Introducting a new ultra-wide film format called UltraPan8

[Nicholas Kovats]

The emerging popularity of 1.33:1 televison in the late 1940s and
early 1950s spurred tremendous development in ultrawide motion picture
technology. Its zenith best represented by the stupendous Cinerama and Cinemascope film based formats.

I would like to expand upon these spectacular ultrawide antecedents
with the introduction of UltraPan8.

It is a new ultrawide native spherical film format utlizing modified
8/16mm cameras and the entire 16mm width of 2 perf regular 8mm motion
picture film.

It's native gate dimensions are 10.52mm x 3.75mm with an aspect ratio
of 2.8:1. This is wider than Cinemascope at 2.39:1 and a bit smaller
than Cinerama's 2.87:1 aspect ratio. UltraPan8 represents a 41% increase in imaging area over Super 8 film and a respective 62% increase over regular 8mm film.

Standard 16mm optics provide optically centered full frame coverage.

Key design principals were the interchangable film transports of the
Bolex H8/H16 cameras and the historical engineering of both 8mm and
16mm film formats sharing identical perforation dimensions.

One of the design intents was freedom from bulky 16mm Cinemascope
anamorphic projector lens setups. Here are some examples of previous
ideas and testing for comparison purposes, i.e.

1. My original design for a potential adapter setup which was never
implemented, i.e
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90929958@N ... otostream/

2. Anamorphic test shot utilizing 16mm anamorphic projector lens +
stepdown ring + Beaulieu 4008. Cinematography by Justin Lovell,i.e.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrvQCV2kfn4

The camera was modified by Jean-Louis Seguin and includes a native
2.8:1 UltraPan8 viewfinder with a Cinemascope 2.4:1 mask. We are also
working towards modification of a 1936 8/16mm multiformat worm gear Bolex projector for film based projections.

The 8 bit digital overscanned files of the inaugral test roll were
provided by John Gledhill of bitworks.org utilizing his sprocketless
16mm transfer bay in conjunction with a linear 12 bit imaging camera w/ 14 bit mask.

The digital deliverables included

1. Sequential 8 bit JPEGS. Full and half resolution. No color
correction applied albeit some gamma.
2. 1700x600 DIVX file.
3. 700x250 DVCPRO file.

Here are some sample frameshotsof the overscanned final output 8 bit JPEGS, i.e.

1. http://db.tt/mOoaVKp
2. http://db.tt/yQvrul9
3. http://db.tt/JSbM3IC
4. http://db.tt/qXFY2mJ
5. http://db.tt/kAhNgUU

Here are MPEG4 links to the 1700x600 DIVX file. I have added
music/credits to the unedited raw footage but I have decided to
display the test roll in its entirety, blemishes and all, i.e.

YouTube = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJHso5-F6WM
Vimeo = http://vimeo.com/27074208

Here is the orginal 1700x600 DIVX file available for download and for
your examination. Keep in mind this is not the full resolution
sequential JPEGS, i.e.

DropBox = http://db.tt/rnEYkBs

There are visible issues in the footage and they are being addressed.
Although this was my first time filming with a Bolex I could not wipe
the perpetual grin of my face as I shot this test roll, that being the fact of
native UltraPan8 in the palm of my hand...a tad lighter than Kubrick's
handheld 25 pound 65mm camera shots in 2001! In fact 2001 is THE original inspiration with its gorgeous 65mm Cinemascope cinematography.

And why not re-introduce film based spectacle in these times of the digital imaging onslaught?

There will be forthcoming updates regarding additional footage and an
inspiring academic paper detailing the important historical
engineering modifications of the UK based WideScreen Association.

"From the heavens sprung such images."

[granfer]

I'm afraid its not quite so new as you think http://academic.csuohio.edu/kneuendorf/ ... onds07.pdf
See in particular the piece about Stuart Warner and Pan 16.

But good thinking, anyway!

[Nicholas Kovats]

Granfer,

I am direct contact with the academic and author of that excellent article, Guy Edmonds.

Guy is quite enthusiastic regarding the debut of UltraPan8 as is Tony Shapps of Widescreen Association fame. Tony has requested an article for his forthcoming September newsletter.

What Stuart Warner accomplished with Pan 16 was very difficult from an camera engineering perspective and is not cheaply reproducible for the masses. He choose the more ardous path of modifying the 16mm gate to replicate the 1/2 pulldown cycle of 8mm. But its even more complicated than that as there is only a single standard 16mm perf per 16mm frame height.

How in gods creation did he manage TWO half-pulldown 8mm gate cycles with only ONE perf! Think about it.

Film transport is a modern and proven engineering wonder. Continuous movement to intermittent to full braking to expose the frame in the gate then immediately switch to ramp up to intermittent back to continuous. All in 10ths or 100thss of a second.

And he achieved two PAN16 frames per standard 16mm height with ..I repeat...one single perf. The head hurts. I suspect Stuarts' invention of the mythical VPC (Variable Pitch Control) for PAN16 projectors was an attempt to control the variability of his PAN16 camera gate pulldown and PAN16 projector gates. One has to respect his pioneering efforts, indeed.

