8Fest workshop: UltraPan8, Plus-X and the 5.9 mm Angenieux

[Nicholas Kovats]

I recently attended the 2012 8Fest R8 workshop led by my friend and instructor, John Kneller. Workshop participants shot on two R8 cameras and the UP8 cam. Here is the overscanned uncropped example of their work shot on the UltraPan8 format with Plus-X and the 5.9mm ultrawide Angenieux lens. The film was rated at 100 ASA with stops ranging from f4-5.6.

http://vimeo.com/36944151

Thank you John for an excellent class!

2012 8Fest -> http://www.the8fest.com/
John Kneller -> http://www.mikehoolboom.com/r2/artist.php?artist=18

[etimh]

Damn, that is interesting.

Also like your personal bike film but I think I've yet to see the U8 film that fully takes advantage of what the widescreen image has to offer. And don't you also face a dilemma in this regard: if you were to pull out to take full advantage of the panoramic composition, aren't you going to suffer from the lack of resolution inherent in the smaller frame? Just wondering if you're going to be able to get Lawrence of Arabia-type shot compositions and, if not, what exactly is the use of this ultra-wide frame, except as a novelty?

Still think it is a worthwhile project with some amazing results. Bravo.

Really missing Plus-x right now.

Tim

[carllooper]

if you were to pull out to take full advantage of the panoramic composition, aren't you going to suffer from the lack of resolution inherent in the smaller frame? Just wondering if you're going to be able to get Lawrence of Arabia-type shot compositions

It's not the panoramic aspect of something like Lawrence Of Arabia that would be lost in UltraPan8. It's only the resolution that would be lost. There are only some shots in Lawrence of Arabia that rely on both the panoramic aspect and the higher definition. And they are the exception rather than the rule.

For example something like the following panoramic composition can suffer because the objects of interest (the camels) are quite small in frame. But notice how the background doesn't necessarily suffer to the same extent. The background has large scale structures that can still be appreciated as a panoramic image despite the lower resolution:



So when using UP8 one may might want to consider bringing the camels a little closer to the lens (scaling them up by 2 or 3) but otherwise leaving the background scale as is. But as mentioned these sort of wide shots are the exception rather than the rule.

There is a lot one can do with a panoramic frame that doesn't require a higher definition in order to be appreciated. For example the following images exploit the compositional capabilities of the panoramic frame, (particularly the one from 2001) but despite the images being lower resolution (ie. as shown here, 700 pixels wide) they nevertheless succeed in making good use of the wider frame.





Carl

[Nicholas Kovats]

Thanks for your feedback, Tim.

Perhaps it is the lack of subtly inherent in postings but I am not sure what your referring to by "pull out"? No zoom was used. The students were utilizing a retrofocus 5.9mm Angenieux prime. Due to its design it has been formulated specifically for a specific DOF of approx. 2.5 ft to infinity.

What level of panoramic precision are you willing to pay for? Last I checked a serial# 1 handheld 65mm Mitchell camera on eBay was going for $14,000 US and the minimum 1000 FT order for Kodak 65mm film color negative is approximately $1,300 US.

Perhaps it is the historical leanings of this forum where technical fantasy trumps practical reality. UP8 is not a technical novelty. It is available now and it's relatively low cost, price point and technical level offers true panoramic composition without the traditional expense of David Lean's 65mm cinematography. In fact it come closest to 'emulating" the technical widescreen nirvana of 65mm composition compared to other small format attempts.

Relative to digital scanning we still have not maximized the extracted inherent information of UP8 and film in general. I am not just referring to resolution but also color information.

As I have often repeated elsewhere, UP8 relative to Super 8 and Regular 8 is an increase in imaging area of 39% and 113%, respectively. As Carl has pointed out in his post... composition is similar and in fact there is an increase in width relative to Lean's Cinemascope compositions.

Cheers!

NK

[etimh]

Hey Nicholas,

I definitely think it is a cool thing and maybe I was simply asking the wrong question in relation to the potential of UP8. When I was referring to "pull out" I meant of course "pulling back" to get long shot compostions, like the camels in the landscape of Carl's example (the shot I was thinking of in Lawrence was the two riders approaching each other in the distance from each side of the frame). If you had any interest in producing shots like this, it would be difficult with any small-format film and could probably only be achieved with the larger format and frame, as you point out.

