Jump to content
John Young

16mm + Anamorphic : What's the answer?

Recommended Posts

Over the past three weeks, I have been reading every thread that had the words 16mm and Anamorphic in them.

Now, I'm just more confused. Let me see if I can ask some questions in a round about way:

 

16mm REGULAR = 1.37:1

16mm SUPER = 1.66:1

16mm ULTRA = 1.85:1

 

Now it seems to me like there have been lots of tests and stuff flung about, but no solid examples of "this is how it is".

It would also seem to my humble mind, that a 2x horizontal squeeze type adapter on REGULAR 16mm (yielding 2.74:1) is very much close to scope aspect ratio.

 

Other than because people are way too excited about HD and 16:9 digital zoom pow, is there any other reason I should be worried about a U16 or S16 camera? OR am I missing some magical way to get a nice 2.40 crop out of 16mm?

 

Please, let's not get into a techniscope, 2-perf, 3-perf, 4-perf super 35 is cheaper fight. I'd like to talk about 16mm.

 

From the footage I have seen, the problem with some adapters is just that, they are adapters. There is no real way to make sure they are lined up correctly. I have seen beautiful anamorphic footage tilted and almost ruined because of a misaligned lens.

 

Also, why can't one use a square anamorphic like those Russian jobs? I likely need to learn more about that.

 

PLEASE! Thoughts? Comments?

 

JRY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is that cropping the sides of a 2.74 : 1 image (16mm with a 2X anamorphic lens) to get 2.39 : 1 image is not much better than cropping the top & bottom of a Super-16 image to get 2.39 : 1, and it's a lot easier to shoot with a spherical lens on a Super-16 camera to boot.

 

Plus you get into the problem of field of view - most 2X anamorphic lenses are designed for a 4-perf 35mm negative where a 40mm is the most common wide-angle lens used in anamorphic movies, with the occasional use of a 35mm or even a 28mm. But for a 16mm camera, you'd want something shorter than 20mm for your wide-angle shots in anamorphic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can figure that the maximum area you'll be able to use on a 16mm frame for anamorphic is about 7.4mm, and the maximum width you can use in Super-16 is around 12.5mm.

 

So given a final 2.39 image, that means that the 16mm area used when shooting with a 2X anamorphic would be about 8.84mm x 7.4mm, which is 65.42 sq. millimeters. With spherical Super-16, it would be about 12.5mm x 5.23mm, which is 65.37 sq. millimeters. It's sort of a wash, especially considering that most spherical optics are sharper than anamorphic optics, plus you don't have the problem with a lack of short focal lengths in anamorphic for 16mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU DAVID!

 

I was hoping you would chime in.

 

One last question, your saying the optimal use would be to extract a 2.39 image out of Super-16? Since you would be shooting with spherical lenses?

I know it is possible, but is that a request that would be respected, or would telecine houses not like me very much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Rapka did some anamorphic 16mm about 30 - 40 years ago. It was a trade show piece for McCulloch chain saws. They wanted the widest frame they could get, because the product is a long horizontal thing.... You can use the full 2.74:1, or even put it on Super 16 and get 3.32:1 provided that you have double system sound and complete control over both the shoot and projection. It makes sense for that kind of special purpose job.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU DAVID!

 

I was hoping you would chime in.

 

One last question, your saying the optimal use would be to extract a 2.39 image out of Super-16? Since you would be shooting with spherical lenses?

I know it is possible, but is that a request that would be respected, or would telecine houses not like me very much?

 

Well, optimal use of Super-16 would be to shoot for a 1.66 to 1.85 image, not 2.39... I'm just saying that it's simpler, easier, to just crop Super-16 if you want a 2.39 image rather than deal with anamorphic lenses.

 

Video is either 4x3 or 16x9, more often 16x9 these days -- either way, a 2.39 image requires letterboxing. You shoot a framing chart and tell the lab to follow that for letterboxing the transfer. It's no big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch Black Swan or The Wrestler, since they are examples that are easy to access. They were shot Super 16 with a 2.4 matte. This is done often, it is very practical, can look great and gives you lots of room to tweak your frame up and down. The same thing is done with 35mm often too.

