Frank DiBugnara Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 I just got to see some footage from the last spot I shot. It was my first experience with the Kodak '01 stock in 16mm. I've heard others say that in a 35mm print there is not as dramatic a difference between '01 and '05--but I think the '01 takes 16mm to a new level. A totally grainless sky, for example, was a little tricky in 16mm prior to this stock (except for maybe '45). Now we have the tight grain of '45 but much more dynamic range. The interior stuff is '05--which looks great and intercuts well. But expecially in NTSC, you appreciate what '01 brings to the table. Raw Footage of 7201 and 7205 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljoski johnsen Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Wow, that really looks amazing. Which lenses did you use? Did you use any filters? Where did you process and transferred at? Great stuff, man. Ljoski Austin TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank DiBugnara Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 Thanks. I appreciate it. The specs are: SR3 Advanced Zeiss Prime Set (9.5mm to 85mm) Century 6mm Zeiss 12 to 120mm Process at Fotokem Transfer to DigiBeta on a Spirit at Encore Hollywood Filters were just NDs and Polarizer--Some smoke softened the interiors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Darling Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 I was curious if you used power windows or such in your transfer? Or did you conform the filters around the subjects? I ask because it looked as though the filteration was around the person pretty tightly on the beauty shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank DiBugnara Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 The bay I was in had a max of three simultaneous power windows at any given time. We tried to keep them sublte, but at times it is fun to really try to get the subject to "pop"--It feels so much more acceptable to have a more noticable window in a spot than in a narrative piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Darling Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 The bay I was in had a max of three simultaneous power windows at any given time. We tried to keep them sublte, but at times it is fun to really try to get the subject to "pop"--It feels so much more acceptable to have a more noticable window in a spot than in a narrative piece. I agree. I even think it would work in a narrative. It has a certain aesthetic quality. I haven't worked with power windows before and I thought perhaps you had done so in your transfer. It's a great effect. Great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member steve hyde Posted October 16, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 16, 2006 ..Beautiful photography Frank and seamless matching between stocks. Thanks for posting this. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_bennett Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 WOW! Must've cost a lot of money but it's worth it great stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Rudmann Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Hey Frank, that footage looks spectacular! I shot about 800' of 7201 (overexposed 1/2 stop) for a student project recently and it really didn't come out anywhere close to what you got, lots of noise in the sky. I assume it was the telecine. I sent the film to be processed at Cinelab and I got it transfered (supervised to 720x480) at Finish lab in Boston. I had heard good things about Finish, but when comparing my footage to yours, i am very disappointed in hindsight. Was your transfer a 2k? Does anyone have any ideas as to what I should do differently next time? Just to clarify, all of my footage was shot and exposed properly - I'll try to post some full rez screen grabs later so you can see the noise I'm referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member adam berk Posted January 24, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 24, 2007 Hey Frank, that footage looks spectacular! I shot about 800' of 7201 (overexposed 1/2 stop) for a student project recently and it really didn't come out anywhere close to what you got, lots of noise in the sky. I assume it was the telecine. I sent the film to be processed at Cinelab and I got it transfered (supervised to 720x480) at Finish lab in Boston. I had heard good things about Finish, but when comparing my footage to yours, i am very disappointed in hindsight. Was your transfer a 2k? Does anyone have any ideas as to what I should do differently next time? Just to clarify, all of my footage was shot and exposed properly - I'll try to post some full rez screen grabs later so you can see the noise I'm referring to. Which machine did you transfer on? I've had SD Spirit/Shadow transfers of underexposed vision2 500t and 200t come back less grainy (possibly noisy) than properly exposed 7201 transferred on a rank. I'm also totally convinced that the quality of your lenses makes a difference in perceived grain as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Rudmann Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Which machine did you transfer on? I've had SD Spirit/Shadow transfers of underexposed vision2 500t and 200t come back less grainy (possibly noisy) than properly exposed 7201 transferred on a rank. I'm also totally convinced that the quality of your lenses makes a difference in perceived grain as well. It was an SD transfer on a DaVinci machine, not exactly sure what model...don't know too much about that stuff. Interestingly, on the same project, the 7217 200t I shot (1/2 stop overexposed) came out excellent in the transfer. When I get off work, I'll post some grabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member adam berk Posted January 24, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 24, 2007 It was an SD transfer on a DaVinci machine, not exactly sure what model...don't know too much about that stuff. Interestingly, on the same project, the 7217 200t I shot (1/2 stop overexposed) came out excellent in the transfer. When I get off work, I'll post some grabs. The DaVinci was probably the colour corrector, not the telecine. Do post some grabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank DiBugnara Posted January 24, 2007 Author Share Posted January 24, 2007 Elliot, My stuff was a standard def transfer to DigiBeta off a Spirit. The fact that your 7217 (I assume telecine on the same machine) looks better makes me think that perhaps you had bad stock or made an accidental exposure error. Were there any other variables like different lenses? Post some screen grabs when you can..