Is this a proper Post Production step?

[Landon D. Parks]

Ok, Now I have never worked with 35mm before, so this question may seem dumb to those of you who work around this all the time. but:

 

Is this a logical way to shoot 35mm? (If you have the funds to do it this way):

 

1. Scan the Finnished footages @ low resolution to edit on Avid

2. Generate EDL

3. Cut Negative from EDL

4. Scan final cut @ High Quallity into the Avid

5. Put together the actual cuts in the avid

6. Do Digital Titles, Fade effects, CG, ect.

7. Color correct in Devinci

8. Blow-out to Film again.

 

I know this is not the cheapest way, but still im wondering if it would work? Seems like I recall Kodak's site saying this is how they shot the film "Peter Pan" (2004 version).

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

You have the sequence of events essentially correct, but there are some specifics you're missing. You don't usually cut the negative if you're doing digital intermediate; instead, the EDL from the offline cut is used to control the scanner, which scans only the frames you need (plus handles for safety and to allow for adjustment in the online) from the lab rolls.

 

Assuming there are no special effects beyond dissolves, the actual assembly of all these huge directories of frames can generally be done by the colour corrector, certainly Baselight will do this. They simply read the same EDL the scanner had and go look for the frames as they need them, exactly like the way FCP or Premiere has a directory full of quicktime movies and assembles the timeline from them according to the project file.

 

If you do have effects or any other work like degraining or scratch fixing, which is common even in productions which do not do an overall DI, it really depends on the individual facility as to how they want to proceed. It'll just be some variation on getting the frames for the shot out of the directory structure you've set up and then rendering them back in. Most software has the ability to reconform changed material.

 

Then you'd do your colour correction, output the production (or reels thereof) to a whole load more still image files, and burn them out.

 

Phil

[John Sprung]

You don't usually cut the negative if you're doing digital intermediate;

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup, the best idea is to avoid the dirt and danger of actually physically cutting the negative.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Filip Plesha]

Isn't the negative cut after the DI work for archiving purpuses?

[Max Jacoby]

Isn't the negative cut after the DI work for archiving purpuses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep.

 

Since it gives you better quality than the negs output from the DI. So as DI technology improves, one can always go back and rescan the original.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, if you cut the neg, that would make it extremely difficult to go back and rescan it to the same EDL as you'd have destroyed the keykode sequencing!

 

In some cases people will precut neg before scanning if they know that there's only a very small number of good takes, but that's just a handling convenience, and it isn't done much.

 

Phil

[John Sprung]

Isn't the negative cut after the DI work for archiving purpuses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, not here. We save all the uncut neg in a huge limestone mine back in Pennsylvania. We figure that in the future, we'll be able to run the uncut neg thru a scanner that will go by key codes and pick out the images it needs without the handling required for neg cutting.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Landon D. Parks]

I have a question. When going the DI route, do you actually have the Camera Negative developed? or do you just scan the camera negative? Im Confussed.

 

Like for instance, would I:

 

Take camera negative to lab for developing, then scan it... Or just have the camera negative scanned?

 

I know very little about 35mm and DI in general, Maybee you already picked up on that?

 

Hope that makes since.

[Nate Yolles]

You must have the negative developed. No matter which post path you take, the negative must go through the bath.

 

From there you can print it so that it can be projected.

 

OR

 

If you go to telecine it to D5/DigiBeta/miniDV/pixel vision or whatever, you can save some money and skip the printing step by going straight off of the negative - the developed negative. Not to mention that it is one less step in the process to a better finished product.

[Landon D. Parks]

Can you scan it to Uncompressed Hard disk's too? I hear you say D5, miniDv, ect. But all are compressed formates.

 

It would be great if there were NO compression added along the way also.

 

Anyway, DI works this way:

1. Have Camera Negative Processed

2. Scan Developed camera negative @ low resolution for editing

3. Generate EDL

4. Scan Developed camera negative @ High Resolution

5. Put the "Film" together as a digital file

6. Color correct, ect

7. Output to 35mm Film Master via HD - 35mm Transfer

I think this is the way Arri's Website says it is done (On there 3 - perf Page).

 

P.S) Speaking of 3 - perf, Is that a good way to shoot if you plan to go the DI process? And have the Developed camera negative scanned?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

You have the sequence of events roughly right. Yes, super35 is made easier by DI - it's no more expensive than 4-perf if you're already doing a DI, whereas if you want to finish optically there's an optical-printer step which is not cheap.

 

Phil

[Landon D. Parks]

Is 3-perf 1:1.85 super 35mm? I Did'nt know that. does'nt Super 35 have more resolution than regulare 35?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Can you scan it to Uncompressed Hard disk's too? I hear you say D5, miniDv, ect. But all are compressed formates.

 

It would be great if there were NO compression added along the way also.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it can be done, taken straight from the film scanner straight to an external NTFS hard drive into a filmstrip format. I'm not sure why people burn it onto these tape formats, because as you say, it then compresses it. What?s the point in shooting 35mm and then compressing it down to MiniDV e.t.c. ? I think if you had a chat to the telecine operator you could sort something out. But be prepared to buy multiple hard drives, because a 10megabit a second film strip just eats up the space. And you must make sure you don't damage the delicate hard drive. And believe me, they are VERY delicate. Get a dedicated external hard drive, not a hard drive + external mount. My friend Andrew brought his computer along down to my house for a huge network game and wad'a'ya know the hard drive was corrupt. We spent most of the evening re-installing everything... :(

[Nate Yolles]

Your steps 2 & 4 can be combined and done at the same time. You can telecine simultaneously to your high res tape as well as your low res tape or you can do a dupe to a lower format. The dupe is cheaper, but many prefer the simul. Either way, when done this way, the timecode matches between your two versions and that's how your EDL makes work more efficient.

