64t examples

[Matt Sandstrom]

hey, i'm making a music video on 64t and since i'm very pleased with the results my dp david grehn got i wanted to share. there's so much negative vibes around this stock and i thought maybe this could cheer people up a bit. :-) if you hate grain it's not for you, but the depth, sharpness, and colors are great in my opinion. scanned on a flashscan by uppsala bildteknik.

 

short clip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/matt

[Raul C Palma]

Matt,

 

Thanks for the samples they look great. What camera did you use and how did synch the audio, was it done in post?

 

Cheers

[Matt Sandstrom]

canon 814e. it runs steady enough so that syncing up in post is easy. this particular clip was speed changed slightly, but in the final version all cuts will be a few seconds at the most, for which it always holds up. i've shot plenty of music videos with non sync cameras in super 8 as well as 16 and 35mm and while it takes some work it's never a major problem. i just play back the song 4% slower on set if i shoot with a 24fps camera, since pal telecine is 25 fps. for sync dialog it's even easier since you can stretch the audio to fit, which is obviously not an option for music clips.

 

/matt

[Chris Burke]

canon 814e. it runs steady enough so that syncing up in post is easy. this particular clip was speed changed slightly, but in the final version all cuts will be a few seconds at the most, for which it always holds up. i've shot plenty of music videos with non sync cameras in super 8 as well as 16 and 35mm and while it takes some work it's never a major problem. i just play back the song 4% slower on set if i shoot with a 24fps camera, since pal telecine is 25 fps. for sync dialog it's even easier since you can stretch the audio to fit, which is obviously not an option for music clips.

 

/matt

 

 

Matt,

 

What are your impressions with the Flashscan? What kind of output did you use for this project? I like uncompressed SD, 10 bit if available, for Super 8. The stills look great! Bravo!

 

Chris

[Matt Sandstrom]

i like the flashscan. like all camera based telecines it struggles with the contrast of reversal, although less so with 64t it seems, but the sharpness is great, the registration even better and the optical color correction very usable. it outputs dv, component and 8-bit sdi. we used dv. as long as you do most of your color corrections in the scanner i don't think there's much of a difference but if you intend to cc later you probably need uncompressed.

 

/matt

[nathan coombs]

i like the flashscan. like all camera based telecines it struggles with the contrast of reversal, although less so with 64t it seems, but the sharpness is great, the registration even better and the optical color correction very usable. it outputs dv, component and 8-bit sdi. we used dv. as long as you do most of your color corrections in the scanner i don't think there's much of a difference but if you intend to cc later you probably need uncompressed.

 

/matt

 

I like the stylised look of the images; I guess that has a lot to do with the lighting and composition.

 

But I don't see what you see as so special about the stock. The grain is sharp, but the resolved image is not. And these colours could be graded out of a flat Vision2 stock without too much effort. I'm not convinced.

[Matt Sandstrom]

I don't see what you see as so special about the stock.

nothing. it's available so why not use it to take beautiful pictures instead of bashing it around at various internet forums. that's all. :-)

 

And these colours could be graded out of a flat Vision2 stock without too much effort.

negative is more expensive, can't be easily developed at home, can't be transferred on a workprinter, and frankly you can never get the true reversal look out of negative just as little as you can get true black and white.

 

I'm not convinced.

i'm not sure what it is you think i'm trying to convince you about.

 

/matt

[Victor Mejia]

Nice stills. Thanks for sharing. I may have to re-try 64T. Had a bad experience first time I shot it--looked like crap. But maybe there's hope.

[Matt Sandstrom]

hey i noticed a lot of people say things like "nice stills" but never "nice clip". yes the link is smaller than the stills which are hard not to notice first, but the clip says more about the sharpness and grain in motion, at least in the parts where compression doesn't break it all into blurry blocks. ;-)

 

/matt

[Alessandro Machi]

i like the flashscan. like all camera based telecines it struggles with the contrast of reversal, although less so with 64t it seems, but the sharpness is great, the registration even better and the optical color correction very usable. it outputs dv, component and 8-bit sdi. we used dv. as long as you do most of your color corrections in the scanner i don't think there's much of a difference but if you intend to cc later you probably need uncompressed.

 

/matt

 

 

I believe that component output to a DVC-50 codec is a terrific way to go. This also allows one to archive on Betacam Sp if they desire so that the video can later be imported in component mode via the Kona card or the Black magic card into FCP. The DVC-Pro 50 codec should allow one to do a higher level of color correction while in Final Cut Pro versus traditional DV 25 codec.

 

If a betacam sp deck is not available then one still go component out directly into FCP via a Kona or Black Magic card during the actual film transfer session, but one should probably back up the transfer on another hard drive as an alternative to a betacam sp tape back up.

[Matt Sandstrom]

betacam sp sucks. it's a good tape format and all but only slighty better than dv at a much higher cost, and it's analog so you lose several generations when you go to fcp and back. and if you're going to a digital tape, like dvcpro or digibeta, or directly to fcp sdi is better than component. an sdi capture card is cheaper than a component one and gives you better quality.

 

can we take this discussion elsewhere though? start a new thread if you want. a beta sp sp discussion with alex has been known since the last century to often get nasty. :-)

 

/matt

[Oron Cohen]

hey i noticed a lot of people say things like "nice stills" but never "nice clip". yes the link is smaller than the stills which are hard not to notice first, but the clip says more about the sharpness and grain in motion, at least in the parts where compression doesn't break it all into blurry blocks. ;-)

 

/matt

hey matt,

 

Liked the clip very much, I have to say after K40 ends I didn?t want to touch the new 64T and just continued to shoot on B&W and negative, after seeing your clip I think I will buy some rolls and give it a try with my Elmo 1012S-XL:-)

[Alessandro Machi]

betacam sp sucks. it's a good tape format and all but only slighty better than dv at a much higher cost, and it's analog so you lose several generations when you go to fcp and back. and if you're going to a digital tape, like dvcpro or digibeta, or directly to fcp sdi is better than component. an sdi capture card is cheaper than a component one and gives you better quality.