 

I don't understand fully when you asked about the lab extracting the 2.4. If you are posting with HD files, you will get a normal 16:9 HD 1080 frame to work with that can be easily matted from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I talk about a lab extraction, I mean will they do what I tell them, or will I get something that "they" think I want. I really despise people that think for me, and deal with it often. Usually, it's because I make eccentric requests. I know the requests I make are possible to do, or I wouldn't ask.

 

What I would really like from the lab is one of two things: An already cropped 2.39 scan at the highest resolution possible, or a full negative, 2k scan - Edge to edge, I'll do my own crop/matte. This would be for a DI. I like the DI process, and if I get a 2k scan done, then I have the option of going to basically whatever format I wish.

 

I hope I don't come across bitter, I really am a nice guy to work with. It's just that I usually ask for a specific result, and get what everyone else gets; the "norm".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now it seems to me like there have been lots of tests and stuff flung about, but no solid examples of "this is how it is".

It would also seem to my humble mind, that a 2x horizontal squeeze type adapter on REGULAR 16mm (yielding 2.74:1) is very much close to scope aspect ratio.

It has been done in real-life features, for example in Carlos Reygadas's "Japón" and Gaspar Noé's "I Stand Alone". They used a custom adapter (according to some sources, the very same unit).

 

It's a specific and quite beautiful look really, although I can imagine the technical inconvenience compared to Super 16. At least "I Stand Alone" was printed on 35mm Scope with thin black bars on the top and bottom, yielding an aspect ratio a bit wider than 2,39:1. I haven't seen "Japón" on 35mm, but they might have done the same (at least the DVD is around 2,66:1).

 

Did you already find this thread?

Edited by Antti Näyhä

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are doing a D.I., you would always scan the whole negative first. Cropping is the final thing done before a film-out, and letterboxing is the last thing done to make the video masters.

 

The cropping will go a whole lot faster if you consistently framed for the same amount and area of cropping.

 

This is why you shoot a framing chart and cut it into the head of your work edit, so everyone knows how to mask the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would really like from the lab is one of two things: An already cropped 2.39 scan at the highest resolution possible, or a full negative, 2k scan - Edge to edge, I'll do my own crop/matte.

 

 

I've done this a few times, and I would highly recommend leaving the 2.40 crop until you conform your picture. Having the flexibility to re-rack the picture a little is very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been done in real-life features, for example in Carlos Reygadas's "Japón" and Gaspar Noé's "I Stand Alone". They used a custom adapter (according to some sources, the very same unit).

 

It's a specific and quite beautiful look really, although I can imagine the technical inconvenience compared to Super 16. At least "I Stand Alone" was printed on 35mm Scope with thin black bars on the top and bottom, yielding an aspect ratio a bit wider than 2,39:1. I haven't seen "Japón" on 35mm, but they might have done the same (at least the DVD is around 2,66:1).

 

Did you already find this thread?

 

Actually, I just found that thread this morning. Also, I missed Black Swan at the local theatre. I really need to see that.

HAWK lenses look very nice, and by that I mean expensive.

 

Someone offered me an Arriflex BL for less than $1000. I should jump on it, and I know I can find a use for it. But I'm holding out to get the best possible equipment for my needs. I plan on using the equipment for more than one shoot. And, since I want to own my equipment, it needs to be cost effective for what I want to do with it.

 

Personally, I'm holding out for a techniscope 35 camera. But, if I can find other 16mm cameras for sub $1000 prices, I could do my own multi camera shoots, for the same price as an average techniscope 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1-Movies shot on regular 16 with 2x anamorphic are "Japon" by Carlos Reygadas and "I Stand Alone" by Gaspar Noe. These two examples are projected in 35mm Scope capable cinemas with an aspect ratio of around 2.66:1 They just add thin black bars in top and bottom of the 2.40:1 aspect ratio of the 35mm print. You can use any PL mount camera and ANY 2x anamorphic lens to achieve this.

 

2-"Irreversible" and most of "Enter the Void" by Gaspar Noe, "The Wrestler" by Darren Aronofsky are some examples of films shot on Super 16 framing for 2.40:1 achieved trough cropping in the digital intermediate. This is the easier way and would be basically the same process as shooting super 35 for scope finish. You can use any Super 16 camera and any spherical lens.

