Film Transfer Houses Should Share Information

[Alessandro Machi]

It dawned on me that if all Cintel Houses are not created equal, the film industy overall suffers as a result. I am suggesting that all Cintel Houses forget they are competing with each other and accept the fact that any substandard film transfer simply hastens the exodus to digital production.

 

I would like to see Cintel Houses quit hoarding their "secrets" and instead focus on a universal quality control standard, otherwise, those "grainy" transfers that didn't have to be so grainy simply weaken the foundation of film being used by newbies.

 

Cintel Houses that discover the unending circuit board combinations and upgrades that create the best quality and don't share it with the lesser Cintel Houses are ruining their own future and they don't realize it. Every needlessly excessively grainy film transfer (when the grain was not desired) just puts film closer towards extinction.

[David Mullen ASC]

The reason why some Cintels are better than others is mostly due to COST (of upgrades & maintenence) and the SKILL of the colorists and engineers working at the facility.

 

So I think there would be a limit to how much improvement there would be from knowledge sharing if the facility doesn't have the money or the skill to implement upgrades.

 

Plus there is no financial incentive at the good rental houses to make their competitors better. It's like asking that Kodak give all their R&D info to Fuji so that they can make film better together to fight digital. Or the Cintel, Millenium TK, Spirit people all to share their secrets to make better telecines.

 

There's always got to be someone at the bottom, offering the cheapest transfers at the lowest quality. It's like you're asking for them to be better but still cheaper. Nice idea but I don't see that happening -- you can't cut that many corners financially and yet show no loss in quality.

 

It doesn't make much financial sense to say to someone who has managed to get the best work out of their Cintels to now go and improve their competitors' Cintels just "for the good of film." Personally, how many people out there blame FILM in general, as an origination format, for a lousy transfer, especially when it is a cheaper transfer?

 

"You know, I shot this movie in 35mm and took it to Joe's Telecine for a deal of $90/hr and it doesn't look that great. I guess there must be something wrong with 35mm. I'm switching to shooting digitally from now on."

 

If someone is that idiotic to blame the film first before investigating the quality of the cheap telecine company he hired, and doesn't catch a clue that older, cheaper telecines might not deliver stellar results, well, how can you design a business model around such idiots?

 

Most professional people (even producers) who get a lousy transfer of a film format they have worked with before will first check out to see if the telecine is at fault and then check to see if their is a problem with the film. They don't just suddenly switch to shooting digitally, thinking there is something fundementally wrong with the film format, just because the cheap transfer place they went to did a lousy job. More likely they will say "this place sucks and I won't be going back there."

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Old Rank's are also notoriously prone to break down and misbehave. There's millions of stories about them simply refusing to work or having some weird artifact on even tuesdays or or odd fridays or something. The guys at the state run television in Stockholm couldn't open the window to let the heat out because then the old Rank would start to misbehave... They're just fiddly, individual machines that can show varying quality.

[Nitin Sagar]

i thought i was facing this issue in INDIA(developing/3rd wrl economy) but it seems the same issues are faced in fully developed economies.....

 

i have shot and co produced a film titled 99.9FM ..i shot on super 16...the quality of film processing in india ...unscientific beyond imagination...specially on super 16(on the flip side there are some great dp's like Mr. Ashok Mehta who has shot at least 10 odd films which are world class..all on anamorphic) ...to counter super 16 and my lack of experience ....probably....i knew i needed perfect "chemistry" to translate... i chose frank Cramels Lab in Singapore FTS..a Kodak Image Care Member... i finally did manage to print a test rush print out of (through DI) 5242.... it looks great ...but i want it to look perfect.. i feel if i take my master negative(5242) to my lab in singapore to process and subsequently print anywhere but INDIA i will have the best that could have been achieved from my shooting negative.

 

now my DI facility is telling me that there recorder "is caliberated" to "a certain lab". should not they be caliberating there recorder to the LAD density provided by the film manufacturer(in this case KODAK :rolleyes: )???????

[John Pytlak RIP]

That's why Kodak provides a full range of tools, training, and services for laboratories and transfer facilities: B)

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/....1.4.11.8&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/tools/

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/imagecare/

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...=0.1.4.28&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/....4.9.4.12&lc=en

[Alessandro Machi]

David Mullen, I think I agreed with every one of your points.

 

I'm most concerned with newbies who will either pick up a super-8 or 16m camera. The examples you gave were primarily focused on someone using 35mm. I just looked at footage I shot on Super-8 10 years ago compared to something I shot recently.

 

I just don't think I'm looking at the same quality, even though I shot Kodachrome 40 outdoors for both projects. I will take the time to do the research to figure out what went wrong, but I would not expect a newbie to do the same thing, especially with the digital forces at work constantly implying that digital is better than film.

