Patrick Anton Saefkow Seaman_64263 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Ultra 16 goes between the perfs, and super 16 goes near the edge of the film stock. Why not do both? I understand that this is purely hypothetical, as no lab would add new processes nowadays; but would it be possible for the sake of widescreen 2.39:1 photography? My reasoning is if ultra 16 is 6.3mm tall, then 16/6.3=2.54 and 2.39x6.3 is roughly 15mm. This would mean a gate of 6.3x15mm or 94mm2 as compared to a gate of 4.29x10.26mm or 44m2; which is slightly more than twice the negative size. I get that in real world terms 2 perf 35mm is more accessible with more support, and still has a larger aperture; but it would be very appealing to have this increase in iq while still playing with the ergonomics and artistic advantages of these cameras. Is there some sort of technical limitation that prevents this from being possible? I can't be the first idiot to think of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted July 13, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted July 13, 2016 Ultra 16 doesn't require as much modification to the camera as super 16. The moment you start re-centering the lens, that's when things become a problem. I have seen people mix Ultra 16 and Super 16, why not? Also, your numbers are a tiny bit off. Super 16 is 12.42 x 7.49 = 93mm. The moment you crop the top and the bottom, the difference is negligible. So you re talking about 15 x 6.25 = 93.75mm. You have a gain of .75 over all, but there would be a lot of wasted space on the negative. So overall you'd be loosing quality because width isn't necessarily the most important thing. Honestly, I'd take 4 perf Super 35mm any day of the week over 3 perf in terms of look because it's a taller image, meaning the field of view is wider. The moment you start cropping the field of view down, that's when the format starts looking... well, smaller. Super 16 already has issues with field of view, so to add MORE issues, doesn't seem very logical. Yes it sucks to loose the space between the sprocket holes, but that area will never be as clean as the area from the sprocket holes to the frame edge. Since the pressure plate of the camera, must push the film into the gate to keep it from skipping during pulldown. So in my eyes, I think super 16 is VERY CLOSE to the best you can do with the format. What us 16mm filmmakers need is cheaper/lower cost 1.3x anamorphic lenses. That would solve the 2.35:1 aspect ratio issues and retain the field of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dom Jaeger Posted July 13, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted July 13, 2016 A recent thread on the subject: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=70337 Apart from the edge code issue, you may also run into trouble with the viewfinder coverage, and possibly the shutter (SRs for example needed the mirror/shutter enlarged or the pull-down modified in order to properly cover a S16 gate and avoid corner streaking). You also need to leave some film edge for transport and support in the gate, and many amateur cameras (even Bolex) have claws that drag back over the space between perfs, potentially causing a visible bruise. But it's possible, as Robert's example in the thread above proves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Kovats Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Patrick, I am not sure why the reference to "idiot" but it's a valid question. Entrenched and passionate opinions are par for the course in this forum when it comes to film transport discussions but human egos are just part of the equation. In fact your concept has been implemented to a degree in my two ultrawide film formats called UltraPan8 R8 2.8 and UltraPan8 DS8 3.1 , i.e. https://www.facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm/info/ "FILM TRANSPORT: There are two specific variants. The first utilizes the entire 16mm width of 2 perf Regular 8mm film (R8) in conjunction with the 8mm pulldown cycle. It is called UltraPan8 2.8 R8 and debuted in 2011. The 2.8 designation refers to it's aspect ratio with an actual frame size of 10.54mm x 3.75mm. Note that this design uses the fact that Regular 8 film fundamentally shares the identical perforation dimensions of Standard 16mm film. Run time is effectively doubled relative to 16mm film magazines as there are 80x UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. The imaging area is 113% greater than the Regular 8 format (SMPTE camera aperture). Check out a scanned example, e.g. The second adaptation utilizes the full 16mm width of 2 perf Double Super 8 film (DS8) in conjunction with a Super 8 pulldown cycle. It is known as UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 and debuted in 2012. The 3.1 designation refers to it's aspect ratio with an actual frame size of 13.00mm x 4.22mm. Note that the actual frame width is greater than Super 16. Also note that the Super 8 perforation is smaller dimensionally than Regular 8 /16mm which allows more of the 16mm film width to be used. Magazine run time is also doubled as there are 80x UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. The imaging area is 34% greater than the smaller Super 8 format (SMPTE camera aperture), e.g. " The 2nd variant, UP8 DS8 3.1 does require recentering of the lens mount but I managed decent 3.1:1 frame coverage with my Zeiss Jena 10mm Tevidon APO C-Mount as per the 2nd scanned example above absent a re-centered lens mount. I don't have a scanned frame handy at work to illustrate the overscan parameters but the image extends beyond the left/right perfs. If your interested I can