ups NONE of them opted to use anamorphic attachments should tell you something about the feasibility and practicality.

 

It would be different if someone actually made 1.33X or 1.5X anamorphic cine lenses, but so far, no one has. Until then, I can't really recommend dealing with attachments and adaptors designed for other uses than film camera cinematography.

[nathan snyder]

I thought I would jump in here sinc e I am listed as one of the sources FOR using anamoprhic projector lens adaptors ( http://owyheesound.com )

 

I have long been an advocate of using projector lenses infront of dv-cameras, super8mm cameras, or even vhs cameras but after I jumped up to 16mm and HD I quickly realized that the projection lenses were realy designed for another purpose (projection).

 

Now that I am starting to shoot 35mm I am only looking for profesionaly designed anamorphic lenses, and of a more modern design than those old junky Cinemascope lenses.

 

However, I have left my DV-scope page up becuse it gives ideas to DIY types and draws them into the fantastic world of anamorphic lenses. But I have to agree with David that for professional or even just good results or for practical realistic shooting you have to use fully designed anamophic cine lenses. I wonder if we will see professionally designed 1.33 or 1.5X cine lens for super16 cameras before they lose their viability for production.

[David Mullen ASC]

I wonder if we will see professionally designed 1.33 or 1.5X cine lens for super16 cameras before they lose their viability for production.

 

I've been pushing for years for someone to make some 1.33X anamorphic cine lenses -- they could be used in many ways, to get scope onto 3-perf 35mm or Super-16, but they could even be used for an anamorphic 1.78/1.85 process onto 4x3 16mm or 35mm.

[Christian Appelt]

David, I certainly hope someone at Panavision or Vantage Film will listen to you! B)

 

I still say that both Iscorama (1.5x) and the Kowa 8Z/16H are (2x) are high quality lenses that will give good results with 16mm. Whether someone wants to take the additional trouble and accept the inherent limitations (double focussing, limited range of focal lengths) is not for me to decide - people have done stranger things to get a certain effect or look (just read the "Film Stocks and Processing" forum section for a while... Remember the TechniScope-Forward-Reverse-Double-Exposure-Format-thread? :)