 

Whether digital is better or not, if it is more consistent overall than film, film will lose market share at an accelerated rate. Inconsistent Cintel transfer facilities create an exodus away from film.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Whether digital is better or not, if it is more consistent overall than film...

 

Digital production and post production can be pretty inconsistent too. People who assume WYSIWYG on a field monitor may be sorely disappointed with the final product, and choosing the correct camera setup parameters is constantly debated. And there are just as many pitfalls and misinformation in the post production workflow.

 

In general, the cream rises to the top, whether it's film or digital. The best thrive, the mediocre fall by the wayside. That's what competition is all about. In most cases, you get what you pay for.

[Alessandro Machi]

I agree with you John, however for the newbie, digital is more consistent than film if the additional variable of Transfer quality is thrown into the mix. I think what will kill off film fastest is the newbie who assumed as long as they got the proper esposure and framing, they were set, afterall, that is the case with low cost digital.

 

Suddenly the issue of going to Cintel house that isn't up to snuff must be considered? Why would a newbie shooting low budget music videos on mini-dv try film more than once if the quality control issue is a whole new issue?

[John Pytlak RIP]

If you know you did a good job exposing the film, and you feel the transfer is bad, most transfer houses will work with you to correct the situation, or explain why your film is not transferring well. But if you went only for the lowest price and didn't look at samples of their work, you may just be getting what you paid for.

 

The opinion of other filmmakers who have similar production requirements and budgets is often the best guide in choosing a lab or transfer house. And don't discount the advantages of being a regular customer who has established a good business and creative relationship with the facility and its personnel.

[Alessandro Machi]

I feel excessive grain is the bane of most film transfers gone bad (unless grain is what one is after).

 

If the newbie shooting on mini-dv wherein the viewfinder shows them what they have and instant playback helps guarantee what they have, then compares that digital option with purchasing film, properly exposing, framing, focusing and checking the gate for hairs, developing the film, and then transfering the film...all I'm saying is lets take film transfer grain out of the equation when it comes to the use of film.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Suddenly the issue of going to Cintel house that isn't up to snuff must be considered?  Why would a newbie shooting low budget music videos on mini-dv try film more than once if the quality control issue is a whole new issue?

Why do you have to go to the "Cintel Houses?" What about Spirit houses or ITK houses? Or a place that has them all? Rank doesn't have a monopoly on the telecine business. Besides, many different telecine brands are often tricked out and hot-rodded in various ways by their owners. Even a box stock machine should not be causing any excessive grain issues anyway. If it is, it probably (more likely the operator) is out of spec and you should get an explanation a re-run and/or refund and then run away very fast.

 

As far as quality control, that in a since, is what film making, whether on film or digital, is all about. It is the DP's responsibility to maintain a high image quality throughout. That also means getting up in the labs or post houses business and keeping an eye on them.

 

You cannot cut every push-button corner and expect to get professional results.

[Alessandro Machi]

Very insightful to notice I did not mention Spirit or ITK houses in this thread.

 

The Cintel houses that have owned their Ranks for the past decade or longer can offer the lowest prices because they have paid off their ranks. Hence the newbie will be attracted to Cintels over the ITK houses or the Spirit that charge $450.00 an hour and up and require at least a half million dollar investment to upwards of a million.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

You can get a better deal than $450. Never pay book rate for anything in the film biz. You can deposit money at a lab and/or post house and they'll give you a better deal. Of course that is for larger amounts of money but you can get together with other film makers and deposit $2,000 or so and they'll deduct it as you use their services. This gives them a guarantee you're not going to go elsewhere, just make sure they're giving you the best prices.

[Alessandro Machi]

My situation revolved around 17 minutes of Super-8 film. The Spirit facility in Los Angeles area wanted $600 dollars to do the transfer, ($300 for the gate, $300 for the transfer), the place in New York wanted to charge me $450.00 per hour, but with a one hour minimum.

 

I offered to wait until my super-8 job could be piggy backed with other Super-8 jobs to save on set-up time, but that was not presented as an option to me. I was able to get the transfer done, and done within my goal of 1/2 hour, at a local Cintel facility in Los Angeles.

 

Cintel Price $175.00, 2.5 to 3.5 times less expensive.

[David Mullen ASC]

If a company does bad work, you stop going to them. No newbie who wants to shoot film BECAUSE HE HAS SEEN FILM AND KNOWS HOW GOOD IT CAN LOOK will stop shooting film forever because the first transfer he ever gets done looks bad. Unless he is a moron.

 

We've ALL started out using cheap labs, bad recanned film, bad transfer houses, etc. How many of us gave up shooting film because of those experiences??? The reason we didn't is because we know what film is supposed to look like. We all go to movies, we all watch television. We have a frame of reference. Therefore we do not blame the medium of film the moment we get a bad transfer.

