Jump to content

Raw 16mm Footage


Curtis Bouvier
 Share

Recommended Posts


Does anybody have any raw footage, even if its only 5 seconds or so. I'm very curious as to what 16mm footage looks like fresh off the telecine with out any compression or editing. I'm not too concerned about what camera it came from, but preferably vision II kodak if you have.

 

http://www.djdecay.com/cine/DecoyTest.mp4

 

Vision2 250T

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting it, Dennis

Can I ask which lens it was shot with ?

 

Dear Dennis

I can't see your link, And I'm really interested on your footage!!!!

Right click on it and then "Download Linked file" if you are on a Mac or "Save target as" if you're a windows user. Then open it with Quicktime 7 or whatever other player capable of decoding H264 files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting it, Dennis

Can I ask which lens it was shot with ?

Right click on it and then "Download Linked file" if you are on a Mac or "Save target as" if you're a windows user. Then open it with Quicktime 7 or whatever other player capable of decoding H264 files.

 

Gracias Rodrigo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting it, Dennis

Can I ask which lens it was shot with ?

Right click on it and then "Download Linked file" if you are on a Mac or "Save target as" if you're a windows user. Then open it with Quicktime 7 or whatever other player capable of decoding H264 files.

 

 

CU of LCD Display (checking flicker) was a 135/28 Chinon

 

 

Res Chart

 

NoName - Zoomed in Meteor

28mm was a Vitiar f2.5

50mm was Chinon 1.7/50mm

 

CU of Monior Speaker Speaker (checking flicker of CCFL) 135/28 Chinon

 

Outdoors 1

 

17-69 meteor, close up of Girl Speaking.

 

Outdoors 2

 

17-69 KMZ Meteor - all shots.

 

Outdoors 3

 

Police Car + Train - 50mm Pentacon f 1.8

 

 

All was shot on a K-3 that had issues between the ground-glass/viewfinder and real film focus.

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Much appreciated Dennis, thanks.

 

Just curious, the footage appears to be interlaced, which would have had to have been added afterword i am assuming, any idea if its possible to have your film developed and saved as a progressive image? or is it somthing to do with the medium it's saved to originally perhapse?

 

The footage looks amazing tho, shot with a K3 eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much appreciated Dennis, thanks.

 

Just curious, the footage appears to be interlaced, which would have had to have been added afterword i am assuming, any idea if its possible to have your film developed and saved as a progressive image? or is it somthing to do with the medium it's saved to originally perhapse?

 

The footage looks amazing tho, shot with a K3 eh?

 

 

I am guessing the interlacing came in from the transfer from Digibeta to Quicktime uncompressed. I don't have a 20k deck to read Digibeta so :-(. I should have done an unsupervised HD and given the post guys a firewire, but I did not really know what I wanted, this is my first roll of film shot.

 

 

Hey man I checked out , and look ok, some of the shots are dark, but the rest they have this dark matter to it , I like it congrats

 

Best

 

I most def underexposed 3 of the shots, the meteor f-stop skated to f4 from f2. :-(. Apparently it does not "click" just moves. For my first roll of film I'm taking the lessons learned from it.

 

But I got alot done. I shot for coverage, tried in-camera (adversarial angles) video style, saw how hand held worked, check res and flicker with different available light.

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody have any raw footage, even if its only 5 seconds or so. I'm very curious as to what 16mm footage looks like fresh off the telecine with out any compression or editing.

 

A transfer to digibeta & then encoded in H.264 is hardly "fresh off the telecine without any compresion" (plus it's an interlaced transfer).

 

I'm not sure what you want here. Std def ? High Def ? Full bandwidth color ?

 

A tour of your local post facility might be the best way to see fresh off the telecine....

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
A transfer to digibeta & then encoded in H.264 is hardly "fresh off the telecine without any compresion" (plus it's an interlaced transfer).

 

I'm not sure what you want here. Std def ? High Def ? Full bandwidth color ?

 

A tour of your local post facility might be the best way to see fresh off the telecine....

 

-Sam

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what the point of this "fresh off the telecine" is. The footage I get straight off the telecine, besides being a huge file size, is 29.97 interlaced (without the pulldown removed) and Anamorphic, meaning it is squished to fit a 16:9 frame into a 4:3 frame. And basically it does not look very good.

