Thank you Herbie for the wonderful video. I enjoy the 4:3 as a 27 year old never having had the nostalgia for the old timey cameras, I love the look and the perspective it has, almost a wider world one. Cheers.
thank you for finally giving me a visual comparison of the differences between ultra 16 and super 16. I actually got the rare privilege to shoot my senior project on a super 16 arriflex camera a couple months ago- and even being a regular still film shooter, the arri was a whole new shooting experience.
Glad I could help. You must have had a blast shooting the Arriflex. I still love shooting 16mm, there's something magical about it for me and I love the look of film.
Just found your channel. I've been shooting on a Bolex H16 and i shoot in standard 3X4. If I want a wider aspect ratio I'll attatch my anamorphic lens. And that's not very often. I like the nostalgic look
Hi Barry. The Bolex H16 is an awesome camera. I don't have any anamorphic lenses. I've considered buying one but have not pulled the trigger. I agree, 3x4 and 16mm in general, is a great nostalgic look. I sure have fun shooting it.
I have a EL Bolex Super 16. I’m interested to buy a SBM body have it converted to Ultra 16. But ask the engineer could he machine the gate even wider to get a 2:00 Aspect ratio.
Of all my film cameras, half are in 4:3 and the other half are in 16:9. It came down to liking a particular camera model, but wanting both aspect ratios available to me depending on what I was shooting and how to was to be shown.
I have one of those too, great camera, I replace the lens it came with with one of my Bolex lens just for some test footage. Came out great. I bought two lens for it cheap on bay. a 15mm/25mm.
Hello Herbie! Good to see you. Haven't been shooting film lately. Hopefully I will be able to afford it again soon. I always loved 1.85:1 and 16:9 (=1.78:1). It is perfect for the "two shot" and looks more natural to me. You can always turn the cell phone to horizontal viewing. I fully understand the love for 3:4 (=1.33.1) and a lot of pre-1950s movies we all love were shot on "Academy" (1.37:1). It's a matter of preference. True Super 16 conversions with a re-centered lens are very expensive unless you leave the stock 3:4 viewfinder, say, in a K-3. This means you have to guesstimate constantly and you don't know exactly what's going on on the right hand side of the frame, since it doesn't show in the viewfinder. It's all worth it though. The last shot on Ektachrome looks fantasic!
Hi TrueFilm, good to hear from you. I agree with you that the 16:9 frame works well for the two shot and it makes for easy viewing. But the great films from the past were able to portray a scene with many characters and situations and the tighter frame never stopped me from watching those wonderful films. Yes, a 4:3 viewfinder with a super16 gate can get a bit tricky. But the more I shoot the super16 K3 the easy it's getting. The new Kodak Ektachrome 100D is quite amazing. Exposure has to be "On" due to the less latitude of the film but it sure looks great.
I agree with your sentiment! I’ve been shooting with an Ultra16 modified K3 for a year now, have been learning so much and am hopelessly addicted to shooting celluloid. The guy who modified my K3 also had a 35mm Konvas 1m camera for sale, and I bought that just a short time ago and completed a test shoot (hope to post the results soon). The Konvas camera frame is the traditional academy ratio (about 4:3), and I’m inspired by that. Many of my favorite movies were shot in that aspect ratio, and it’s a great shape for filming closeups and all sorts of compositions. Also, after shooting for so long with a K3 that has a modified gate but not a modified viewfinder, it’s just a relief to know that the frame I see in the Konvas viewfinder is the frame I’m capturing on the celluloid.
Hi Bryan, "addicted" is a great word to use for what happen when the film bug bites. I subscribe to your channel and I've been enjoying your videos. The K3 is a great camera and I have much fun shooting them and I can tell by your footage you do too. Looking forward to seeing footage from your Konvas 35mm. Thanks for commenting.
Good question! I got into anamorphic Lomos back when they were cheep and plentiful and so I shoot film pretty much exclusively with those, for what it's worth. I've shot some super-16 with them on an Aaton A-minima, the issue being crop factor of course. I do have a 22 which roughly crops to 44 on 16 (vertically, of course; pick your poison for the horizontal) so it's tall enough and wide enough. I don't mind shooting perf-to-edge (or perf-to-perf) of the film and cropping in post to serve my needs. The extra horizontal can always be used for image stabilization or re-framing the shot regardless of your lens type. Unless you are delivering a print, we don't really use optical sound any more so there is no reason to protect for that with an academy frame (I guess this is probably more a 35mm issue), and you can always adjust your frame in post if you did want that sound path for a theater print. Anywho, gear and gadgets aside, it's the eye of the artist holding the camera (and lighting the set) that really matters, and if your eye is telling you 4:3 then go for it! I find it a little constraining to be honest, but that's an opinion not shared by all and I'm perfectly happy watching old films with this framing... for what it's worth, which ain't much, all things considered.
