Shoot 35, Edit HD, Back to 35?

[enoughsaid]

I'm shooting a 15 minute short film in the fall. I've decided to shoot on 35mm Vision2 and I will need a handful of 35mm answer prints. However, I was looking into a telcine of the negative straight to hard drive and then edit on FCPHD; and film record out.

 

Questions:

 

Would it be cheaper to offline in SD and then conform the negative the traditional way?

 

How stark would the quality loss be shooting 35mm to editing HD and Printing back to 35mm? (Assuming 10 bit)

 

Any suggetions, snyde remarks, or pleas for me for not to go this route will be appreciated and noted.

 

Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

I think it's a bit of a shame to spend the money on 35mm but not end up with 35mm quality at the end of the process in the film print. If you were shooting in Super-16, one could easier make a case for HD as an intermediate step, but for 35mm, it seems like a waste of potential resolution.

[Jason Rodriguez]

David,

 

Isn't this process repeated time and time again though with DI? When you're saying HD, are we talking about HDCAM, or any 1920x1080 format?

 

For instance, I would think that 4:4:4 RGB HDCAM SR would look pretty good as an intermediary.

[enoughsaid]

As I remove my foot from my mouth, allow me to add to my original post. My concern was preserving the color space and being able to edit with the software and tools with which I am familiar (as well as cost). I didn't consider resolution. However, after doing further research I realize that I am still wet behind the ears when it comes to 35mm projection as the end result.

 

I've always gone back to video. I live in Chicago, it's all commercial and industrial. I typically shoot on video, save for still photography and the occasional super 16 piece.

 

I just discovered the K-Factor, meaning 2k, 4k, and 8k. Could someone please explain where these fit into the workflow and any tips?

 

I'm thinking maybe I should just stick to analogue conforming; but I want to do some subtle motion tracking effects. Can analogue conforming do that?

 

Also, I didn't realize that there was a 4:4:4 colorspace HDCAM SR. Is that tape or a codec? Where can I get more infromation?

 

Thank you for help

[John Pytlak RIP]

As David noted, if you are shooting 35mm film, and don't need the image manipulation capabilities of a Digital Intermediate, the best quality will still be to cut the original negative and make your prints directly. Probably the lowest cost option too.

[Patrick Neary]

to further add to John's idea- I recently shot a 35 short for a friend where an HD (HDcam, as it turns out) intermediate was one of the post options. Instead, the director had the neg telecined one-light, very cheaply, with key code numbers, cut on FCP, and is now having the negative cut; conformed to the numbers from his FCP edit. And we get a nice, sparkling 35mm print from our negative, all at less cost than even an HDcam intermediate route! (sorry for the run-on sentence!)

[Adam Frisch FSF]

David, how would this be any worse an option as the straight shoot-on-HDCAM

and print to film that we see every day now? If anything, it would look better

than that since it originated on a higher rez format, no?

[enoughsaid]

It sounds like a lot less headache for several reasons to maximize in camera effects and stick to an analogue cut. Then to make an HD Master, scanned at 8k and run off to HDCAM SR. Can anyone reccomend a good independent friendly lab in LA?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I might add that the "good enough" mentality has been permeating (sp?) the film industry for

10 years now. I remember reading the article about Broken Arrow almost 10 years ago

and the visual effects guys and DP Peter Levy were lamenting about the fact that they had

to do certain effect shots in "just 2K" as opposed to the standard 4K. Ten years on, EVERYTHING

is done in 2K. That's devolution, not evolution.

 

Hard to come to grips with the fact that the effects on a film like Jurrasic Park looks a lot sharper and snazzier than anything made today. I can recall only one film done in 4K the last years, and that was Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes (at the insistence of DP Rousselot), and it shows. Fortunately, 4K is coming back with a vengeance. What's my point? Well, only that if you liked the way every effect-heavy film has looked the last 10 years at 2K, then a film-to-HD-to-film

solution should be good enough, since HD is ludicrously close to 2K in resolution.

 

I personally agree - HD is good enough. Not perfect, not brilliant, not what you'd expect from

producers spending $50million and upwards, but good enough for everyone else. Tell you what,

If I ever shoot my own low budget 35mm feature, I'd definitely telecine to DVCPRO HD and then

Firewire it into my Final Cut Pro. Do all my editing, effects, titles and sound design on a friggin' laptop! That's brilliant.

[enoughsaid]

My original thought was that it would look better than HD to FILM; which is why I pursued this route. However, if the effects can be re-written for in camera work; and the 35 quality can be preserved why not do it that way? I'm not looking to reinvent the independent effects world, just tell a good story.

 

I'll have to do some number crunching this week and get back to you all.

 

Thanks,

 

Q

[Christian Appelt]

What percentage of your film will have effects? If it's not the whole movie, I would do the effects in the best resolution you can get for your money, have them recorded back on film and cut them into the original negative.

Of course that's no option if your film is done completely in a green studio... :)

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, certainly 35mm to HD would be better than HDCAM origination, especially if you transferred to something other than HDCAM like D5 or HDCAM-SR. It just seems a rather expensive way to end up with an HD image, albiet a good one.

 

And I was assuming from the question that the transfer would not be 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR. Yes, I think a transfer to 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR would not be too much different in quality than a 2K data transfer.

 

I'd only go the 35mm-to-HD-to-35mm route if I was planning a lot of HD effects and mainly digital projection. For an ordinary non-efx movie with normal color-correction effects, I'd make an effort to not use HD as an intermediary unless necessary. Perhaps HDCAM-SR in 4:4:4 mode though, but that's too new for most people to have access to still.

[Sam Wells]

Shoot a couple hundred feet of 35mm as a test, have it timed, best lite AT LEAST but try for scene-to-scene. Project this daily print in a real theater or good screening room.

 

Ask yourself, do I want a look like this ?

 

Now you know what the gold standard is, proceed from there.

 

-Sam