So I guess the real emphasis of my question should not have focused on replicating the possibilities of large format filmmaking but on what exactly can be achieved with the wide UP8? For instance, in your bike film (and I also noticed it with the film of your daughter?), because you are dealing with such a wide lateral image area, anything that comes into the frame seems to be radically cropped (and consequently "abstract" in some cases). If the subject or camera is moving fast it gets real disorienting. This of course can be an aesthetic of its own and I certainly loved the films for what they were, but was that your intent? The subject matter didn't seem to fit the aesthetic.

Now in the film from your class, I was much more appreciative of the use and exploitation of the widescreen image. It just seemed that the subject matter (cityscapes, people kicking it in the city, etc.) fit the aesthetic and the potential of the widescreen image in a much more satisfying way. As I've said, I think this is a great new tool and people are going to find all kinds of ways to use it for interesting films. But if it is intended to replicate the way that wide-screen was used in big budget commercial films, it might not be that useful, or successful, because of the reasons we all agree on. So I return to my initial hope that I soon see a UP8 film that takes full advantage of the widescreen frame--in its own unique way.

Tim

[carllooper]

So I guess the real emphasis of my question should not have focused on replicating the possibilities of large format filmmaking but on what exactly can be achieved with the wide UP8? For instance, in your bike film (and I also noticed it with the film of your daughter?), because you are dealing with such a wide lateral image area, anything that comes into the frame seems to be radically cropped (and consequently "abstract" in some cases). If the subject or camera is moving fast it gets real disorienting. This of course can be an aesthetic of its own and I certainly loved the films for what they were, but was that your intent? The subject matter didn't seem to fit the aesthetic.

I agree.

The more recent PlusX shots make better use of the pan frame than were the earlier tests. The PlusX shots benefit greatly from the use of a much wider angle lens (the 5.9 mm) than were used in the earlier tests.

Now I read the original test shots done by Nicholas, as being the result of Nicholas, familiar with shooting at a certain distance from his subject (or otherwise wanting to be up close and personal), continuing to do so, even though the frame he was now using was different. But rather than compensating for such, by either moving the camera further back ("pulling out") or otherwise using a wider angle lens (which he didn't have) he became interested in the strangeness of the long lens close proximity framing - and pursued that. A side effect of this is that the resulting shots do appear cropped (top/bottom) rather than wider (left/right). It's not just me seeing that. Tim sees that. My friends say the same thing. The shots look cropped rather than widened. Technically, of course, both interpretations are equally valid.

But I imagine it is a result of the first tests that Nicholas subsequently went out and adopted a wide-angle lens (as used in the PlusX shots), so he could still maintain an "up close and personal" style, but in a way that would work with a panoramic frame. Indeed it was precisely because of Nicholas' earlier tests that I went on a search for a wider angle lens. I found a 10mm Switar. And then on seeing the PlusX I realised I would need an even wider lens. So yesterday I managed to obtain a 5.5mm (wideangle adapter for the 10mm).



That all said, close proximity long lens photography can work - just needs some strategic thought, be it in terms of the shots with which it is cut or standalone framing that better exploits the panoramic frame. For example the following is a close proximity shot (same physical location as the others) using the long lens instead of the wide-angle, but there are now two objects of interest. The eye finds information in the horizontal domain which swings the interpretation in that direction - avoiding the equally valid interpretation of a vertically handicapped composition.




Carl

[carllooper]

And of course, there is always the ongoing theoretical work of enhancing signal resolution, so we can push those camels back further into frame.

Relative to digital scanning we still have not maximized the extracted inherent information of UP8 and film in general. I am not just referring to resolution but also color information.

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. - Matthew 19:23-24

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? - Medieval criticism of scholasticism

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
- Charles Dodgson, Alice in Wonderland.



The signal enhancement done here is using an adaptive deconvolution where the parameter is an estimate of the point spread function for an otherwise blurred image. The function works on single images in the spatial domain. The point spread function is what is otherwise called the "circle of confusion" in cinematographic discourse. Lenny Lipton spoke of deconvolvers back in 1970s ("Independant Filmmaking") when research was still in it's very early stages.

