CRAZY IDEA. adapter and film?

Adam J McKay

Adam J McKay

Veteran
So I was thinking. Would it be possible to mount an adapter to a 16mm film camera to get the added depth of field look of a 35? Because I figure, shooting super 16 with a 35mm adapter would make for some extremely nice footage. Would it end up being too soft? Is it even possible?
 
No. Not easily and would likely give poor results.

First of all, the achromats are optically designed to work with the fixed lens of a video camera such as the HVX. They typically use a 72mm achromat design and the zoom lens of the camera to focus onto a separate ground glass. The film camera would have these problems:

-You would have to use a zoom lens, creating a rather long assembly of glass in front of the camera body.
-The lens would offer no marks significant enough for repeatable settings as far as backfocus.
-The achromat would potentially have issues with backfocus depending on the zoom used.
-The image would likely be too soft due to the amount of glass and inability to properly expose the adapter's ground glass.

So, it is possible, but why bother? S16 has great usable DOF already. You would however have control over your ISO independent of the adapter, which an HVX would not offer. But with something like 7219, you would likely have a lot of grain on your hands.
 
What about a relay? They have it so you can hook adapters up to say an xl2 without a lens, but I guess thats not the only problem.
 
The main question here is...: would you go through all this "trouble" of shooting 16mm film (trough such contraption) just to get the look of 35mm film (on 16) (just to avoid the cost associated with 35mm shooting and processing? or why?) ? And if you would, you end up with a nice 16mm negative (35 looking like) to do what with it? Print it on 35 and have it projected in a theatre? Or just transfer it on some video format for TV distribution? Technicaly it is possible but is it worth it? My2c.
Cheers,
Dan

PS.
Not all 16mm cameras come with a zoom, some use primes. Some of those primes have macro and thus could focus and fill the GG without an achromat. The primes are short (er). Length, weight and optics aside, image quality would be in question due to GG (how fine is it and how well it moves).
 
I'd agree with Dan's post here. Digital video (well, the lower end of the market) needs a D.O.F adaptor to get shallow depth of field, while 16mm just doesn't have that issue.
If you put a 35mm adaptor in front of a 16mm film camera you will end up with a mega-grainy mess, I reckon. Avoid.
 
I dont plan on doing it anytime soon, I was just wondering if it would work. And yes your right, it seems highly impracticle.
 
I have heard of someone trying this with regular 16mm. But for the cost of adding a 35mm adapter, lenses, camera, film, processing, extra lighting... just shoot 35mm its not THAT much more expensive.
 
hunter richards said:
just shoot 35mm its not THAT much more expensive.
Click to expand...

Theres still a definite price separation between the two formats. Its easier said than done. A 35 package will cost more, processing will cost more, transfer will cost more, and the stocks are more expensive. Thats why news, NFL network, and other film oriented footage gathering is done on 16mm NOT 35.
 
dan said:
Really?:embarasse News in 16mm ? In 2008? In what country and using what cameras? CP? :happy:
Click to expand...

I hear ya..... We ditched our CP-16 and 16mm news film in 1981 and we (WLBT-TV)
were one of the last of the dying breeds still using 16mm in news back then.

Now I've never seen an SOF mag striped 35mm camera like the 16mm CP's &
Frezzi cameras used in news gathering. 35mm would have made "run & gun" news
impossible.

Sorry I digress..
Back to the 16mm vs 35mm

I never had problems with getting a shallow DOF with 16mm film.
Does 35mm produce a better shallow DOF ?
If not why go through the trouble of "35mm adapters"
 
Its the same thing as sensor size is it not? Which is why 2/3 ccd have better depth of field then 1/3. I know the whole adapter thing would be combersome, but would it work . I dont have a 16mm or an adapter to test that on. But if anyone does. I suppose I could try it with my super 8 camera?
Hmmm
 
Sensor size only affects the viewable area, it's the longer lenses that give DOF.

Example- for the same composition of a shot, a 2/3 inch cam will need a longer lens than a 1/3 inch cam will.

If you shoot on 16mm and use long lenses and low f-stops you can get great shallow DOF.
 
Getting the same shot requires longer lenses:
A normal lens for 16mm film is around a 25mm
A normal lens for 35mm film is around 50mm

In addition, an F-4 on a lens that covers a 16mm frame is a smaller hole than an F-4 that can cover a 35mm frame.

The physically larger aperture size means you're getting less depth of field. DOF is an optical process that is evident even with our own eyes as your pupils expand and contract or as you focus on a subject closer to you versus a subject further away.


And, BTW, I don't think this is a crazy idea.
 
Get yourself an Arri SR-2 or SR-3, set of 5 Zeiss primes, and shoot on a low-speed Kodak or Fuji stock, ideally a 100T.

Light it to perfection and shoot wide open.

All you need. :-D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top