Great video man! I think even if you like shooting in 4:3 (like me) and your cameras were converted to Super 16 or Ultra 16, at least you can crop it afterward and have some freedom in that respect. I thought of converting my Bolex EBM for that very reason, but i do love framing for 4:3! It feels more personal and intimate, but is definitely more challenging to frame for certain things!
Growing up I always wanted a widescreen camera. Our old camcorder only did 4:3 Great video! For some reason i thought ulta16 was1.85, and super16 1.66.
For me, it's the artistic choice based on the emotional feel and the kind of shoot it demands, whether landscape or 4:3. For home stuff, interior and garden, backyard, mostly mid shots, I would feel more comfortable with 4:3 and of course, like you mentioned viewing on the phone. And when you have more landscape kind of a shoot where the wide area is more important to the composition and feel, then wide is suitable. Having wide and anamorphic setups helps with a 4:3 camera, but that also comes with some distortions, if we don't want them for that shoot. But either way, including more safe areas in the composition helps in cropping on post, especially if we try to stabilize, it crops more.
Hi Herbie- nice cameras! I really like the look of ultra 16- I own an Eclair NPR but standard 16mm. I do like the height of the images when it's 4:3. I feel sometimes there are more important cinematic details at the top and bottom of the frame with a taller image, vs cropping it to 16:9 or shooting with a wider aspect like super or Ultra, where you might miss things. Example: a detective walks out of a church at night, into a foggy cemetery. I want to be close enough to see his eyes and expression but still capture the fog crawling over the tombstones as well as the church bell and cross lit up by the moon overhead. With a 4:3 I can include all that "juicy" goodness. When I crop I lose one or the other. So I do like the coverage 4:3 gives- but commercially it's not viable- only for hobby projects unfortunately.
One cinematographer here in Australia. Had his 16mm Boulez converted to Ultra 16. But with an even wider aspect ratio than 1:85 like 2:00. I have a Super 16 EL Boulez myself. Just the batteries died. But hoping to have someone build me a external battery system. Dying to shoot cine film again
I have a Bolex H16 non reflex and I don't want to convert it. I just love the 4:3 and just want to leave it in its original state. I love the look of it projected on my wall. Also anyone knows where to buy 16mm film in Zurich? I'm in Switzerland for a few days....
I think the 4x3 aspect for family videos is great. Due to the tighter frame. I like 4x3 but I use anamorpfic lenses to get the widescreeen format after teh desqueeze. You may be having the Orson Wells effect. I made this up. But Orson Wells was tired of shallow depth of field. Because many movies had this back in the day. So when he made Citizen Kane he wanted deep focus on every shot. SInce you see so much wide screen today. You may be feeling you want to be different and go back to 4x3 since this is not the norm these days. Just my two cents. But either way your images looked great.
Hi there, I also like the 4:3 for family. I always wanted to try an anamorphic lens with film but I don't know nothing about them. Any that you recommend? do you use 2.35:1 lens? The "Orson Wells Effect" is a great way of putting it. Everything we watch is in a 16:9 frame today. I feel desensitized to the impacted that widescreen once had. Your point is well taken. Thanks for your two cents.
@@HerbiePabst well two start on anamorphics, you could start with an anamorphic adapter. Blazar Nero 1.5x adapter. I use many anamorphic lenss but I started with the SLR magic 2.0x anamorphic adpater. it gives teh full 2.35:1 look. but the 1.5x is easier to work with. The Slr magic is a pain in the butt. but yields great images. With the adapter you just get a step ring for your existing lenses and it is a cheap way to enter the anamorphic realm.
