Jump to content
Watcharawit K. Ya-inta

16mm film with 2x anamorphic lenses questions

Recommended Posts

Hi, first time posting here.

Has anyone tried to shoot 2x anamorphic lenses with 16mm film (let's say kodak 7219 stock) and how did it go?

 

From what I knew, 16mm has 1.37:1 ratio. So use with 2x anamorphic lenses it's gonna be 2.74:1 which wider than 2.40:1.
So I have more room to readjust a frame in post right?
What about the image quality, does it look good?
I did a research online but I haven't seen any decent one yet.

FYI: I'm planing to shoot on Arri SR-II, Kodak 7219 and Kowa Prominar anamorphic prime set.

Thanks in advance.

Edited by Watcharawit K. Ya-inta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks awesome.

 

Yes, the unsqueezed image is wider than 'scope' 2.40:1 - You always need to decide whether you believe that the 16mm frame is 1.37 or 1.33, and you seem to have decided on the first.

Depending on your framing during filming, yes you can have more room to re-frame things in post. The image quality is as good as you can make it look.

The problem is going to come form having to focus two different lenses at the same time.

I find myself in need of diopters so I don't have to place the camera 25 feet away from the action! You'll have to do some tests regarding how close you can focus.

 

You have not seen any decent film with 16mm anamorphic? What kind of look are you going for? Here are some examples:

(I don't know how to embed vimeo videos, sorry.)

 

Shot on EXPIRED film, Bolex with adapter - you can see some of the issues with focusing two lenses...

https://player.vimeo.com/video/81461470

 

Here is a color version of the same type of thing - Expired film - note the scratches seem to have been added in post.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/29438811

 

Here is an excellent example of the type of quality one might get out of this medium: Note, I don't care very much for the color grade of this particular example.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/7452115

 

Finally, one of the best samples of this type of photography: Fuji 160T which may or may not have been expired but well taken care of, a nice scan (may be 2k?) and excellent production quality, which I find makes good photography even better:

https://player.vimeo.com/video/74296275

Edited by Jay Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop saying and writing 1.37! Please, everyone, and I will repeat myself as long as I have to.

 

 

1:1.375 or 11 to 8 is a purely mathematical value derived from the A.M.P.A.S. camera image aperture of 0.630" by 0.867" (16 by 22 mm).

 

Cinema theatre screens and projector apertures, usually uncovering a frame a bit bigger than screens or masks, yet smaller than what the cameras expose, have been 1:1.333 or 4 to 3 all the time since 1909 until today.

 

Standard silent, standard sound, and all standard small gauge film presentation has a 4-to-3 image. The beginnings were Dickson’s film strip of 1⅜" width with 64 hole pairs per foot, the lengthwise hole pitch being 0.1875". Basically, the image measured one inch on three quarters of an inch. A slip gauge of 1" was used between the punches crosswise. Why that measure has become 0.999" is out of the reach of my wisdom (ISO 491).

 

The design of the 16-mm. film format is based on a film pulldown (or film step) of 0.3" with an image 0.4" wide. Ninepointfive, Double-8, Super-8, and Single-8 all have the 4-to-3 ratio image.

 

Television also presented itself 1:1.333 from 1949 on and still does. Many digital photo cameras have sensors strictly 4 to 3.

 

Please forget about 1.37.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem is going to come form having to focus two different lenses at the same time.

I find myself in need of diopters so I don't have to place the camera 25 feet away from the action! You'll have to do some tests regarding how close you can focus.

 

 

Luckily, the set in question is single-focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily, the set in question is single-focus.

 

 

Ah, sorry - I misread the OP. Most people that I speak with aren't using anamorphic primes so I just assume anymore that someone shooting 16mm anamorphic is using a dual lens system.

 

 

 

Stop saying and writing 1.37! Please, everyone, and I will repeat myself as long as I have to.

 

 

Please forget about 1.37.

 

I always used 1.33, but I enjoyed reading your explanation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the Kowa lens set on 16mm is that you will have no wide focal lengths since the standard anamorphic set is 40,50,75,100. Whereas most 16mm spherical prime sets are 9.5,12,16,25,35,50 with sometimes a 6mm and 8mm for ultra wide. Also, unless you can find a good matched set like Clairmont Camera has, random Kowas can be very soft and flarey so I would worry about getting sharp images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon, are you sure about the 1.33 for 35mm? (Or was this only with regard to 16mm formats? I wasn't quite sure from what you wrote.)

 

Torkell Saetervadet's (excellent) book "The Advanced Projection Manual" (I have the 2006 release) says that after 1.33 silent and 1.19 movietone the aperture was brought to 1.37 by AMPAS. The reason given was that theaters got bigger, with that the down-angle tilt increased, and thus also the sideways cropping due to keystoning increased. To wind up with (on average) 1.33 again on the screen, the actual aperture was defined as 1.37. So if one wants to see it without any cropping, one would use a 1.37 aperture?

 

All the best,

Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4-perf 35mm Academy projection aperture is .825" x .602", which comes out to 1.37 : 1.

 

The 16mm camera aperture is .404" x .295", which also comes out to 1.37 : 1.

 

Wikipedia also states, regarding 16mm:

The "nominal" picture projection area (per SMPTE RP 20-2003) is 0.380 in by 0.284 in, and the maximum picture projection area (per SMPTE 233-2003) is 0.384 in by 0.286 in, each implying an aspect ratio of 1.34:1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4-perf 35mm Academy projection aperture is .825" x .602", which comes out to 1.37 : 1.

 

The 16mm camera aperture is .404" x .295", which also comes out to 1.37 : 1.

 

Wikipedia also states, regarding 16mm:

The "nominal" picture projection area (per SMPTE RP 20-2003) is 0.380 in by 0.284 in, and the maximum picture projection area (per SMPTE 233-2003) is 0.384 in by 0.286 in, each implying an aspect ratio of 1.34:1.

 

But I always thought the native measurements of regular 16mm & 4-perf 35mm wound up being a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. I'm only speaking of the size of the film...not the camera or projection apertures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4-perf 35mm Silent / Edison / Full Aperture is .980" x .735", which comes out to 1.33 : 1.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_film

Their diagram for 16mm shows .413" x .295", which is a 1.4 : 1 ratio

Their text says 10.26 mm by 7.49 mm, which is a 1.37 : 1 ratio.

 

The ASC manual also lists 10.26mm x 7.49mm for the 16mm camera aperture. Panavision also lists that spec. Now it is probable that this standard was created in 1932 when the Academy format was created in 35mm to accommodate a soundtrack stripe but also shave the top & bottom to get away from the 1.20 Movietone shape.

 

I don't know what a "native shape" would be other than full aperture...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on track,

 

Was there ever an official anamorphic 16mm version? The anamorphic process has about 1000 different names for the exact same process (sometimes even the exact same lens!), but according to all the information I've been able to read, there was never a trade name for the same process in 16mm.

 

And speaking of, is the CinemaScope trademark still held by Fox? It would be awesome to be able to use that logo on my upcoming 16mm anamorphic project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still a trademark in the EU at least, and no, it was never a studio process in 16, so it doesn't have a name.

It wouldn't really be Cinemascope anyway unless you used the Bausch & Lomb adapters, but you could always ask Fox.

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.



  • Glidecam



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Ritter Battery



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Abel Cine



    Metropolis Post



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Serious Gear



    Paralinx LLC



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Tai Audio



    Wooden Camera



    Visual Products



    CineLab


×
×
  • Create New...