Mark Williams Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Hi Tim I think framing regular 16mm is now really not an option quality wise. Super 16 is still very expensive to buy. I take your point though regarding ruining a perfectly good regular 16mm camera when the use of a 1.5 anamorph is a much better idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted September 21, 2008 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 21, 2008 How did I know Tim would post that again? :P It does look great Tim and your reasoning is sound. I just yearn for a little more negative area on this Scoopic and had a decent quote on making it Ultra16. Most footage I shoot with this camera I usually transfer as 16:9 anamorphic, cropping top and bottom as most of my projects seem to be in that format recently. Mark: I have shot 1.5 anamorphic even with this Scoopic but find it to be somewhat cumbersome for my type shooting. Plus without interchangeable lenses the camera is at a great disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted September 30, 2008 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 30, 2008 Had a good email conversation with Paul at Cinelicious in L.A. They've been testing a Scoopic modified to Ultra 16 with excellent results. They are also offering an Ultra 16 mod for Scoopics. I'm posting some test patterns they provided (I'm assuming Paul's ok with my posting them ;) ) There was only slight shadow vignetting which barely creeps into the 1.85 portion of the frame but not the 16:9 (1.78) which is what you want for HD framing. At certain focal distances there is a slight softness on the left side of picture but it's not too noticeable... and I sort of like it for the handheld type work I do with the Scoopic. Blue Lines: 16:9 (1.78) Red Lines: 1.85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted September 30, 2008 Site Sponsor Share Posted September 30, 2008 Just to add to this as we have just had our first request for U16 here at Cinelab... The film processor would not be a problem as almost all processors do not actually have rollers which touch the negative area of the film. Usually there are just tires which touch the base and the idea is to not have anything touch the emulsion in processing. The flip side of the equation is handling the film after processing which can be done as S-16 with tight winds. Telecine and cleaners need to be modified such that they do not have roller area which incurs into the U16 area between the perfs, this is not so easy and the Skid plate (Gate) for the 16mm gate needs to be modified to open the aperture for U16 and prevent scratching in the perf area. The other side of the film is all set as all labs have S16 ready equipment already. The Cineglyph is a machine based on the Rank MK3 chassis and then rebuilt into a HD machine from the ground up, it is a CRT telecine and follows the form factor of the Rank/Cintel telecine systems out there. There is no possibility of exchanging a Cintel gate for a Thompson Spirit one. Also if you have ever changed a Spirit out from 35mm to 16mm and taken a look at the gate it would be a very complex and expensive job to get a Spirit to see the U16 area, I doubt any facility would pay for it and accept the downtime on their 16mm spirit gate. Jeff's scanner might do it, now if he would deliver one.... -Rob- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now