Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Ultra16 and the mini...

P

Policar

Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
129
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Admittedly, no one knows anything about the mini camera, but I'd like to think it's a less expensive (sub $10,000) 16mm type camera, since the market for this kind of camera is much larger than the market for super35, since most big studios rent and most consumers/film schools/smaller studios buy...and a 2k camera can intercut with 4k for close ups and handheld work: 16mm has been used extensively for close ups intercut both with digital (Apocalypto) and film (City of God) and it has a track record of working great.

In a similar discussion a while back, the issue of 16mm versus super16 sensors came up. The problem is that super16 requires special (expensive) lenses, but 16mm is 4X3--and most people want to shoot 1:1.85 or at least 16X9.

Then I read about "ultra16," a format that expands the negative slightly on both sides rather than considerably on one side but not on the other as super16 does, then chops off the top and bottom where the sprocket holes are. It's 97% the size super16, and problematic in the film world because most flatbed editors would scratch it, and few DI machines support the negative size, and there's no current solution for optical blow up...

However, the ultra16 sensor size and sensor placement (centered, not slightly off to one side as super16 is) allows for a full widescreen image that good quality standard 16mm optics can cover--and of course all super16 optics cover it, as well. This seems like a pretty simple solution in the digital world. So uhh...please?

http://marylandfilms.com/16mm-super16-ultra16-compared.html
 
make mine 4K please.
Aloha
-A
 
Hi,

There would be nothing to stop you using cheap old lenses that don't cover S16 on a red and cropping the 2K image.

Many of those cheap old lenses are optically poor by today's standards, AFAIK nobody has ever blown up ultra 16 to 35mm. There is no optical printer gates or scanners that supports the format. It would be cheaper to to rent a S16 camera than build an optical printer gate.

Stephen

Policar said:
Admittedly, no one knows anything about the mini camera, but I'd like to think it's a less expensive (sub $10,000) 16mm type camera, since the market for this kind of camera is much larger than the market for super35, since most big studios rent and most consumers/film schools/smaller studios buy...and a 2k camera can intercut with 4k for close ups and handheld work: 16mm has been used extensively for close ups intercut both with digital (Apocalypto) and film (City of God) and it has a track record of working great.

In a similar discussion a while back, the issue of 16mm versus super16 sensors came up. The problem is that super16 requires special (expensive) lenses, but 16mm is 4X3--and most people want to shoot 1:1.85 or at least 16X9.

Then I read about "ultra16," a format that expands the negative slightly on both sides rather than considerably on one side but not on the other as super16 does, then chops off the top and bottom where the sprocket holes are. It's 97% the size super16, and problematic in the film world because most flatbed editors would scratch it, and few DI machines support the negative size, and there's no current solution for optical blow up...

However, the ultra16 sensor size and sensor placement (centered, not slightly off to one side as super16 is) allows for a full widescreen image that good quality standard 16mm optics can cover--and of course all super16 optics cover it, as well. This seems like a pretty simple solution in the digital world. So uhh...please?

http://marylandfilms.com/16mm-super16-ultra16-compared.html
Click to expand...
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

There would be nothing to stop you using cheap old lenses that don't cover S16 on a red and cropping the 2K image.

Many of those cheap old lenses are optically poor by today's standards, AFAIK nobody has ever blown up ultra 16 to 35mm. There is no optical printer gates or scanners that supports the format. It would be cheaper to to rent a S16 camera than build an optical printer gate.

Stephen
Click to expand...

I know; I wrote as much in my post.

I'm just saying that for a cheaper digital camera (mini) the ultra16 sensor size seems like a good solution; it's virtually the same size as super16, but most standard 16mm lenses cover it just fine since it's not offset to one side.
 
Policar said:
I know; I wrote as much in my post.

I'm just saying that for a cheaper digital camera (mini) the ultra16 sensor size seems like a good solution; it's virtually the same size as super16, but most standard 16mm lenses cover it just fine since it's not offset to one side.
Click to expand...

Hi,

It's actually much smaller, thats why standard lenses cover. FWIW The lens is re-centered on a S16 camera.

Stephen
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Fair enough; I guess I'm just thinking out loud and not very well....
 
a lot of people are crossing their fingers about the red mini, hoping it will be an eng/efp style camera, and less of a high end production/studio camera. Basically, i think people want it to do for eng/efp what it is now doing for film and dig cinema.

