[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Eclair Cameras: Ultra 16

-----Original Message-----
From:	Ian [mailto:i_turpen@hotmail.com]
Sent:	Tue 2/17/2004 2:42 PM
To:	EclairACL@topica.com
Subject:	Re: Eclair Cameras: Ultra 16


Has anyone had their camera modified to Ultra 16?  I'd like to find a good 
technician, and have an estimate of the cost.  If Bernie O. can modify my 
camera I could have the viewfinder brightened at the same time.

I have a cameflex with a 16mm gate and it seems like it would be very easy 
to have it modified to Ultra16.  It would be nice to have a normal 16 gate 
and an Ultra 16 gate.  I mostly transfer my film to video, so the printing 
issue doesn't bother me.  Also, I'd like to use digital intermediates in the 

Most modern telecines like the Spirit can resize the image to any frame 

Ian Turpen

>From: Karl  <klkim@comcast.net>
>Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
>To: EclairACL@topica.com
>Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: anamorphic adapter- widescreen
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:36:30 -0500
>Yes, all true about Ultra 16.  However, in my area (New York City) many
>transfer facilities can handle Ultra16.  Your camera and mags should be
>modified by a qualified technician, like Bernie O, it isn't a DIY project.
>Vic, following is a thread from another Topica list.
>Matt, try this link:
>I've managed to put together as much information as I could find on
>Ultra16, including information from Oliver Glaser, who helped me with
>understanding Ultra16 (many thanks go to Oliver Glaser).
>The big reason for going with Ultra16 is price - plain and simple. It
>costs maybe $40 to have a gate filed down, but $2000 to have a camera
>"upgraded" to Super16 (and then you have to buy the super expensive
>Super16 lenses!). Ultra16 uses the same Regular16 lenses as before.
>Nothing special about it. Just make sure you've gotten the tiny metal
>burrs off the gate after they've been filed, or you will scratch your
>Ultra16 area! (coincidentally, your Regular 16mm area will remain
>unscratched). I took mine to a machine shop who grinded the edges for
>$30 US.
>And you only lose about 3% of the film area compared to what Super16
>records, when it comes to blowing up to 35mm. That's not very much at
>all (especially when comparing a blowup of Regular16 to Super16, where
>you lose something like 40% of your film area). Oliver Glaser said he
>recently cut a feature movie together with an Arri Super16 camera (his
>"A" camera) and two Eclair NPR Ultra16's (his "B" and "C" cameras) - He
>said there was virtually no difference.
>Pretty much all you have to do is file the gate 0.7mm on both sides,
>this extends the width for the Ultra16 format, but doesn't affect
>Regular16 - you still get the regular 16 picture. Filing it out 0.7mm on
>both sides will put the new picture area in between the perfs on the
>sides (and coincidentally, covers the perf holes), but that's ok, that's
>what we want. Since it's between the perfs and an extra 1.4mm wide, the
>frame area we now call Ultra16 is now a 1.85:1 ratio. The regular 16mm
>areas (the top and bottom) can be used if you need them, but if you are
>shooting only for Ultra16 - which you will probably be blowing up, then
>you won't be using the 4:3 16mm top and bottom edges, much like the
>"extra" top and bottom areas of Standard 35mm.
>The cool part is the regular old 16mm lenses are Perfect for this. Since
>you aren't doing anything special to the lens, vignetting on the corners
>may have happened if you were using the entire image area (7.5mm x
>11.8mm), But you are Not! The perf areas lack the recordable medium
>(holes in film). This means you must go with the R16mm or the U16mm
>frames. Just as a suggestion, look at the front of your lens, now
>picture a 4:3 area on it. If the lens doesn't vignette with R16, then
>picture a 1.85:1 area... Do you get the point? Basically, vignetting
>probably won't happen, unless it's already happening on your Regular
>16mm lens. (that's why Peter said the 2.35:1 ratio would probably work
>with the 6mm lens, while the 1.85:1 probably would not - it's already
>vignetting on Regular 16mm)
>You can also think of it like 35mm, if a lens vignettes while shooting
>standard 35mm, you may keep on shooting while saying to yourself "The
>vignetting doesn't show up in the final 1.85:1 image - which is the
>release I'm going for, I'm not going to worry about it." And that, my
>friend, is the same as Ultra16...
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Vic Alexander" <vic@releasing.net>
>To: <EclairACL@topica.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:06 AM
>Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: anamorphic adapter- widescreen
>Hi, Hans
>Tell me something about Ultra. I don't remember what it is anymore.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hans Hansson" <hansfilm@algonet.se>
>To: <EclairACL@topica.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 7:40 AM
>Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: anamorphic adapter- widescreen
>What about a re-examination of Ultra16?
>A smaller negative, but no additional optical elements.
>Forget Ultra-16.
>It´s not a standard format for 16 mm production, like Normal-16 or 
>The extended picture use the area between the perforation and there is a 
>risk for scratches and marks from sprocket wheels and the pull down clew.
>An other problem with Ultra-16 is the lack of film gates for printers and
>telecine equipment.
>Hans Hansson. FSF

Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! 

Hi Ian,

I've modified 4 cameras thus far. Two NPRs, one Bolex and a Mitchell.
No complaints, though, in this business, I normally hold my breath for at least two years thereafter.
I'm a top notch scuba diver !!!
I'ts a simple modofication, butnot necessarily easy.
The trick comes in widening laterally, ensuring not to widen vertically.
Trick #2..do it so it doesn't scratch.

Bernie O'

This email was sent to: elroro@propagandaindustries.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACL-unsubscribe@topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!