Widening the gate on a 1014 + Nizo Pro to shoot 16:9

[Nrk]

I am wanting to widen the gate on 2 1014XLS and a Nizo Pro and could do with some advice on the best method of doing so. I am going to bring the cameras to a local watch repair man as he will have the tools and a pair of steady hands to get the job done. Hopefully.

What do I need to relay to him when bringing the cameras down? I would really appreciate a bit of help as I don't want to risk buggering up all of my cameras.

thanks

[MIKI-814]

Why don't you try to shoot with an anamorphic lens? Zero risk for the cameras.

[reflex]

Remember that even if you modify the gate there's no assurance that the film won't be scratched in the wider image area during processing. I've also had modded gates that scratch the film slightly... something one only finds out after shooting a roll or two.

And, ultimately, you're still not going to get 16:9 in the viewfinder. It seems like a little thing, but you subconsciously frame what you see -- even if you know that there's an additional unseen 13% of the image.

Better to mask your transfer at 16:9 and leave the cameras the way they are.

[super8man]

You could also shoot 16mm and mask it down to 16x9 and still end up with more resolution (larger image area) than super 8 can give you...

[aj]

What do I need to relay to him when bringing the cameras down? I would really appreciate a bit of help as I don't want to risk buggering up all of my cameras.

thanks

Make sure to not drop the screws or other parts into the camera. Keep them such that when taking them out gravity will pull down and out. I.e. the NIZO with lens pointing up.
Also mind where the pressure feathers are and make sure they are there again when remounting the filed gates.

And have the rims where filing/sawing took place polished as much as possible.

Good luck!.

[reflex]

What do I need to relay to him when bringing the cameras down? I would really appreciate a bit of help as I don't want to risk buggering up all of my cameras.

The Nizo film gate has several extremely small springs under it. The trick is to take it off really, really carefully or you'll never see them again. They're also a challenge to put back (something that a watch technician will probably be intimately familiar with). The tech needs to expect those springs and needs to make sure that they don't bounce out of the film compartment.

As for the 1014 XL-S -- The film gate is plastic, right? That will be a lot harder to modify than the metal gate (I used a set of jeweler's files, buffing wheels on a dremel and a lot of patience when doing metal gates. Not sure how I'd approach plastic to ensure a smooth finish)

[carllooper]

Why don't you try to shoot with an anamorphic lens? Zero risk for the cameras.

Unless you can get something close to a 1.2X anamorphic I wouldn't use an anamorphic for 16:9

For example a 1.5X anamorphic offers only an improvement in the image quality of just 1% over simple cropping - and the additional glass could very well negate that improvement.

And a 2.0X anamorphic will be 20% worse than simple cropping!


Notes.

The usable area of a Super8 frame (which we treat as 100% use) is:

5.79mm x 4.01mm = 23.2179 sqr mm

Targeting 16:9
Crop: 5.79mm x 3.257mm = 18.858 sqr mm = 81%
1.5X: 4.753mm x 4.01mm = 19.1 sqr mm = 82%
2.0X: 3.565mm x 4.01mm = 14.296 sqr mm = 62%

Targeting 1.85 : 1
Crop: 5.79mm x 3.13mm = 18.12 sqr mm = 78%
1.5X: 4.95mm x 4.01mm = 19.8 sqr mm = 85%
2.0X: 3.71mm x 4.01mm = 14.87 sqr mm = 64%

Targeting 2.39 : 1
Crop: 5.79mm x 2.423mm = 14.0 sqr mm = 60%
1.5X: 5.79mm x 3.639mm = 21.0 sqr mm = 91%
2.0X: 4.792mm x 4.01mm = 19.2 sqr mm = 83%

[bolextech]

There are 1.33x anamorphics that will give exactly 16:9 (1.78:1) from a 4:3 original.

Among them, the Panasonic AG-LA7200 or the now mostly discontinued Century optics 16:9 adapters.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

[Nrk]

thanks to everyone for their responses.

