first 16mm results - frame grabs

[David Sweetman]

Here are some stills from my test shoot. It was a scene from "the usual suspects," done for a class project.

I shot it with an Arri 16bl on 7218 film stock. Man, was I glad when I saw an image in telecine! It was my first test so I had no idea if I'd gotten anything or what to expect. Anyway I learned a ton from this project.

 

 

 

[Evan Kubota]

Skin looks a little hot, but other than that, looks good. I like the broken-up lighting in the last shot. Would it be possible to use less fill? They look very classically lit, but I like the least fill possible for a starker look.

[David Sweetman]

Skin looks a little hot, but other than that, looks good. I like the broken-up lighting in the last shot. Would it be possible to use less fill? They look very classically lit, but I like the least fill possible for a starker look.

 

Yeah I had noticed that too and ended up doing some more image correction.

 

this is the final image

 

[Guest santo]

I like the composition and other aspects. I think you did a pretty good job.

 

However, I'm dumbfounded as to how much grainier this is compared to the super 8 footage I've shot recently in super 8 with V2 200t. I mean, it is a huge difference between what I've got and the dozens of other examples posted all over the internet shot only in super 8.

 

How come it's so grainy? Is this intentional?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Unfortunately, many firts time film users get the short end of the stick when it comes to telecine. Many of these old, cheap, catering-to-students-and-the-super8-crowd telecines are abysmal. Old Ranks at best that haven't had their tube changed since Napoleon died, or "in-house" telecines made by some dude in the cellar out of an old Moviola. It ends up looking horrible. The colorists are often not up to scratch either, which doesn't help.

 

It really pays to get the transfer done right. The Bonolab solution, I've heard, is both cheap and good.

[David Sweetman]

I like the composition and other aspects. I think you did a pretty good job.

 

However, I'm dumbfounded as to how much grainier this is compared to the super 8 footage I've shot recently in super 8 with V2 200t. I mean, it is a huge difference between what I've got and the dozens of other examples posted all over the internet shot only in super 8.

 

How come it's so grainy? Is this intentional?

 

Ill find out after my next shoot but I think it's grainy because I didn't have enough light. My intention was to have more, but my light kit fell through because I had to shoot two days early. I got the telecine done at a place called Magic Film Works on a da Vinci 'classic.' The people there were great and I'm sure the graniness came in production and not in telecine. The look works for the scene, anyway.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> a da Vinci 'classic.'

 

That's not a telecine, that's a colour corrector, and one that'd usually be attached to a pretty nasty old telecine.

 

Phil

[David Sweetman]

Hi,

 

> a da Vinci 'classic.'

 

That's not a telecine, that's a colour corrector, and one that'd usually be attached to a pretty nasty old telecine.

 

Phil

 

okay. Thanks for explaining. What are the main companies that make telecine machines? A Spirit would be a telecine machine, right, and not a secondary color corrector?

[David Mullen ASC]

Rank Cintels of various makes and models are common, especially for cheaper transfers.

 

Then there are the higher-end telecines, the ones that can do HD as well, like the Spirit, the Millenium-ITK, the C-Reality, etc.

 

The real-time color-correctors in a telecine bay are usually a DaVinci or a Pogle, but they aren't all the same -- companies spend various amounts of money on installing extra features for them, so one telecine bay may have a DaVinci that can only do one "event" at a time (like one Power Window), while another may be tricked out and allow multiple Power Windows plus do keys (luminence or chroma).

 

Truth is that generally you get what you pay for -- the telecine suites that have the better telecines and the more advanced color-correctors cost more per hour compared to some of their other suites. It also depends on what the transfer will be used for. If just for video dailies, to be discarded after editing and an EDL is created, at which point you go back to the original film and either do a film finish or retransfer it on higher-end equipment, then you don't really need a top end transfer. But if the transfer is the basis of your final master, then it should be done well.

 

I think some of the grain you are seeing in your transfer is noise actually, but either way, a Spirit transfer would probably look cleaner.

[Keneu Luca]

I like the composition and other aspects. I think you did a pretty good job.

 

However, I'm dumbfounded as to how much grainier this is compared to the super 8 footage I've shot recently in super 8 with V2 200t. I mean, it is a huge difference between what I've got and the dozens of other examples posted all over the internet shot only in super 8.

 

How come it's so grainy? Is this intentional?

 

Isnt this footage 500 ASA? Compare 16mm 500 ASA to super 8mm 500 ASA.

 

I'm not at all knocking super 8, but at 500, you got a pretty angry swarm of locusts.

[Brian Rose]

I HIGHLY recommend Cinelab, out of Fall River, Mass (www.cinelab.com). I typically get a one light, or best light transfer, and yet, the results are always fantastic. I got my latest shipment back a few weeks ago, and there was not a spot of grain! And, their prices are reasonable. They currently have a deal where you can get processing, prep and best light transfer for .28 cents a foot (74 dollar minimum). But, I'm sure you could get an even better deal depending on the size and nature of the project. That's my two cents.

Best,

BR

[David Mullen ASC]

Other than the noise/grain, which is not bad but 7218 can look better, I like the shots. The cold key / warm fill reminds me of what Brian Reynolds did for "NYPD Blue", to suggest uncorrected daylight with tungsten practicals on inside.