 

can we take this discussion elsewhere though? start a new thread if you want. a beta sp sp discussion with alex has been known since the last century to often get nasty. :-)

 

/matt

 

Mattias, I think you are on the top rung of nasty, to imply I am even on the same playing level as you just tells me you must be lonely at the top. As for claiming I'm off topic, that assertion is off topic. Not all film transfer facilities are SDI out. It's clearly possible that a facility that actually knows how to run a rank cintel facility, how to maintain, service, use it, can run rings around another facility that offers SDI but has cheaped out in other areas. It's pointless to imply that SDI is the best and nothing else is relevant since a poor transfer onto SDI will still look poor, and a spectacular transfer onto betacam sp will still look spectacular.

 

Betacam sp decks can be had very cheaply these days. Simply playing back a betacam sp tape is not a generation loss, playing back a betacam sp tape AND copying it to another Betacam sp TAPE is considered going down one generation, and even that is neglible until one has gone three or for generations, unless one is careless and doesn't set the manual tracking knob correctly (UVW's offer automatic tracking only). I never implied one has to go back to Betacam Sp after the signal has been imported into FCP, so there is no "several generations of loss" as you state.

 

If you haven't tried the workflow I suggested in my previous post, then why slam it? I've noticed this tendency among the digiheads to downplay all analog scenarios including the ones they've never tested. Test if first, be honest during your test, then report your results, don't just assume you know it all if you haven't done the tests.

 

I've already got one client who tried the component workflow I suggested and they are ecstatic, and they only paid around $600-$700 dollars for their NEW Kona Card. This client, when not producing either Film or HD lower budgeted features, shoots their own personal projects on betacam sp versus mini-dv, and this was after evaluating one DV-Cam job they were involved with. They prefer betacam sp and the component throughput to DVC-Pro 50 codec. The Betacam sp component workflow was such a success I doubt they'll do a project in DV-CAM unless they are forced to because of irresponsible positions that try and discredit Betacam Sp and make the format harder to work with because of the false crap some people openly spew about the format on internet forums.

 

If I was involved in a DV-Cam project, I would STILL have the signal converted internally inside the DV-Cam deck to component and sent into a Kona or Black Magic Card that would turn it into a DVC Pro 50 coded. Probably wouldn't get quite the benefit of Betacam Sp, but it still ultimately means more codec bits for the signal than going straight firewire into the computer.

[Matt Sandstrom]

look, i was being sarcastic. sorry if the humor didn't come across. we both know that we've been discussing the beta sp issue to death before in all forums possible. ;-)

 

/matt

[John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen]

I think I saw a short film at Tromsø International Film Festival last week that David Grehn shot. Does it sound plausible? I thought the cinematography was quite good anyway. If I am correct, he was also first assistant camera on another short in the same festival. Small world :) I liked the look on that clip.

[Matt Sandstrom]

I think I saw a short film at Tromsø International Film Festival last week that David Grehn shot. Does it sound plausible?

that would be "en god dag"? directed by per hanefjord, another friend of mine. yes, that's david.

 

/matt

[Matt Sandstrom]

wait, last week, that could be forechecking morfar? same director and yes, david grehn again. :-)

 

/matt

[John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen]

Actually, it was "Flower Beloved" ;)

 

http://www.tiff.no/?go=film&id=115

 

 

(On a sidenote, I shot the film called "Tommy" on the same page)

[Matt Sandstrom]

cool. i know who that director is, but i don't know him. :-) i checked and en god dag was indeed in competition last year. what's the criteria for submission? i wonder why i never submitted anything. my films have played in many countries of europe, all the other nordic countries and north america but never norway. until recently at least when i had one in "wt os", my only submission to a norwegian fest ever.

 

/matt

[John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen]

These are the guidelines for entry

 

 

Basically films from all over the world, in the Northern hemisphere. The festival is very good too, one of the largest in Norway. Maybe I'll see one of your films next year? ;)

[steve hyde]

Matt,

 

Great post. Nice stills and clip. Thanks.

 

What can I say, I'm not surprised that you have squeezed your money's worth out of 64T. You are fast becoming a seasoned music video director with a super 8 signature. Very stylish indeed.

 

I am one of the critics of this film stock. Not because I think it is bad, but because it is a convenient replacement rather than an ideal replacement for Kodachrome. 64T is a still photography film designed for commercial product shots and copy work. The market for the stock dropped out when digital became affordable and "better" in the eyes of people who want that kind of work.

 

For motion picture photography it is too slow for a practical tungsten balanced film. This is why Fuji and Kodak do not offer anything slower than 100T in the larger gauges.

 

That said, you made it work, but why did you choose to use the stock? For more grain? The negative stocks would have given you more creative latitude during telecine, no? My question is why did you choose 64T for this shooting situation?

 

Again, thanks,

 

Steve

[Matt Sandstrom]

economy. we got a very good price from kodak. david originally wanted to use e100d or v2 200t. when that was settled we tried to use it to our advantage. we knew that reds and greens would pop and that we would have grain, so that's how we chose the costumes, the location and the lighting. i don't think it would have looked as cool on negative, but then again we would have done a few things differently anyway and it would certainly have looked cleaner.

 

/matt

[ANTONIO VITALE]

optimal job MATT,it appeals to to me therefore as that one of lisa lindal (for guilt yours :D ... I have bought theirs cd that now I listen every day)

BRAVO! :D :D