chris kempinski Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I would love to see some samples of 200T or 500T transfered. If anyone has a sample and could post it on line...... Flying Spot in Seattle told me the transfer to MiniDv was comparable to 16....... I love super8 and if this is the case I would love to use it more. As I light for money and shoot for fun, this is my slower season and money is tight, I don't have the funds to just go out and shoot for fun right now. :( Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 If you can wait a few months I'll have some 200T for you to view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Winchester Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I'm getting some 200T back mid-week trasferred to 10-bit uncompressed. It's just a camera test, but I will certainly share my results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Lovell Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I'm getting some 200T back mid-week trasferred to 10-bit uncompressed. It's just a camera test, but I will certainly share my results. I'm sure they didn't say that the s8 was comparable to 16mm. You can make s8 look pretty good, but it doesn't even have 1/2 the resolution of 16mm. Unless they were comparion a fast 16mm 500T compared to a slower s8 50D or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Bullock Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 This entire film was shot on Super 8 using Kodak 500T film. This streaming sample isn't at full resolution, obviously, but I'd say in many places it is indistinguishable from 16mm. It certainly has more character and warmth than DV, IMHO. Yes, Super 8 has less resolution than 16mm, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's going to be of concern to the viewer. The original "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was shot on 16mm and is by far a better film than its "slick" 35mm remake, so resolution isn't really a factor with regard to a film's acceptability, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted February 26, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted February 26, 2007 Flying Spot in Seattle told me the transfer to MiniDv was comparable to 16... It's only really comparable to 16 when they do the transfer... they are the only company I know with a Shadow Super 8 telecine. That with their noise reduction produces an amazing image on Super 8. Pro8mm, Spectra and other houses that promote Super 8 Rank transfers do a good job, but FSFT is about the best I've ever seen on Super 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hyde Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 It's only really comparable to 16 when they do the transfer... they are the only company I know with a Shadow Super 8 telecine. That with their noise reduction produces an amazing image on Super 8. Pro8mm, Spectra and other houses that promote Super 8 Rank transfers do a good job, but FSFT is about the best I've ever seen on Super 8. It seems we have different results. I sent some 16mm to Flying Spot and Spectra. Spectra produced an image that was a bit more crisp and detailed. Both films were shot on the same emulsion (7201), day, location and camera (SR II). I decided to continue my project with Spectra as a result. Perhaps you sent in some film that was shot under different circumstances. How precise were your tests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Lovell Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 It seems we have different results. I sent some 16mm to Flying Spot and Spectra. Spectra produced an image that was a bit more crisp and detailed. Both films were shot on the same emulsion (7201), day, location and camera (SR II). I decided to continue my project with Spectra as a result. Perhaps you sent in some film that was shot under different circumstances. How precise were your tests? I've also noticed that spectra does a lot of sharpening to their image in the transfer, which can give the illusion of shooting a higher resolution format. I've noticed that Cinelab does a good job reducing sparkle/speckle, but as a result their transfer is much softer. It does look very 'slick' but does not have the apparent resolution that spectra has. Every transfer house will have their own look because the technology varies dramatically for S8 transfers from lab to lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 This entire film either i'm stupid, my computer is, or the site is, because i don't see a film, just a bunch of comments. /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 sorry, it's the computer. javascript is broken. good think it's not mine... /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted February 28, 2007 Site Sponsor Share Posted February 28, 2007 I've also noticed that spectra does a lot of sharpening to their image in the transfer, which can give the illusion of shooting a higher resolution format.I've noticed that Cinelab does a good job reducing sparkle/speckle, but as a result their transfer is much softer. It does look very 'slick' but does not have the apparent resolution that spectra has. Every transfer house will have their own look because the technology varies dramatically for S8 transfers from lab to lab. You can set the aperture corrector on the Digi4 framestore in a rank to a higher setting which will increase the apparent sharpness of the image Spectra also has a V3 8mm gate which is probably the nicest gate ever made for 8mm film and costs in the 50K range. I have not seen any film from them but I would imagine that it looks great and is naturally sharp. I liked what I saw from FSFT too even though I generally do not like the Shadow based on my experience with 16 and 35 on it. I have always thought the shadow made a to videoish and over sharpened image, compared to the Spirit or DSX and Millenium machines I have used (the Millenium