Greetings. There is much truth in aiming for the 4:3 format. Recently I faced the question to upgrade my K3 at least to Ultra16 format. At the end I put the idea down. I bought my K3 in mint condition set and having a simple gate/recentering ring Super16 conversion would in a way damage otherwise almost new set. Cheap S16 conversions result in inadequate image composing. Almost any video of S16 K3 I have seen have shown poor control of composition in the right part of image due not modified viewing. Proper S16 conversion of K3 with new ground glass is however too expensive to have it on this kind of camera in my opinion. Ultra16 mostly solves this problem since it only takes widening the gate. Composing is much more convenient. There is yet another "but". If you compare total size of the image, the Ultra16 is only slightly larger than regular gate. Compared to this the result is still inferior to Super16. My conclusion is to get higher level proper S16 camera, or keep at K3 regular 16 and embrace the 4:3 format. I can recommend many great films shot with this format. They prove it can offer at least the same amount of creative potential as wider formats. In my personal opinion 4:3 frame can withstand more alternative approach towards composition than widescreen. To be blunt, you can still stuff objects in the corners and borders of the frame and you still get nice composition, and with a bit of sensitive touch even very interesting one. Those interested can help themselves watching Kalatozov´s "Letter never sent", or "I, Cuba" (both cinematographer Urusevskij). These films and many more soviet films you can find in restored versions on Mosfilm channel. There is shown how flexible the 4:3 format really is.
Thanks for your comment. You make very good points. I converted my cameras many years ago and have come to understand the beautiful of 4:3 after using U16 and S16. The K3 is an awesome camera in any format and very affordable compared to other cameras.
Thank you Herbie for the wonderful video. I enjoy the 4:3 as a 27 year old never having had the nostalgia for the old timey cameras, I love the look and the perspective it has, almost a wider world one. Cheers.
yes I agree, hope you get a chance to shoot more 4:3.
thank you for finally giving me a visual comparison of the differences between ultra 16 and super 16. I actually got the rare privilege to shoot my senior project on a super 16 arriflex camera a couple months ago- and even being a regular still film shooter, the arri was a whole new shooting experience.
Glad I could help. You must have had a blast shooting the Arriflex. I still love shooting 16mm, there's something magical about it for me and I love the look of film.
Thanks herby
Thanks
Just found your channel. I've been shooting on a Bolex H16 and i shoot in standard 3X4. If I want a wider aspect ratio I'll attatch my anamorphic lens. And that's not very often. I like the nostalgic look
Hi Barry. The Bolex H16 is an awesome camera. I don't have any anamorphic lenses. I've considered buying one but have not pulled the trigger. I agree, 3x4 and 16mm in general, is a great nostalgic look. I sure have fun shooting it.
I have a EL Bolex Super 16. I’m interested to buy a SBM body have it converted to Ultra 16. But ask the engineer could he machine the gate even wider to get a 2:00 Aspect ratio.
Of all my film cameras, half are in 4:3 and the other half are in 16:9. It came down to liking a particular camera model, but wanting both aspect ratios available to me depending on what I was shooting and how to was to be shown.
Agreed.
I've recently bought a Keystone A-12, but have not shot with it yet. I'm looking forward to trying it out.
Hi there, I never used an A-12 but there are a few good youtube videos on it’s use. Hope you have a great time shooting it.
I have one of those too, great camera, I replace the lens it came with with one of my Bolex lens just for some test footage. Came out great. I bought two lens for it cheap on bay. a 15mm/25mm.
Hello Herbie! Good to see you. Haven't been shooting film lately. Hopefully I will be able to afford it again soon. I always loved 1.85:1 and 16:9 (=1.78:1). It is perfect for the "two shot" and looks more natural to me. You can always turn the cell phone to horizontal viewing. I fully understand the love for 3:4 (=1.33.1) and a lot of pre-1950s movies we all love were shot on "Academy" (1.37:1). It's a matter of preference. True Super 16 conversions with a re-centered lens are very expensive unless you leave the stock 3:4 viewfinder, say, in a K-3. This means you have to guesstimate constantly and you don't know exactly what's going on on the right hand side of the frame, since it doesn't show in the viewfinder. It's all worth it though. The last shot on Ektachrome looks fantasic!
Hi TrueFilm, good to hear from you. I agree with you that the 16:9 frame works well for the two shot and it makes for easy viewing. But the great films from the past were able to portray a scene with many characters and situations and the tighter frame never stopped me from watching those wonderful films. Yes, a 4:3 viewfinder with a super16 gate can get a bit tricky. But the more I shoot the super16 K3 the easy it's getting. The new Kodak Ektachrome 100D is quite amazing. Exposure has to be "On" due to the less latitude of the film but it sure looks great.
