New type camera idea!

Post by **Herb Montes** » Fri May 30, 2003 7:05 pm

ds21z, I liked the idea of Ultra-16 and have thought about modifying a K-3 for this. They are already suitable for Super 16. The one advantage is you would not have to re-center the lens mount.

Post by **mattias** » Fri May 30, 2003 7:16 pm

Herb Montes wrote:Thing is double perf 16mm film is getting hard to find.

yes, but far from impossible. and i have four spools of double perf tri-x and two of vision 200t in my fridge just waiting to be part of such a project. it wouldn't be more than a proof of concept at first anyway, and if i decide to shoot something "real" later i could special order any stock i want. they're still in the catalog, right?

/matt

Post by **Herb Montes** » Fri May 30, 2003 7:19 pm

You can still order double perf from Kodak but it is special order. When I tried to order 16mm double perf Fomapan from John Schwinn he was about out so I settled for single perf.

Post by **mattias** » Fri May 30, 2003 7:29 pm

Herb Montes wrote:You can still order double perf from Kodak but it is special order.

that's what i figured. do you know by any chance how many 100' spools is the minimum?

/matt

Post by **Herb Montes** » Fri May 30, 2003 7:49 pm

I haven't checked recently. I just wouldn't spend a lot of time working on a sideways running double 16mm concept if double perf film is iffy in availablity.

Post by **mattias** » Fri May 30, 2003 9:04 pm

oh, me neither, i was talking about the masked gate thing. little time, little money, doesn't matter if there's little stock to shoot. ;-)

/matt

Post by **Cranium** » Fri May 30, 2003 9:47 pm

The yearly "I want bigger but don't want to pay thread. ;)
Hey, I'm not bashing. I'm in on every one I can find.

I don't think I've seen the sideways thing before. I like that. You'd still need to crop a little to hit 16x9, but you'd have more image area to begin with.

I'd do K3. Maybe I will do a K3. Seems like H16s are harder to come by for cheap (especially with reflex)

Could you get a C-mount adapter made (and recentered) for it?

Post by **paulcotto** » Fri May 30, 2003 10:09 pm

Did someone mention that you could use any 16mm rank telecine in the world to do a transfer! You could even have them do the whole frame at once and use an editing program to crop out and recenter 1/2 the frame. I flip my frames when I use my telecine because it records them upside down and backwards because I don't use a mirror and I cant flip my video camera. I use Virtual Dub (FREE) plugins to do it. Of course if you film two different setups then the lighting would be different causing one half of the transfer to need extra color correction. I have a B&H 240 I might try it with.

My Bolex H-16 EL uses a screw in filter adapter that I could put a mask into to cover half the gate. This is getting more interesting by the minute. Cool stuff!

Regards,
Paul Cotto

Post by **sk8s** » Sat May 31, 2003 7:18 am

This idea of "vistavision s8 or 16" is one way to get a 1.85 or wider image. This method will cost alot more in filmstock. The horizontal wide frame will be the size of two or more standard frames. At 24 fps you will use 2 or 3 times as much film.

Camera costs aside, 16mm film and 35mm film cost the same per foot. In 35 you use twice as much film due to it's larger frame size. This horizontal idea would use more film than standard vertical pull down.

Besides, my idea of a canon scoopic 16mm crossed with a canon DS8 is a good and feasible proposition. Wide frame, existing cameras, 400' mag. This can be done. The bolex ds8 does not accect 400 mags. The K3 does not accept mags. The canon scoopic and ds8 are nearly identical. Take the gate and pull down claw from the the ds8 and put it a scoopic modified to accept the CP 16 400 mag.

It is'nt that simple, but it is far more simple than a vistavision style camera. This idea should merit some discussion.
-Rob Skates

Post by **mattias** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:50 pm

paulcotto wrote:Did someone mention that you could use any 16mm rank telecine in the world to do a transfer!

i believe i did, yes. :-)

You could even have them do the whole frame at once and use an editing program to crop out and recenter 1/2 the frame.

yeah, i was thinking along those lines too. i'd rather do a 16:9 scan to get better video resolution though, but if it's mainly the cost savings we're after it's a great idea.

/matt