being my favorite) but it seems to work well for super8. We processed a 200+ roll color neg 8mm job last year and the client put the film on the Spirit at technicolor in NY and did a D5 transfer which looked really great, the spirit is a true 2K res machine (although only 422 color at the imager) while the Shadow is resolution truncated (1440 422 at the imager) but you get what you pay for at 1800/hr on the spirit. Justin our film has low speckle count because out processing is really clean :D I am constantly working on improving our gate and trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of our Rank I made some changes recently which give a much sharper image and have a whole next generation gate setup in the works at our machine shop. I feel we will be as sharp as any other rank in a little bit. I do not like noise reducers and/or using aperture correcting to sharpen the image and will just be trying to give a natural picture now and in the future. Just a note about DigiBeta In my opinion the deck is really too much for what you are buying a used DigiBeta deck is $30k a Uncompressed disk transfer is $2K (for a G5, Card and Disk array) the uncompressed disk transfer is better than digibeta in image quality. Any facility that has a "modern" telecine can record to Digibeta through SDI. We have transfered material to Digi in the past (mostly MV work that ran on MTV in Europe, PAL) I looked at the rental deck and could not find where the thing was worth as much as a porsche the rental was $400.00 there are something like 40 tape formats out there now keeping up with all of them can put a small facility like any of us in a bad way..... -Rob- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Lovell Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 You can set the aperture corrector on the Digi4 framestore in a rank to a higher setting which will increase the apparent sharpness of the image Spectra also has a V3 8mm gate which is probably the nicest gate ever made for 8mm film and costs in the 50K range. I have not seen any film from them but I would imagine that it looks great and is naturally sharp. I liked what I saw from FSFT too even though I generally do not like the Shadow based on my experience with 16 and 35 on it. I have always thought the shadow made a to videoish and over sharpened image, compared to the Spirit or DSX and Millenium machines I have used (the Millenium being my favorite) but it seems to work well for super8. We processed a 200+ roll color neg 8mm job last year and the client put the film on the Spirit at technicolor in NY and did a D5 transfer which looked really great, the spirit is a true 2K res machine (although only 422 color at the imager) while the Shadow is resolution truncated (1440 422 at the imager) but you get what you pay for at 1800/hr on the spirit. Justin our film has low speckle count because out processing is really clean :D I am constantly working on improving our gate and trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of our Rank I made some changes recently which give a much sharper image and have a whole next generation gate setup in the works at our machine shop. I feel we will be as sharp as any other rank in a little bit. I do not like noise reducers and/or using aperture correcting to sharpen the image and will just be trying to give a natural picture now and in the future. Just a note about DigiBeta In my opinion the deck is really too much for what you are buying a used DigiBeta deck is $30k a Uncompressed disk transfer is $2K (for a G5, Card and Disk array) the uncompressed disk transfer is better than digibeta in image quality. Any facility that has a "modern" telecine can record to Digibeta through SDI. We have transfered material to Digi in the past (mostly MV work that ran on MTV in Europe, PAL) I looked at the rental deck and could not find where the thing was worth as much as a porsche the rental was $400.00 there are something like 40 tape formats out there now keeping up with all of them can put a small facility like any of us in a bad way..... -Rob- Hey Rob, Glad to hear you're making more changes over there. Seems like an ongoing battle to get the best image possible, eh? We should chat a little more off list. Had some other concerns about sparkle and specs, but its from another lab... i think they just don't have the volume of work to keep the machines in tip-top shape. I did get the last re-transfer back from you via fedex (with a customs bill). Seems they at least managed to get it across the border better than UPS. cheers, Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member steve hyde Posted March 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 1, 2007 ...here are some compressed samples that I've posted. They were transfered at FSFT and CinePost. http://www.steve-hyde.com/reel1.htm hope this helps. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hyde Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I guess I should add that a big part of the reason Spectra's transfers are so sharp is because they replace their picture tube every 6 - 12 months (at the slightest hint of softening). I was actually there when they were changing out their tube not long ago. Most places leave a picure tube in much longer because they are extremely expensive. They baby their machines and it shows. In the end, the 16 from Spectra looked as good as any of the more expensive facilities I have used. I only wish they had a key code reader or I would send all of my 16 their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason duncan Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) ...here are some compressed samples that I've posted. They were transfered at FSFT and CinePost. http://www.steve-hyde.com/reel1.htm hope this helps. Steve Steve, that footage is absoluty beautiful. Is it 200T or 500T? Edited March 14, 2007 by jason