Stupid S16 conversion question

[Guest DirtFarm]

I've been looking around at cameras. 16mm, S16 and even cheap russian 35mm on Ebay.

 

My stupid question is.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to convert a 35mm camera to super16 than to convert 16 to super?

 

It seems with all the expanding and moving that is needed to 'upconvert' a 16mm that it would easier to 'downconvert' a 35mm.

 

I wonder if it had not been thought about because typically a 35mm would cost more than a 16mm but with these inexpensive 35mm cameras available now (I'm looking at konvas 35mm cameras on Ebay for as cheap as $500), I wonder if its more feasable.

 

any thoughts?

[Mark Sasahara]

Super16 is 16mm film, 35mm is 35mm film, two totally different sizes of film. A super16 conversion makes the regular 16 gate wider. The change is happening at the gate and also in the position of the lens, not in the actual size of the film.

 

The only difference in the film is not in the films size, but the film perforations. Super 16 requires single perf rather than double perf film, to acommodate the wider frame size. If the film size was different, it wouldn't be called 16mm. There is no reason to change anything else, or attmept to convert a 35mm camrea to 16mm. Unless you're really, really bored and have a lot of time on your hands.

 

Both Aaton and Arri 16mm cameras can be converted from regular 16 to Super16 and back again.

[Rik Andino]

I don't want to sound harsh or offensive

But if you're asking this question

You really should consider holding off on buying a film camera.

At least until you know more about 16mm and 35mm motion picture cameras

 

Take a look at 35mm film and 16mm film first

Work a year or two with a few film cameras, know the differences between each

& I'd suggest you'd figure out which camera you like and want to buy

(rather than going for the first bargain you see...)

And then you go out and buy you're own camera.

 

I worked with cameras for about 5 years before I brought my own last year.

I knew exactly what camera I was getting

Yet there were still some question I had to ask...

 

I'm just suggesting you take a little more time to learn a bit more

So please don't bite my head off.

It's not my personal intention to sound mean or arrogant.

 

 

GOOD LUCK

[Scot McPhie]

I don't think the question is quite as stupid as it seems - the conversion from 16 to S16 can also involve lathing rollers in the film transport mechanism to prevent scratching and also not all 16 lenses will cover the S16 frame. I think it will still be easier to upcovert a 16 camera than downconvert a 35 though! - I think basically you'd have to gut a 35 camera and replace it with the whole mechanism of a 16 - I guess the only thing you wouldn't have to do is re-align the lense --- good thinking but not worth it! ~ It's not just the width of the 35 film but also the distance of the pulldown for each frame which would be one of the problems......... anyway..... there's a good DIY S16 conversion guide here: http://www.sci.fi/~animato/s16/s16.html

 

Scot

[rob spence]

Hi,

The Eclair 35mm camera , I believe, can also use 16mm film without conversion.

 

At least worth researching.

Rob

[Guest DirtFarm]

Super16 is 16mm film, 35mm is 35mm film, two totally different sizes of film. A super16 conversion makes the regular 16 gate wider. The change is happening at the gate and also in the position of the lens, not in the actual size of the film.

 

I understand this.

 

Now wouldn't it be easier to make the gate smaller and not re-position the lens?

 

The only difference in the film is not in the films size, but the film perforations. Super 16 requires single perf rather than double perf film, to acommodate the wider frame size. If the film size was different, it wouldn't be called 16mm.

 

I understand this as well.

 

Now couldn't there be a film transport change that would move it in toward center of the gate and change the gear ratio?

 

 

There is no reason to change anything else, or attmept to convert a 35mm camrea to 16mm. Unless you're really, really bored and have a lot of time on your hands.

 

Both Aaton and Arri 16mm cameras can be converted from regular 16 to Super16 and back again.

[Guest Ian Marks]

Oy.

 

"Wouldn't it be easier to convert a 35mm camera to super16 than to convert 16 to super?"

 

The short answer is: no.

[Riku Naskali]

Well, the real question should be, why would you want to convert a 35mm camera to super16mm? As you said it, it's downconverting.

Edited March 13, 2005 by Riku Naskali

[Marty Hamrick]

It certainly wouldn't be easier to convert a 35mm camera to super 16,yet I am reminded of an optical printer I used that utilized a 32mm (?) print stock that was slit in half after processing.I forget what make of machine it was,but we used it to make 16mm internegs from 35mm originals.

Marty

[John Pytlak RIP]

It certainly wouldn't be easier to convert a 35mm camera to super 16,yet I am reminded of an optical printer I used that utilized a 32mm (?) print stock that was slit in half after processing.I forget what make of machine it was,but we used it to make 16mm internegs from 35mm originals.

