Most filmmakers are familiar with the iconic Over 16mm movie format, but few people have heard of its younger brother—— Over 16mm. There are many similarities between the two formats, but if you are considering shooting with film or converting an existing 16mm film camera, there are some significant differences to consider.
Originally, 16mm film and cameras were designed to 4:3 aspect ratio. This is enough for documentaries, broadcast, industrial or family films. But as wide screens became more popular, there was eventually a need to capture wider images in the 16mm format.
Thankfully, photographer Rune Ericson came along in 1969 and found a way to make this happen. He used single-hole 16mm film (with a sprocket hole on only one side) and modified the camera so that he could take advantage of the extra space on the film.
This results in a native 1.66 aspect ratio, which is significantly wider than the 4:3 (1.33) aspect ratio and more suitable for widescreen work. It can be more easily cropped to standard 1.85 without losing nearly as much resolution.
From then on, the rest is history. Super 16mm became a professionally viable format and has certainly since been used in countless feature films, TV series, commercials and other projects.
The invention of Ultra 16mm
Back in 1996, cinematographer Frank G. Demarco was testing shots for Darren Aronofsky’s first feature piand subsequently invented a new format.
Instead of widening the camera’s door on just one side (as the Super 16mm conversion does), he widened the left and right sides. This allows the camera to use the area between the perforations to capture more of the film’s exposure.
This mount requires no moving/re-centering (as with Super 16mm conversion), making it easier to modify and maintain compatibility with existing standard 16mm lenses. This is in stark contrast to Super 16mm cameras, which can suffer from vignetting when used with some standard 16 lenses.
Best of all, the Ultra 16mm conversion produces a native 1.85 aspect ratio. Not as tall as the 1.66 aspect ratio offered by Super 16mm cameras, but wider.
Here’s a rough visual representation of Standard vs. Super vs. Super. Over 16 mm–
Ultra 16 has never developed as quickly as Super 16mm. For many photographers, it feels silly to try this new, yet-to-be-field-tested format, just to sacrifice some vertical resolution for horizontal resolution. Finding an Ultra 16mm camera repairman or lab to scan the lenses is also a big problem.
25 years later…
With a few notable exceptions, Ultra 16mm has flown under the radar for the past (almost) 25 years since it was first introduced. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if it resurfaces, especially now that the popularity of film shooting is increasing again.
There’s no doubt that Super 16 remains the format of choice for cinematographers shooting 16mm film. Those who already own a Super 16mm camera have no reason to convert to an Ultra 16, even as rental items they are still in high demand.
But for someone like me who only recently purchased a standard 16mm body, the Super 16mm conversion offers some clear advantages…
The biggest is cost savings. I recently inquired with several shops about converting my standard 16mm Arri SR II to a Super 16 and was looking at $5,000 to $10,000, depending on certain variables. This will cover the camera itself as well as the magazine, viewfinder and modifications to my Angeniuex 12 – 120.
On the other hand, the conversion cost for Ultra 16mm is a little over $1100, as the process is much simpler. Also, my Angenieux lens still works perfectly without any vignetting issues like the Super 16mm.
I’ve been warned before to use Ultra 16mm with caution because some labs can’t scan the lens. Without the right type of scanner, they may scratch the image area within the perforation, rendering it unusable in post.
But after calling several labs in Los Angeles, nearly every one was set to scan the Ultra 16.
Knowing this, I decided to pull the trigger on the Ultra 16mm conversion. For about 20% of the cost of a Super 16mm conversion, I could achieve a wider aspect ratio, keep the existing glass, and not have to worry about handling issues.
The camera has been out for modifications since last month and will be back in my hands in a few weeks. Once it comes back I’ll be running some tests which I’ll be sure to share here. I’m also working on some 16mm narrative projects, so lots of screenshots and footage coming to you.
Some final thoughts…
There are obvious pros and cons to going the Ultra 16mm route, but in the end it made sense for my situation. Specifically, since I already had a standard 16mm Arri SR II, I had access to a lot of labs to scan footage from LA and had fun experimenting with.
But for those who don’t have a standard 16mm camera yet, you’re better off just buying a native Super 16 camera and saving yourself the hassle. There are far more of them than Ultra 16s (for perspective) and can often be found on the used market for less than the cost of converting a standard 16mm camera. Not to mention, the format is standardized among cinematographers, technicians, and labs, and you have to take that into account.
Check back soon for some test snippets, follow-up thoughts, and more.
If you have any questions about shooting in 16mm or converting to a 16mm camera, please leave a comment below!
Don’t forget to follow me Instagram, Facebookand twitter!