 

3- Using 1.3x anamorphic squeeze lenses by Hawk on Super 16. I believe Black Swan by Darren Aronofsky was shot like this? This sounds interesting BUT there is only one kind of lenses that you can use to achieve. In theory one would get the best quality in the 16mm anamorphic options because you use the complete 1.66 area...

 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1-Movies shot on regular 16 with 2x anamorphic are "Japon" by Carlos Reygadas and "I Stand Alone" by Gaspar Noe. These two examples are projected in 35mm Scope capable cinemas with an aspect ratio of around 2.66:1 They just add thin black bars in top and bottom of the 2.40:1 aspect ratio of the 35mm print. You can use any PL mount camera and ANY 2x anamorphic lens to achieve this.

 

2-"Irreversible" and most of "Enter the Void" by Gaspar Noe, "The Wrestler" by Darren Aronofsky are some examples of films shot on Super 16 framing for 2.40:1 achieved trough cropping in the digital intermediate. This is the easier way and would be basically the same process as shooting super 35 for scope finish. You can use any Super 16 camera and any spherical lens.

 

3- Using 1.3x anamorphic squeeze lenses by Hawk on Super 16. I believe Black Swan by Darren Aronofsky was shot like this? This sounds interesting BUT there is only one kind of lenses that you can use to achieve. In theory one would get the best quality in the 16mm anamorphic options because you use the complete 1.66 area...

 

Hope this helps.

 

Alright. This Gaspar Noe guy's films look fantastic! I must see more of his work. Second I will try my best to go with option two! It seems the best of both worlds there. Option three, not so much, and option one is still viable if I can't seem to find an affordable Super-16 camera!

 

THANKS GUYS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. This Gaspar Noe guy's films look fantastic! I must see more of his work. Second I will try my best to go with option two! It seems the best of both worlds there. Option three, not so much, and option one is still viable if I can't seem to find an affordable Super-16 camera!

 

THANKS GUYS!

 

 

# 3 is wrong! The 1.3x anamorphic example of "Black Swan" was shot with spherical (normal) Arri Ultra 16 lenses! Same as "Irreversible", "The Wrestler", etc. Just read the AC Dec '10 article on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK! New questions.

Let's assume some things:

Let's say I have an Arri-s, regular 16mm and I was going to do 2.66:1.

Let's say I wanted to buy a lens (a cheap lens what to experiment with).

 

If a lens like an Iscorama had a Nikon mount, do they make adapters for the Arri mount or whatever (If it's not PL?)

If it's an "adapter" type lens like the Kowa 2x, what is the most common way of mounting the lens?

Other than the obvious, what is the difference between front mount (in front of the lens) and rear mount (behind the lens) adapters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rear-adapted anamorphics don't have any of the optical characteristics of classic anamorphic photography, you don't get the squeezed-looking background shapes, you don't get the horizontal flares, etc. You do sometimes get square-ish bokeh on telephoto lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the past three weeks, I have been reading every thread that had the words 16mm and Anamorphic in them.

Now, I'm just more confused. Let me see if I can ask some questions in a round about way:

 

16mm REGULAR = 1.37:1

16mm SUPER = 1.66:1

16mm ULTRA = 1.85:1

 

Now it seems to me like there have been lots of tests and stuff flung about, but no solid examples of "this is how it is".

It would also seem to my humble mind, that a 2x horizontal squeeze type adapter on REGULAR 16mm (yielding 2.74:1) is very much close to scope aspect ratio.

 

Other than because people are way too excited about HD and 16:9 digital zoom pow, is there any other reason I should be worried about a U16 or S16 camera? OR am I missing some magical way to get a nice 2.40 crop out of 16mm?

 

Please, let's not get into a techniscope, 2-perf, 3-perf, 4-perf super 35 is cheaper fight. I'd like to talk about 16mm.

 

From the footage I have seen, the problem with some adapters is just that, they are adapters. There is no real way to make sure they are lined up correctly. I have seen beautiful anamorphic footage tilted and almost ruined because of a misaligned lens.

 

Also, why can't one use a square anamorphic like those Russian jobs? I likely need to learn more about that.