Jean-Louis's utilization of the pre-exisiting "off-the-shelf" H8 film transport with the required half pulldown gate necessary for the 3.75mm frame height of UltraPan8...is classic engineering "re-purposing". He modifies specifically the optics, i.e. utilizes H16mm viewfinder optics, widens the H8 aperture and mills the H8 gate to some degree. Additional details forthcoming.

A 2nd UltraPan8 conversion has been ordered as of yesterday by another individual.

"Vivre la film! Vivre!

[sciolist]

I'm the second convert to UltraPan8.

Having been very favorably impressed time and again by work that Jean-Louis Séguin has done on my cinematography gear, I've decided to order an UltraPan8 conversion. My Bolex H8 RX4 camera will have its front plate and viewfinder system replaced by a front plate (either turret or bayonet, I’ve not decided) and 13x viewfinder from an H16 RX camera. I’d worked regularly with a Linhof Technorama 6x17cm panoramic camera years ago, finding it extremely useful for the landscape photography I was doing. The 2.8:1 aspect ratio of UltraPan8 is virtually the same and, while it’s surely going to require some adjustment, I expect to find it just as useful.

[ECNtoo]

Anybody thought of milling out an H8 gate and sticking it in an H16? Treat it like DS8...so the film has to be flipped but you'll get a nice wide frame. It would only work for video conversion and even then on telecine machines that can zoom in on a specific part of the frame.

[camera8mm]

I'm trying to follow along on this and ultrapan8 would be a good idea considering everything is going 16:9 these days for hd but i;m confused on what you shot it on.
jpeg1 looks like an 8mm pan 8 wide frame but the modified beaulieu 4008 is a super 8 camera!
In the jurgen lossau book there is mention of a sideways modified victor 16mm into widescreen 8 but the camera is long gone.

[Nicholas Kovats]

camera8mm,

The modified Beaulieu 4008 was clearly associated with a previous anamorphic Cinemascope test in contrast to the specific UltraPan8 modifications and details involving the Bolex H8/H16 cameras.

[grainy]

I'd like to understand this better -- I'm not familiar with the issues behind the perfs and so on -- what's the difference between this modification, and say for example, doing an Ultra 16 mod and masking the top /bottom off to reduce the frame width?
regards
G

[bolextech]

With the UltraPan8, you get twice the amount of footage and no wasted negative area; on a 25 foot roll that's 2000 frames instead of 1000.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

[Nicholas Kovats]

grainy,

Jean-Louis is bang on as to the efficiency and capacity of this format.

I will amplify his post by referencing basic filmstock unit(s), i.e. there are 40x 16mm frames and 80x 8mm frame per foot.

UltraPan8 utilizes the 16mm frame width and 8mm frame height , i.e. 10.75mm x 3.75mm. I believe Jean-Louis milled and increased the the 8mm frame height above spec., i.e. ANSI PH22.107.

Visually there are 2x 10.75mm x 3.75mm UltraPan8 frames per 40x 16mm frames per foot or alternatively 1x 10.75mm x 3.75mm UltraPan8 frames per 80x 8mm frames per foot. Check out the the individual UltraPan8 frame scans, i.e.

1. http://db.tt/mOoaVKp
2. http://db.tt/yQvrul9
3. http://db.tt/JSbM3IC
4. http://db.tt/qXFY2mJ
5. http://db.tt/kAhNgUU

Therefore masking the top + bottom of the standard 16mm frame is wasting precious unused footage. It would only produce 40x UltranPan8 frames per 16mm foot.

The key is 1/2 pulldown of 8mm relative to 16mm gates and the identical perforations shared by both. From the perspective of standard Super 8 and R/D8mm it represent an approximate 80-90% and 100% increase in shooting area, i.e. resolution is bumped up considerably.

[grainy]

veeerrry interesting!
May I ask what the costs are for the camera conversion and the specialized (from what I can tell) telecine?

[bolextech]

Dear grainy,

The price will depend on what the customer can bring to the table.

If someone sends me both a H8-Reflex and a H16-Reflex, then its a standard labor charge as I don't have to supply any parts, everything needed will be there.

If someone has just one or the other, price would be higher of course as I have find a source for the parts needed to complete the conversion.

For more detailed information, send me a PM.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

[kuparikettu]

So is this modification built around the H8RX or the H16RX? After reperforated 16mm film is available, is it possible to fit in a 30,5m/100ft load?

[bolextech]

You can start from either but it less expensive to start with a H16 Reflex in order to secure the lens mount and viewing optics.

The H series cameras all are capable of taking a full 100 foot load.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

[granfer]

After reperforated 16mm film is available, is it possible to fit in a 30,5m/100ft load?

To answer the part of this quote that Bolextech missed in his answer.....

"re-perforated 16mm film" is ALREADY available... it always has been and is known as "Double 8".

It's the availability of this stock which has prompted the conception of this "format".

BUT, as a reminder, it would have to be processed as "16mm", WITHOUT splitting!