Anamorphic standard 16mm

[Mark Williams]

The standard 16mm aperture is about 78mm square and obviously the same in anamorphic.

 

Super 16mm cropped for 1:85 is 80mm square

 

Anamorphic standard 16 is about 1:2 using a 1.5 anamorphic lense so a bit needs cropping.

 

The real difference between Super16mm and standard 16mm area is 17% not as often quoted 20%

 

So is the difference between standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm about 15% or less? in 1:85 aspect ratio?

[David Mullen ASC]

What "anamorphic 16mm" format are you talking about?

[Mark Williams]

What "anamorphic 16mm" format are you talking about?

I guess I have lost you in the fact there isnt one. I assume your talking about this part of my post

 

QUOTE

So is the difference between standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm about 15% or less? in 1:85 aspect ratio?

 

--------------------------------------------------------

I was not implying Standard anamorphic to be a format just a way to put my question..

 

OK I'll put it another way. Super 16 is often quoted as being 20% larger than the area of Standard 16mm film Its not its closer to 17% However that aside.

 

Although you have to crop 16mm film that has been filmed with an anamorphic lens to get 1:85.The HDTV Aspect ratio. You also have to crop super 16mm film to get 1:85 the aspect ratio for HDTV. You would end up with standard 16mm having about 15% less viewable area than super 16mm This is good news if you cant upgrade your standard 16MM camera to Super 16. Although may be not as sharp as Super 16mm its still better than the oft quoted 50% loss by masking standard 16mm to achieve this.

[Mark Williams]

Perhaps there was? A 16mm anamorphic format? Todd-AO 16 Designed to compete with super 16 but never took off? This used an anamorphic lens with a standard 16mm camera.

[David Mullen ASC]

Although you have to crop 16mm film that has been filmed with an anamorphic lens to get 1:85.The HDTV Aspect ratio. You also have to crop super 16mm film to get 1:85 the aspect ratio for HDTV.

 

Again, what anamorphic 16mm format that gives you 1.85?

 

Do you mean a standard 2X anamorphic lens, which would give you 2.66 : 1 if you figure the 16mm frame is 1.33, or 2.74 if you figure the 16mm frame is 1.37? So why would you use an anamorphic lens to get 1.85?

 

Or are you talking about some sort of 1.34X anamorphic lens yet to be released? Or the experimental 1.5X anamorphic lens made up by someone for a test years ago using an ISCO attachment that doesn't really exist for use?

 

2X anamorphic lenses are currently the only commonplace anamorphics.

 

And HDTV is 1.78, not 1.85.

 

The Super-16 negative is 1.68, full aperture.

 

So are you asking about cropping Super-16 to 1.78 for HDTV versus cropping regular 16mm to 1.78?

[Mark Williams]

OK One step at a time

 

1) The Super 16mm frame size is 17% larger than the Standard 16mm frame.

 

2) Using an anamorphic 1.5x lens on a standard 16mm camera will mean that image when unsqueezed will be 17% smaller than a super 16mm picture.

 

3) The Anamorhic lens on a standard academy size 16mm frame will give you a 2:1 aspect ratio.

4) The super 16mm frame size will be 1:66

 

To achieve a blow up to 35mm film both the standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm will both have to be trimmed.

 

6) The difference now between super16 and anamorphic standard 16 to achieve either a HDTV aspect ratio or for blow up to 35mm is a lot less than the 54% often quoted.

 

7) Because film can now be digitally scanned this is a way perhaps to use standard 16mm footage with a lot less grain.

 

8) And super 16 is 1:66 not 1:68

 

What is your opinion? Or anyone elses opinion of this? Workable? If not why?

[Freya Black]

OK One step at a time

 

1) The Super 16mm frame size is 17% larger than the Standard 16mm frame.

 

2) Using an anamorphic 1.5x lens on a standard 16mm camera will mean that image when unsqueezed will be 17% smaller than a super 16mm picture.

 

3) The Anamorhic lens on a standard academy size 16mm frame will give you a 2:1 aspect ratio.

4) The super 16mm frame size will be 1:66

 

To achieve a blow up to 35mm film both the standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm will both have to be trimmed.

