ultra 8?

[super8man]

Link at top is broken...lame...

But, I have been preaching this for a long time...REGULAR 8 is a defacto widescreen filmstock with many many cameras offering complete image in between the sprocket holes. The cheaper the camera, the better. I have seen this countless times.

So, start investigating...

[filman]

[quote="freedom4kids"]Can you please identify the camera and stock used?

Thanks!

NK

no...wait,stop,alt,sorry! it is only a photoshop elaboration of an hypothetical ultra8 frame. i don't know if someone has never build such camera. i think that before to try a modification is more easy to rebuild a new camera(and a new projector!). i know that the French Emel made a widescreen camera, named "panascope" (w/o to split the 16mm film ofcourse), so only 7,5 meters

[sciolist]

Ruedi Muster's DS8 Breitwand format is described at http://www.super8site.com/fanzine/aktue ... ster.shtml.

[reflex]

Ruedi Muster's DS8 Breitwand format is described at http://www.super8site.com/fanzine/aktue ... ster.shtml.

It looks very nice in theory, but one needs a Telecine facility that can transfer the format properly - it requires Super 8 sprocket holes in a world where most facilities are used to dealing with single perf 16mm.

[Wade]

About a year ago I had asked Jakko Kurri (I'm sure I'm spelling his name wrong!) at Meritex if he could modify a Bolex double8 to this hypothetical Ultra8 format. After explaining it as best I could to him, and sending him drawings, he basically said he thought he could do it although he seems very reluctant to work in Super8 at all now. As I understand it, and I'm not by any means a tech, a partial modification of the Bolex double 8 is done to make it Super8, but the regular 8 pull-down and pitch is kept, or something like that. And then the gate is widened. I liked the idea, but Jakko had never actually done this modification before, so it would be an experiment. Since a regular conversion to Super8 costs about $700USD, and there was no way of telling how long he might work on this experiment it was too costly for me to consider getting done. Maybe if someone here is handy with a screwdriver they could DIY to an old Bolex and be the first on the block to have an Ultra8 camera.

[bakanosaru]

In theory it sounds quite simple get a reflex bolex h16 and swap in the movement from an H8 = wide 8mm (or half height 16mm).

It's been discussed a lot here over the years but other than the people already mentioned I don't know of anyone who's actually done anything like it. I wonder how much use it would actually be given the limited 'off the shelf' stocks and telecine options. In the end (assuming you reperf 16mm neg to 8mm and then find somewhere to transfer it) I wonder if you would have spent the same as just shooting 16mm and cropping to half height. I doubt the savings on stock would really add up in comparison to the extra expenses (how many films are shot in techniscope these days?).

[Wade]

In theory it sounds quite simple get a reflex bolex h16 and swap in the movement from an H8 = wide 8mm (or half height 16mm).

I was a little vague in describing the camera to be modified which was a Bolex H8, preferably a Rex 4. Yes, I agree that double Super8 film stocks are comparitively limited. I also don't think the regular H8 Rx 4 lenses would cover the frame since it is even wider than SD8. Meritex can alter the vewfinder to cover SD8, but Ultra8 is another matter. I had figured the aspect ratio at 2.8:1, and one other post had it at 2.6:1. Either way that is probably too wide to be practical. Cinerama, after all was projected on a curved screen and was only 2.06:1. Techniscope is 2.33:1. And the over-all area of the film being exposed is not significantly greater than SD8. This is because of the unexposed area between the frames which is the size of the perf's height. But in order to capture the increased aspect ratio width, the telecine would have to back off from the film which would have the effect of diminishing the grain slightly. As to telecine, my only interest was in transferring to digital. Perhaps a spot scanner could do it, but I'm not sure. As I said, all rather too expensive, but according to Mr. Kurri, who has been doing Super8 conversions of Bolex H8s for 30 years, thought it was possible to create an Ultra8 format. No guarantees, but he might give it a try for a few thousand dollars!

[David M. Leugers]

The poor man's version is to horizontally block off half of the 16mm image at the gate. The viewfinder can be blocked off the same to match. Film a 100ft roll of R-8mm film in the 16mm "Techniscope" camera, then flip over and film again. After developing you have two sets of 100ft long Wide-8 film on one roll with the images going in opposite directions. Transfer is the opposite of filming. You transfer the 100ft one way, flip and transfer again for a total of 200t feet of widescreen 8mm images. You get wide screen plus twice the running time of 16mm....


David M. Leugers

[timdrage]

That's a really clever idea!!

[Nicholas Kovats]

They have started injecting massive quantities of hallucinogen in the public water supply again.

Interesting from a 1969 Woodstock triple screen effect perspective but I believe the original post concerned a 16mm/Super 8 hybrid camera utilizing the 16mm wide Double Super 8 stock.

I ended up speaking to the gentleman previously mentioned, i.e. Jalle van der Does (Ultra 8 conversion) desnek@zonnet.nl aka http://www.de-snek.nl./

Seems he did a one off conversion for a local Dutch friend. They are both members of a local Double Super 8 film club.

He ended up retrofitting a 16mm Pathe camera w/ its 16mm gate by cannabalizing a Pathe Double Super 8 camera for it's Super 8 sprockets, claw, etc. He also convereted a 16mm projector to create a Double Super 8 unit projection unit.

This was/is a rather expensive method to supply parts for the desired end effect.

Has anyone realized the potential of utilizing the width of the 16mm frame for numerous aspect ratios not just the classic techniscope 1:2.40?

More to come...

The poor man's version is to horizontally block off half of the 16mm image at the gate. The viewfinder can be blocked off the same to match. Film a 100ft roll of R-8mm film in the 16mm "Techniscope" camera, then flip over and film again. After developing you have two sets of 100ft long Wide-8 film on one roll with the images going in opposite directions. Transfer is the opposite of filming. You transfer the 100ft one way, flip and transfer again for a total of 200t feet of widescreen 8mm images. You get wide screen plus twice the running time of 16mm....


David M. Leugers

[David M. Leugers]

The hallucinogen must have started to wear off, you can use regular double perf 16mm film if all you are going to do with the original is transfer it to video. 8)


David M. Leugers

[super8man]

The hallucinogen must have started to wear off, you can use regular double perf 16mm film if all you are going to do with the original is transfer it to video. 8)


David M. Leugers

I was wondering why you said to use reg 8 film...since you would not be able to project the film in a reg 8 projector anyway...since you do NOT slice the film down the middle...

American Graffiti was shot on 35mm cameras/film with the gate masked in exactly this method to give them their faux widescreen look - at least that is what I recall them saying on the dvd extras...they had no money for the film so this was a viable solution.

[timdrage]

I guess you could do it with normal 16mm but instead of turning it over you'd have to take it out of the camera and rewind it, then mask off the top instead of the bottom of the gate (or vice versa)... Yeah it would still work the same, slightly more fiddly tho. But if you have super-16 you could get an even wider picture that way I suppose.

[Wade]

Has anyone realized the potential of utilizing the width of the 16mm frame for numerous aspect ratios not just the classic techniscope 1:2.40?

A very long time ago I read something about an experiment Reudi Muster had done which might have been done on a double 8mm wide (16mm) Bolex. He turned the gate 90 degrees and made it wider. The only limitation as to how wide was how much the shutter could cover the gate. Filming had to be done with the camera on its side. Projection was the same idea. I expect editing would give you a really big crick in your neck, which must be why it never really caught on.

[Wade]

I expect editing would give you a really big crick in your neck, which must be why it never really caught on.

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess it did catch on. IMAX cameras have the film pass the gate horizontally rather than vertically. They must have solved that editing problem. :lol: