seth christian Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I looking to do quite of few short film, but I know I wont be able to afford to telecine all my film at a Colorlabs, or any transfer house. So I'm gonna do some at home with a flicker-free projector. Is this the way to go? http://cgi.ebay.com/ELMO-16mm-TELECINE-5-B...1QQcmdZViewItem Any other suggestions would be great! thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Achterberg Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I looking to do quite of few short film, but I know I wontbe able to afford to telecine all my film at a Colorlabs, or any transfer house. So I'm gonna do some at home with a flicker-free projector. Is this the way to go? http://cgi.ebay.com/ELMO-16mm-TELECINE-5-B...1QQcmdZViewItem Any other suggestions would be great! thanks I wouldn't say its the way to go. But if you must do it, do it. All the Best, Allen Achterberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Cox Posted October 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 28, 2006 The description on Ebay says... "Professionally re-manufactured to deliver a Broadcast quality film to video transfer that performs as well as the most expensive telecine transfer equipment around " $399 erm - $1m Spirit vs $399 projector shoved into a camcorder. I think the seller might be slightly stretching the point! I'm sure it works though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Oliver Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I looking to do quite of few short film, but I know I wontbe able to afford to telecine all my film at a Colorlabs, or any transfer house. So I'm gonna do some at home with a flicker-free projector. Is this the way to go? http://cgi.ebay.com/ELMO-16mm-TELECINE-5-B...1QQcmdZViewItem Any other suggestions would be great! thanks Hi; Have you looked at www.moviestuff.tv Yes more expensive but widely regarded as the best personal film transfer units around. Olly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted October 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 28, 2006 Any other suggestions would be great! Shoot video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth christian Posted October 28, 2006 Author Share Posted October 28, 2006 I think moviestuff is the way to go, real cheap and still plenty usable in postwork to make it look acceptable. thanks Rachel. shooting video is out of the question for these projects, video sucks! well, I take that back....video is cool for the right contexts, and this isnt one, even the HVX200 STILL looks like video, maybe the new RED will cause my eyes to open a little wider towards the move of video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandar Bracinac Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Find some HDV with mini35 and some 35mm lenses and shoot. You will make your short to look like film. Thing like moviestuff "telecine" will not give your what you looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Oliver Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) Find some HDV with mini35 and some 35mm lenses and shoot. You will make your short to look like film. Thing like moviestuff "telecine" will not give your what you looking for. Hi; How do you know what he's looking for? IF Seth is looking for a true film aesthetic (which is what he seems to be after) then whether he transfers it via low end or high end technology it will still retain it's film look. In regards to Low end telecine I've seen some killer films transfered via customized projector/scanner method and some seriously terrible ones transfered via Spirit. Seth if you could get use of a really decent video camera with 700+ lines of resolve and align it perfectly and are really on it with your grading you will achieve a very decent frame by frame scan of your film with the workprinter, maybe not close to the top end but I doubt it would be the making or breaking of your film. Good luck. Olly Edited October 28, 2006 by Rachel Oliver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted October 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 28, 2006 some seriously terrible ones transfered via Spirit. Hi, Have you any examples you could share. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Cox Posted October 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 28, 2006 IF Seth is looking for a true film aesthetic (which is what he seems to be after) then whether he transfers it via low end or high end technology it will still retain it's film look. I'm afraid I have to disagree. The "Film look" is principally a function of exposure latitude and frame rate, with the odd artefact like grain and weave thrown in for good measure. But it?s the latitude that?s hard to fake with a video shoot. The thing is though, if you use the transfer method originally suggested, the film itself is being shot with a domestic video camera so the available latitude in the final digital copy will only be as much as that domestic video camera can deliver. In other words, no more than if it shot the scene originally. The scanners used in Spirits, North Lights etc are a great deal more advanced than the sort of thing you find in a video camera - even the high end ones. I would suggest that if you really want to make the most of a film shoot, then that entails proper telecine and grading. If you want to use a domestic or semi pro video camera at any point in the chain, then the film look will be very compromised, probably to the point that it would have been more efficient and controllable to shoot on that video camera in the first place and grade later to get the colour characteristics of your chosen film stock within the limitations of your video camera. Once possible merit to this workflow though is the experience of shooting film. But I would still suggest that understanding the ability of telecine and grading is integral to the film shoot experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 The "Film look" is principally a function of exposure latitude and frame rate, with the odd artefact like grain and weave thrown in for good measure. Don't forget the colors. Also it's got an altogether different look for reasons I don't understand, things I hear referred to as "toe" and "heel" in regard to the blacks, etc. Anyway I've seen footage transfered this way and it is undeniably film! The footage will definitely retain its film-look, sure you lose some lattitude, but that alone doesn't make it look like video. A guy who posted here who shoots super-8 and made "rage of silence" and "stuntman" does his transfers this way (or at least did his transfers this way) and I think it makes sense, especially if you're shooting a lot of footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Cox Posted October 29, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 29, 2006 Don't forget the colors. Also it's got an altogether different look for reasons I don't understand, things I hear referred to as "toe" and "heel" in regard to the blacks, etc. Yes it does - depending on film stock and how its graded. My point is that you are still limited to what the video camera can shoot, irrelevant as to whether it is shooting the original scene or a projected film. Telecine is all about crafting what is on the film into the colour space that video allows. The most limiting factor in the video process is the image sensor in a video camera, so shooting film but transferring to video in this manner will insert so many limits into the process that it will undo almost all of the benefits of capturing with film. Of