 

6) The difference now between super16 and anamorphic standard 16 to achieve either a HDTV aspect ratio or for blow up to 35mm is a lot less than the 54% often quoted.

 

7) Because film can now be digitally scanned this is a way perhaps to use standard 16mm footage with a lot less grain.

 

8) And super 16 is 1:66 not 1:68

 

What is your opinion? Or anyone elses opinion of this? Workable? If not why?

 

 

Firstly I don't see why you would want to chop the sides off a 2:1 aspect ratio picture. I think it would just be nice at 2:1

 

Secondly chopping the sides off is likely to screw up the framing a lot more than a tiny bit off the top and/or bottom. I guess you would thus need to find a way of marking where to crop in the viewfinder.

 

Thirdly I assume you are asking about the perceived resolution in real terms and I have no idea.

 

love

 

Freya

[Mark Williams]

Firstly I don't see why you would want to chop the sides off a 2:1 aspect ratio picture. I think it would just be nice at 2:1

 

Secondly chopping the sides off is likely to screw up the framing a lot more than a tiny bit off the top and/or bottom. I guess you would thus need to find a way of marking where to crop in the viewfinder.

 

Thirdly I assume you are asking about the perceived resolution in real terms and I have no idea.

 

love

 

Freya

 

Hi Freya Yes I agree I think its a shame to lop off the sides! And yes would have to mark out the frame size although for anamorphic 16 you would be taking a bit from one or both ends. Not top and bottom.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Mark Williams

[Keneu Luca]

OK One step at a time

 

1) The Super 16mm frame size is 17% larger than the Standard 16mm frame.

 

2) Using an anamorphic 1.5x lens on a standard 16mm camera will mean that image when unsqueezed will be 17% smaller than a super 16mm picture.

 

3) The Anamorhic lens on a standard academy size 16mm frame will give you a 2:1 aspect ratio.

4) The super 16mm frame size will be 1:66

 

To achieve a blow up to 35mm film both the standard anamorphic 16mm and super 16mm will both have to be trimmed.

 

6) The difference now between super16 and anamorphic standard 16 to achieve either a HDTV aspect ratio or for blow up to 35mm is a lot less than the 54% often quoted.

 

7) Because film can now be digitally scanned this is a way perhaps to use standard 16mm footage with a lot less grain.

 

8) And super 16 is 1:66 not 1:68

 

What is your opinion? Or anyone elses opinion of this? Workable? If not why?

 

As someone who is currently experimenting with 16mm anamorphic, I'll give you my three and a half cents.

 

First, what are the specs of this 1.5X lens? Size and diameter? There are issues of vignetting with short focal length spherical lenses, which relates to the diameter size of the anamorphic lens. Another issue is distance to the subject. Anamorphic lens attachments like the ones we're discussing typically cannot focus closer than 5 feet from the subject. And man does that suck.

 

Are you referring to an exisitng 1.5X anamorphic lens? Or would one need to be designed, in which case, costs might rise to the equivalent of just shooting super 16. A variety of mounts needs to be addressed as well.

 

Now if you're talking about a more conventionial 2X anamorphic lens on regular 16mm - that I think is a more worthwhile endeavor.

 

See here:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...p;hl=anamorphic

[Freya Black]

Hi Freya Yes I agree I think its a shame to lop off the sides! And yes would have to mark out the frame size although for anamorphic 16 you would be taking a bit from one or both ends. Not top and bottom.

 

 

Exactly what I mean and if you are chooping it off the sides it's going to screw up your framing a lot more than chopping a bit off the top and/or bottom of a S16 frame.

 

But why would you want to chop off the sides. Why would you want 1.85:1 when you could have 2:1?

Storarro seems happy with 2:1. Why would you butcher a perfectly good aspect ratio to get 1.85:1?

There seems to be no good reason???

 

love

 

Freya

[Keith Mottram]

would have thought the best option would be to shoot s16 with hawk v-lites (with 1.33x elements inside). cannot wait for these lenses.

[Freya Black]

would have thought the best option would be to shoot s16 with hawk v-lites (with 1.33x elements inside). cannot wait for these lenses.

