Super-8 RED

[Ernie Zahn]

I'm not an expert on HD but I do know that HDV is not quite to par with RED from the clips I saw. Has there been any tests with the RED telecining Super-8 or 16mm? It would be an interesting experiment.

[Robert Hughes]

I'm not an expert on HD but I do know that HDV is not quite to par with RED from the clips I saw. Has there been any tests with the RED telecining Super-8 or 16mm? It would be an interesting experiment.

IIRC RED's not out yet, so the answer would be "no". You'll be using a RED to xfer super 8? Reminds me of using a Ferrari to pull a skateboard...

Edited August 13, 2007 by Robert Hughes

[Troy Warr]

There wouldn't be any reason to do that... the amount of detail present in an average Super-8 frame is barely enough to saturate an NTSC/PAL frame. Past that you're not getting anything out of the higher resolution scan. 16mm has more detail, but not a ton - probably OK up to 720p or maybe 1080i/1080p. Keep in mind that even major motion pictures shot in 35mm are often scanned at "only" 2K (just a tad higher resolution than 1080p) for DI or visual effects, and that looks great - generally not too much detail lost, if any.

[Alessandro Machi]

IIRC RED's not out yet, so the answer would be "no". You'll be using a RED to xfer super 8? Reminds me of using a Ferrari to pull a skateboard...

 

Disagree

 

There wouldn't be any reason to do that... the amount of detail present in an average Super-8 frame is barely enough to saturate an NTSC/PAL frame. Past that you're not getting anything out of the higher resolution scan. 16mm has more detail, but not a ton - probably OK up to 720p or maybe 1080i/1080p. Keep in mind that even major motion pictures shot in 35mm are often scanned at "only" 2K (just a tad higher resolution than 1080p) for DI or visual effects, and that looks great - generally not too much detail lost, if any.

 

Disagree

 

 

IF the Red transfer system has superior contrast pick up, then wide angle shots and also contrasty wide angle shots would benefit, even for the Super-8 frame.

[Nick Mulder]

16mm has more detail, but not a ton - probably OK up to 720p or maybe 1080i/1080p.

 

In a month or two I'm going to get some film scanned at 1080 res in 1.66 ratio direct to my HDD as a TIFF series (lossless compression) for compositing and eventual output in PAL and maybe 720p HD of some flavor - not sure what that equates to in terms of the 'standards' but up to this point I was lead to believe that 16mm or at least super16 could still benefit from up to a 2k scan:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...lution&st=0

 

When you say 'probably ok up to 720' it makes me wonder is this from real world experience ? If so, I'd like to know more before I fill up a HDD with a bunch of wasted pixels that could otherwise be used elsewhere ...

[David Mullen ASC]

The RED is a 4K Bayer-filtered single-sensor camera, not a telecine or a recording format. HDV is a recording format (1080i or 720P) that some consumer HD cameras use. You can't "telecine Super-8 to RED".

 

The real question is at what resolution using what equipment and recording to what format. Do you want to transfer Super-8 to NTSC, PAL, 720P, 1080i, 1080P, 2K, 4K? And at how much compression? Do you want to use tape formats for recording like digi-beta, D1, DV, DVCPRO-50, HDV, DVCPROHD, HDCAM, HD-D5, HDCAM-SR (at 4:2:2 or 4:4:4) -- or go uncompressed to computer tape formats or hard drives, in 720P, 1080P, 2K RGB, 4K RGB, etc. And then the question is where could you get this done in Super-8.

[jan von krogh]

I'm not an expert on HD but I do know that HDV is not quite to par with RED from the clips I saw. Has there been any tests with the RED telecining Super-8 or 16mm? It would be an interesting experiment.

That indeed would be an interesting experiment, with emphasis on experiment - as the optical path and many other aspects of the camera aren´t exactly designed for telecine purposes.

For 8mm and 16mm, 4K scanning/telecine is overkill. The resolution is -much- lower.

FWIW, most 35mm films we have seen in the recent years have been in 2K D.I and or recording, not 4k. So 4K is rather in the 35mm upperclass.