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member steve hyde Posted January 24, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 24, 2007 Hi Frank, Do you recall which shots were made with the Zeiss 12 -120? Again, thanks for posting this example. This is very inspiring work. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank DiBugnara Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 Steve, As far as I can remember, the zoom lens shots were: (considering that a new shot is every picture change) numbers 3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member steve hyde Posted January 25, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 25, 2007 Thanks Frank. This is a very helpful post. Nice of you to take the time to share this work. Interesting that 11 out of the 18 shots were made on the Zeiss 12-120. You must have shot it open for the interiors (T2.5?) and I assume you used NDs to acheive shallow DOF on the exterior bridge. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank DiBugnara Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 I'm happy you find it useful. Yes, zooms always make shooting faster, especially on a tight schedule. I'd always pick a prime if I can, but at the same time I don't feel that this particular zoom produces a significantly degraded image on the small screen. I'm told that the Optex modification for super 16 on this lens introduces some degradation, but I'm not sure if that's true or how significant that is. On exteriors, I think I tried to keep that lens at a 4 or so for best resolution (and to help out the AC a little on focus for walking shots). For interiors I had decent-size instruments and I did switch to 7205 so stop was not an issue. I think I was also around a 2.8/4 split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Hey Frank, that footage looks spectacular! I shot about 800' of 7201 (overexposed 1/2 stop) for a student project recently and it really didn't come out anywhere close to what you got, lots of noise in the sky. I assume it was the telecine. I sent the film to be processed at Cinelab and I got it transfered (supervised to 720x480) at Finish lab in Boston. I had heard good things about Finish, but when comparing my footage to yours, i am very disappointed in hindsight. Was your transfer a 2k? Does anyone have any ideas as to what I should do differently next time? Just to clarify, all of my footage was shot and exposed properly - I'll try to post some full rez screen grabs later so you can see the noise I'm referring to. Finish uses a Ursa Diamond. I would take it back to them if you are not pleased. If they can not make it happen consider going over to National. They have a Shadow which is much better. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Rudmann Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Here are some grabs comparing my shots of 7201 and 7217. I'm pretty sure that there was no exposure error in the 7201 shots, I over exposed it by 1/2 stop. 7201 grabs: http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7201a.jpg http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7201b.jpg http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7201c.jpg 7217 200T grabs - I think these look a lot better in terms of having less noise (or grain?) in the image. http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7217a.jpg http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7217b.jpg let me know what you guys think. Is a spirit transfer machine a good way to go next time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank DiBugnara Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well first of all, you shot standard 16 which is naturally going to appear more grainy than super. Blacks and highlights look good so the exposure seems healthy (although the clouds are a bit hot in the second picture.) I'd guess that the grainy results are a combination of a lower-resolution lens and old telecine. Also, keep in mind that your two examples of 7217 are much tighter shots which will naturally give the appearance of a sharper image even if all the other variables are the same. Yes, I think Spirit is a great way to go--especially for 16mm. It's known as one of the sharpest machines. You can always make something less sharp after the fact with good results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member steve hyde Posted January 25, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 25, 2007 Here is a still of 7201 shot with a B&H FilmoDR, Angeniuex 10mm and transfered on a Shadow. My guess is the grain on your examples is a probably from the telecine. I have had the same look from Cinelab transfers. I have found transfers from them to be low on luminance, dull colors and very grainy. Fine if you want that look, but if you want something glossy like Frank's spot, you will definitely want to step up to higher dollar telecine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now