possibly post some frames in this thread. Oh yeah. The math. The total square mm areas generated by both formats is as follows, i.e. 1. UltraPan8 2.8 R8 = 10.54mm x 3.75mm = 39.53 mm2 2. UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 = 13.00mm x 4.22mm = 54.86 mm2 Cheers! Nicholas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted July 13, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted July 13, 2016 If you're a hobbyist or control the workflow on your entire project, Ultra16 is a great option...especially on cameras like the Scoopic where moving the lens takes herculean effort. More and more modern film scanners have no problem with it. Spirits were the biggest no-go on Ultra-16 for many years and since they were very common and high-end at the time, Super 16 was the way to go for most pros. If you had a choice between Super 16 and Ultra 16 I'd still pick Super 16 as a format but I love Ultra16 on my Scoopic. I'll be shooting a lot with it this summer. What us 16mm filmmakers need is cheaper/lower cost 1.3x anamorphic lenses. That would solve the 2.35:1 aspect ratio issues and retain the field of view. Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 13, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted July 13, 2016 Honestly, I'd take 4 perf Super 35mm any day of the week over 3 perf in terms of look because it's a taller image, meaning the field of view is wider. The moment you start cropping the field of view down, that's when the format starts looking... well, smaller. That is only true if you are using a display aspect ratio less wide than 1.78 : 1, which is what 3-perf full aperture is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted July 13, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted July 13, 2016 1.33:1 or 2.35:1 anamorphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Anton Saefkow Seaman_64263 Posted July 17, 2016 Author Share Posted July 17, 2016 Patrick, I am not sure why the reference to "idiot" but it's a valid question. Entrenched and passionate opinions are par for the course in this forum when it comes to film transport discussions but human egos are just part of the equation. In fact your concept has been implemented to a degree in my two ultrawide film formats called UltraPan8 R8 2.8 and UltraPan8 DS8 3.1 , i.e. https://www.facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm/info/ "FILM TRANSPORT: There are two specific variants. The first utilizes the entire 16mm width of 2 perf Regular 8mm film (R8) in conjunction with the 8mm pulldown cycle. It is called UltraPan8 2.8 R8 and debuted in 2011. The 2.8 designation refers to it's aspect ratio with an actual frame size of 10.54mm x 3.75mm. Note that this design uses the fact that Regular 8 film fundamentally shares the identical perforation dimensions of Standard 16mm film. Run time is effectively doubled relative to 16mm film magazines as there are 80x UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. The imaging area is 113% greater than the Regular 8 format (SMPTE camera aperture). Check out a scanned example, e.g. The second adaptation utilizes the full 16mm width of 2 perf Double Super 8 film (DS8) in conjunction with a Super 8 pulldown cycle. It is known as UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 and debuted in 2012. The 3.1 designation refers to it's aspect ratio with an actual frame size of 13.00mm x 4.22mm. Note that the actual frame width is greater than Super 16. Also note that the Super 8 perforation is smaller dimensionally than Regular 8 /16mm which allows more of the 16mm film width to be used. Magazine run time is also doubled as there are 80x UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. The imaging area is 34% greater than the smaller Super 8 format (SMPTE camera aperture), e.g. " The 2nd variant, UP8 DS8 3.1 does require recentering of the lens mount but I managed decent 3.1:1 frame coverage with my Zeiss Jena 10mm Tevidon APO C-Mount as per the 2nd scanned example above absent a re-centered lens mount. I don't have a scanned frame handy at work to illustrate the overscan parameters but the image extends beyond the left/right perfs. If your interested I can possibly post some frames in this thread. Oh yeah. The math. The total square mm areas generated by both formats is as follows, i.e. 1. UltraPan8 2.8 R8 = 10.54mm x 3.75mm = 39.53 mm2 2. UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 = 13.00mm x 4.22mm = 54.86 mm2 Cheers! Nicholas Nicholas I mean idiot in a sarcastic way to describe we who obsess over frame size and aperture :). Interesting stuff you have there. I'd experiment with that for personal use if I were into ultra wide aspect ratios, though 2.35 is extreme enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Kovats Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Indeed. We of the obsessive aspect ratio. :) I might add that my personal UP8 R8 2.8 Bolex does happen to have a 2.8:1 viewfinder with 2.4 Cinemascope markings. It's a nice practical safety margin if one is so inclined. I might add that the historical antecedent is Ultra Panavision 2.78:1 as exemplified by the original Ben Hur and latest Hateful Eight. In fact Panavison has a working 2.78 projector setup that features the famous Ben Hur chariot race which apparently and ultimately convinced Tarantino to shoot in the UP format. Nicholas I mean idiot in a sarcastic way to describe we who obsess over frame size and aperture :). Interesting stuff you have there. I'd experiment with that for personal use if I were into ultra wide aspect ratios, though 2.35 is extreme enough for me. 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