duncan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Schilling Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This entire film was shot on Super 8 using Kodak 500T film. This streaming sample isn't at full resolution, obviously, but I'd say in many places it is indistinguishable from 16mm. It certainly has more character and warmth than DV, IMHO. Yes, Super 8 has less resolution than 16mm, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's going to be of concern to the viewer. The original "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was shot on 16mm and is by far a better film than its "slick" 35mm remake, so resolution isn't really a factor with regard to a film's acceptability, IMHO. It looked really good, but the colors seemed pretty muted for how 500T normally looks. It may be what you wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 14, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2007 You can set the aperture corrector on the Digi4 framestore in a rank to a higher setting which will increase the apparent sharpness of the image Spectra also has a V3 8mm gate which is probably the nicest gate ever made for 8mm film and costs in the 50K range. I have not seen any film from them but I would imagine that it looks great and is naturally sharp...... Sounds like an excellent assessment. Better Spectra spend the money on that terrific gate and offer betacam sp and DV video transfers at excellent price points than skimp on the gate just so they can have an inhouse digital betacam deck. Instead they provide the best of all worlds, really good quality film to video tape transfers to both betacam sp and DV video for the cost conscious super-8 filmmaker, and digital betacam transfers when necessary for higher end clients. Just a note about DigiBeta In my opinion the deck is really too much for what you are buying a used DigiBeta deck is $30k a Uncompressed disk transfer is $2K (for a G5, Card and Disk array) the uncompressed disk transfer is better than digibeta in image quality. Any facility that has a "modern" telecine can record to Digibeta through SDI. We have transfered material to Digi in the past (mostly MV work that ran on MTV in Europe, PAL) I looked at the rental deck and could not find where the thing was worth as much as a porsche the rental was $400.00 there are something like 40 tape formats out there now keeping up with all of them can put a small facility like any of us in a bad way.....-Rob- The problem with directly comparing uncompressed 10 bit to digital betacam, betacam sp or mini-dv, and correct me if I am wrong, is 10 bit uncompressed is a computer file whereas digibeta is a video signal. So even if the uncompressed 10 bit signal looks better in the computer, when it is edited on NLE and the NLE edit master is outputted to a video tape, how does that look versus if one started with either digital betacam or betacam sp and used a digital betacam workflow or a betacam sp component signal workflow? That is the comparison that I want to know more about. As it stands now, I think digital betacam is the ideal video mastering format for Super-8, Betacam sp the perfect combination of cost-effectiveness and quality for Super-8 video mastering, with mini-dv being the absolute best super-8 to video value for the low budgeted guerilla filmmaker. Three video formats that all have their different strengths when it comes to a cost to quality ratio. And then there is 10 bit, which I have not had a chance to work with. Lots of choices, all of them have excellent choices depending on the situation at hand. ....... I am constantly working on improving our gate and trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of our Rank I made some changes recently which give a much sharper image and have a whole next generation gate setup in the works at our machine shop. I feel we will be as sharp as any other rank in a little bit. I do not like noise reducers and/or using aperture correcting to sharpen the image and will just be trying to give a natural picture now and in the future........ -Rob- That is very commendable. Film and Video Transfers in Northridge California converted a 16mm gate to Super-8 and after a lot of tweaking and experimenting they came up with a winning combination, and they also offer wetgate. That's why I don't believe in absolute statements about any one facility being better all the time in every combination imagineable, each facility develops a strength and clients that most benefit from that particular strength stay loyal to that particular lab or transfer facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted March 14, 2007 Site Sponsor Share Posted March 14, 2007 Sounds like an excellent assessment. Thanks! Better Spectra spend the money on that terrific gate and offer betacam sp and DV video transfers at excellent price points than skimp on the gate just so they can have an inhouse digital betacam deck. I concur, You can always rent a deck, we did that just the other day, you can rent a deck allot of times for $30K and I think the money is better put into the telecine than a deck. The problem with directly comparing uncompressed 10 bit to digital betacam, betacam sp or mini-dv, and correct me if I am wrong, is 10 bit uncompressed is a computer file whereas digibeta is a video signal. Well it is a computer file (quicktime or AVI) that is a video signal, essentially what any of us who offer this are doing is setting up a Mac or PC with a capture card like a Decklink SDI and capturing the SDI output at the far end of the Telecine/Color corrector. So even if the uncompressed 10 bit signal looks better in the computer, when it is edited on NLE and the NLE edit master is outputted to a video tape, how does that look versus if one started with either digital betacam or betacam sp and used a digital betacam workflow or a betacam sp component signal workflow? That is the comparison that I want to know more about. If you