 

If you have a reel of Super-8 transferred to video that looks better than the current transfer AND BOTH TRANSFERS USED THE SAME TELECINE MODEL, you take it to the transfer house and ask them why they can't do better. If they won't answer, won't attempt to improve, don't have any logical reasons, you stop going to them.

 

Look, the first time you take your car to a bad mechanic, you don't give up on driving cars because you think that it's impossible to get a car fixed. You just figure you went to a bad mechanic. You get a bad transfer, you're more likely to blame the transfer, not the film. You did, afterall.

 

Do you really think it is possible to eliminate the bottom of the barrel, the worst companies? Don't you think there will ALWAYS be someone at the bottom? The worst lab, the worst post house, the worst rental house, etc.?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> How many of us gave up shooting film because of those experiences...

 

Well, it's preventing me from ever starting. I know if I shoot with my reasonably professional DV camera I will get reasonably professional results; if I shoot the kind of film I could afford, I'll get results that look cheap and nasty.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Funny thing is that the FIRST thing I ever shot in 16mm was a $2000 Karaoke video, using an Arri-S and Plus-X b&w reversal. It came out so well -- and so sharp -- that the footage is still on my reel 17 years later...

[Sam Wells]

Inconsistent Cintel transfer facilities create an exodus away from film.

I'm pleased enough with transfers of my 16mm on C-Reality that I would seriously considering going that way with a 2K or HD transfer

 

Hardly an exodus from film :)

 

(maybe an exodus from optical printers..............)

 

OK, it's not an old Ursa Gold, and I would want to test this on a Spirit as well, etc etc

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

...all I'm saying is lets take film transfer grain out of the equation when it comes to the use of film.

Well the best way to take some grain out of the equation is to shoot 35 no ?

 

But then, it won't likely be newbies doing this.

 

-Sam

[Alessandro Machi]

What it comes down to is it's more difficult to do a Super-8 transfer on a Cintel machine and do it well then it is to do a 16mm or 35mm transfer on that same Cintel machine and do it well. The Same Cintel Machine can produce crap results for Super-8 Kodachrome 40, yet do wonderfully for 16mm and 35mm. Kodachrome 40 can look real good, definitely acceptable for broadcast purposes if it is properly exposed AND properly transferred to video.

 

I think some Super-8 Cintel facilities are intimidated by Cintel. They know Cintel is the only affordable game in town, and they don't want to come off as being more demanding than a 16mm or 35mm Cintel facility.

 

The Super-8 format needs the most help when it comes to massaging the image for the best possible video transfer result yet I think Super-8 gets the least amount of quality control and support from Cintel. Why is that? Probably because the 35mm and 16mm Cintel facilities can afford to spend more on critical tweaking of their Cintel machines then the Super-8 labs can.

 

I implore Cintel to take MORE care handling their Super-8 accounts than they do with their 16mm accounts because Super-8 continues to be a low cost introduction to the world of film. Cintel cuts it's own throat in the long term by shrifting the Super-8 Newbie and the Super-8 Cintel transfer industry.

 

In other words Cintel, get off your ass and periodically review the quality of the Super-8 Cintel facilities that you "service", it's in your best interest and film's best interest, and frankly, Kodak's best interest also.

[Sam Wells]

Honestly I imagine S8 has little to no effect whatsoever on Cintel's bottom line.

 

It's a dividend that you can do S8 on a Cintel or Thomson machine at all.

 

Out of curiosity, how many S8mm-only Cintel facilities are there ?

 

No disagreement from me S8 is harder to do well.

 

BTW more than a few people shooting S8 skip scanning Telecine altogether and use Brodsky & Treadway:

 

http://www.littlefilm.com

 

-sam

[Alessandro Machi]

But Cintel's bottom line hasn't been that great lately, or am I mistaken?

 

The reason I disagree is because I view Super-8 as the Production Assistant or Set PA of the film format world, paid the least but always within grasp for some purpose. Super-8 is an ideal spawing ground for newbies who will then move on to 16mm & 35mm.

 

Do you think picnic tables would sell as well without utensils and paper plates to put on them?

 

I think the rationalization that may be used by Cintel is "if they were serious they would have shot on 16m or 35mm." No, if YOU were serious you would offer a good product and service and not discriminate because your profit is more backend then front end from the Super-8 user.

[Alessandro Machi]

an analogy.

 

A city's police force is 10,000. New recruits equal 300 every six months. When compared to 10,000, 300 is not very much, only 3% of the total. But no one would ever question the importance of that 3% being properly trained and indoctrinated every six months. Super-8 user equals a new recruit, and it's a very important but small percentage of the film transfer total.

 

I sincerely doubt the city thinks it's doing a "favor" to the new recruits by tolerating their existence and acceptance, but it does appear that Cintel "tolerates" Super-8 transfers and perhaps doesn't "accept" them.

 

Didn't Cintel file for something recently?