Note that is very different from typical sharpening filters. The algorithm can be applied to radically out of focus images bringing them into sharp focus with much less distortion than you would otherwise imagine.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Gentleman,

I now understand your respective quandaries with my UP8 cinematography. My evolution from a predominately dynamic handheld Super 8 4:3 cinematographer to a predominately 2.8: 1 UP8 shooter has not won you over. You are both in the "traditional" school of slow ponderous tripod mounted compositions. So be it.

But as it turns I am also a big fan of this school of traditional Cinemascope cinematography. I do not posses a hydraulically damped tripod to replicate this specific setup. Hence my recent handheld investigations with the 5.9mm lens. However, relative to my subject matter, I have always found tripod mounted cinema slow to respond to the dynamic attributes of live people, events and nature.

I look forward to other UP8 shooters in defining and expanding this filmic language. I will be posting potentially in the near future another UP8 filmmaker's footage involving his testing of 1.9mm, 3.5mm, 5.9mm and 500mm lenses in conjunction with UP8. Considering my small format roots I do not think there is one dominate aesthetic or "correct" widescreen methodology. This all new and exciting.

Carl,

The "adaptive deconvolution" applied to my subject's hair is great! Such detail!

[carllooper]

double post

[carllooper]

I now understand your respective quandaries with my UP8 cinematography. My evolution from a predominately dynamic handheld Super 8 4:3 cinematographer to a predominately 2.8: 1 UP8 shooter has not won you over. You are both in the "traditional" school of slow ponderous tripod mounted compositions. So be it.

This is completely incorrect and misses the point I was making.

The hand held aspect isn't a problem for me. For example, the PlusX photography is handheld and works for me. The only difference between the earlier rolls and the later is the lens used, so it's not the handheld aspect. What I was speaking to is the physical proximity of the camera to the subject. If you cut the 16mm frame horizontally in half but not alter one's shooting style accordingly - the resulting effect is that the image looks vertically challenged - as in reality that is what has occurred. This is not necessarily a problem - such an effect could very well be the intent in any number of contexts, including the one used. But it looked as if it was simply a function of cutting the 16mm frame in half, rather than as a function of any compositional motivation.

To avoid the effect (if one wanted to avoid it) one can move the camera further back, or use a wider angle lens (an anamorphic does the same thing), both of which will reveal more of the background for which the panoramic frame is particularly suited. No tripod required.

I was using a frame from Lawrence of Arabia merely as a convenient reference.

Fast adaptive compositional responses to a scene (as is possible with handheld) is a great idea. But rather than having the camera define anything in particular, within the frame as the focus, one can treat everything in the frame/world as simultaneously the objects of focus. This does tend to dampen the camera's movement but it's out of respect for everything going on rather than just this or that thing at any given moment. What I liked about the bike film, for example, is that there was no particular focus. The whole frame then participates in the image rather than just one aspect. For me, the important thing is giving the audience more freedom to move around inside the image (to feel less trapped) - or for the image to move around more freely inside the audience! The more disinterested the camera appears to be with respect to a scene (everything is important in equal degree or nothing is particularly important) the more it seems to reveal.

But in the end that's just my point of view (what else would it be?) however it wasn't one that was advocating tripods.

That said I do actually like tripods, dollies, bikes, wheelchairs, cranes, skateboards, cars. But that wasn't the story I was telling.

But as it turns I am also a big fan of this school of traditional Cinemascope cinematography.

This is where the story takes a different tangent. The use of a tripod (or bike etc) helps to make the viewpoint more disinterested - and the audience more free. It exploits what the surrealists recognised as a valid subtsitute for the unconscious: automata. The machined viewpoint - impervious to what is going on (unconscious). BUT a handheld shot can do the same thing. It's a little harder but cheaper than a tripod. The task (I'd argue) is to create a sense of disinterest - whether by use of machines or by other means - in which the content starts to be more involving than the camera persons subjective adaptions to such. Tripods (machines) are just one way of creating that sense. But a handheld camera can work just as effectively.

