so we all agree???

[seth christian]

SO, judging by all the posts about whats the best method of

getting 16mm footage home for editing...telecined straight

to miniDV seems to be the agreed upon choice for best

results?!?

 

Then, editing on home computer...then dumping back onto

a miniDV tape and then bringing it to a posthouse for a

Xfer to digibeta or HD or whatever you want!?!

 

Is this about right?

 

Any tips on what to watch out for along the way?

[Rachel Oliver]

Hi;

 

If by this you mean TK to digibeta AND mini DV then cut on mini DV at home and then take an EDL to a post house for a digibeta online then thats a fine way to end up with an SD master, if however you mean just taking your mini DV master to get dubbed to digibeta, that's only losing quality.... either way can work depending on what your ok with.

 

Olly

[Chris Burke]

SO, judging by all the posts about whats the best method of

getting 16mm footage home for editing...telecined straight

to miniDV seems to be the agreed upon choice for best

results?!?

 

Then, editing on home computer...then dumping back onto

a miniDV tape and then bringing it to a posthouse for a

Xfer to digibeta or HD or whatever you want!?!

 

Is this about right?

 

Any tips on what to watch out for along the way?

 

 

If you can only afford a TK to dv tape, then go with DVCAM not miniDV. It is a proffesional format that is better in the long run than miniDV. Most all Sony miniDV camcorders and decks will play back DVCAM. If you can afford more than that, do the digi Beta and DVCam at the same time. What is your footage, regular 16 or Super? If Super 16, then bite the bullet and TK to HD. The two formats work very well together.

 

chris

[Michael Most]

If you can only afford a TK to dv tape, then go with DVCAM not miniDV. It is a proffesional format that is better in the long run than miniDV.

 

"Better" in what sense? The information on the tape, and the images it creates, is exactly the same. The only thing you gain with DVCam is potentially - and I emphasize potentially - better integrity and fewer uncorrectable dropouts, and a separate time code track. However, in the real world, I have rarely, if ever, detected any real difference. And there is absolutely no difference in the image.

[steve hyde]

We will never all agree because it depends on what you are doing and what you need. If you are shooting a 30:1 feature film, the workflow you suggest might save you a lot of money.

 

If you are shooting a 2:1 ten minute short you are probably better off getting a fully graded simul record to DigiBeta and DVcam or getting all of your footage dumped onto a hard drive.

 

It sounds like you need to get on the phone and talk to a few different post houses to find out what workflow fits your specific needs. Then report back and tell us what they say....

 

Steve

[steve hyde]

...and keep in mind, by the time you are done shooting it is possible the technology will have changed again.

 

Kodak is selling this as a post production time saver that negates the need to conform your edits back to your film reels:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/tcs/index2.shtml

 

 

I haven't used it.

[Brian Wells]

telecined straight to miniDV seems to be the agreed upon choice for best results?!?

I don't know what is "best" for your needs, but the DVCPro50 workflow looks pretty attractive to me. I just finished an SDX900 shoot and we're using a little $6K SD93 deck to Firewire the footage into my Apple Powerbook, where I will be cutting in Final Cut Pro. This is substantially better quality than if we had downconverted to MiniDV, but not nearly as expensive as editing uncompressed (like the DigiBeta workflow, for example).

[Jamie Metzger]

You can always "ghetto cine" it, by using a nice 24P camera ( DVX, F900, etc...) and shooting it off the wall.

 

It works very well, just turn off the automatic poop on the camera itself.

 

And also, there is NO flicker.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Jmetzger

[seth christian]

thanks everyone for all your opinions and info!

 

its 16mm, not S16.

 

For lack of money, I'm considering this method:

 

telecined directly to miniDV,

use my Canon GL2 to bring into my computer,

edit on Combustion and render out final project uncompressed,

dump back onto miniDV,

bring down to posthouse and have them dub onto digibeta for master.

 

Any arguments or advice on this route?

 

thanks again,

christian

[Mike Williamson]

There's no point in taking a project telecined to mini-dv and outputting it to Digibeta, you won't gain anything that isn't already there on the mini-dv tapes. The compression is already there, you can't really undo it by going to a less compressed format.