 

If you want to see what the footage looks like after the pulldown has been removed (i.e. when it is converted back to 23.98 fps progressive) and stretched back out to a 16:9 image, and in this case compressed using Sorenson Video 3 Pro codec to make the file size manageable for the internet, you can see the clip below. It has not been edited in any way, just the above manipulation. And it was shot on Kodak Vision2 200T (7217) stock.

 

Telecined footage

 

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice footage :)

but there is no 250T as much as I know, I think you ment the 250D (it's also look more like the 250D).

Thank you fo sharing with us :)

 

 

200T oops. Yeah 250D is not it. Kodak - 7217 Number. 100% tungsten balanced film. Somehow got crossed in my head with Eterna 250 ...

 

......

 

Tim, how does one remove the 3:2 pull-down, is there a re-code option in FCP/Avid?

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found my first time out the gate with telecine its much simpler to ask for 30fps. This will make the lab assume you shot at 29.97. Footage goes faster, so it takes less room on hard drive for the online, also quicker to capture, and when you import it to a 23.976 project you get a progressive frame, regardless of weather the format even recognizes progressive. It also gives a one-number incriment timecode add for every frame. To me with my limited experience it seems to be the best system. Is there any reason for doing a 24fps with pulldown telecine anymore? I mean with the ability to add pulldown in real time on NLE, I surely can't see a reason to do this. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Tim, how does one remove the 3:2 pull-down, is there a re-code option in FCP/Avid?

 

My guy who does my transfers, Jake at Downstream here in Portland (whom I highly recommend) runs the film at 23.98 fps on the machine and transfers the film to DVCAM tape as an anamorphic image.

 

I then import the footage into my computer with FCP 4.5 HD. Then I use CinemaTools to remove the pulldown and I end up with an anamophically squeezed, progressive scan, 23.98 fps clip. If I then want to put that clip up on the internet, I drop it into Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite 4 and output an unsqueezed 16:9 image running at 23.98 fps progressive.

 

Hope that explains the process,

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guy who does my transfers, Jake at Downstream here in Portland (whom I highly recommend) runs the film at 23.98 fps on the machine and transfers the film to DVCAM tape as an anamorphic image.

 

I then import the footage into my computer with FCP 4.5 HD. Then I use CinemaTools to remove the pulldown and I end up with an anamophically squeezed, progressive scan, 23.98 fps clip. If I then want to put that clip up on the internet, I drop it into Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite 4 and output an unsqueezed 16:9 image running at 23.98 fps progressive.

 

Hope that explains the process,

-Tim

 

But then there is no pull-down. Pull-down would be matching 29.97 fps of NTSC to pure 24fps of film via 3:2.... If there is no pull-down there is no half-frame. Unless your pulldown is 2:3:3:2 with real frames encoded in a higher fps DV program stream.

 

That makes sense, next time I do this I'll ask for that. :-).

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
But then there is no pull-down. Pull-down would be matching 29.97 fps of NTSC to pure 24fps of film via 3:2.... If there is no pull-down there is no half-frame. Unless your pulldown is 2:3:3:2 with real frames encoded in a higher fps DV program stream.

 

That makes sense, next time I do this I'll ask for that. :-).

 

Dennis,

 

The telecine operator runs the film at 23.98 fps (not 24 fps, I'll explain why later), and records the image on NTSC tape. Now the tape is has an NTSC signal on it, interlaced frames at 29.97 fps.

 

You need a program that goes in there and does a reverse pull-down (removes the pull-down). It goes in and finds all the A,B,C,D half frames and reassembles them, (throwing away the split frames and extras) so you now have a progressive clip that runs at 23.98 fps instead of an interlaced clip that runs at 29.97 fps.

 

The reason you run the film at 23.98 fps instead of 24 fps is that if you are editing on a computer with an NTSC production monitor, computer programs like FCP can take a 23.98 fps clip and convert it on the fly to an NTSC signal in real time so it can be viewed on an NTSC monitor. It is a much more complicated computer interpolation for the computer to try to convert 24 fps to an NTSC signal in real time on the fly. So if you are editing with 24 fps clips, the playback on the production monitor will be jumpy and skip.

 

Make sense,

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow.. I've always wondered why 23.98 and 29.97 existed.