 

 

Keith these sound really intresting! :)

Can you tell me anything more about these?

Are they adapted Lomos or something else?

 

love

 

Freya

[Mark Williams]

Freya its not that you would want to but 1:85 is the size for blowing up to 35mm and 1:78 is the size for HDTV So to reach those requirements you have to lop a bit off. However you could always have black bars they would only be small.

 

Hi Kenue

First, what are the specs of this 1.5X lens? Size and diameter? There are issues of vignetting with short focal length spherical lenses, which relates to the diameter size of the anamorphic lens.

 

An iscorama 54

 

Another issue is distance to the subject. Anamorphic lens attachments like the ones we're discussing typically cannot focus closer than 5 feet from the subject. And man does that suck.

 

Yeah

 

Are you referring to an exisitng 1.5X anamorphic lens? Or would one need to be designed, in which case, costs might rise to the equivalent of just shooting super 16. A variety of mounts needs to be addressed as well.

 

It exists although Im waiting for it to be deliverd

 

Now if you're talking about a more conventionial 2X anamorphic lens on regular 16mm - that I think is a more worthwhile endeavor

 

You would need to crop though for 2:39 from 2:74. Im looking for a way to upgrade my standard 16mm camera to a higher level.

[Freya Black]

Freya its not that you would want to but 1:85 is the size for blowing up to 35mm and 1:78 is the size for HDTV So to reach those requirements you have to lop a bit off. However you could always have black bars they would only be small.

 

I think you could easily just letterbox the footage on a 1.85 print. It might even help in those cinemas where the image spills off the screen slightly. Letterboxing would mean you would keep the full quality from the negative without cropping and would also be squished into a smaller area which would reduce grain too.

 

Same goes for HD video too really, you can easily just letterbox it into 16:9 for video. I actually do this for standard definition video when I shoot 1.5x anamorphic.

 

I guess you could even pillarbox it onto an anamorphic print!

 

The other problem you may run into is the quality of the anamorphic glass and whether it will diminish the quality of your film in some way.

 

love

 

Freya

[Mark Williams]

Well in those circumstances your right and it would be even more competitive with super 16mm which would have black bars on the ends if it used its whole image area. :)

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Hawk V-Lites are not 1.33x squeeze. They're normal 2x anamorphics, just smaller and lighter.

 

For anamorphic to work on 16mm, someone needs to design lenses specific for this format, either with a 1.33x or 1.5 squeeze. They have to be wide enough to be useful - 35mm coverage and focal lengths simply won't cut it. This hasn't happened yet and doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Panavision were supposedly developing anamorphics for a digital camera, but i haven't heard of nything lately. Joe Dunton did the same, but nothing's come off it.

 

Until this happens, using anamorphic on 16mm is futile, since not only are you having to use far to long lenses, you're also not gaining any resolution by chopping stuff off at the sides.

[David Mullen ASC]

Vantage says they can convert their Hawk lenses to 1.34X anamorphic by switching some elements in them, though I have yet to see such lenses.

 

Anamorphic 1.5X 16mm doesn't really exist as a viable format yet -- a one-time experiment by sticking a 1.5X Isco adaptor onto a lens doesn't count. So I'm not going to get into a discussion as to whether this imaginary 1.5X anamorphic 16mm format is better than Super-16...

 

Until there are entire sets of primes and zooms available in a new anamorphic format, it's nothing more than an experiment.

[Nate Downes]

Vantage says they can convert their Hawk lenses to 1.34X anamorphic by switching some elements in them, though I have yet to see such lenses.

 

Anamorphic 1.5X 16mm doesn't really exist as a viable format yet -- a one-time experiment by sticking a 1.5X Isco adaptor onto a lens doesn't count. So I'm not going to get into a discussion as to whether this imaginary 1.5X anamorphic 16mm format is better than Super-16...

 

Until there are entire sets of primes and zooms available in a new anamorphic format, it's nothing more than an experiment.

Oh come now David, let the boy dream of conquering the world with his new format. We both were young too once.

[Keneu Luca]

Mark, and everyone else, take a look at this video.

