Yet another question on 16mm to super 16

Mark A. Rapp · February 23, 2005

Hi, folks! Indie filmmaker here, and I'm not a qualified DP. So please forgive any uninformed questions.

I have a short I'm preparing to shoot and I want it shot in a 16:9 aspect ratio. I'm shooting with an Arri 16BL which as you know is a regular 16mm camera that shoots a 4:3 image.

There was a discussion on the board not too long ago discussing taping off the ground glass to show the 16:9 image.

Question: Where is the "ground glass?" I understand that the ground glass holds the crosshairs/filmsafe/TV safe images that I see through the viewfinder, correct? So where is it? Inside the film door?

If you take off the lens and peek in, there's an element in there as well that has the image crosshairs, and camera-safe zone (or is that the same element that I see reflected into the eyepiece?).

Further, I want to shoot with a nice, high-grain color film. Will using only the film portion in that 16:9 space leave me with a nice image? It seems a waste to... well, waste all that space.

The final format will be digital to go to festivals and/or a direct-to-video compilation. I do not intend to blow the transfer to 35mm for projection.

Edited February 23, 2005 by Mark Rapp

zrszach · February 23, 2005

It should be right above the shutter?but I wouldn?t know on a 16bl. :unsure:

February 23, 2005

16mm 16:9 isn't usually recommended anyway, because of the resolution.

Sam Wells · February 24, 2005

" element in there as well that has the image crosshairs, and camera-safe zone (or is that the same element that I see reflected into the eyepiece?)."

yes and yes.

You can use a pencil.

Or scotch tape; but be SURE it stays on.

-Sam

Mark A. Rapp · February 24, 2005

Thanks much, Sam!

16mm 16:9 isn't usually recommended anyway, because of the resolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this concensus?

Edited February 24, 2005 by Mark Rapp

Jonathan Spear · February 24, 2005

Hey Mark,

Is 16:9 really that necessary for your project? I'm a newbie myself and I was kind of in the same boat too...t seems like maybe -renting- a relatively cheap 16mm anamorphic lens package + whatever accesories you may need from your local rental house (if such a place exists in your area) might be a good decision, if you can afford to that is.

"Will using only the film portion in that 16:9 space leave me with a nice image? It seems a waste to... well, waste all that space"

I've seen frame grabs from 4:3 16mm cropped to something the equivalent of 16:9 and the results were interesting. Sometimes having less space to waste is a good thing if you're good with framing and composing your scenes with a "less is more" mentality.

Good luck man and have fun on your shoot.

-Jon

February 24, 2005

Thanks much, Sam!
Is this concensus?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Consensus gentium. (Well it's in many of my film books)

Bare in mind that the equivalent widescreen TV isn't 4:3 with the top and bottom cut off, it's 4:3 with the sides extended. So you?re stretching the image horizontally.

Patrick Neary · February 24, 2005

Hi- I think by "high grain" film you mean "fine grain"? If you're using 200asa or 100 or 50asa, you'll end up with great looking stuff. I've done a couple low-end features that were shot regular 16 and cropped for 16:9. we used all 200 asa or better and grain wasn't an issue. Overexpose a 1/3 of a stop.

Also, on two of the projects, we shot with a BL and I just eyeballed the "widescreen" in the viewfinder, (it gets easy very fast) you use the inside points of the square TV brackets, that's pretty close to a 16:9 or 1.85 crop. Line up a framing chart in your viewfinder and see where the top and bottom cut-offs are in relation to your finder markings. If you're finishing via telecine anyway, you'll have the option of reframing up and down if you need or want to.

good luck!

Rik Andino · February 24, 2005

If you're finishing on video it's okay to shoot R16 in 16X9

You can crop it in the telecine or during post...

It is true you'll lose some resolution by cropping--wasting space as you say

But you'll still get a very decent image (and it'll look better than DV at 16X9)

You'll just have to frame your shots very carefully...

It can't be done--if that's what you wanna know

Good Luck

Kevin Zanit · February 24, 2005

I don?t know if it is the census. If you can convert your camera to S16 that will give you a 1.66 aspect ratio, which at least gets you closer to 1.77 (16:9).

If this project is only going to live in video, the resolution hit will not be felt much from cropping.

The thing you need to ask yourself is this: Do you just want the project letterboxed, or do you actually want it stretched so it will fill a 16:9 TV properly?

It is far easier to crop in post than to do the stretch.

If this project is going to be projected, 16:9 is not a projection format. The closest thing you would have is 1.85 and you could crop this for projection as well, it is just an expensive optical step.

Kevin Zanit

jon w · February 24, 2005

i have a 16bl that i shoot and crop with regularly. on mine, and im assuming all, when you open the side door of the body, the groundglass is sitting right there on the left hand side (it lines up to the viewfinder). you can take it off with a couple screws and mark the inside, but i ussually just tape it off from the outside (which is not as accurate because the outside is a convex lens).

John Sprung · February 24, 2005

Pencil is the best way to go. Easiest to clean off later.

-- J.S.

Mark A. Rapp · February 25, 2005

It can't be done--if that's what you wanna know
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean it can be done, right?

And thanks all, for your input! Much appreciated!

Jordan Brade · February 26, 2005

I have a question too! I figured I could just piggy-back off of this thread instead of starting a new one. Anyways, I was wondering if you could take something like the 16:9 conversion lense for the Panasonic DVX-100A and, if there were a way to attatch it to a 16mm camera, would the quality be any good? Or would it just be better to go with S16?

For the sake of the argument, lets just say the output would be really high quality video.