3-perf to 4-perf

[lucas Loureiro]

Hello everyone

 

I am trying to find out if there still is 3-perf to 4-perf

Optical transfers being done any were.

All I hear is DI, which I know and understand, but I would

love to know if there is an optical option out somewhere.

 

Lucas Loureiro

cinecamrental.com

[Stephen Williams]

Hello everyone

 

I am trying to find out if there still is 3-perf to 4-perf

Optical transfers being done any were.

All I hear is DI, which I know and understand, but I would

love to know if there is an optical option out somewhere.

 

Lucas Loureiro

cinecamrental.com

 

Hi,

 

I don't think you will save any money by shooting 3 perf, and with a loss of quality from the optical stage, I don't see any point!

 

Stephen

[lucas Loureiro]

Hi,

 

I don't think you will save any money by shooting 3 perf, and with a loss of quality from the optical stage, I don't see any point!

 

Stephen

 

 

Hello Stephen

 

Thank you for your reply; I am just trying to find out if anyone does this

type of work. I just want to be as well informed as possible.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, the optical printer loss from going from a 3-perf IP to a 4-perf IN is no different than with 4-perf Super-35, since both the 35mm 1.85 and 2.35 projection formats use less than 3-perf's worth of negative information anyway.

 

I heard that the German movie "Downfall" was shot in 3-perf and optically printed to 4-perf for release, so ask whatever lab did that work for them. Technicolor Labs can do 3-perf to 4-perf work too -- they do it for Storaro and his Univisium format afterall.

 

Recently, "Munich" was blown-up from Super-35 to anamorphic using an optical printer, not a D.I., although that was 4-perf. "Capote" was also an optical printer blow-up.

[lucas Loureiro]

Well, the optical printer loss from going from a 3-perf IP to a 4-perf IN is no different than with 4-perf Super-35, since both the 35mm 1.85 and 2.35 projection formats use less than 3-perf's worth of negative information anyway.

 

I heard that the German movie "Downfall" was shot in 3-perf and optically printed to 4-perf for release, so ask whatever lab did that work for them. Technicolor Labs can do 3-perf to 4-perf work too -- they do it for Storaro and his Univisium format afterall.

 

Recently, "Munich" was blown-up from Super-35 to anamorphic using an optical printer, not a D.I., although that was 4-perf. "Capote" was also an optical printer blow-up.

 

 

Thank you so much David

I knew that some one had to be doing this type of work.

Fotokem told me to day that no one would do an optical 3 to 4.

I will try to find out about Downfall and some prices, if you are

interested I could post what I find out, just for the curiosity.

 

Lucas Loureiro

[Michael Most]

Thank you so much David

I knew that some one had to be doing this type of work.

 

Technicolor Rome is the obvious choice, but likely not the only one. CFI in Los Angeles used to be set up to do this, but I don't know if they still are now that they're part of Technicolor and no longer in their original building.

 

Frankly, most 3 perf productions these days are either for television (and thus finished on either HD or SD video only), or for a theatrical release with finishing via a digital intermediate. I don't know anyone who is finishing via a 3 perf to 4 perf optical conversion - not even Storaro.

[Max Jacoby]

Arri Lab in Munich did the 3 perf to 4 perf on 'Der Untergang' (Downfall).

[Stephen Williams]

Well, the optical printer loss from going from a 3-perf IP to a 4-perf IN is no different than with 4-perf Super-35, since both the 35mm 1.85 and 2.35 projection formats use less than 3-perf's worth of negative information anyway.

 

Hi David,

 

Exactly, but there is nothing to be gained by the optical process, unlike a DI!

 

Stephen

[Michael Most]

Hi David,

 

Exactly, but there is nothing to be gained by the optical process, unlike a DI!

 

One could also say that quite a bit of information is lost in a DI. One could also point out that a "typical" DI is far more costly than a "typical" optical format conversion.

[John Holland]

Sorry chaps still think optical blow ups look better than DI , thye still keep the film organic look and not horrible smooth video look , yuk , John Holland , London.

[Dirk DeJonghe]

As a lab we do about 1 or 2 features per year shot on 3 perf and released on 4 perf via optical printer.

One of the films 'Een ander zijn geluk' by Fien Troch, DoP Frank vanden Eeden even received personal congratulations from Vittorio Storaro who was president of the jury at the Thessaloniki festival.

 

Another one finished earlier this year was 'Si le vent souleve le sable' by Marion Haensel, DoP Walther Vanden Ende.

 

The first film mentioned was shot in 2.35 Super 35 3 perf, the second one in 1.85 Super 35 3 perf.

 

In all cases the sharpness and quality was excellent and we really had to work hard to make the digital inserts match the quality of the optical blow up.

 

Both films mentioned were shot on Aaton 35-III 3 perf cameras.

[lucas Loureiro]

Exactly, but there is nothing to be gained by the optical process, unlike a DI!

 

Stephen

 

 

Hello Stephen

 

I understand what you are saying. D.I. has tremendous advantages over optical.

Optical would cost money and lose some quality, but there are some advantages. You can save some money during the first part of production (I am just talking about theoretical projects), you also are gaining with a faster workflow, important if you are on a small crew.