 

If at all possible, supervise your telecine transfer. You'll get the images you're looking for by being there and working with the colorist, rather than someone's best guess at what you want things to look like.

 

Also, if you have the money to do an online edit, in telecine you could simultaneously transfer to two formats with matching timecode, for example mini-dv and Digibeta. You then cut the mini-dv tapes on your computer, output an EDL which you'd use to assemble the footage from the higher-res Digibeta tapes. Because the timecode matches, you can simply feed the EDL to into the online machine and it will automatically put together your cut in a beautifully less compressed form.

[seth christian]

does that single generation to my computer and back really

diminish the footage THAT much??

 

There's another issue here too.......I'm doing effects

compositing on some of the footage, you see...animation

is really my forte, and thats really goal here. And, I

obviously can't afford to get some SGI / digibeta setup. ha!

 

thanks again,

christian

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

I think you are missing the point. digital transfers don't have generational loss, you are copying the bits so if you were to go from your gl2 to your computer, and then back to your gl2 the footage will have no degradation at all. If you were going to a less lossy format, such as digibeta to minidv, then you have to get rid of a few bits of information, like colorspace. Then you put this into your computer you lose nothing, when you output back to minidv you lose nothing, then you go back to digibeta, or hdcam sr or whatever, the footage will never look better than the minidv footage. You will never get the info you lost back.

 

Think of it like mp3, you listen to a song on cd and it sounds great, you rip it to 64kbps and it sounds like crap. If you then burn that mp3 back to a cd and listen to it, it will sound no better than the 64 mp3, the damage has been done.

 

Having said that you should be ok going to minidv; but be aware that you will get no benefit from then mastering to digibeta. If you want that quality, then you need to maintain at least that quality throughout your workflow. Whether you online or offline.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Trevor Swaim

[Matthew Parnell]

Most film festivals and tv stations accept DigiBeta as a playout/screening format, so mastering to DigiBeta would make sense. Yes there is no quality gain, but there is a logistical gain.

[seth christian]

I read ya!

 

nevertheless, my miniDV route will still be OK for broadcast, wont it?

Its shot on 16mm film, so its 2k...which looks great!

 

and as long as I Xfer it to what they need (like digibeta), it should be good...right?

 

thanks aagian,

christian

Edited January 23, 2006 by thinkmonkeymedia

[Matthew Parnell]

I read ya!

 

nevertheless, my miniDV route will still be OK for broadcast, wont it?

Its shot on 16mm film, so its 2k...which looks great!

 

and as long as I Xfer it to what they need (like digibeta), it should be good...right?

 

thanks aagian,

christian

 

I wont be brilliant and wont maintain the 2k resolution at all. But it will be good enough for broadcast, i have seen more dodgy ways of doing things than what your doing. MiniDV with its compression ratio might make doing effects(esp. bluescreen) difficult, but thats all a part of the chalenge.

[Rachel Oliver]

Hi;

 

I wonder if having a pro telecine made from 16mm film only to end up with a mini dv master may be a false economy. Most decent transfer houses will likely telecine to digibeta anyway and just give you a mini dv dub, this way you can have an ok mini dv cutting copy to show around and then if your film goes places you have the digibeta master to online....

 

Olly

[Michael Collier]

I would take it a step farther and have them put it frame for frame onto a DNxHD codec. You could even go farther and make it an uncompressed raw transfer. You dont want a real telecine, those extra frames are a pain and you can do the telecine later (when it makes sense so you dont have jumping cadence) in software. Premeire, after effects and avid all do pulldowns and dont take anything more than a night or two to render long copies.

 

If you shoot 24fps, then get a codec that can handle that. If you need a tape you can put it to HDCAM-SR or DVCPRO HD, but those will still loose quality. 16mm is expensive so you should push every pixel out of it possible. If you push it directly to a hard drive then the post house can simply record it to hard drive and you wont have to worry about loosing any more quality.

 

When you get the copy home of the DNxHD, put that into your avid and make a conform clip, probably in DV so you can edit effeciently. Once editting is done conform the EDL to the DNx codec and boom. Instant HD movie in full quality. Hell, you can even call it a DI if you put it back onto film. You also have the option of dubbing to HD tapes at a much better price.

 

If saving money is important, do as was mentioned above. get the first print in mini-DV (make sure frame numbers will be relatable later) cut your movie and get just what is needed recaptured in the DNx. then conform as normal and you have your HD movie.

 

bottom line, the only point I am trying to make is if all you want is 4:2:2 comression (or 4:1:1 for DV25) in standard definition, then shoot video. You dont really get a great advantage in picture quality compared to a DVX-100A or similar camera. The only economy in shooting film is for projects where HD or large-screen blowups are possible, good news is now adays you dont need post houses for much, if you spent more than 4K on your edit machine.

[Chris Burke]

SO, judging by all the posts about whats the best method of

getting 16mm footage home for editing...telecined straight

to miniDV seems to be the agreed upon choice for best

results?!?

 

Then, editing on home computer...then dumping back onto

a miniDV tape and then bringing it to a posthouse for a

Xfer to digibeta or HD or whatever you want!?!

 

Is this about right?

 

Any tips on what to watch out for along the way?

 

 

You are getting lots of info here and it seems like you are settling in on mini DV. I know that this can be a very confusing maze of info and often the easiest way is best. That being said, telecine to miniDV is good enough for broadcast, but not great. May I suggest for the maximum in quality and minimum price that you telecine straight to hard drive as an uncompressed SD file. The quality of this file is better than DigiBeta and the very best you are going to get in standard def. Many labs are now offering this. Many do not charge a premium for this service. I suggest Cinelab.com, they will TK your film at .18/foot as a scene to scene session straight to hard drive. Call them or email them and tell them your situation. Once you get the hard drive back with the files, you can make a sort of window burn version in miniDV and lay that back onto tape as a back up. At least if your hard drive crashes, you will have a tape back up. This is very easy with Final Cut Pro. Unfortunately, if this happens, you lost all that quality, but you can still cut the movie.

 

But that won't happen, so here is what you do. Once you have the files on your computer, make low res clips from the uncompressed ones, make sure the timecode matches in both resolutions. Use the lower res ones to do your offline, when finished, output an EDL and take your hard drive with the uncompressed media, all the other stuff you have added and a miniDV tape of your final edit to a post house and have them do a proper online. If you have a short film, the cost will not be that out of hand and it will be well worth it. This is IMHO, the best and most cost effective way to do post these days. I have done it for three short film now, using both 16mm and Super 8 and I will never do it any other way, if I don't have to. The cost savings is unheard( you don't have to rent a digiBeta deck, just buy a firewire hard drive) of and the quality is fantastic. If you can't afford an online now, at least you have a miniDV version and you have the umcompressed stuff waiting for when you can afford to. I hope this barrage of info helps, it really is quite easy to do. Good luck.

 

Chris

[seth christian]

OK, I've got it!

I've just tested this procedure on my system and it works

great:

 

I had some 16mm test footage put into an uncompressed QT on a hard drive

(which came off their digibeta Xfer from the film process)

 

then I pull it into Combustion for editing at home

 

then I render it back onto the hard drive uncompressed

 

bring the edited video back to posthouse and put it onto digibeta.

 

Sound good?

 

 

Only one question.....when they gave me the uncompressed QT, the

footage was 720 x 480 (roughly).

for 16mm film @ 2k, I expected larger! Is this right?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, that's not a 2K scan, that's a standard def scan. Digital Betacam is a standard def format.

 

I detect a lack of familiarity with the basics here, which is going to cause you problems.

 

Phil

[Stuart Brereton]

The term '2K Scan' refers to a data scan of your neg, not a telecine. If you're TKing to NTSC it will be 720 x 480 no matter whether you use Digibeta or DV.

 

It seems a shame to go to all the expense of shooting 16mm, and then TK it to the worst digital format there is. Raise some extra cash and have it Tk'ed to digibeta, with DV dubs made for your offline. Once you have it cut, go back to your DigiBeta masters and conform it.

 

I can't speak for TK facilities in the US, but most of the places in the UK that offer direct to hard drive services usually TK to tape anyway and then digitise from that. This mean that your 'Uncompressed QT Movie' hasn't been compressed by whatever system it was digitised, but will have been compressed by the tape format it came from.

[Erik Turestedt]

Hello Christian,

 

First of, 2k is a scanning format. You scan 16 or 35 to 2k to get best results. 2k has the best colour algoritms etc.

 

2k is a really high resolution. And the files are heavy to work with. Remember that 2k scans are the edge of scanning.

 

When your lab scan to digibeta your footage becomes sd (standard definition). Digibeta is low resolution with high colorspace. You will by that loose all of your unlimited 16 resolution. If you plan on theatrical release this, would not be good. It would waste all of your resolution for the screen. If on the other hand this is DTV (direct to video), digibeta will hold all of your footage superb colors which hopefully you've boosted on your onelight scan.

 

If you ask me,

 

I would say that for me it would be more important to do a good scan, than choosing between DV or Digibeta for edit. Uncompressed DV that is.

 

Ultimately, you would want a high resolution. Bonolabs could do this cheap. It would be strange if your lab did't do this.

 

2k would probably be to expensive.

 

HDcam is a standard method for 16. It is comparable to 1,9k.

 

Dvcpro HD would be more suitable for most edit programs if you would want to skip the offline edit. Heard you wanted to do rendering.

 

Anyway you need a powerfull edit station with raid drives.

 

From your HD you could then output to sd copies. Or print back to film for screening. Or just transfer to hdcam for D cinema.

 

But remember Christian, I'm not an expert on this. Use my information to try to understand when you speak with the pro's in your lab.

 

Good luck

[Stuart Brereton]

I would say that for me it would be more important to do a good scan, than choosing between DV or Digibeta for edit. Uncompressed DV that is.

 

A scan and a telecine are different things. A scan converts a negative to data. A telecine converts negative to video, of whatever format you choose. The better the format, the less information you lose in the process. There is no such thing as uncompressed DV.

[Chris Burke]

I can't speak for TK facilities in the US, but most of the places in the UK that offer direct to hard drive services usually TK to tape anyway and then digitise from that. This mean that your 'Uncompressed QT Movie' hasn't been compressed by whatever system it was digitised, but will have been compressed by the tape format it came from.

 

 

This is NOT the case in the labs that I have spoken to. What happens is that the SDI out from the telecine is going straight into a computer into a computer via a Decklink card or the equivilent. Actually, it is probably going through a color corrector first, then into a G5 or some sort of PC. For SD, this is cheap and easy, for HD, not that much more difficult. The biggest drawback is storage space. Ask around to see if they are going to tape first then to hard drive, if so, there is a quality hit. How much depends on what kind of tape it is coming from.

Bono goes straight to a G5, Cinelab does the same as does Movielab. All three are in the US, use them if you can. Can't toot the straight to hard drive enough if you are on a budget and want the best of both worlds.

 

Chris

 

 

 

A scan and a telecine are different things.

 

 

This is the real world translation, but many people use the word scan when referring to telecine and they are not incorrect. Telecine by definition means: Flying spot scan. Hint hint from the post house in Seattle. Cine means scan. The word for film in Gaelic is scanna. So we are all talking about the same thing. I think the confusion is centered around thinkmonkeymedia's general lack of understanding involved with all this technical jargon and understandlibly so. It took me a while to wrap my brain around it all. Wikipedia has a very clear and concise definition about all of this stuff and I highly recommend lots more research via the web and phone calls to the lab you choose before jumping in. Good luck.

 

 

Chris

[steve hyde]

I recommend reading this book for comprehensive explanations on how film technology in post production works:

 

Film Technology in Post Production

 

You can only learn so much from asking questions in web forums. What you need is a comprehensive understanding of your options.

 

You are looking for some kind of consensus regarding a best work flow scenario, but you need to evaluate all of your options by learning what they are - then you can ask well-informed questions with your post house and they will gladly educate you further regarding your options and the changing technologies.

 

Good luck,

 

Steve