16/9 aspect ratio and super8mm

[Lunar07]

I reckon the best compromise is to film on the natural frame, but leave space above and below. Then when projecting just use the 4:3 format, but on transferring to video crop to 16:9.

This is exactly what I have in mind. I just thought it will be nice to have a visual aid, while working in 4:3, that denotes the 16:9 rectangle.

Alternatively leave it as it is and just zoom in on the widescreen TV. My kitchen table telecine efforts look quite interesting then :lol:

Interesting idea

[Lucas Lightfeat]

Unfortunately, digital zooming on a TV screen is similar in principle to digital zooming on a video camera, and will lose you valuable definition (as will cropping, I guess)

Lucas

[kjellpell]

One very easy and convenient way of working in widescreen 16:9 with Super8mm is using the Iscorama 42 A-lens.
This screws right into 62mm filter-threads of my Angenieux lenses (and of course all other 62mm filter thread lenses).
With a squeeze factor of 1,5x (full scope-lenses has a squeeze factor of 2x) this gives a 18:9 aspect ratio, which is perfect.
If you mask of the frame area, as done in cinema widescreen films (1,66:1, 1,85:1), you are wasting lots of picture-area, and then of course, also the resolution. (Smalle picture-area, less resolution.)
With A-lenses you are covering ALL the available area in the S8mm frame, and therefore also the resolution.
Projection is no problem, as you just use the same lens in front of your projector.
A little more work, but then you are rewarded with much better quality. And that's why we use S8mm isn't it???????????

[Lunar07]

A little more work, but then you are rewarded with much better quality. And that's why we use S8mm isn't it???????????

But yes of course

[Jerseyfilm 8]

I can sympathize with the starter of this post, however, with a little effort it is possible to find a good camera/lens combination, the canon 514xls used with a Kowa 8z, will give excellent results, all this talk of stretching grain ect, I have never noticed, and I project.(the best way to view your widescreen films) mine onto a 7 ft 6ins screen, beautifull results, also the elmo 230 camera can easily be adapted. I use a Canon 1014e, which has a 58mm front lens, a Kowa pa35 lens works well, as the rear of this lens is 54mm, however these lenses are very rare, being a 1.75x lens. as aposed to the normal 2x, the whole point of using the anamorphic is to allow more picture onto the same frame, I dont think cropping will produce the same results.

[Lunar07]

the whole point of using the anamorphic is to allow more picture onto the same frame, I dont think cropping will produce the same results.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about cropping. But about framing. Framing a shot in 4:3 within a 16:9 aspect ratio is not cropping.
Anamorphic lenses may be fun to use in conjunction with shooting a film and projecting it. Specially with the 2X anamorphic lenses. But it is cumbersome, and it ties a film to an anamorphic lens. And these lenses can be quite heavy.
Case in point: I do lots of close up shooting. I am talking here about insects etc.... No way will I be able to do that with a half kilogram 1.5X anamorphic lens hanging at the edge of my camera. A visual aid to enable me to FRAME the shot within a 16:9 ratio is what I need because it makes LATER cropping into widescreen a snap without LOSING information.
I believe it is an issue of personal taste and style.

[Lucas Lightfeat]

Hey Lunar,

I think you are talking about cropping. The whole point of framing for 16;9 in a 4;3 frame is so that you can either a) later crop it on your computer during edit in a 4;3 project or b) crop during telecine to a 16;9 video project. These will both lose you information, of course - the info that you crop out.

Anamorphic adapters do mean full use of the film frame, but I agree that they can be cumbersome and expensive.

I would frame for 16;9 in the viewfinder of the camera, as discussed, and then transfer to a camera in 16;9 mode. Cropping a 4;3 image works ok, IF you want to view on a 4;3 tv with black bars, but computer converting the image to native 16;9 can result in some horrible problems, in my experience, ruining the image quality. Best to transfer directly into 16;9 format during telecine stage. This will still effectively crop your image, but into the required widescreen format.

Lucas

[Yemi]

If you frame for 16:9 within the super8 4:3 frame, you are wasting film resolution. It is commonly referred to as cropping or masking and is used extensively in 35mm motion picture to produce widescreen theatrical aspect aspect ratios. The same technique is applied to Super16 but with minimal loss since the Super16 frame is ~1.66:1. I guess the question is "can you afford to waste the precious film image area?"
With 35mm, modern film stocks and smaller multiplex projection screens have made grain less of an issue.The point of anamorphic lenses is that they compress the 16:9 frame to occupy the whole 4:3 film frame.

