Mini35 on Super16mm film cams?
 

This question might be a sacrelidge or a sedition to post on a website dedictated to electronic imaging, however there being seriously qualified DPs and camera operators visiting from time to time, here goes.

Has anyone fitted a Mini35 or Pro35 up to a Super16mm flm camera and shot a test with it?

I have not.
But as someone who has shot both 35mm and 16mm film for a number of years, I guess my question would be... why would you want to?

The bad Lord Byron swam across the Hellespont - why? debateable. Was he demented? Given his lifestyle - probably. Because the Hellespont was there? - Yes.

I ask the question for probably insane reasons I guess. Because it is there in front of me, I stuck one such device on front of a CP16R I was repairing. The Angenieux lens filter mount diameter happens to be the same as the Z1P so the Century 58mm mount +7 achromatic dioptre goes straight on via my own 58mm - 72mm spacer.

The adaptor image to the viewfinder is oily in appearance and there is the evident resolution hit which we all know about.

16mm cams suffer a similar though not as profound narrower field of view as videocams for a given focal length.

To go after similar shallow depth-of-field compositions as can be achieved with 35mm, requires sitting off from the subject, using a longer focal length and ND filters where lighting conditions require it.

For final output to video, it would be pointless. For resolution, existing videocamera/adaptor combinations can achieve the same outcomes for much less cost.

Like bleach bypass processing, which is essentially the act of permanently degrading an otherwise perfectly attainable image just for "the look", putting an adaptor on front of a film cam might create an artistic effect of limited use.

The cost of film and processing is such that I do not intend trying. I was curious to see if ayone else had.

I doubt anyone has tried it.

Frankly, in my 10 years of film-production experience before I got serious with video, not one film DP I ever worked under lamented how he wished 16mm had the dof characteristics of 35. It's just the nature of the formats.

I hear more noise, fretting and hand-wringing over it in here than I ever did among the film folks! A lot of people in a big hurry to shoot out of focus stuff with those Mini35s!

Thats funny, Nate. I am one of those who has been fooling around with a self built 35mm adapter. Have now done a couple of challenges too. And when I get done, I go, that footage would real have looked sharp and detailed if I had just shot it straight up. What am I doing this for. But at the same time, its interesting to see how far it can go....

Look for my film posting tomorrow night in the the For Honour and Glory 2 contest under show your work.. You will see how much fun I was having trying to get the right things in focus....

Ah well, we never got to work together back in those days, or I might have been the exception to the rule! Although I think much of my "wish-this-was-35" laments were probably internal, and often they were based around other issues as well as the DOF one (having to use the high-speed stocks of the day more sparingly and carefully than I would with the equivalent wide-gauge version, etc).

One situation that really used to make me despair DOF-wise with 16mm was during the swing-and-tilt craze in the mid 90's; it was MUCH harder to get a substantial effect with this setup because 16mm would only show the center portion of the lens, eliminating most of the funky goodness at the edges and thus diminishing the results. I can't total the number of times the client would ask if it could make the soft parts softer as I gamely twiddled the bellows this way and that...

Once I got into 1/3" video, I pretty much gave up on trying to "force" a shallow DOF mindset into the medium as it seemed to be a losing proposition. And then I bought a Mini35 so I could do just that, and had great fun with it. But it does seem to have been more of a winner in the SD world--HD changes so many things.

I have engaged in a foolish endeavour.

I managed to scrounge a short end of Vision 200T to shoot some tests of a repaired CP16, so also shot two tests with the AGUS35 with the 85mm f1.4 and Peleng 8mm f3.5 against a chart and realworld.

With the P+S Technik, I could not find any web references to such tests.

My setup was AGUS35, >> 4+ Century Achromatic dioptre on the 10mmx150mm Angenieux lens with the lens zoomed almost 7/8ths. (I forgot to read the scale.). The camera was set up on rods and the AGUS35 crudely fastened with lots of gaffa tape.

With the +7, I could not position the groundglass close enough to the Angenieux to get inside of infinity focus so had to use the +4 which enabled a furthur setback.

This yielded the collateral benefit of allowing a wider path through the prisms therefore a bit more groundglass area than I get with the Sony cameras and the closer couple of the +7.

In the viewfinder at least, better than 850 TV lines seems to be attainable. The image outdors in good light still looks a bit oily.

If anyone was to experiment with the P+S products on a jig with a film camera, my guess is that the 2/3" direct-to-camera versions would be the best to test.

The friendliest cameras might be the CP16R and AATONs which seem to have a flange to focal plane closer to that of the B4 mount. Keep the back of the B4 lens well away from your shutter mirror though. (Clatter and shatter are not nice words in this context.).

I still messed up my wordstuff in the above post.

By "direct-to-camera versions" I was meaning direct relay versions of the Mini35 or Pro35 which hook up to detachable lens style cameras like the Canon XL1 family or JVC HD100 or 2/3" ENG style cameras.

Rough AGUS35 to Super16mm test here.