 

http://download.theforce.net/theater/nonsw...grayson_bts.zip

 

It's from this website:

 

http://theforce.net/fanfilms/nonsw/grayson/

[Antti Näyhä]

The Super-16 negative is 1.68, full aperture.

super 16 is 1:66 not 1:68

Just out of interest, I had to look this up. The Super 16 camera aperture is 0.493 x 0.292 in (12.52 x 7.41 mm), which makes it 1.69:1.

 

Not that it's that exact in practice, of course, as some of the edges will have to be cropped out anyway... Sorry for the nitpicking. :)

[Mark Williams]

QUOTE

Sorry for the nitpicking. :)

 

Antti Thats alright nitpick away. Although the format is recognised as 1:66 and is always expressed this way!

 

Kenue Yes I downloaded the film. wAY to go..... :)

 

QUOTE

Anamorphic 1.5X 16mm doesn't really exist as a viable format yet -- a one-time experiment by sticking a 1.5X Isco adaptor onto a lens doesn't count. So I'm not going to get into a discussion as to whether this imaginary 1.5X anamorphic 16mm format is better than Super-16...

 

David Im sorry you dismiss the iscorama 54. I never implied it would be better I said it would still be below super16. But in percentage terms you going to only perhaps be about 15% worse off than super 16mm. For those who may be interested here are the specs for the iscorama 54

 

ISCORAMA-54

Magnification (horizontal).......1.5x

Distance Scale..........2m to infinity

Rear Barrel Diameter...........78mm

Rear Lens Element Diameter...54mm

Length..............................102.5mm (maximum)

Net Weight........................1000 grams

Filter Thread......................95mm

Rear Barrel Threading.........77mm

Light-loss Absorbtion...........1/3 Stop or less

[Freya Black]

Well in those circumstances your right and it would be even more competitive with super 16mm which would have black bars on the ends if it used its whole image area. :)

 

 

Mark,

Why does it need to compete with Super16?

Or for that matter, as David implies, be "better" than S16, (and can we define better here!)

 

Please keep in mind that not everything in life is a competition. Things can stand alongside one another on their own merits with their own special qualities. They do not need to be in conflict. Be careful what you are being sold. Question the ideas that are being forced upon you.

 

Please do experiment too. Experimenting is great. You learn so much from doing so. I learnt so much from my first experiences with an anamorphic lens and I'm really happy with the results, although having learnt everything that I learnt, I would go about things very differently now. Even if you don't continue to shoot anamorphic you will learn so much from it and you might find that it works just perfectly for you. Just because it doesn't suit other people that doesn't mean it isn't your thing.

 

Don't be afraid to experiment, sticking a lens baby on a panavision camera isn't exactly standard practice either.

 

Please think about why you feel the need for a 1.85 ratio. You seem to be saying that you need this because it's what most other people are doing. I would point out that you are proposing using some weird lenses, probably on a camera they weren't designed for, with a rare squeeze factor, to create a format that few people are using. Then having done all that you suddenly want it to follow all the rules and be the same as everything else! Embrace the wonderful things that are different about it (such as aspect ratio) and try and overcome the problems it has, then you will have found something special.

 

2:1 is a beautiful aspect ratio. Nobody can say it is too wide as it is not as wide as 35mm scope. Nobody can say it isn't wide enough as it is wider than 1.85. It may look slightly strange at first because you aren't used to it but then you start to see it is beautiful in it's own way too. Just slightly different.

 

Many things in life are like this. Try it and learn.

 

love

 

Freya

 

"When I was four years old they tried to test my IQ, they showed me this picture of three oranges and a pear. They asked me which one is different and does not belong, they taught me different was wrong." ~Ani Difranco

[Mark Williams]

Mark,

Why does it need to compete with Super16?

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Well things have moved on and we now have HDTV. Super16 is sometimes dismissed because of grain problems in telecine let alone a standard 16mm which loses a lot more frame size. So standard 16 is really finished as a viable mainstream format unless it can compete.

 

 

Or for that matter, as David implies, be "better" than S16, (and can we define better here!)

 

David implied I said it which I didnt so I cant define a meaning which I never gave.