Thinking of it as a 16mm camera in the way Red One is a 35mm camera might be a mistake for red, because in many ways the Red One is a new alternative to s16, and s16 isnt really feasible for running and gunning IMHO.
 
PerfectOptics said:
s16 isnt really feasible for running and gunning IMHO.
Click to expand...

???????
I can't think of a better example of "run and gun" than those shots in "Apocalypto" (mostly shot on the Genesis) where the actors ran through the jungles holding a tiny Super-16 camera in front of their faces...

Plenty of run-and-gun documentary style work has been done in 16mm and Super-16 over the past few decades. For some reason, cinema verite documentarians were able to run and gun in 16mm in the 1960's with cameras like the Eclair NPR, but now in 2007, it's not feasible to do it with an Aaton??? Ever seen a Ross McElwee documentary? He does both the shooting and sound recording by himself, with an Aaton.
 
PerfectOptics said:
a lot of people are crossing their fingers about the red mini, hoping it will be an eng/efp style camera, and less of a high end production/studio camera. Basically, i think people want it to do for eng/efp what it is now doing for film and dig cinema.

Thinking of it as a 16mm camera in the way Red One is a 35mm camera might be a mistake for red, because in many ways the Red One is a new alternative to s16, and s16 isnt really feasible for running and gunning IMHO.
Click to expand...

Are you new to this filmmaking thing? Because there's been decades of filmmakers who run and gun with film cameras. Before ENG cameras, most news was done with 16mm cameras. It's not easy, but it's been done.
 
Thomas Mathai said:
Are you new to this filmmaking thing? Because there's been decades of filmmakers who run and gun with film cameras. Before ENG cameras, most news was done with 16mm cameras. It's not easy, but it's been done.
Click to expand...

Not only 16mm, but even 35mm.
The Arri 35 II A - 35 II C were to a very big extent news cameras introduced in the late 1930's.
 
Thats definitely why people have use 16mm in the past, the eclair npr is my favorite 16mm camera (i've never used an anton though). I donno, eng/efp isnt my schtick. i like studio work much better. When i think of people running around in iraq with cameras, i think video. if they were running around in vietnam, they'd have 16mm.

I just mean that now-a-days when people want to make documentaries, they think of video equipment, and red should market a red-mini as "better than any video gear" and not "the new 16mm", i think they'd catch more fish.
 
PerfectOptics,

RED One usage

There are a vast number of RED One adopters who will use RED One for a variety of EFP style (not ENG) productions. Many of them will also use RED One for cine style productions. There’s a complete EFP & ENG and RED forum on RED User for a good reason: RED One was designed from the very beginning as a cine style camera that could be easily re-accessorized and re-lensed for extensive EFP use.

The EFP style production industry dwarfs the cine style production industry in terms of numbers of professional productions worldwide each year. RED One can and IMO will be used extensively in the EFP industry, primarily in non-hardlined EFP (huge array of mobile EFP genres), moderately in hardlined EFP (sports, studio reality), and very sparingly in ENG (aesthetic b-roll, teases, etc.).

RED One will have a S35mm sized sensor, but depending on how you employ that sensor, and what lenses you’re using, it is a 2540p camera, 4k camera, 2k camera, 1080p camera, or 720p camera. RED One becomes the type of camera you want it to be. It will not be just a “35mm camera”. We can use the whole sensor, or portions of it.

Small configured RED One cameras can and will be used widely by EFP run n’ gun crews, in non-hardlined EFP production of alternative sports, nature, adventure travel, lifestyle, documentaries, lifestyle, reality, stock footage, and many other genres of production. Those productions won’t be seeking shallow DOF (except in creative b-roll), and will generally shoot in natural light, in apertures between f5.6 and f11. What they will be seeking from RED One is a rich, good glass, filmic, chroma-saturated look that goes way beyond the contrasty look of video. People can get the “video” look from a number of camcorders – but they’ll adopt RED One to get away from that, and also have upward mobility should they want to also produce indie features.

Features get a lot of press, but IMO small, mobile EFP crews, using light setup RED One’s, going from shoulder to tripod and back will be the largest numerical group of RED One users worldwide. Many of them will also shoot cine style for creative passages in their productions. Shooters in this workflow will be performing all RED One camera functions themselves, including doing their own focusing using RED’s focus assist feature.