I agree with your sentiment! I’ve been shooting with an Ultra16 modified K3 for a year now, have been learning so much and am hopelessly addicted to shooting celluloid. The guy who modified my K3 also had a 35mm Konvas 1m camera for sale, and I bought that just a short time ago and completed a test shoot (hope to post the results soon).
The Konvas camera frame is the traditional academy ratio (about 4:3), and I’m inspired by that. Many of my favorite movies were shot in that aspect ratio, and it’s a great shape for filming closeups and all sorts of compositions. Also, after shooting for so long with a K3 that has a modified gate but not a modified viewfinder, it’s just a relief to know that the frame I see in the Konvas viewfinder is the frame I’m capturing on the celluloid.
Hi Bryan, "addicted" is a great word to use for what happen when the film bug bites. I subscribe to your channel and I've been enjoying your videos. The K3 is a great camera and I have much fun shooting them and I can tell by your footage you do too. Looking forward to seeing footage from your Konvas 35mm. Thanks for commenting.
The advantage of 4:3, is that you can use Anamorphic lenses and get that 2x squeeze factor!
Agreed. Great point. Hope to get an anamorphic lens one of these days. Any recommendations?
@@HerbiePabst lots of Chinese 3rd party manufactories, I have my eye on the Laowa's!
Good question! I got into anamorphic Lomos back when they were cheep and plentiful and so I shoot film pretty much exclusively with those, for what it's worth. I've shot some super-16 with them on an Aaton A-minima, the issue being crop factor of course. I do have a 22 which roughly crops to 44 on 16 (vertically, of course; pick your poison for the horizontal) so it's tall enough and wide enough. I don't mind shooting perf-to-edge (or perf-to-perf) of the film and cropping in post to serve my needs. The extra horizontal can always be used for image stabilization or re-framing the shot regardless of your lens type. Unless you are delivering a print, we don't really use optical sound any more so there is no reason to protect for that with an academy frame (I guess this is probably more a 35mm issue), and you can always adjust your frame in post if you did want that sound path for a theater print. Anywho, gear and gadgets aside, it's the eye of the artist holding the camera (and lighting the set) that really matters, and if your eye is telling you 4:3 then go for it! I find it a little constraining to be honest, but that's an opinion not shared by all and I'm perfectly happy watching old films with this framing... for what it's worth, which ain't much, all things considered.
Agreed. Thanks for commenting.
Great video man! I think even if you like shooting in 4:3 (like me) and your cameras were converted to Super 16 or Ultra 16, at least you can crop it afterward and have some freedom in that respect. I thought of converting my Bolex EBM for that very reason, but i do love framing for 4:3! It feels more personal and intimate, but is definitely more challenging to frame for certain things!
I totally agree. Thanks for commenting.
Growing up I always wanted a widescreen camera. Our old camcorder only did 4:3 Great video! For some reason i thought ulta16 was1.85, and super16 1.66.
Ultra is 16x9
@@HerbiePabst very cool 😎🙏
For me, it's the artistic choice based on the emotional feel and the kind of shoot it demands, whether landscape or 4:3. For home stuff, interior and garden, backyard, mostly mid shots, I would feel more comfortable with 4:3 and of course, like you mentioned viewing on the phone. And when you have more landscape kind of a shoot where the wide area is more important to the composition and feel, then wide is suitable. Having wide and anamorphic setups helps with a 4:3 camera, but that also comes with some distortions, if we don't want them for that shoot. But either way, including more safe areas in the composition helps in cropping on post, especially if we try to stabilize, it crops more.
Well said. I like that you mentioned "Feel" one day I'm shooting 4:3 the another day 16:9 I enjoyed your comment. Thank you.
Subscribed! I have a super 16 K3 but really wish it was just a normal 4x3. Also not a fan of the vignetting at wider angles
yeah super 16 has it's negatives when it comes to finding lenses on a K3.
tnks
:
Hi Herbie- nice cameras! I really like the look of ultra 16- I own an Eclair NPR but standard 16mm. I do like the height of the images when it's 4:3. I feel sometimes there are more important cinematic details at the top and bottom of the frame with a taller image, vs cropping it to 16:9 or shooting with a wider aspect like super or Ultra, where you might miss things. Example: a detective walks out of a church at night, into a foggy cemetery. I want to be close enough to see his eyes and expression but still capture the fog crawling over the tombstones as well as the church bell and cross lit up by the moon overhead. With a 4:3 I can include all that "juicy" goodness. When I crop I lose one or the other. So I do like the coverage 4:3 gives- but commercially it's not viable- only for hobby projects unfortunately.