 

Yea I've heard alot about this digibeta etc,

 

I strictly want my film scanned in to a hard drive so everything stays progressive, digital and 24.00 fps.

 

 

Preferably Id like every Frame scanned in as an individual picture. Ive worked with this before using about 3700 digitally created images, importing the images into adobe premier was no problem at all. Fast and easy.

 

whats the highest resolution the film scanners will scan in at???? let's say at 16mm.

 

Obviously 35mm is effective at 1920x1080 (35mm is effective at 12MP if you use a high end film scanner)

 

not sure about 16mm, I would guess 16mm would max out at around 1280x720..

 

if only i could get some sample footage of 16mm, I could bring it in and have it scanned on a Nikon coolscan film scanner and determin the highest effective resolution.

 

Apparently the ARRISCAN Film Scanner is capable of scanning in Each frame as an idependant RAW tiff image file... that would be a dream come true for me.

 

what are your thoughts?

 

(editing video at 1920x1080 must take a hell of a computer, maybe those mac pros with quad intels i bet)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
If you transfer with the film running at 29.97 then there is no 3:2 pulldown, you have one film frame for each full video frame.

 

-Sam

 

Sam, I have never heard of it working that way, because if you are transferring the film to NTSC, you are going to have interlaced frames no matter what speed you're running the film at.

 

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam, I have never heard of it working that way, because if you are transferring the film to NTSC, you are going to have interlaced frames no matter what speed you're running the film at.

 

Technically, it's interlaced. Practically, fields 1 and 2 are from the same film frame, so when they're assembled, they form an image of that film frame. So the end result is that one video frame = one film frame. Transferring at 30fps has been done for years to avoid 3:2 pulldown issues in compositing.

 

As for frame rates: if your transfer is a 1:1 correspondence with film, and you transfer to individual files for each frame, there is no longer a frame rate at all. You can play that frame sequence at 30fps, 24fps, or anything else you want. The only files that have an inherent frame rate are "wrapped" movie files, like Quicktime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow.. I've always wondered why 23.98 and 29.97 existed.

 

29.97 exists because in order to create a color video system that was compatible with black and white receivers at the time, certain frequency changes had to be made to accommodate a color subcarrier signal. So instead of the line frequency of 60Hz being used, it was changed to 59.94. The percentage of "slowdown" from 60:59.94 is the same as 24:23.98., which is why it is used. It has absolutely nothing to do with computers, editing, or anything else.

 

I strictly want my film scanned in to a hard drive so everything stays progressive, digital and 24.00 fps....

Apparently the ARRISCAN Film Scanner is capable of scanning in Each frame as an idependant RAW tiff image file.

 

All scanners scan film one frame at a time and write it out as a file. The most common file format is 10 bit log DPX or Cineon. Linear formats take up more space, because in order to get the equivalent amount of information as you do when log encoded, you need about 16 bits, thus making a considerably larger file. Of course, if you have no experience with log files or don't understand what I'm talking about, that doesn't really matter.

 

Sams correct one full interlaced frame. There are no repeated frames. You can count film frames against video frames 1 to 1 non drop frame. You can also xfer progressive to say DVCPro 50.

 

No, you can't. DVCPro50 is an interlaced format, just like DV25, Beta SP, and Digital Betacam. There is no such thing as a progressive standard definition video format. The only progressive video formats are 1080p(24, 30, and now 60) and 720p (60), at least in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

*****(No, you can't. DVCPro50 is an interlaced format, just like DV25, Beta SP, and Digital Betacam. There is no such thing as a progressive standard definition video format.)****

 

Yes your right DVCPro50 is interlaced I miss typed 50 for 100. However there are two progressive SD video formats I use all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes your right DVCPro50 is interlaced I miss typed 50 for 100. However there are two progressive SD video formats I use all of the time.

 

No, you don't, because there are no "progressive SD video formats." If you're talking about something you have on a computer, such as a Quicktime file, that's not a "video format," it's a data format. Video formats must be supported by video equipment, be able to be recorded and displayed natively on video equipment, and thus must conform to accepted video format standards. There is no existing standard for a standard definition video format with progressive scan. Even Panasonic's 480p is recorded as "standard" standard definition video - i.e., interlaced - even though the camera captures progressive frames. The newer DVX100 does exactly the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...