Marrying Super-16 & 35mm footage for 35 release

[Alejandro Wilkins]

A little while ago I posted about shooting a film using both 35mm and Super 16 formats. The purpose was that 1, I wanted to create a visual seperation between two points in the story and 2, the 35 stock was donated to the production. Well, it has since been shot and I am now trying to decide on the best way to marry the two formats. Unfortunately I overlooked some of the optical steps needed for this process during pre-production and am now trying to figure out if going to a DI is cheaper. I am looking into transfer to D-5, I think a 2k will be too expensive. Anyone have any suggestions or opinions?

 

thanks!

[David Mullen ASC]

A little late to say this, but one should ALWAYS work backwards from the end product to decide how to shoot something.

 

Obviously your choices are:

 

(1) Blow-up all of the 16mm footage to a 35mm internegative and intercut this with the 35mm original negative, then make a print. You could do this blow-up optically or digitally. It does mean that your 35mm footage will be pristine and first-generation while the 16mm footage will be removed a generation or so (although doing a 2K digital intermediate for the 16mm footage by scanning the negative and then recording out a 35mm internegative means that there is not much generational loss.)

 

(2) Convert all of your footage into the digital realm and then record all of it to a 35mm internegative. This can get quite expensive but it's probably less complicated in some ways that blowing up the 16mm footage separately and cutting it into the 35mm negative. This main issue is what digital quality level do you want to work at and can afford, and if you can afford the recording back to 35mm. Can you?

 

I mean, assuming for no good reason that 50% of your feature is in 16mm, you could probably optically blow that footage up to a 35mm internegative for about $20,000 (a full feature can cost around $30,000 to blow-up in an optical printer from 16mm to 35mm using an IP/IN step.)

 

Doing a digital intermediate for the entire movie may cost close to $100,000. Maybe a little less if you cheat -- use HD, use a cheaper CRT recorder, etc. But transferring and then color-correcting an entire feature in HD may cost you $30,000 or more, and transferring that HD master to film may cost you $40,000 to $70,000.

[Alejandro Wilkins]

doing a 2K digital intermediate for the 16mm footage by scanning the negative and then recording out a 35mm internegative means that there is not much generational loss.

The film is a 20 min short and about 4 mins are 35mm. Sorry for not stating that before.

After reading the information it seems like having the 16 neg scanned and then output to 35 would lower costs and keep the 35 from any degrading. I think the reason I had it in my head to scan both 35 and 16 portions had more to do with being able to have an HD master for the creation of DVD's.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I hate to go over old ground here, but how exactly is it possible for people to get to the stage of shooting 35mm without actually having bothered to plan what you're going to do with it? Sorry, do you actually have even the tiniest experience of filmmaking, at all? I don't, at that level, and even I'd have thought "Hmm, 16mm and 35mm, that's going to be either optical or DI." I mean, how do you even get funded to do this without showing that you've thought it through? Jeez.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, if you only have 16 minutes of 16mm footage, you might as well spend the money for a 2K D.I. -- but then, what's another 4 minutes of 35mm footage at that point?

 

I mean, you COULD do all of the D.I. work at HD resolution -- but you'd "blunt" the differences between the 16mm and 35mm ("City of God" did this.) But if an HD transfer is all you can afford (versus 2K) than that's what you can afford. But first talk to the various facilities. It may not cost that much more to transfer on a Spirit to 2K data instead of HD.

 

Anyway, the various methods I listed still apply - it's just all cheaper with a shorter project. I'm justed tempted to say that with a short film, you might as well do all the work digitally and spit out a 35mm negative rather than blow-up the 16mm separately and then get a negative cutter and combine it with the 35mm neg, answer print, etc.

[Mitch Gross]

I think David's right, but I'd tak to some labs and post facilities and bid out the project. With something of this size they may be able to squeeze you in between other jobs and package some deals. It's always worth asking.

[Alejandro Wilkins]

...how exactly is it possible for people to get to the stage of shooting 35mm without actually having bothered to plan what you're going to do with it? Sorry, do you actually have even the tiniest experience of filmmaking, at all? I don't, at that level, and even I'd have thought "Hmm, 16mm and 35mm, that's going to be either optical or DI." I mean, how do you even get funded to do this without showing that you've thought it through? Jeez...

Well Phil,

 

I do not consider myself a master of cinematography and if there is some level of expertise required in order to be able to post in this forum I do not know about it. I am a student, and therefore, my knowledge of the subject is ever expanding with a great thanks to the many cinematographers who post in these forums. I did not feel that it would be necessary for me to write in detail the extent of my pre-production, however, I can assure you that I took a lot of precaution before shooting, as this is my first, yes my first time shooting in the 35mm format. And to top that, the first experience with having to mate both 16 and 35 formats. Now, would I even know what the difference of 35mm and S-16mm film is if I did not have the "tiniest experience of filmmaking at all?" It?s too bad that my inquiry was not up to par with your standards for this site, but I?m sure that there are many other topics posted that may peak your interests.

 

Anyway, I needed to make sure that I covered all the bases before locking myself into a post process. I did do this before production, but the option of going to a DI became more prevalent to me after shooting. I know that you can achieve a print either optically or by DI, however, it is "obvious" from the other postings that through these two channels there are various ways to get to a print. I had planned to do the film optically, however, I overlooked the fact that the Super-16 footage would have to go through two generations. What is the problem? None, it was planned that way, and seeing that I was going for a visual separation of the two, having the 16 being really degraded would be something I was willing to deal with. Later, I began to find out more information about DI?s. At the time of production I thought it was way out my budget range. It wasn?t until CineGear that it seemed, to me, possible. And I am now gathering all the info I can to make sure I know every option, hence, my question above.

 

Phil, you can rest assured that I was not funded for this project. I would not be in this situation had I been dealing with other people's money. If that were the case I would do my best to stick with what I know.

 

I just feel that your posting was incredibly unproductive, and though you had every right to post it, why even bother? To make me look inferior? or stupid? Well, this posting is very similar to the many situations I have had along my pre-production way. There are many people who will be extremely willing to help make sure there is an understanding of the many processes and protocols and welcome the many questions of a young cinematographer, and then there are those few that are immediately offended by something as small as asking a question. I guess you have to be prepared to take the bad with the good. I know that my inexperience shines brightly by my question, however, I do feel a lot more confident in talking to a post house about my project now and in making sure that I do not overlook anything else.

 

So, thank you Mr. Mullen and Mr. Gross, and I hope I have not bothered too many members with my question.