Ultra16 is familiar and most of the TV's and monitors are now 16:9. There is much that can be done with 4:3 aspect as you described.
One cinematographer here in Australia. Had his 16mm Boulez converted to Ultra 16. But with an even wider aspect ratio than 1:85 like 2:00. I have a Super 16 EL Boulez myself. Just the batteries died. But hoping to have someone build me a external battery system. Dying to shoot cine film again
Yes, I have heard of that conversion. I believe it's a combination Ultra16 and Super16 gate. Hope you get your battery pack up and running soon.
I have one . I am in Sydney Australia.
Hi Herbie. Who did you have convert your Eclair NPR to Ultra16mm for you?
Hi there. The person has since passed on.
I have a Bolex H16 non reflex and I don't want to convert it. I just love the 4:3 and just want to leave it in its original state. I love the look of it projected on my wall. Also anyone knows where to buy 16mm film in Zurich? I'm in Switzerland for a few days....
Original 16mm(4:3) is still a great look.
I think the 4x3 aspect for family videos is great. Due to the tighter frame. I like 4x3 but I use anamorpfic lenses to get the widescreeen format after teh desqueeze. You may be having the Orson Wells effect. I made this up. But Orson Wells was tired of shallow depth of field. Because many movies had this back in the day. So when he made Citizen Kane he wanted deep focus on every shot. SInce you see so much wide screen today. You may be feeling you want to be different and go back to 4x3 since this is not the norm these days. Just my two cents. But either way your images looked great.
Hi there, I also like the 4:3 for family. I always wanted to try an anamorphic lens with film but I don't know nothing about them. Any that you recommend? do you use 2.35:1 lens? The "Orson Wells Effect" is a great way of putting it. Everything we watch is in a 16:9 frame today. I feel desensitized to the impacted that widescreen once had. Your point is well taken. Thanks for your two cents.
@@HerbiePabst well two start on anamorphics, you could start with an anamorphic adapter. Blazar Nero 1.5x adapter. I use many anamorphic lenss but I started with the SLR magic 2.0x anamorphic adpater. it gives teh full 2.35:1 look. but the 1.5x is easier to work with. The Slr magic is a pain in the butt. but yields great images. With the adapter you just get a step ring for your existing lenses and it is a cheap way to enter the anamorphic realm.
Thanks for the suggestions. I will check them out.
Ultra is my choice.. Mabe becase it presents a movie style look
Ultra16 is current and easy for people to watch but who knows where it will go. Thanks for commenting.
Greetings. There is much truth in aiming for the 4:3 format. Recently I faced the question to upgrade my K3 at least to Ultra16 format. At the end I put the idea down. I bought my K3 in mint condition set and having a simple gate/recentering ring Super16 conversion would in a way damage otherwise almost new set. Cheap S16 conversions result in inadequate image composing. Almost any video of S16 K3 I have seen have shown poor control of composition in the right part of image due not modified viewing. Proper S16 conversion of K3 with new ground glass is however too expensive to have it on this kind of camera in my opinion. Ultra16 mostly solves this problem since it only takes widening the gate. Composing is much more convenient. There is yet another "but". If you compare total size of the image, the Ultra16 is only slightly larger than regular gate. Compared to this the result is still inferior to Super16. My conclusion is to get higher level proper S16 camera, or keep at K3 regular 16 and embrace the 4:3 format. I can recommend many great films shot with this format. They prove it can offer at least the same amount of creative potential as wider formats. In my personal opinion 4:3 frame can withstand more alternative approach towards composition than widescreen. To be blunt, you can still stuff objects in the corners and borders of the frame and you still get nice composition, and with a bit of sensitive touch even very interesting one. Those interested can help themselves watching Kalatozov´s "Letter never sent", or "I, Cuba" (both cinematographer Urusevskij). These films and many more soviet films you can find in restored versions on Mosfilm channel. There is shown how flexible the 4:3 format really is.
Thanks for your comment. You make very good points. I converted my cameras many years ago and have come to understand the beautiful of 4:3 after using U16 and S16. The K3 is an awesome camera in any format and very affordable compared to other cameras.
If you want to shoot 4x3 go ahead! Why not?
I agree!