----
Yemi

[Lunar07]

Hey Lunar,

I think you are talking about cropping. The whole point of framing for 16;9 in a 4;3 frame is so that you can either a) later crop it on your computer during edit in a 4;3 project or b) crop during telecine to a 16;9 video project. These will both lose you information, of course - the info that you crop out.

I understand your point. This is getting to be an issue of semantics Maybe the term 'cropping' makes me feel at unease because it sounds like I am losing something. In the case of framing for 16:9, OK, it is cropping, BUT no *information* is lost, since it falls outside what I am framing. So, fine, it is cropping of redundancies.

Anamorphic adapters do mean full use of the film frame, but I agree that they can be cumbersome and expensive.

They simply would not do in many cases of the sort of things I film.

I would frame for 16;9 in the viewfinder of the camera, as discussed, and then transfer to a camera in 16;9 mode.

This is the plan exactly!

[jukkasil]

OK, here is my own example, how you'd make that 16:9 aspect range with super 8.

We have also discussed this here earlier, but now I have more mpg-material to show you.

I'm talking about filing the image gate, some of you have said it's crap etc.
but after I did one job for my transfer customer, I saw "the light", it could be work!

Here is that mpg-file:

http://www.sorb-i-tol.com/169test.mpg

This has been transfered using my Workprinter-3 machine.

Note: this is letterbox version only because of mpg-format (for internet), the original material are normal 16:9 DV-versions. This material has been shot to the these bad Kodakchrome 40 films, that's why here is very bad jittering. It's sad, cause material looks just great, but customer didn't know that Kodak problem that time he shot these ones.

You'll notice, that the whole image is clear, without any unfocused parts and , scratches etc. because of filing. Customer informed me yesterday, that he has shot new K40's without any problems with this same camera, so the jittering isn't cause of filing, only cause of bad cartridges.

[mattias]

OK, it is cropping, BUT no *information* is lost, since it falls outside what I am framing.

i'd actually consider that lost information. why is it important whether it's physically still there or not if you're not going to use it? just for peace of mind or what? :-)

/matt

[Lunar07]

OK, it is cropping, BUT no *information* is lost, since it falls outside what I am framing.

i'd actually consider that lost information. why is it important whether it's physically still there or not if you're not going to use it? just for peace of mind or what?

/matt

When I am strictly framing a shot into a 16:9 rectangle within a 4:3 viewer, the medium imposes that certain elements will surround the 16:9 rectangle on top and bottom. So of course it will be physically there whether I like it or not.
Now we have to crop:
Something is lost for sure But is it information? Let us define information here In Film I understand information as what fits an ordered scheme and makes sense as a whole when things are all taken into account. This applies from the extreme of Bunuel all the way to the formal art of Eisenstein. So, if I start by framing selectively into a *portion* of the 4:3 rectangle, everything that surrounds this framing does not necessarily equate with useful information since my final aim is to go to 16:9.

[Lunar07]

With 35mm, modern film stocks and smaller multiplex projection screens have made grain less of an issue.The point of anamorphic lenses is that they compress the 16:9 frame to occupy the whole 4:3 film frame.

Yemi

I can see that by now However, the use of anamorphic lenses can be quite cumbersome in what I am trying to shoot.

[Lunar07]

OK, here is my own example, how you'd make that 16:9 aspect range with super 8.

We have also discussed this here earlier, but now I have more mpg-material to show you.

I'm talking about filing the image gate, some of you have said it's crap etc.

Actually this looks nice. Irresistable!
Let the Filing start hehehehe
I can just see myself filing a film gate on a weekend
You mention that this was discussed before: do you have a link for that discussion? And can you offer any information on how you approximate the amount of filing, and what kind of camera did you use?
I can see myself experimenting with a Bauer 207 or two.

[Lucas Lightfeat]

8O WOW Jukka !!!!! That is sooooo cool. Forget everything I said about liking 4:3 - I was just being philosophical about what I have. This further maximises the frame size, and as I never use soundstriped film, it is never going to be a problem. I can also file the gate of a cheaper Nizo, as all Nizos use the same gate, and swap them over.

Jukka - Is it free of distortion at full zoom as well? Should potential distortion increase with telephoto end of lens, or is there just no distortion at all?

Tell me how - I'm sold!

Lucas