Telecine v.s Scanner

IngmarRosengaard · July 27, 2004

I have recently read that to use a scanner, as opposed to a Telecine is quite cost effective. Opinions?

Phil Rhodes · July 27, 2004

Hi,

Depends on a lot of things. A slow film scanner is generally a cheaper piece of equipment than a telecine, but the way they're both used is often very individual and context specific, which may make up for or even reverse the situation.

Phil

Nitin Sagar · July 27, 2004

welll this is new..where i come from.. telecine is far cheaper than scanning...can u tell me in what context are u comparing the cost difference b/w telecine Vs. scanning

best regards

nitin sagar

David Mullen ASC · July 27, 2004

Yes, in the film industry, telecines tend to be the cheapest method of scanning because it is faster -- continuous, non-pin registered movement of the film through the machine as opposed to a scanner. But I suppose if you owned your own scanner and time was not a factor, then the scanner would be cheaper than the telecine.

nykvist_fan · July 29, 2004

Cut it by hand, it's a hell of a lot cheaper. You can do it at home, as well.

DanStewart · July 29, 2004

Except then you'll be getting film dailies which are as expensive as the Tk and trust me, halfway through cutting a feature 'at home' you'll wish you hadn't.

September 28, 2012

Except then you'll be getting film dailies which are as expensive as the Tk and trust me, halfway through cutting a feature 'at home' you'll wish you hadn't.

Oh BAM! Hahahaha. BAM! BAM!

Will Montgomery · September 28, 2012

I had trouble with the difference between the two since the "scanner" my colorist would use was a Spirit data-cine anyway. I guess a "telecine" was more of a copy to tape thing while and a scanner would do frame to frame capture to computer at like 15 fps. However the last few years I have always captured directly from the Spirit to a Mac ProRes HQ file.

Some of the new high-end "scanners" could theoretically provide a better scan than a Spirit telecine to HD but I'm not sure I could tell the difference if the colorist was good.

Dirk DeJonghe · October 1, 2012

Typically scanners are adjusted to D-Min and can capture most of the image information without any grading adjustments. All further grading is done in postproduction from LOG DPX files or similar. No colorist is needed or desired during the scanning. On the other hand a scanner will generally be much slower than a telecine so capturing only the frames used in the final cut is the norm with a lower cost telecine tape transfer done beforehand to edit the film.

Freya Black · October 1, 2012

Typically scanners are adjusted to D-Min and can capture most of the image information without any grading adjustments. All further grading is done in postproduction from LOG DPX files or similar. No colorist is needed or desired during the scanning. On the other hand a scanner will generally be much slower than a telecine so capturing only the frames used in the final cut is the norm with a lower cost telecine tape transfer done beforehand to edit the film.

Funny this should come up! I was recently having a discussion about colour grading with someone where I realised with embaressment that he was talking about scanning and I was talking about telecine. It was a real shock to me as it made me suddenly realise why everything was the way it was. I had a kind of culture shock for about 10 minutes!

Scanners are generally much higher quality even than data cine, but it's also usually much more expensive. In the more distant past you could get scene to scene telecine where the colour correction was included in the transfer. Now the film is scanned and the colour correction is a seperate process. Just the scanning alone will typically be more than the telecine.

This has lead to a change in the quality of telecine where an unattended transfer can mean the colourist doesn't turn up! (joke) I had met a few people who had given up on film as they could no longer get half decent telecine, something maybe like a best light or something, because the transfers were done with the idea that it was just for an offline edit before a proper scan. This is the way professional productions work now although it's not a workflow suited to lower budgets really sadly.

Some people use the telecine to try and get a technical grade and then arrange to correct that after editing. I've seen really mixed results from this to be honest, with some people getting great results and others ending up with a horrendous mess.

This is in the UK of course where things are always mandated and inflexible, elsewhere I'm sure telecine is still more of a straightforward proposition. :)

love

Freya

Will Montgomery · October 1, 2012

Scanners are generally much higher quality even than data cine, but it's also usually much more expensive. In the more distant past you could get scene to scene telecine where the colour correction was included in the transfer. Now the film is scanned and the colour correction is a seperate process. Just the scanning alone will typically be more than the telecine.

I find it hard to believe that a dedicated scanner is much higher quality than what you get out of a Spirit datacine. Especially if you take to the time to make sure the Spirit provides a flat, low-contrast file to maintain as much info as possible. If you are grading off the film on a Spirit then you will certainly lose info vs. a flat scan, but if that's your finished grade than what does it matter?

Dirk DeJonghe · October 2, 2012

If you do a telecine grade from the uncut rushes how will you ever get the scenes shot on different days (sunny/overcast/hazy, etc) right and matching? A Spirit datacine is halfway between a regular telecine and a real scanner, still prism with 3CCD and associated registration errors, no pin registration and associated gate weave. Also only the newer Spirit 2K/4K need to apply.

Doing a graded telecine from rushes and color-correct later will give you less options, cost about the same (depending on shooting ratio) than doing a one-light rush telecine with rescan from EDL with proper Baselight grading from DPX files. We do about one or two quotations per month comparing the two. Doing graded telecine transfer from rushes will rarely give you a fully finished product after editing. To do a proper grading you have to see the film playing in sequence, be able to compare any shot with any other.

Freya Black · October 2, 2012

Doing a graded telecine from rushes and color-correct later will give you less options, cost about the same (depending on shooting ratio) than doing a one-light rush telecine with rescan from EDL with proper Baselight grading from DPX files. We do about one or two quotations per month comparing the two. Doing graded telecine transfer from rushes will rarely give you a fully finished product after editing. To do a proper grading you have to see the film playing in sequence, be able to compare any shot with any other.

Well yes exactly!

That's the way it often ends up tho and I can attest that the results are often nasty as I've seen it and was shocked!

What can you do tho, if you can't easily get a scene to scene and a one light or worse is forced on you then people have to make do sadly.

love

Freya

Freya Black · October 2, 2012

Doing a graded telecine from rushes and color-correct later will give you less options, cost about the same (depending on shooting ratio) than doing a one-light rush telecine with rescan from EDL with proper Baselight grading from DPX files.

Just to clarify, the people who go down that route tend to end up doing their own grading or know a mate who does it, so it is much cheaper! The results however...

Doing graded telecine transfer from rushes will rarely give you a fully finished product after editing. To do a proper grading you have to see the film playing in sequence, be able to compare any shot with any other.

Rarely is not the same as always and there are lots of assumptions there.

It depends on what you are up to. This is again the one size fits all idea.

love

Freya

Robert Houllahan · October 3, 2012

I feel that telecine is really excellent and it allows for real time color decisions on the film and despite claims to the contrary it is the fastest workflow for the time and price.

"Real" scanners have come a long way and can deliver 2k or 4k scans at high speed which are better technically than a HD telecine but as others have said if the scans are colored by an amateur on a macbook with color or resolve and no proper monitoring the ultimate results can be bad.

If you are really going to do things right 2K or 4k scans that are graded on a properly setup machine with proper monitoring offer the advantage of non linear grading and multi shot/stream at the same time on the same screen for matching.

The original Spirit is a 1080p 4:2:2 machine no matter what comes out the back, the disadvantage it has is that only the luminance is sampled at full resolution and the colors are sampled at 1/2 res. A "real" scanner like a Arri or Northlight or The Director, etc. are super sampled, i.e. 2K is actually a 3K scan and without a CFA like a Red or Alexa so the imager is monochrome and each color is sampled at higher than the full intended resolution and at a full 10-bit LOG (12-14bit linear equivalent) which eliminates aliasing and resolves grain structure better.

-Rob-