 

Please keep in mind that not everything in life is a competition.

 

No but the film world Im afraid is highly competitive and many times there is no second place.

 

Things can stand alongside one another on their own merits with their own special qualities. They do not need to be in conflict.

 

Perhaps this may be better in another forum?

 

Be careful what you are being sold. Question the ideas that are being forced upon you.

 

I really try honestly!

 

Please do experiment too. Experimenting is great. You learn so much from doing so. I learnt so much from my first experiences with an anamorphic lens and I'm really happy with the results, although having learnt everything that I learnt, I would go about things very differently now. Even if you don't continue to shoot anamorphic you will learn so much from it and you might find that it works just perfectly for you. Just because it doesn't suit other people that doesn't mean it isn't your thing.

 

Yes I am looking forward to my lense arriving and I always spend to much time experimenting

 

Don't be afraid to experiment, sticking a lens baby on a panavision camera isn't exactly standard practice either.

 

Nor is threading a 16MM BL camera with your eyes closed!

 

Please think about why you feel the need for a 1.85 ratio. You seem to be saying that you need this because it's what most other people are doing.

 

Well actually I would prefer to keep the frame size but the problem isnt me If my work ever makes it to mainstream they will crop it for me.

 

I would point out that you are proposing using some weird lenses, probably on a camera they weren't designed for, with a rare squeeze factor,

 

err no actually in fact the iscorama 54 has been quite popular not everything happens in america you know there is life outside and we are intelligent?

 

to create a format that few people are using. Then having done all that you suddenly want it to follow all the rules and be the same as everything else!

 

Well I dont want to create anything just get more bangs for my bucks outa my camera

 

Embrace the wonderful things that are different about it (such as aspect ratio) and try and overcome the problems it has, then you will have found something special.

 

Sorry freya I dont have the same respect for my aspect ratio. I only care about how good it frames my vision. And I dont mind admitting my artistic vision is not everyone elses and I will conform when neccesary even at the expense of my artistic integrety. However if and when I make it I would be more willing to try things my way only especially if I can afford to. 16mm film isnt cheap and to have the luxury to be able to experiment and play with this stuff for your own ends is one I dont have yet. I want to learn and to make hopefully a career.

 

 

2:1 is a beautiful aspect ratio. Nobody can say it is too wide as it is not as wide as 35mm scope. Nobody can say it isn't wide enough as it is wider than 1.85. It may look slightly strange at first because you aren't used to it but then you start to see it is beautiful in it's own way too. Just slightly different.

 

I agree 2:1 is an aspect ratio and its another one of a long list I prefer 2:39 But I am being sold more from some of your comments Wouldnt it be nice if a new generation of HDTV was actually 2:1 Although the manufacturers would make more money as people once more upgrade? Although thats probably in the pipeline.

 

Many things in life are like this. Try it and learn.

 

Thanks for the observation I will do my best.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

would have thought the best option would be to shoot s16 with hawk v-lites (with 1.33x elements inside). cannot wait for these lenses.

 

But isn't the shortest one 28mm?

 

That's okay for 3-P S35, though also having something shorter would be good.

 

S16 needs at least a 16/17mm too. & a 20/21mm would also be useful & a 10/12mm would be great.

[Freya Black]

Mark,

Why does it need to compete with Super16?

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Well things have moved on and we now have HDTV. Super16 is sometimes dismissed because of grain problems in telecine let alone a standard 16mm which loses a lot more frame size. So standard 16 is really finished as a viable mainstream format unless it can compete.

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by a viable mainstream format! ;)

 

I note that standard 16 has actually had a tiny resurgence lately and theres been a couple of blowups from standard 16 to 35mm.

 

Theres not really any grain problems with Super 16 in telecine especially. Telecine can often remove grain in fact. I think the problems you talk of in relation to HDTV in the u.k is that the BBC aren't keen because the grain interferes with their low bitrate digital compression systems they are using. People also suspect that their tests were a worst case scenario with 500ASA stock. Obviously grain increases with the speed of the stock. I can't imagine a Super 16 film shot on 50ASA having that much grain. The BBC are being funny about it however.