As David and others have pointed out in this thread, run ‘n gun actually started with 35mm film cameras, later transitioned to 16mm cameras, and with the advent of video, transitioned to video cameras. Run ‘n gun is nothing new – and it will definitely be done with RED One.

Bottom line: RED One is a D-cinema camera that was also designed for extensive EFP (not ENG) use. Categorizing RED One as just a cine style camera, to be used in large crew productions, is being misinformed about RED One.

--------------------------------------------


Professional Pocket Camera (PPC)

What you’re calling the RED mini, was correctly categorized by RED as the Professional Pocket Camera (PPC). There is an entire thread about the name and use of the PPC on this same forum: Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3086

There are also several other PPC threads on RED User since RED’s NAB announcement of the camera.

What the PPC will exactly be is anyone’s guess at this point. Keeping in mind what I itemized above for RED One’s cine and EFP usage, my guess about the PPC, would be that it would be a smaller, even more affordable, professional, mobility-enhanced, combination cine/EFP camera system that could be used as a b-camera for RED One users, or as a standalone camera system that was capable of being used on a broad range of mobile, moderate to small budget productions, including indie features, television programs, commercials, documentaries, business media, and on and on and on. With a similar sensor, and quality lens (lenses), PPC footage would be able to be readily intercut with RED One footage. Analogy: HVX200’s are used as B cameras on Varicam productions, or can be used as standalone cameras for a variety of production genres.

IMO the PPC will be positioned to dovetail below RED One in features, price, and utility – to compliment RED One, and also to be a standalone professional camera if desired. RED has shown with RED One that they think in terms of affordability, broad utility, and scalability when they design a camera system. I would expect them to use that same philosophy with every camera system they ever develop.
 
For what it's worth I'm going to be run-and-gunning with RED! And so are a lot of other people here who plan shooting docs.

Just take a look at the actual size of ENG cameras, with lens they about the same size as a RED.
So I don't really find the size of the camera a problem and the fact that it is hugely customizable in terms of bolt on positions means that I'll be able to switch from a light weight run & gun rig to a heavy weight studio rig in a just a short while.

That is just great!!!

That said with run & gun the sacrifice is more over not being able to carry all those other boxes of gear that help us have complete control over what we film... Though what we'll have is superb resolution, latitude and the ability to work with such pictures without an expensive post set-up. The only down side for some will be that the actual physical size of the cam may effect the subjects they are filming - small Z1 sized cameras are far less obtrusive.

As for the image format my feeling is that many run & gunners and 16mm/video shooters will still want those lenses that provide a tremendous zoom range(I know I will) whilst being reasonably light weight (and therefore portable) and low cost. Thoughtfully RED have provided the ability to use them...

To me this ability to customize the camera is one of it's biggest selling points.

Proper electronic filming gear for camera people at last!

JohnF
 
Don't think RED can compete with run and gun or 16mm set ups?

Look here!!!

Nice and small!!!

JohnF
 
Actually, I have no interest in ENG, but I do think that the advantages a 16mm sensor lends an ENG environment also apply to low budget narrative film making. The less shallow DoF (still shallow enough @ tf1.3, which many 16mm lenses achieve with decent sharpness) and increased storage space have a lot of advantages... I'm DP'ing a feature next month with an hvx and I'd die to get my hands on a 2/3'' cinema style camera with increased dynamic range and prime lenses, but since a lot of the film takes place at night, I couldn't manage pulling focus with 35mm, but the production also can't afford enough light to shoot at anything but f2ish....

Of course, price is the real issue for me, and many others I'm sure. I'd go $8,000 further into debt for a 16mm style camera, but I could never afford a full Red package...at least for the forseeable future.
 
Super 16

Super 16

Since using S16 as a run and gun camera to be intercut with digital cameras like the Red can be a solution for a number of practical and creative considerations, I am considering having my Aaton LTR7 converted to S16. A Miami film company offers to convert the camera and my 3 mags for just $3000. The conversion does change the ground glass and lens centering but does not change the mags to magnetic drive and does not change the guide roller system in the mags. I asked them how they delt with the mag rollers putting a pressure line on the film stock, as was visually noticed when the first cameras were converted in the 70's, and they said the newer stocks were not a problem. Does anyone out there, perhaps David Mullen, know if this kind of low cost conversion really works. I already have a great Cooke 10-30 t1.6 S16 lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top