  Marty

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, there are optical printers that are used to make twin rank duplicate negatives onto 35mm intermediate film perforated 3R-2994 (1-3-0). A beamsplitter or two passes are used to print the dual images. This format is used for producing 16mm release prints as 35mm width print film perforated 3R-3000, that are then slit to 16mm after processing. See standard SMPTE 171.

 

Here are 16mm cameras on the Kodak website:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/cam...d=0.1.4.9&lc=en

[Dominic Case]

One of the great things about Super 16 is that it gives you much better image quality than standard 16, in the same sized camera. Considerably smaller and lighter than an equivalent 35mm camera. Why throw away that benefit by putting small film in a bigger camera?

 

But isn't it good to be able to even consider converting your film camera? Let's have a discussion about converting your SP beta camera to DV.

[Guest david west]

has NE1 come across any howto conversion instructions that would apply to arrriflex cameras?

[Tim Carroll]

has NE1 come across any howto conversion instructions that would apply to arrriflex cameras?

 

Yes, it is called, "Send it to Axel Broda."

 

-Tim Carroll

[K Borowski]

One of the great things about Super 16 is that it gives you much better image quality than standard 16, in the same sized camera. Considerably smaller and lighter than an equivalent 35mm camera. Why throw away that benefit by putting small film in a bigger camera?

 

Because it looks SO much more imposing using a 35mm camera. 35mm cameras are really essential for certain types of filmmaking, such as shooting hidden-camera footage, or anything inside of a Geo Metro. Most cameramen I know DEMAND the customary weight of a 35 when they're going for the handheld shot of running up a flight of downward-moving escalator stairs after an athletic, 18 year-old bodybuilder stunt-man.for the climax of an awesome action film. The only problem I can see is finding other ways to add the weight to make up for the weight of the 1000 foot load of 35mm when only using 16mm film. Perhaps a 10-lb weight would make the modification complete. My only question for the original poster is: Why stop with 35? Howabout an 65mm Omnimax downconvert? THAT would impress me.

 

(Inspired by the essay "A Modest Proposal")

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[Will Montgomery]

My stupid question is.

Wouldn't it be easier to convert a 35mm camera to super16 than to convert 16 to super?

 

Wow.

 

Brave question.

 

Actually it would depend upon the the camera, but I'd conservatively estimate that it would be easier 100% of the time to convert a 16mm to super 16 than 35 to super 16. Mainly because you'd have to change every mechanism of a 35mm camera to accept the 16mm film.

 

:blink:

[Charles MacDonald]

I'm looking at konvas 35mm cameras on Ebay for as cheap as $500

My understanding from somthing I read about Soviet Cinerama is that the Soviet film folks used film perforated KS often in their 35MM camera, so Soviet era camera might need some work even for shooting 35.! Unless you don't mind ordering special order film, and paying a lab to madify their printer.

 

One can convert a 35 to 3 perf, which gives some film cost savings while still giving an image slightly bigger then Super 16. You probaly would have to see an expert in whatever camaera you wanted to start with to find out how many thousand dollars the work would cost.

 

Changing the gate and recentering the lens and finder is a big job, and as has been pointed out the sprokets also have to be looked at to avoid marks in the area that was between the sound track and the gate in plain 16, but 80-90% of the camera does not have to change in the least whne going from 16 to super 16.

[Sean Morris]

My understanding from somthing I read about Soviet Cinerama is that the Soviet film folks used film perforated KS often in their 35MM camera, so Soviet era camera might need some work even for shooting 35.! Unless you don't mind ordering special order film, and paying a lab to madify their printer.

 

 

The Konvases works fine with Western film no problems, most of the Kinors 35's on Ebay for sale etc..

have already been converted to run fine with Western film, Just remember alot of these Russian Cameras

have been knocked about, screws missing from the body etc..so a general service is always recommended

 

Cheers

Sean

[Mitch Gross]

One of the big problems with the 35H (besides the electronics which can sometimes decide they just don't want to work) is that the main drive shaft is made from regular steel instead of hardend steel. This means that over time it can twist from torque pressure and you can only shave it back so much before there's nothing left.

 

The Konvas on the other hand is built like a tractor--simple and rugged.

[Sean Morris]

The Kinor 35H also has a problem with the internal viewfinder optics, they corrode

and need resilvering or replacing. Mitch is right about the electronics as well they

are usually dodgy, and need replacing at some stage.

 

Cheers

Sean

Edited November 15, 2005 by Sean_Morris

[Charles MacDonald]

Actually it would depend upon the the camera, but I'd conservatively estimate that it would be easier 100% of the time to convert a 16mm to super 16 than 35 to super 16.