 

Other filmmakers, who already used RED cameras, have made bold comments:

If you shoot at 4K, but want a ?film look?, then you finish at 2K and add some grain. It?s easy. It looks like film. However, if you finish and screen at 4K. the result is like shooting in 65mm, like the old epics used to do.

Peter Jackson.

 

However, be aware that the bottleneck is in any case the filmout/copy/projection.

Your average 35mm film projecting cinema doesn´t even resolve 2K when screening a typical distribution copy.

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

[Stephen Williams]

FWIW, most 35mm films we have seen in the recent years have been in 2K D.I and or recording, not 4k. So 4K is rather in the 35mm upperclass.

 

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

 

Hi Jan,

 

Not sure if any DI's have been scanned @ 2K bayer.

Normally 2k RGB often downsampled from 3K RGB. 4K RGB downsampled from 6k has rather more resoloution than 2K downsampled from 3K. I have tested this back to film, it's not a theory. The scans & film out were provided by Arri Munich.

 

Stephen

[jan von krogh]

Hi Jan,

Not sure if any DI's have been scanned @ 2K bayer.

Normally 2k RGB often downsampled from 3K RGB. 4K RGB downsampled from 6k has rather more resoloution than 2K downsampled from 3K.

correct.

however, especially in the higher asas, we mainly get more grain resolved (which is helpful) when scanning @4k.

2K processing/d.i./vfx/animation is the huge mayority of all production anyhow.

 

The bottleneck in todays 35mm distribution system is the cinema (and the quality of the distribution copies as well), as all the precious resolution carefully protected so far there usually drops below 2k.

[jan von krogh]

The RED is a 4K Bayer-filtered single-sensor camera, not a telecine or a recording format.

 

To be totally overprecise, its a 4.9K Bayer-filtered single-sensor camera, which uses 4.5K of its sensor for recording.

Active Pixels 4520*2540, Full Array 4900*2580 (or something like that) IIRC.

[Stephen Williams]

The bottleneck in todays 35mm distribution system is the cinema (and the quality of the distribution copies as well), as all the precious resolution carefully protected so far there usually drops below 2k.

 

Hi Jan,

 

Do you think the 2k windowed sensor of the soon to be released Red one will equal the quality of 35mm 2K scans or indeed the HD output of your Sony 750's. Just curious as usual.

 

Stephen

[John Sprung]

IHas there been any tests with the RED telecining Super-8 or 16mm? It would be an interesting experiment.

In ancient times, back before video tape, West coast network delay was done by shooting the East coast feed on hot kinescope cameras, and running the film three hours later. The device used for that was called a "film chain" -- just a TV camera bolted to a projector. Towards the end of the last century, Ed DiGiulio tried the same thing using early Sony three chip HD cameras, but without much success in the market.

 

Bottom line, you can get much better mechanical registration and optical performance from a purpose-built telecine such as a Spirit. That overwhelms any savings you can get from adapting a mass produced camera into a resurrected film chain. But if you want to try it with a Red, the thing to do is search around for one of Ed's old machines. That'll get you a nice big box and a solid film transport for 16 and 35.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[jan von krogh]

Hi Jan,

 

Do you think the 2k windowed sensor of the soon to be released Red one will equal the quality of 35mm 2K scans or indeed the HD output of your Sony 750's. Just curious as usual.

 

Stephen

 

i think it will be much better than 35mm film.

 

what do you think?

 

do you see yourself still shooting 35mm photochemical within 3 years?

or will you prefer your (rented) viper and go

TOTALLY DIGITAL?

 

 

however.

35mm filmcamera demand is at a minimum, siince even conservative guy as stpehen is shooting mainly digital.

to remind the new reader - steven is the "moderator" here.

 

 

however, 1080p might be just enough for the moderators of this particular subforum-

furthermore, they bring evidence any day why red is ---

 

 

DoPs as the one running this forum hopefully will continue to use their inferior gear.

That gives us youngster precisely the timeframe of ~q2/20008 to earn back.

[Daniel Sheehy]

...DoPs as the one running this forum hopefully will continue to use their inferior gear.

That gives us youngster precisely the timeframe of ~q2/20008 to earn back.