course thats assuming that the goal is top-quality transfers that have the flexibility to extend the control of the DP into post production. If the look you're after is an amateur family home film from the 70's, then this is probably a good, if somewhat uncontrollable way to get it. But to suggest (as has been in other posts) that the results will be close to a professional telecine transfer with a skilled colourist is just likely to lead to expensive disappointment, and that?s what I hope these posts will avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 (edited) "The "Film look" is principally a function of exposure latitude and frame rate, with the odd artefact like grain and weave thrown in for good measure." With regards to frame rate, the Workprinters and Snipers transfer at single frame. So with computer software applying speed changes, the 'look' of the original frame rate of the footage (16, 18 or 24 fps) can be more or less maintained. Sure, some frames will be doubled or tripled but this is what happens with a Rank transfer also. Additionally, transferring at single frame means no flicker and no blending of frames which can plague many low end transfers. However, I do admit that exposure latitude will be a problem. As for artefacts like grain, sure there will still be plenty of that in the transfer! "My point is that you are still limited to what the video camera can shoot, irrelevant as to whether it is shooting the original scene or a projected film." With a Workprinter or Sniper, you're not shooting a projected film! Edited October 29, 2006 by Patrick Cooper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth christian Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 Ok, ya'll......I think D.Sweetman hit it right on the head! We can babble about latitude and transfer quality all friggin day....but my point...and what seems to be D.Sweetman's point.....is this: regardless of what kind of video camera you use for this type of transfer method....FILM STILL SEEMS TO LOOK LIKE FILM! Whether its 700+ or 200 lines quality, ... THE REAL DEAL IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME than some great image from any video response. I hate the MOVEMENT that video delivers. It works for only certain contexts, but not for movies, and not for most music videos, unless they call for that sort of look. If a guy were to surf for short films, music videos, whatever... any consumer out there (not knowing anything about what we're talking about) would say that a bad transferred 16mm piece would look more professional and more entertaining than anything that's video. They cant explain WHY, because they dont have a clue....its because FILM is magical, its pleasing to the eye, its retains a character like the movies, and video to most people just looks like the news or something. Mr.Bracinac, I've seen a couple pieces displayed online using an HDV with a 35mm addon, and I'm sorry man, but it doesnt do it for me, ....the colors are definitely impressive, the image is tight...but the movement is still UNDENIABLY video. Lights still seem a bit contrasty too, but maybe it was just the DOP on the ones that I saw. If you have any for display for me, by all means, I'm open to reexamination! :o) Thanks again for all your long-winded 2cents on the topic, its always an education. I may not be up on my particulars in transfer methods, but I do know what I see and what I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 One of the best 16mm transfers I've seen lately was clean workprint projected and shot off textureless paper in HDCam with an HDW-750... of course that's step up or two from a miniDV camera... "Poor person's Vialta" more like..... -Sam Wells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth christian Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 One of the best 16mm transfers I've seen lately was clean workprint projected and shot off textureless paper in HDCam with an HDW-750... of course that's step up or two from a miniDV camera... "Poor person's Vialta" more like..... -Sam Wells So where's the link??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Cox Posted October 29, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 29, 2006 Thanks again for all your long-winded 2cents on the topic, Seth, People here are just trying to help you get the most out of your shooting - there is no need to be rude or use disrespectful terms to fellow posters. Perhaps you should get that $399 gadget from Ebay and do some transfers. Then when anyone who watches your films think they look like 70's home movies, you can come back here and find out why. Or maybe you will have found a $399 gadget that matches multi million dollar transfer systems (like the ebay description claims) and the rest of the industry is wrong and you are right. I don't think so though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth christian Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 mr.cox, no rude remarks intended. my apologies! I totally understand your point, I just felt like you no one was getting the point of really what I was looking for; which was the "film" look being more important for this particular contexts over superior resolution. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 So where's the link??? I'll post it when I have one. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted October 31, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted October 31, 2006 any consumer out there (not knowing anything aboutwhat we're talking about) would say that a bad transferred 16mm piece would look more professional and more entertaining than anything that's video. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you think shooting on film somehow negates the effects of third-rate post production, then perhaps you've had experience with neither. There's a world of difference between amateurish film production and professional film production. If you really want to experience the look of film in all its glory, then you need to give it a meticulous level of care from the shooting stage all the way through post production. If you're not prepared to work in film without compromise, then you would be better off shooting video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth christian Posted November 2, 2006 Author Share Posted November 2, 2006 Nothing could be further from the truth. If you think shooting on film somehow negates the effects of third-rate post production, then perhaps you've had experience with neither. There's a world of difference between amateurish film production and professional film production. If you really want to experience the look of film in all its glory, then you need to give it a meticulous level of care from the shooting stage all the way through post production. If you're not prepared to work in film without compromise, then you would be better off shooting video. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with what you're saying! My comment was with the assumption that the production of the edit and shoot was good. Yes, you can shoot the best film footage in the universe, but if one is not talented to produce and cut it in a way that makes the footage come alive and really portray a professional piece, than it'll still turn out as crap. I've done a recent XL1 piece that is EXCEPTIONALLY better than my first couple film productions because of what you said, but I guess I didn't phrase everything that I meant in the right context. Plus, I'm so biased to film over video, so......you know! :o) cheers 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