16mm and Widescreen: Do these two go together?

Barry Lyndon · Sep 17, 2004

I've been a still photographer for a long time, and after years of composing my pictures in (roughly) 1.66/1, I'm finding the standard aspect ratio somewhat unrewarding. I can't afford 35mm, but I've heard that Super-16mm comes out as 1.66/1. That's great -- I mean, heck, it's the aspect ratio of Barry Lyndon!

But it made me curious: is there such a thing as full animorphic widescreen (2.40/1) for 16mm? I imagine that animorphic 16mm would look pretty darned terrific, but I've never heard it mentioned as a possibility in any filmmaking discussions.

I know, however, that Orson Welles shot Touch of Evil on 16mm, and that movie is presented on DVD at the 1.85/1 widescreen, and is referred to on the box as animorphic. Was the animorphic effect created just for the DVD, or did Mr. Welles really shoot an animorphic 16mm movie?

And if not, can someone who has filmed Super-16 share their thoughts on the 1.66/1 aspect ratio? The particular genre of the film I'm planning calls for widescreen -- any widescreen -- but the budget is tight. Any thoughts? Advice?

Thanks in advance!

Elijah

FilmUnited · Sep 17, 2004

Perhaps one of the ASC's can give you a difinative answer to your question, but I can tell you that if you are shooting 16mm you usually wouldn't have the budget to be shooting anamorphic anyway.

Most of the time when people shoot 16mm for widescreen, they frame for it while shooting then simply letterbox (crop) the image in the editing program.

This is often done with 35mm too. When things get shot 1.85 widescreen, the actual negative may have booms hanging in etc, this just gets cropped out in the projection of the image. If you are talking true anamorphic 2.40 aspect ratio, this requires anamorphic lenses for filming and a lens which reverses the effect when the image is projected.

So to try to get back to your initial question, there may be such a sthing as full animorphic widescreen for 16mm, but I think that it is very rare and probably impracticle. You can stick with 1.66 if you are shooting super16 or crop down to 1.85, 2.40, or anything in between if it works. But, as most cinematographers will tell you, your choice of aspect ratio should be decided by the story you are trying to tell.

Kevin_Zanit · Sep 17, 2004

There is, and I have seen anamorphic 16mm. Usually it is either just a 35mm anamorphic lens, or some home made setup.

It looks pretty good.

Kevin Zanit

Barry Lyndon · Sep 17, 2004

Thank you both for responding.

I don't want to crop the frame and lose the resolution. My desire to have the widescreen image isn't strong enough to make me do something that would hurt the image quality. Like you said, aspect ratios shouldn't be decided based on anything other than the needs of the story, and I think, in this case, that 1.66/1 is a perfect, unpretentious frame for my story. (It takes place in a rural setting and many of scenes need that little extra space to help it breathe.)

As for going full animorphic, I had a feeling it was going to be more trouble than it's worth. Thank you for answering that for me.

I might as well ask this, to keep myself from asking any more embarassing questions: Is there a good, solid book out there that is up-to-date and goes into the nitty-gritty of 16mm and/or Super-16 film production? I've searched high and low for one, but I haven't really found anything with an aura of "definativeness".

Cheers.

Kevin_Zanit · Sep 17, 2004

In reality there is not much different from 16mm & 35mm production. The only thing to remember is that 16mm film comes in either single or double perfs, and if you are shooting S16 then you need to make sure it is single perf.

Also there are different winds, A wind or B wind. You want B wind for camera film.

Shooting Super 16 will yield your 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

Kevin Zanit

David Mullen ASC · Sep 18, 2004

First of all, "Touch of Evil" was shot in 35mm spherical.

Standard definition video signals can either be 4x3 (1.33 : 1) or 16x9 (1.78 : 1). However, 4x3 and 16x9 use the same pixel ratio in standard def -- the only difference is that a 16x9 recording uses vertically rectangular pixels. So the image appears squeezed-looking on 4x3 monitors unless the player converts the signal to appear letterboxed (which DVD players do). On a 16x9 monitor, the image would look correct. 16x9 recordings are sometimes referred to as "anamorphic", not to be confused with anamorphic photography in film (although you can create a 16x9 recording by shooting with a 4x3 video camera with a 1.33X anamorphic lens...)

Any additional aspect ratios beyond 1.33 or 1.78 are achieved by letterboxing the image on the recording -- so, for example, a 1.85 movie on a 16x9 "anamorphic" DVD is slightly letterboxed (16x9 full frame is 1.78 : 1 so additional black bars are needed to create 1.85 : 1). A 4x3 recording can also be letterboxed to 1.85. Same goes for 2.35 letterboxing.

The only trouble with shooting and composing a 1.66 : 1 image (and Super-16 cameras can sometimes have 1.68 : 1 gates, not 1.66 : 1), is that it's getting harder to project it that way except in some art house cinemas.

4-perf 35mm full-aperture is 1.33 : 1. The Academy Aperture (sound) is 1.37 : 1. But now, standard 35mm projection is either "matted widescreen" or "anamorphic widescreen". Matted widescreen involves masking the print image down to a widescreen shape, anywhere from 1.66 to 1.85. However, 1.85 has become more or less the worldwide standard and 1.66 used less and less, especially in the U.S. So you may have composed your image to be matted to 1.66 : 1 during projection (and had you shot in 1.66 Super-16 or with a 1.66 hard matte in a 35mm camera, the image on the print would be matted already to 1.66 : 1), most theaters would use a 1.85 mask in the projector rather than the taller 1.66 mask.

The other common projection format is 35mm anamorphic, in which case the image on the print has a 2X horizontal squeeze and an anamorphic projector lens unsqueezes this to 2.39 : 1 by doubling the width. You can either shoot with 2X anamorphic lenses, or you can crop & stretch a spherical image in post to anamorphic.

The regular 16mm camera negative is 1.37 : 1 or 1.33 : 1, depending on who you talk to. So if you used a 2X anamorphic lens on the camera, you'd have a 2.74 or 2.66 image once unsqueezed. It would either have to be letterboxed on a 2.39 35mm anamorphic print to retain that ratio after the blow-up, or be cropped on the sides down to 2.39.

You can also shoot in Super-16 with normal spherical lenses and compose for cropping and stretching to 2.39 anamorphic.

Since you're either cropping top & bottom or left & right, there isn't much difference in quality between the two scenarios unless you want the anamorphic camera lens artifacts.

Barry Lyndon · Sep 20, 2004

You guys really go above and beyond the call of duty. Thanks so much for covering all that information for me. Cinematography is such a tricky thing, but I almost feel I can make an informed decision now, which is a rare and wonderful feeling.

And I also won't feel like such a doofus when my movie doesn't turn out like Touch of Evil.

I think I'm going to shoot non-anamorphic Super-16 and just be careful to keep 1.85/1 in mind while composing the shots. Considering my level of expertise, it's probably best to keep things simple.

Cheers.

laurent.a · Sep 23, 2004

The only thing to remember is that 16mm film comes in either single or double perfs, and if you are shooting S16 then you need to make sure it is single perf.

Most of the 16 mm stock is 1 ridge, nowdays. You can chek on the stock box the mention "1R" for 1 ridge, "2R" for 2 ridges

Super 16 is usually 1.66, but you'll have to print 35 anyways, though you can project your dailies print super 16 with a double roll projector, with the sound print on 16 mm perfored magnetic tape.

You can maybe find a ground glass with the 1.85 marker, or even mark the ground glass yourself with a pencil. It would be better to do it at the rental house, your 1st AC doing it with a technician there.