So I understand you saying that it would be better to just shot on 4 Perf, but I am just trying to see the deferent options for a project that started out with very little cash and that for some good fortune get a chance to be distributed theatrically.

 

Lucas Loureiro

Edited December 19, 2006 by lucas Loureiro

[David Mullen ASC]

Sorry chaps still think optical blow ups look better than DI , thye still keep the film organic look and not horrible smooth video look , yuk , John Holland , London.

 

By "organic" most people really mean "grainy"...

 

Yes, but what if there are opticals in the movie? Now you've got a dupe & blow-up of a duped shot! That's one aspect I hate about Super-35 optical printer blow-ups. The other is rephotographed dirt & dust.

 

It's just a question of the look you want. Sharp-but-grainy (and dirty sometimes) versus softer & smoother (but with digital artifacts sometimes.)

 

Personally, unless I was shooting a gritty crime movie, I'd opt for a D.I. to blow-up Super-35 material, especially for something like a romantic comedy.

 

And with 4K scanning, plenty of D.I.'s manage to retain the grain structure of the original photography -- it's not all de-grained.

[John Holland]

Must say two of the best Super 35 Optical Blow ups i have ever seen were " Gladiator" Technicolor London, and "Independance Day" both on huge screen at Pinewood Stutios. Think Deluxe did second one . John Holland. London

[David Mullen ASC]

Must say two of the best Super 35 Optical Blow ups i have ever seen were " Gladiator" Technicolor London, and "Independance Day" both on huge screen at Pinewood Stutios. Think Deluxe did second one . John Holland. London

 

The best that I saw was the 70mm print of "Howard's End" -- mostly shot on 5248 100T and blown-up directly from the S35 o-neg to 70mm print stock. Yes, "Gladiator" looked great too. It helped that most of the movie was shot on 50D and 200T stock.

[John Holland]

A 70mm print of "Howards End" !!! . wonder why they did 70mm print of that .? John holland.

[Stephen Williams]

Exactly, but there is nothing to be gained by the optical process, unlike a DI!

 

Stephen

Hello Stephen

 

I understand what you are saying. D.I. has tremendous advantages over optical.

Optical would cost money and lose some quality, but there are some advantages. You can save some money during the first part of production (I am just talking about theoretical projects), you also are gaining with a faster workflow, important if you are on a small crew.

So I understand you saying that it would be better to just shot on 4 Perf, but I am just trying to see the deferent options for a project that started out with very little cash and that for some good fortune get a chance to be distributed theatrically.

 

Lucas Loureiro

 

Hi,

 

You probably won´t save as much as you think initially, as you will have to use a fairly modern & more costly camera. You won´t find many 3 Perf BL II´s or III´s!

 

Try and get a better deal on the stock and processing as you will have 33% more footage to buy and process! You can get a better deal for your Video rushes for the same reason.

 

Should you wish just a handful of 35mm prints, then neg cutting won´t break the bank!

 

Stephen

[Nathan Milford]

You might want to know that Lucas owns a beautiful Aaton 35-III 3P package (avaliable at reasonable prices).

 

He has a solid business plan built around it and has a growing clientel. I believe he just wants to let his clients know how much that route, however practical or impractical, will cost and the steps involved so he can give them a big picture of what can be done vs. 2K/4K or HDCAM-SR DI or even straight to video.

 

I'm waiting to hear back from Metropolis on thier services.

[Max Jacoby]

And with 4K scanning, plenty of D.I.'s manage to retain the grain structure of the original photography -- it's not all de-grained.

Unfortunately 4K DIs are not as common as they should be and in most films it is painfully obvious too me that a DI was used. Especially Technicolor DI do really bad work, all the films that went through their pipeline look very noise reduced with artificial colors. That includes 'Panic Room','Confessions of a Dangerous Mind', 'X-Men 2', 'Seabiscuit', 'Kill Bill', 'Memoirs of a Gheisha' and the list goes on and on...

[Ignacio Aguilar]

The best that I saw was the 70mm print of "Howard's End" -- mostly shot on 5248 100T and blown-up directly from the S35 o-neg to 70mm print stock. Yes, "Gladiator" looked great too. It helped that most of the movie was shot on 50D and 200T stock.

 

I never got the chance of watching an original negative to 70mm blow-up, so my two cents would probably go to "Titanic". The daylight scenes (5245 50D) looked great and the overexposed 5279 (500T, rated at 320) hold up pretty well. Both "T2" and "True Lies" also were some of the richest S-35 optical blow-ups.

 

Though DIs have improved a lot lately and now retain most of the quality of the original photography, I still miss optical blow-ups everytime I see fake skin tones and softness due to the use of digital noise reduction.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Though DIs have improved a lot lately and now retain most of the quality of the original photography, I still miss optical blow-ups everytime I see fake skin tones and softness due to the use of digital noise reduction.

 

While 'The Prestige' wasn't an optical blow up, it didn't have a DI.

It had a glow to it that I haven't seen on a DI.

[Max Jacoby]

I thought 'The New World' and 'The Prestige' were the too sharpest looking films this year. Anamorphic timed photochemically still rules. The best DI this year was 'Children of Men' I found.