 

You'll find, if you bother to recall, that professional people like Stephen shoot the format that the client wants. Their own personal preference often has very little to do with the decision.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Daniel Sheehy

[Stephen Williams]

i think it will be much better than 35mm film.

 

what do you think?

 

do you see yourself still shooting 35mm photochemical within 3 years?

or will you prefer your (rented) viper and go

TOTALLY DIGITAL?

however.

35mm filmcamera demand is at a minimum, siince even conservative guy as stpehen is shooting mainly digital.

to remind the new reader - steven is the "moderator" here.

however, 1080p might be just enough for the moderators of this particular subforum-

furthermore, they bring evidence any day why red is ---

DoPs as the one running this forum hopefully will continue to use their inferior gear.

That gives us youngster precisely the timeframe of ~q2/20008 to earn back.

 

Hi Jan,

 

I think a windowed 2k will stick out V Film or Red 4k, the sensor size is close to your 750 so that may match quite well depending on the quality of lenses you are using, without a back to back test it's impossible to know.

 

I think I will still be shooting film in 3 years time. This year to date I have shot more days 35mm (using rental equipment), closely followed by Viper. A couple days F900R , 1 Day Digital Betacam & some HDV. I have used my own 35mm cameras twice.

 

I am yet to see any evidence that the Dynamic Range of digital cameras equals or exceeds that of film, when/if that happens I will shoot more digital. The F23 is getting closer, I am waiting to see what Red offers.

 

Arri has a long waiting list for new film cameras including the 416 & Arricam. Aaton is about to release a new film camera. Film cameras demand currently exceeds supply.

 

By not owning any digital gear I have access to every camera in the market place, that gives me an advantage over people with a 'horse in the race'.

 

Fairly shortly I will be able to evaluate a Red camera, it's not clear what functions will work (25p ?) when the camera is first delivered. At that point I will know how useful it will be for the work I do in a PAL tv environment.

 

I had lunch yesterday with another Red reservation holder, I now have 15 Red cameras available v 1 Viper & 2 x Arri 435's. I am not in an danger of missing out by not personally having a reservation.

 

My best

 

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

You'll find, if you bother to recall, that professional people like Stephen shoot the format that the client wants. Their own personal preference often has very little to do with the decision.

 

Hi Daniel,

 

Very true, one of my clients has a HDCAM SR workflow, it makes sense for them to rent a Viper or F23. They choose to take me as a DOP because they like the pictures I produce with the equipment of their choice. I am also unable to communicate in their language! The young local DOP's would seem to have a clear advantage.

 

Stephen

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

The RED is a 4K Bayer-filtered single-sensor camera, not a telecine or a recording format. HDV is a recording format (1080i or 720P) that some consumer HD cameras use. You can't "telecine Super-8 to RED".

Actually If one were so inclined one could set up the Red camera with a film sniper (or workprinter) and use it to telecine the super8 footage, so in point of fact it can be used... is their any point to that is another question.

 

The real question is at what resolution using what equipment and recording to what format. Do you want to transfer Super-8 to NTSC, PAL, 720P, 1080i, 1080P, 2K, 4K? And at how much compression? Do you want to use tape formats for recording like digi-beta, D1, DV, DVCPRO-50, HDV, DVCPROHD, HDCAM, HD-D5, HDCAM-SR (at 4:2:2 or 4:4:4) -- or go uncompressed to computer tape formats or hard drives, in 720P, 1080P, 2K RGB, 4K RGB, etc. And then the question is where could you get this done in Super-8.

 

you can get the HD stuff done at Flying spot film transfer in seattle for one.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I just saw my first 2k DLP projected film (35mm origin) and hour ago and was blown away. I went in curious but suspicious after all of the "4k isn't 4k" hoopla. But in my own subjective viewing it was the sharpest cleanest 'print' I've ever seen projected. The blacks were a bit weak and that would be my only complaint but otherwise... wow... just wow. 2k > Film Print. Can't wait for 4k.

 

In regards to Super 8. I would rather capture 4k worth of grain character than upsample SDTV to 4k for projection. I've seen HD 8mm and I've seen SD 8mm. And the SD scans/telecines looked splotchy.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Gavin Greenwalt