take the Uncompressed files (Even D-Beta has compression, albeit light) and put them on a timeline in Final Cut (for example) and edit the show together and then plug the SDI out (your D-Beta workflow) into a Grade-A monitor like what we have in the telecine suite you will see the video picture we had in the telecine suite with no alteration, period. If you then plug that SDI into a D-Beta deck and make a master the very light compression of the D-Beta deck will be the first time the picture is altered (compressed) since it left the 10 bit SDI output of the Color Corrector. We just finished up a Process/Transfer job for one of our clients in Nashville who shot a Music Video (a mix of Ektachrome 16mm X-processed, Vision 16mm, S-8, color neg and Ekta, both straight processed and X-processed) I transfered everything to BetaSP and to 10bit Uncompressed quicktime files (D1 720x486 NTSC) they are doing finish assembly on a Avid Adrenaline and then making a D-Beta master. The BetaSP will just be a backup/dailies format and the Disc will be the working video. Direct to disc is the way of the future..... :D -Rob- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 14, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2007 High end Videotape and direct to disc probably will mutually co-exist for a while longer. Even though you followed a 10 bit process, the final "real" master is the digibeta, no? So now the additional test to do would be to start with a digibeta transfer and then see if there is a noticeable difference between the 10 bit and the digibeta or even the betacam sp version. If ten bit is using RGB for it's codec than that would be different process than the component video signal that digibeta and betacam sp use, which is Y, R-Y, B-Y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member steve hyde Posted March 14, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) Steve, that footage is absoluty beautiful. Is it 200T or 500T? Thanks. It is a combination of both. The night shots are 200T shot wide open on a Nikon R10 and then processed normal and xfer the FSFT shadow. The bird shots are 500T shot wide open at 54fps and then pushed to 1000 during processing (same xfer) Steve Edited March 14, 2007 by steve hyde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted March 14, 2007 Site Sponsor Share Posted March 14, 2007 High end Videotape and direct to disc probably will mutually co-exist for a while longer. Even though you followed a 10 bit process, the final "real" master is the digibeta, no? So now the additional test to do would be to start with a digibeta transfer and then see if there is a noticeable difference between the 10 bit and the digibeta or even the betacam sp version. If ten bit is using RGB for it's codec than that would be different process than the component video signal that digibeta and betacam sp use, which is Y, R-Y, B-Y. I have done this many times there is really no visible difference between the uncompressed 10bit 422 video and the Digibeta 10bit 422 1.5/1 compressed tape. This is looking at the video out (SDI) from the disc recorder or telecine and then the video out (SDI) from the D-Beta deck on a A-grade CRT. There are things you will see on a A-Grade CRT that you will not see even on a nice SDI PVM and certainly not on a consumer tv. I think our Panasonic's were $26k new for a 20" CRT. BetaSP is a significant step down and DV is a little step down from there, both of these formats in either YUV or in the DVcam from SDI have very significant quality difference from the original Uncompressed SDI signal coming out of the Telecine/ColorCorrector. The 10bit file is not RGB there is no practical SD RGB video format. It is in our case (and most) a Blackmagic 10bit 4:2:2 Uncompressed YUV video signal, the very same signal that comes out of a Telecine or a D-Beta deck. The capture card basically ingests a bitstream and puts the bits in a Quicktime wrapper, the D-Beta deck ingests the same bitstream and compresses it 1.5/1 and stores it in a plastic tape wrapper. When it comes to the video signal there is practically no difference. I agree tape will be around a long long time, it stores much better than optical or hard disc media. In a direct to disc workflow the above mentioned D-Beta tape is the EDITED master and not the full raw master but there is nothing stopping you from making your edited master and then filling up another D-beta tape with your raw. There would be no quality difference between this and making the raw masters to a D-Beta deck attached to the telecine. Direct to Disc is a good way to provide D-Beta quality workflow to people who do not own a D-beta deck and can only swing the cost of a rental for final output. It also saves you all the digitizing time as you have the files on your disc array. -Rob- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy R Fillion Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 steve was the black and white footage of the kids on the water slide 16mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member steve hyde Posted March 15, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2007 steve was the black and white footage of the kids on the water slide 16mm? No that is Super 8 plus X.... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy R Fillion Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) wow imop that is the sweetest looking out of them. do you remember the fps? Edited March 15, 2007 by Stacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member steve hyde Posted March 15, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2007 ...Thanks. I am a b&w fan too... It's 54fps on a Nikon R10. I over rode the light meter a bit to add more exposure.. I had the stupid auto-iris on for the Kodachrome sequence so the spraying water kept tripping it... I never use auto-iris anymore.. Steve 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