 

PLEASE! Thoughts? Comments?

 

JRY

Yes the Russian anamorphic glasses work perfectly and I have

adapted one to my Eclair NPR & Zeiss 10-100 zoom lens,

It works perfectly,the adaptation work should be precise

It is regular 16 simply blown up to 35 to get 2.40:1

cinemascope, which result with thick frame line,

no cropping either side or top/bottom full regular 16 frame

fits to 1.33:1 35mm with 2.40:1 anamorphic, In projaection

use normal 35mm gate, or even with anamorphic gate, the top/

bottom appear as black border, very simple, no techmical

problems encountered down stream work flow, hugely cost

saving in terms of Negtive cost,

www.16mmcinemascope.com

 

murthysnb

cinematographer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can figure that the maximum area you'll be able to use on a 16mm frame for anamorphic is about 7.4mm, and the maximum width you can use in Super-16 is around 12.5mm.

 

So given a final 2.39 image, that means that the 16mm area used when shooting with a 2X anamorphic would be about 8.84mm x 7.4mm, which is 65.42 sq. millimeters. With spherical Super-16, it would be about 12.5mm x 5.23mm, which is 65.37 sq. millimeters. It's sort of a wash, especially considering that most spherical optics are sharper than anamorphic optics, plus you don't have the problem with a lack of short focal lengths in anamorphic for 16mm.

 

I dont have the numbers - but I can see that Ultra16 would give the smallest grain with a scope aspect in 16mm (with spherical lenses) - interesting ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh! - I thought ultra16 went nearer to the edges ?

 

Sure you've got to have something to support the film against the pressure plate - but then the graphic for the super16 is wrong - it does go to the edges :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh! - I thought ultra16 went nearer to the edges ?

 

Sure you've got to have something to support the film against the pressure plate - but then the graphic for the super16 is wrong - it does go to the edges :huh:

 

Chris,

I'm not understanding what your talking about, but Super-16 goes to one edge only, and Ultra-16 goes to both edges (intersprocket).

Why would having something to support the film against the pressure plate have anything to do with how wide the gate is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I'm not understanding what your talking about, but Super-16 goes to one edge only, and Ultra-16 goes to both edges (intersprocket).

Why would having something to support the film against the pressure plate have anything to do with how wide the gate is?

 

a few things going on here...

 

Ultra16 as has been pointed out doesn't go all the way to the edges - but it would seem that it could go further, and hence be a better option for anamorphic

Super16 doesn't go all the way to the edge either - but the graphic in the link David provided shows that it does, which is wrong, but its the internet after all (no biggy)

 

Finally, you have to support the film around the aperture area from buckling or distorting in the 'Z' dimension - this is achieved with a pressure plate that bears on the base side of the film, its needs something to work against which is the aperture plate which touches the emulsion, it works both as a light stopper and as the 'registration' side of the sandwich that keeps the film on the film plane, it effectively defines the film plane ... Super16 could if you wanted fall off the side of the film but youd have no edge for the pressure plate to push against on that side and your film would fall off the film plane and cause localised focus issues. No good.

 

You might think well ok, then remove just the area around the actual aperture, then the light will get through and the rest of the aperture plate will support the film! But the area of film that is supported by the aperture plate (and therefore also is obscured from light) is like I mentioned 'sandwiched' this has the tendency to cause scratches on the emulsion, making the area useless for acquisition ...

 

There is a thin thin strip of unexposed film on the side of super16 film that supports the film on the aperture plate - check it out on the RHS:

Super_16_mm_film.jpg

 

My query pertains to Ultra16 - I see now that the claw is going to scratch the film in the same way on the sprocket side, so that is the limit there but why not extend out the other side to the super16 limit - yes, making yet another format, like 'asymmetrical ultra16 optimised for anamorphic' - yeh, youd have to move your lens mount etc... all too unworkable - but unless that horizontal number is still not as high as the super 16 dimension it's not logically unsound ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Ritter Battery



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Serious Gear



    Abel Cine



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Visual Products



    Metropolis Post



    Glidecam



    Tai Audio



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    CineLab



    Paralinx LLC



    Wooden Camera


×
×
  • Create New...