About video transfer

[J Costantini]

if I transfer my video material 4x3 but with 1.85 widescreen margins (using final cut's widescreen effect, for example) to 35mm 1.37, I know that the image will show two black margins up and down on the negative. BUT what happens if they use the 1.85 mask at the projection? will the mask cover these black parts?

 

This could be interesting to make sure that only the parts I want to be visible will be... avoid showing the boom mic for example in case they put the mask in a wrong place.

 

Does it work?

 

second thing is: do you have experience with dvx100 transfers? I shot most of my material at 1/48 shutter using 1/60 sometimes because of fluorescents. I used gamma cinelike, matrix normal, detail -4.

 

Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

An image transferred to 35mm with a 1.85 hard matte would get the matte covered by the projector's 1.85 matte IF it were lined up perfectly. Otherwise, you'll see a little of the black matte come into the top or bottom of the frame.

 

It would be better to work in post with a 1.78 : 1 (16x9) hard matte instead of 1.85.

 

Are you talking about something shot in 4x3 video originally? Because you aren't going to want to transfer a 4x3 telecine in standard definition video of film material back to 35mm.

[J Costantini]

yes, I'm talking about a video material shot 4x3 and still waiting to be transfered one day! not about a telecined material...

 

I agree, the best option must be to transfer it with 16x9 hard mattes instead of 1.85 to make sure they won't be visible on the screen... if I used 1.85 hard mattes they could end up showing in case they put the mask a little out of place. is that correct?

 

Now, what do you think the quality will be like? in terms of sharpness, grain, noise? I shot everything with the dvx100 using gamma cinelike, detail -4, master ped around -5, detail THIN, matrix normal. I know it's hard to answer these questions, but what should someone expect when transfering this kind of dv material to 35?

any advice for post? what is a good stock to have it transfered to? most of the movie will be outdoors, in the streets, probably tropical sun (this part is not shot yet...)...

want to have the best transfer at the end... in terms of camera setup and exposure i think i'm safe, but what else can I do?

 

Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

You don't really have to matte the image at all, assuming to composed consistently, headroom-wise, for cropping. The 4x3 image would just get transferred to 1.37 Academy and the projector mask would crop it top & bottom to 1.85.

 

Yes, it's very likely a 1.85 hard matted image would have the black borders creep into view even with 1.85 projection, hence why you shouldn't matte it more than to 16x9 (1.78).

 

It's generally a good idea to test a film-out to 35mm before production to know how it will look, in case you want to adjust your shooting style or menu set-ups. At this point, if you've already shot it, does it really matter how it will look in 35mm, in the sense can you do anything about it if it doesn't look as good as you hoped? All you can really do is create the best-looking video image you can at this point, because any mistakes and quality problems will only get magnified in a blow-up to 35mm for projection.

 

A laser recorder transfer will generally use color intermediate stock and a CRT transfer will use a slow-speed color negative stock (like 5201 or Fuji F-64D). The look is really built more into your video master at that point, although there are differences between the look of a laser recorder transfer and a CRT transfer.

[Chris Burke]

yes, I'm talking about a video material shot 4x3 and still waiting to be transfered one day! not about a telecined material...

 

I agree, the best option must be to transfer it with 16x9 hard mattes instead of 1.85 to make sure they won't be visible on the screen... if I used 1.85 hard mattes they could end up showing in case they put the mask a little out of place. is that correct?

 

Now, what do you think the quality will be like? in terms of sharpness, grain, noise? I shot everything with the dvx100 using gamma cinelike, detail -4, master ped around -5, detail THIN, matrix normal. I know it's hard to answer these questions, but what should someone expect when transfering this kind of dv material to 35?

any advice for post? what is a good stock to have it transfered to? most of the movie will be outdoors, in the streets, probably tropical sun (this part is not shot yet...)...

want to have the best transfer at the end... in terms of camera setup and exposure i think i'm safe, but what else can I do?

 

Thanks

 

 

You will be loosing resolution from the overall image because, you are essentially taking an "almost square" and chopping off the top and bottom and then enlarging what is left, to fit the 35mm neg. So the image will suffer. Why didn't you shoot with the 16:9 adapter? In any case, the image will probably be softer than if you had shot with the adapter, but not bad. If you poke around this website and perhaps DVXuser.com, you will find literally reems of discussion about this very topic. In short, this camera does pretty well for what it is, many like the results. Keep in mind what I said before and that if your shots were lit poorly, you may not like it. Some labs will do a free or really cheap 1 minute test of your material, which I highly recommend before your final film out. Sorry to ramble on a bit, but I would also recommend that you do a proffesional level color grade of your final cut, one that cateers to the labs specifications for the print. It never really got that big of a theatrical releasem, but the film November with Cortney Cox, was shot with a DVX100 and blown up to 35. Not sure if there is any other film out there now that you could go and check out at the local theatre. Anybody else have an idea?....

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, "November" shot 4x3 -- they didn't use an adaptor.

 

Technically you aren't blowing up a 4x3 image more to fill 1.85 (since this is a digital conversion, not an optical enlargement), but you are devoting fewer pixels to the 1.85 image than if you had shot with an anamorphic adaptor. However since those adaptors have optical issues, sometimes you gain in pixel resolution but lose in optical resolution, so the final widescreen image looks "smoother" (more pixels than cropped 4x3) but not necessarily much sharper or more detailed.

[J Costantini]

thanks everybody who posted.

at this time, IF we go for a transfer, I will probably transfer with the 1.78 hard mattes and expect people to crop it correctly upon projection. The reason I'd like to have these mattes there is because we sometimes let the boom mic in a little bit or a fresnel hanging, inside the 1.78 margin (expecting to cover it in post)... in fact, we will, but you never know where your film will be projected and if they will throw the right mask or not... in this case i'd rather transfer with the mattes and make sure these things will be covered from the begining.

 

i will try to make tests asap.

Edited February 23, 2006 by nillo

[Jon Kukla]

The aperture mask in the projector can be a standard manufactured 1.85 mask, although it's worth noting that often projectionists will hand-file their own against a loop of test film marked for various ratios, in order to better accommodate whatever factors each screen and auditorium has.

 

Hard matte or not, the most important thing will be to make certain that the film reels are clearly marked for 1.85 projection. You don't really have control over the rest - a bad projection is not your fault. I wouldn't worry about the bars creeping in, though. If your 1.85 is misaligned from the center of the frame, all the projectionist will do is adjust the rack control until it lines up properly with the aperture mask.

[David Cox]

One other thing...

 

Video transferred to film must be frame rate, not field rate. If your video material was shot at frame rate (progressive) in camera, thats the best route. If not, you will need to deinterlace prior to the transfer. This is because for non frame rate material (interlaced) each field shows a different sample in time. When these two fields are combined into a single film frame, you will see artifacts (jaggies) because every other line of the frame (from each of the two fields) was taken at a different time. The more movement in the shot, the worse this will be.

 

David Cox

Baraka Post Production