 

Maybe 98% of the time, there was that old Elclair that I read about once that was designed to run either 35 or 16. That would Probaly be as easy to convey to super 16 as a run of the mill 16mm camera.and the 35mm lens WOULD cover super 16.

[Clive Tobin]

The Kinor 35H also has a problem with the internal viewfinder optics...

 

I used to replace self-destructed Russian electronics with USA circuitry.

 

The other problem is that on the few 35H's I've seen, there is a half-baked simulated bearing on the tachometer end of the drive motor. The motor shaft is extended by a piece of steel shafting, which runs in a "bearing" of plain aluminum, under high sideways tension from the timing belt. If not oiled about every roll of film (by taking the camera apart) this "bearing" will start to scream and eventually seize up solid. This I think is the reason that the electronics tends to burn out. A very serious weak link in what looks like an otherwise fine camera.

 

Some of the Konvas cameras have a very high takeup pull in the magazine, the clutch is often so tight that it stalls and burns out the motor.

 

I am a bit leery of working on Russian equipment any more. Perhaps the stuff sold here is all rejects from the Russian film studios?

[Mitch Gross]

Shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed the floodgates of ex-Sov. goods began flooding the Western market.The K-3 was the first to come around, but I recall dozens of items. The first time I met Garret Brown we were both staring down a Russian duplicate of a Steadicam-3 that even tried to make his old idea of a fiberoptic viewfinder tube (cost him a fortune and it was totally disorienting). There were huge lens sets that had no coatings on them at all. There were the Optar lenses, which were later followed by the Elites. There was one guy hawking filters that were not sandwiched gels but instead actual dyed glass and that dye was infused rather than just on the surface. An ND3 was a couple of millimeters thick, an ND6 twice as thick and so on. I tried explaining how this would not fit in a mattebox and he kept explaining how much "truer" the colors were.

 

And then there were the 35H cameras. A few different outfits tried importing them. One was MKA, which was the same company (a fellow named Jon Kitzen) who was the first to bring over the K-3. He also had the first Konvas cameras and an Americanized version called the Ostcam (I think it was someone's name). But the 35H was the big badass import. An entire 35mm sunc sound camera package complete with a dozen lenses including two zooms. It was a kitchen sink approach down to the Russian batteries and the whole deal was something like $25,000 "new in the box." I later found out that for the most part these cameras had been sitting in a warehouse for a few years, but they were unused. Gregory Mirand was another importer (he's now Optar in the US, I believe at one time the two of them were partners).

 

Long story short, there were so many problems with these cameras that in the end they could barely give them away. Having expressed curiosity once, Jon called me up and offered me not one but TWO complete packages for something like $18K. "You use one as spare parts for the other." No thanks man.

 

Not all the stuff was bad. I have a Russian copy of a Sachtler Studio-20 head that my repair guy said is built sturdier than the original, with steel parts instead of plastic. Heavy as hell though. And I adore my beautiful Optar Illumina lenses (apparently Gregory has a new production run of them available after the stock ran out a number of months back). Clive, I knew you built sync motors to work with the Konvas but didn't know you did work on the Kinor as well. Slow-Motion in Burbank (I won't try to spell his name because I'll just mess it up) has gutted a few of both types and reworked them, apparently with great success. He even has a working 65mm camera, although I can't imagine who is renting it from him. Slow-Motion is the maker/importer of the Elite lenses, which are excellent optics for 16, 35 & 35 anamorphic.

 

At least for the most part (my tripod head being an exception), the Soviets came up with their own designs that were basic but reliable. The Kinor didn't work well, but it looked like a Moviecam only on the surface--inside it had a very different movement. The Konvas started as a variant on the Eclair Camflex (CM-3) but it is its own design in its own right. There were a couple of "production-style" 16mm cameras that were really not worth writing home about in any way.

 

Don't get me started on the Chinese knockoffs. It was bad enough when MKA tried to sell people on a knockoff Arri 2C. It came with worthless lenses, had a door/viewfinder that was incompatible with the real 2C, didn't always run at proper speed, had a dim, dim, DIM viewfinder but it did have a registration pin. Too bad it didn't do anything, just like the one in the Eclair NPR (that one was designed in to qualify for a government contract, not to stabilize the image). But one time I was shown an Aaton copy, apparently hand-built and one of a kind. A friend went to an equipment house in China and saw what he thought were Arri HMIs. On closer inspection they were all handmade ripoffs, and we're talking huge 18k units with electronic ballasts.

 

Enough rant. Just remember that if you buy a cheap knockoff or any product made a long, long time ago or in small quantity from a far away land, you should be very aware that you will have major issues when it inevitably comes time to get them serviced.