Unfortunately times are really tight at the moment and so there's no chance of me being able to buy an anamorphic lens or a 16mm kit though I do plan on getting both later next year if possible.

The viewfinder issue is a pain but then again it is already a pain when shooting with a view to masking for 16:9. I recently shot a piece where my plan was to mask the footage but idiotically I shot most of it too tight meaning that i would have to decapitate the actress' head slightly if I was to convert to 16:9. The most frustrating part is that i use a number of polaroid cameras where I have to be aware of the viewfinder not being accurate yet, despite knowing that I wasn't stepping back enough, I shot away, pretty much framing for 4:3. am currently still not talking to myself for being such a moron.

The cameras will be used with wide angle lenses attached and at times I will be shooting wide open so risk vignetting, in fact I am sure it is inevitable which makes framing the shots even more problematic.

I am going to try masking the footage that I recently shot and see how it looks when cropped and will make a decision based on that.

thanks again

[carllooper]

There are 1.33x anamorphics that will give exactly 16:9 (1.78:1) from a 4:3 original.

Among them, the Panasonic AG-LA7200 or the now mostly discontinued Century optics 16:9 adapters.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

Using a 1.33X is a very good choice but keep in mind that it won't give an exact 16:9 result for Super8.

Super8 is wider than 4:3, so there will be an additional image area of the Super8, that will be exposed through a 1.33, which will need to be removed.

That said, the 1.33X does does offer a resonable improvement over simple cropping, of about 11%.

Targeting 16:9
Crop: 5.79mm x 3.257mm = 18.858 sqr mm = 81%
1.23X: 5.79mm x 4.01mm = 23.2179 sqr mm = 100%
1.33X: 5.347mm x 4.01mm = 21.44 sqr mm = 92%
1.5X: 4.753mm x 4.01mm = 19.1 sqr mm = 82%
2.0X: 3.565mm x 4.01mm = 14.296 sqr mm = 62%

[bolextech]

Carllooper, you're talking nonsense.

Super8 is definitely 1.33:1. There is no doubt about that.

The SMPTE standard for super8 camera aperture is 4.22 x 5.63mm.
That is the only measurement that counts.

Do the math.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

[carllooper]

Carllooper, you're talking nonsense.

Hmmm.
My maths is correct - but my assumptions would appear to be incorrect. I was using the dimensions for Super8 given here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:8mm_and_super8.png

Aspect = 1.44389 : 1
# W, camera frame width = 5.79 mm
# H, camera frame height = 4.01 mm

But following your advice I did a search for SMPTE standard and found this:

http://www.super8data.com/database/arti ... ndards.htm

in which the camera gate is given as:

Aspect = 1.348 : 1
# W, camera frame width = 5.69 mm
# H, camera frame height = 4.22 mm

and the projector gate is given as:

Aspect = 1.362 : 1
# W' projector frame width = 5.46 mm
# H', projector frame heigh = 4.01 mm

Do the math.

Ok. Here's the math when run on the following standard:

# W, camera frame width = 5.69 mm
# H, camera frame height = 4.22 mm

So:
Available area = 5.69 x 4.22 = 24.0118 sqr mm (100% usage)
Aspect = 5.69/4.22 = 1.34834123...

With anamorphic 1.33:1 the used area of the Super8 for 16:9 becomes
5.6266 x 4.22 sqr mm
= 23.74453 sqr mm
= 99% of usable area ( close enough to 100% eh? )

For comparison, simple cropping (according to the same standard) would use only 79% of the available area.

So based on the SMPTE standard, a 1.33X A lens would give a 20% better signal than simple cropping.

cheers
Carl

[Nrk]

I have decided to go ahead and widen the lens of one of the cameras but have one final query - how wide do you go? If I was to remove the gate and widen it I could set it against S8 film and see how much to file off but as I will be filing without removing the gate in my 1014xls I am not sure how much to take off.

I have decided to file the camera this way as Pav (a member here) did it this way and it worked well apparently.

ta'