 

Or for that matter, as David implies, be "better" than S16, (and can we define better here!)

 

David implied I said it which I didnt so I cant define a meaning which I never gave.

 

I'm not sure he implied you said it, just that you meant it! ;)

I wasn't suggesting that you should define it, hence the "we"!

 

 

Things can stand alongside one another on their own merits with their own special qualities. They do not need to be in conflict.

 

Perhaps this may be better in another forum?

 

I think it's fine here. It could fit in many places however as I have implied. It is a general problem these days to see things as vs, and in competition. This is not neccesarily the case.

 

Be careful what you are being sold. Question the ideas that are being forced upon you.

 

I really try honestly!

 

I know! It's really hard. Things are hidden in laguage and phrases and stuff and we can end up in being forced into thinking a certain way because that is the way things are portrayed as being.

 

Please think about why you feel the need for a 1.85 ratio. You seem to be saying that you need this because it's what most other people are doing.

 

Well actually I would prefer to keep the frame size but the problem isnt me If my work ever makes it to mainstream they will crop it for me.

 

Why do you assume this? Having a wider aspect ratio might be seen as quite commercial these days. As more and more TV's go 16:9, more and more people are shooting scope or cropping to scope so it can still look letterboxed and hence more cinematic! ;)

 

I don't think people will crop it for you. They would be more bothered about Super 16 being pillarboxed, but theres a whole tradition of letterboxing.

 

Anyway, by the time you've shot your film the trends could have changed! :)

 

I would point out that you are proposing using some weird lenses, probably on a camera they weren't designed for, with a rare squeeze factor,

 

err no actually in fact the iscorama 54 has been quite popular not everything happens in america you know there is life outside and we are intelligent?

 

You have a lot of dichotomys going on in your head. That's okay, but at some point you will probably find you need to resolve some of them. Earlier in this mail you were talking about a viable mainstream format, and how standard 16 wasn't one. Now you are talking about how the iscorama isn't a weird lens, but the truth is that it's only really been used much in amateur filmmaking circles a little, or most of all for projecting existing film prints. In the world of cinematography, it's kind of an obscure lens. There's nothing wrong with it being weird however, and people who do things that aren't popular are often very intelligent people too.

 

I'm aware that not everything happens in america (pssst I'm in the u.k.) but your referance to the states shows you have an awareness of the dominance of America in this field.

 

Sorry freya I dont have the same respect for my aspect ratio. I only care about how good it frames my vision. And I dont mind admitting my artistic vision is not everyone elses and I will conform when neccesary even at the expense of my artistic integrety. However if and when I make it I would be more willing to try things my way only especially if I can afford to. 16mm film isnt cheap and to have the luxury to be able to experiment and play with this stuff for your own ends is one I dont have yet. I want to learn and to make hopefully a career.

 

I don't think you need to conform over aspect ratio. It's definitely not neccesary.

I'm afraid that "when you make it" then you are unlikely to have the freedom to try things your way.

 

I note you talk about having a career, and if you are trying to have a career it seems that you would be better trying to get some experience and to get on the carreer ladder than to be experimenting with obscure lenses and stuff that aren't really used in the industry. It's very difficult to have any kind of film career in the uk. There isn't much of a native film industry here. We used to have a television industry but Thatcher destroyed it and it's preety much all gone now. Maybe what you should do is to try and get a position as a runner on a film shoot. I'm sure theres lots of no-budget productions listed on Mandy and the like and then you could get to know people and learn stuff on other peoples productions instead of having to expend a lot of your own money trying to make things work.

 

I agree 2:1 is an aspect ratio and its another one of a long list I prefer 2:39 But I am being sold more from some of your comments Wouldnt it be nice if a new generation of HDTV was actually 2:1 Although the manufacturers would make more money as people once more upgrade? Although thats probably in the pipeline.

 

Theres actually been quite a few films made in 2:1, although most of them are very much in the past now. Storraro still loves it tho and I saw another film shot in that aspect ratio recently too but I can't remember what it was now! :)

 

Good luck!

 

love

 

Freya

Edited March 11, 2008 by Freya Black