I've been a still photographer for a long time, and after years of composing my pictures in (roughly) 1.66/1, I'm finding the standard aspect ratio somewhat unrewarding. I can't afford 35mm, but I've heard that Super-16mm comes out as 1.66/1. That's great -- I mean, heck it's the aspect ratio of Barry Lyndon!
But it made me curious: is there such a thing as full animorphic widescreen (2.40/1) for 16mm? I imagine that animorphic 16mm would look pretty darned terrific, but I've never heard it mentioned as a possibility in any filmmaking discussions.
I know, however, that Orson Welles shot Touch of Evil on 16mm, and that movie is presented on DVD at the 1.85/1 widescreen, and is referred to on the box as animorphic. Was the animorphic effect created just for the DVD, or did Mr. Welles really shoot an animorphic 16mm movie?
And if not, can someone who has filmed Super-16 share their thoughts on the 1.66/1 aspect ratio? The particular genre of the film I'm planning calls for widescreen -- any widescreen -- but the budget is tight. Any thoughts? Advice?
Thanks in advance!
Elijah [img]wink.gif[/img] [img]wink.gif[/img]
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 16, 2004 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Faramir 006 ]</font>
i worked on a Super 16 feature that was shot in scope, however all they did was mask scope on the moniter and shoot it normal with no scope lenes on, which i felt was wrong because they were wasting so much of the picture. When it gets blown up and stretched to 35 i think it will effect the picture very badily. The Jumper was Shot on super 16mm in the widescreen format and it came out perfect.
As someone who works on a regular basis in S16 and 35mm. I can say that S16 can look great...
As for "Touch of Evil" being shot in 16mm I find that very hard to swallow.
I am also very skeptical of Scope. Now, let me explain...Here is why. I don't think it is wise to squeeze more info into a space than was intended to be there to begin with.
Aspect ratio can depend on your movie. As a DP I am often subject to the director in what aspect ratio we shoot. But, I sit down with him/her to explain my views and hopefully they will listen.
If the movie is a personal story and intimate then why shoot beyond 1.66?? If it is a gritty urban story why shoot beyond 1.66?? If it is a rural story about isolation why shoot 1.33??
I think that you need to examine what your goals are and what the story needs to tell it in the best way.
I hope that helped.
Good Luck
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Surely, "widescreen 16mm" at first sounds something like an oxymoron. I've thought long and hard about the appropriateness of the different ratios to my future project, and I can assure you that this project does need both widescreen and 16mm.
I'm more or less decided to go for Super-16mm. 1.66/1 is a nice, unpretentious frame for my story while helping me get the compositions I want.
Any more thoughts on shooting Super-16mm would be greatly appreciated. Is it much more complicated/expensive than shooting regular 16mm?
Thanks again!
P.S. I tried to corroborate my statement about Touch of Evil, but couldn't find anything conclusive. I was so sure about it, but perhaps I was wrong. What I remember hearing was that Welles wanted a super-light camera for those crazy crane movements and the claustrophobic interiors. Perhaps not.
The thing to do is go out and get the stocks you are thinking about shooting and doing some exposure and framing tests.
What camera are you using??
Good Luck
16mm has come a long way in terms of image quality. When touch of evil was made (1958), 16mm was the format of choice for the television news and things like that - so it seems unlightly to me that anyone would dream of shooting a feature film on any 16mm format at that time (with the exception of the avant garde guys). I don't think super 16 was even invented at the time.
When super 16 is transfered to DVD, it is typically cropped to 16:9 anamorphic rather then preserving the aspect ratio by having a 4:3 image with black bars.
Shooting super 16 has the same expense and level of complexity as shooting 16mm - the one small problem you might have is your preferred film lab may not support super 16's single sprocket configuration, but there is only a slim chance of this happening.
I have access to a regular 16mm camera, but I'm pretty much decided to go Super-16, which means going on the market and buying one -- the shoot will be long, so I prefer not to rent. I've heard that the Aaton Super-16 camera ("A CAM s16") is held in high esteem. Have any of you used one, or heard anything about it?
Another thing I want to avoid is cropping; I don't want to lose the resolution. Why do the telecine houses crop Super-16 to 16:9? Are they cropping it, or squeezing the image? Either way, it sounds horrid, and I hope they would honor a request to maintain the original ratio for the transfer, even if it meant non-anamorphic.
Thanks for responding, guys!
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 17, 2004 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Faramir 006 ]</font>
First off...We need to clear up the camera confusion.
A-Cam is made by Ikonoskop www.ikonoskop.com . It is a new camera and from the little first hand time I have spent with it it appears to be a very nice camera. It is a very simple camera that lacks a lot of features a person has come to expect. Among these are reflex viewing and a solid mount like an Arri-PL.
Aaton makes the A-Minima. It has been on the circut for 5+ years and has really made some waves. It has everything anyone could want in a small camera--Solid mount(PL and Nikon, AatonCode, Distant eye viewing, Etc.) I was really impressed with it. The only problem is that everything is extra. Meaning they get you in the door by telliing you that it is a 15,000 dollar camera but you leave paying 30,000. You can see it by going to www.aaton.com
As for the length of shoot being so long that you think renting will be expensive...I need to ask--How long is the shoot?? The A-Cam is about 5,000USD the A-Minima starts at 15,000USD(Without glass).
As an Owner/Operator of an Aaton camera they are not things you just go out and buy because you don't want to rent. When you buy a motion picture camera you need to think about a lot of factors. You are spending a good deal of money that you may not be able to make back.
Good Luck
The exact aspect ratio of Super 16 is 1.66:1, but you can crop the picture to fit a 1.85:1 ratio, or even a 2.35:1 ratio. Regular 16mm is 1.37:1, but you can do the same. Also, Michael Winterbottom shot "Wonderland" on 16mm using a Cinemascope lens, so that film has a 2.35:1 ratio.
Telecine houses don't crop the image to 16:9 most of the time. What I said was that when you are transfering super 16 to DVD, it is prudent to crop the image to 16:9( 1.66:1 is equivalant to approximately 15:9, so its more of a little trim then a crop) and use anamorphic widescreen, thus using all of the video pixels available to you. My point is, if a film appears on DVD in X aspect ratio, that does'nt nessecarily mean it was shot in X aspect ratio. Furthermore, unless the image is either 4:3 or 16:9, you can be sure that there is some kind of subterfuge going on with black pixels.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They are, in fact, cropping it in order to squeeze it.Are they cropping it, or squeezing the image
Personally, I would get my rushes on a 4:3 image with bars to edit with, then make a 16:9 anamorphic DVD / 1.81:1 35mm blowup, cropping as nessecary.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks