Telecine Advice

Erdwolf_TVL · January 22, 2006

I've had quite a length of spliced Super 8 Vision2 200 / 500 telecined to Mini-DV.

Overall, the quality of the conversion was good. It was a one-light conversion, so there are inevitably areas of overexposure and underexposure. Some scenes, however, appear exceptionally flat and lifeless in comparison to others.

I would like to know if any of these scenes could be improved with altered exposure settings whilst filming, or whether I should take this up with my telecine provider.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample1.jpg

Vision2 500 - The black is very noisy. I gather the grain is from the emulsion, rather than telecine? This was slightly underexposed using reflected light reading from the dog's coat.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample6.jpg

Vision2 200 - A good transfer. Colours are accurate and the contrast is good.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample2.jpg

Vision2 200 - What is this bright spot in the centre of the image? Is it light leaking in from the viewfinder?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample3.jpg

Vision2 200 - Did I overexpose? Or did the telecine machine? It appears too bright, even though colours are accurate. I used average relfected light for the very bright scene. Had to use an ND filter.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample4.jpg

Vision2 200 - This image appears lifeless. I exposed using the reflected light from the foreground.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample5.jpg

Vision2 200 - Again appears very flat. This time perhaps underexposed in the camera or in TC. I used reflected light from foreground.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Erdwolf_TVL

steve hyde · January 23, 2006

This image looks underexposed. I suggest shooting your 500 at 250.

This image is a victim of flat light.

the noise above looks like lens flare to me. I like this image.

The hotspot might have been corrected in telecine in a fully graded session

Looks underexposed and ungraded to me.

again, this looks like flat light = flat image...

I suggest shooting your 7217 at E.I 100 and your 7218 at E.I. 250. Then ask for a best light transfer. One light transfers are not usually suitable for presentation, just offline editing.

Erdwolf_TVL · January 23, 2006

This image looks underexposed. I suggest shooting your 500 at 250.

This image is a victim of flat light.

the noise above looks like lens flare to me. I like this image.

The hotspot might have been corrected in telecine in a fully graded session

Looks underexposed and ungraded to me.

again, this looks like flat light = flat image...

I suggest shooting your 7217 at E.I 100 and your 7218 at E.I. 250. Then ask for a best light transfer. One light transfers are not usually suitable for presentation, just offline editing.

Thanks! I'll give it a few extra notches of light and see if the results improve.

Preston Herrick · January 23, 2006

A skilled colorist (timer or grader in your neck of the woods) could work miracles with this footage but it would involve scene to scene correction - not a one light. Depending on how a negative is exposed, the telecine can induce a certain amount of noise which will only compound grain issues. A slight overexposure will help reduce grain in the negative and you should be able to do this without sacrificing highlight detail. The operator can also employ noise reduction which will kill a lot of the grain. If they go too far though, the image will go soft. Ask for a supervised transfer - that way you can sit in on the session and have them dial an image in to your liking and satisfaction. You might be surprised.

Edited January 23, 2006 by PrestonHerrick