Now the surrealists also recognised that machines can have a consciousness - that if you do nothing - machine consciousness will dominate. For example, Duchamps urinal, (as a work of surrealist art) can't operate as art if it is installed in a toilet. The consciousness of the machine comes to the fore - the urinal, as a work of art, starts behaving as a urinal instead. So Duchamp, recognising the unconscious aspects of the urinal (as a work of art) had to install the urinal in a gallery for that aspect to become clear. The same goes for surrealist photo-montage. You might appreciate the unconscious machined aspect of a photograph but if you do nothing about it it's consciousness can start to dominate. The surrealists cut up the photograph in such a way to preserve the unconscious aspect of the photograph while dismantling or intervening in it's conscious (subjective) codes.

The effect of the image appearing cropped (top/bottom) rather than widened (left/right) is what I'd call the conscious aspect of the UP8 machine. It is consciously a 16mm frame cut in half. To break this conscious aspect and expose the unconscious aspect of UP8, one has to do what the surrealists do - and intervene. Do something different from what one would otherwise do when using a 4:3 aspect.

Not that surrealism is the be all / end all. I actually prefer realism to surrealism - but they are not that far apart from each other. They both share an interest in the idea of an unconscious, be it deep within the mind, the machine or the world.

As Nicholas concludes there are all sorts of experiments to be undertaken and they're all damned good whatever their real or imagined cause or effect.

[carllooper]

Following on previous discussion ...

One of the problems with some contemporary cinema theory is it's focus on effects. If Andre Bazin asked "What is Cinema?", someone like Sean Cubitt proposes an alternative question: "What Does Cinema Do?" If the cinema does nothing, Cubitt argues, all there is left is the question of what cinema is. But then Cubitt rapidly changes his mind and reframes the question, of what cinema is, as what cinema fails to be. But when Cubitt says "if the cinema does nothing", what cinema is that? There is no logic that can flow from such a proposition. Which is precisely why Cubitt uses it. He is trying to situate causes in the domain of such - as if causes belonged to a non-existant cinema - as if causes were irrelevant. As if Bazin's question were only meaningful in the context of cinemachines that had no effect.

But that said, I enjoy Cubitt, because he does intervene in the effect of effects. He critiques particular effects. My only anxiety is what happens after that - what does one do in place of effects - especially when one has pushed causal frames of reference into irrelevancy? Cubitt has recently championed animated films, but ones that produce de-unified effects - (unity as evil) but ones that verge on pseudo-surrealism (like Dalis contribution to Hitchcock). That's all well and good for animators - but what about the art of photography / cinematography? I believe critics such as Cubitt have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The surrealists could have cut up photographs into atomic sized pieces. The reason they didn't is because they actually appreciated the photographic image. The cutting up was a way of intervening only in the conscious (or false conscious) aspect of photography - while maintaining it's unconscious (machine) aspect, ie. not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Now in the digital age surrealism is much more difficult. The digital machine is almost the perfect surrealist machine. It has no consciousness. To acquire consciousness (to acquire a function) it has to be programmed for such, be it an operating system, an email client, a video editing deck, etc. But if you take all that away (or otherwise intervene from the outside) the unconscious aspect of a digital machine tends to just vanish. If anything fails to have an effect it is the unconsciousness of digital machines. If you stick a screwdriver into a digital machine there are no wonderful catastrophes such as gears flying all over the place. Rather one encounters a mute machine. A silence. A void.

The unconscious aspect of a digital machine is the algorithm. For example a square root function. The function is capable of computing the square root of any number - not just the one you supply. The conscious aspect of any algorithm is just the particular number supplied, and the obtained result. The algorithm doesn't care what number you supply. It treats all numbers equally. A lookup table is different. It is more on the side of consciousness. In a lookup table there is stored a set of numbers, and their square roots, but the table is finite. If one chose a number that wasn't in the table, then no result would occur. The algorithm, by virtue of it's indifference, succeeds where the lookup table fails.

Now this suggests that surrealism in the digital age must take a different tact - it needs to intervene from within as much as from without. Animators using layers in Photoshop is not the answer. In the digital age that is effectively no more than pseudo-surrealism. Surrealist animators need to collaborate with software developers if they want to follow in the footsteps of surrealism. And vice versa.

My interest is in realism more than surrealism, so it's a collaboration between photography and software development that gets my enthusiasm overflowing.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Carl,

You are definitely one of this forum's best writers and a refreshing distraction from film machine lust.