 

Super 35 does use more negative space, the space intended for the optical track. For the most part, people frame for 2.39 when shooting 3-perf super 35. A lot of TV is shot on 3-perf though. As Phil said, if you're doing a DI, costs will be the same in post for 4-perf and 3-perf, the savings will be in the 25% less film shot and thus the 25% less film developed.

[Landon D. Parks]

Your steps 2 & 4 can be combined

Yes, but its more expensive. When you edit, you scan a lot of footage into the computer.

 

but scanning all the footage at H Q would be expensive, compared to just scanning 2 hours @ H Q compared to 20 hours of H Q telecine.

[Nate Yolles]

What?s the point in shooting 35mm and then compressing it down to MiniDV e.t.c. ?

 

Well, for your final product for a professional film, there is no point in shooting 35mm and only transferring to miniDV. You transfer to your professional grade tape stock (whatever you choices may be) and you transfer to something lesser as well (ie. miniDV) for your own purposes. Whether those purposes are for personal viewing, logging, evaluation, and most likely the off-line edit. Keep in mind though that miniDV has it's own timecode so doing an offline edit with miniDV will not give you an EDL that matches your high-res version. You can get the miniDV tape with a DVcam stamp which will make the timecode match, but it won't play in regular miniDV decks, the deck must be a DVcam/miniDV deck.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Ok I think I'm taking over John Pytlak's job here.

 

Super35 Kodak

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well, for your final product for a professional film, there is no point in shooting 35mm and only transferring to miniDV. You transfer to your professional grade tape stock (whatever you choices may be) and you transfer to something lesser as well (ie. miniDV) for your own purposes. Whether those purposes are for personal viewing, logging, evaluation, and most likely the off-line edit.  Keep in mind though that miniDV has it's own timecode so doing an offline edit with miniDV will not give you an EDL that matches your high-res version. You can get the miniDV tape with a DVcam stamp which will make the timecode match, but it won't play in regular miniDV decks, the deck must be a DVcam/miniDV deck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeh, pretty good idea actually. Although depending on how much the telecine operator will charge, it might be worth compiling a MiniDV tape from the raw footage on you professional stock type. If you have the equipment that is.. I'm not sure how much they would charge extra for that, but it could be a fair bit, for all I know.

 

Thing is, the TK operator will burn an edited version. Can he burn the same version to both the stocks?

[Nate Yolles]

Yes, they charge a little bit extra to record simultaneously to both tape formats. Although, keep in mind you can work all kinds of deals and prices aren't necessarily written in stone.

 

Typically, deals withstanding, it would be cheaper to telecine to your "good" stock and then dupe that down to your offline stock. People - people on this board - have said that they don't like dupping from one compression scheme to another (ie, digiBeta to miniDV) so they pefer the simul.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Typically, deals withstanding, it would be cheaper to telecine to your "good" stock and then dupe that down to your offline stock.

Yeh, it would be cheaper. But you gotta have the equipment in the first place, trouble is, most people haven't. You either need a VTR that can record or a camera where you can record back onto the tape.

[Nate Yolles]

I meant, it would still be cheaper to have the telecine house do the dupe for you.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Daniel, if you're paying £500/hour for telecine, another couple of hundred quid to have it dubbed down to DVCAM isn't exactly significant.

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I meant, it would still be cheaper to have the telecine house do the dupe for you.

Well, not if you know how to do it yourself. Just takes a bit of compressing and time. Pain in the ass but, saves you money, I'd say anyway.

 

Daniel, if you're paying £500/hour for telecine, another couple of hundred quid to have it dubbed down to DVCAM isn't exactly significant.

Maybe not, but.. If you don't have a budget to throw around, then you gotta be really carefull.

[Landon D. Parks]

So, you can shoot 2.39 in 3 -perf? Is'nt that Anamorphic?

 

Why should I choose to shoot Anamorphic 2.39 over 1.85 in 3 - perf? Is 2.39 easier to shoot or somthing?

 

P.S, This is a cool diagram of how 3-perf post works:

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Super-35 is used mainly to be cropped to whatever release format you want.

 

"Full Aperture" means the largest area you can use, from top to bottom of the gate and from side-to-side, sprocket row to sprocket row. Full Aperture / Super-35 in 4-perf is 1.33 : 1 (4x3), and in 3-perf, it is 1.78 : 1 (16x9).

 

Either can be framed to be cropped to 1.78 (16x9), 1.85, or 2.39. If composed to be cropped to 2.39 : 1, the image will then be squeezed to become an anamorphic image for output to 35mm scope.

 

It's not really harder or easier to compose for one format or another. Just depends on how much work you want to put into protecting the area OUTSIDE of the cropped area from unwanted junk for when you make any full-frame 4x3 TV versions. If you shoot 4-perf Super-35 (1.33 : 1) composed from cropping nearly in half vertically to 2.39 : 1, that's a LOT of excess space to try and protect. Most people only half try and just figure on spending some time reframing the image in post for the 4x3 full-frame TV version, figuring it is no more work than panning & scanning a 2.39 anamorphic image, and probably getting better results for that naturally compromised version.

 

As to why shoot 1.85 versus 2.39, that's an artistic issue. Scope images on a big screen tend to look more cinematic, more epic, but can also be used to compose small intimate interior scenes in more unusual ways (off-centered compositions can be more extreme and striking), while the 1.85 frame, being closer to the "Golden Rectangle" of paintings, is probably more classical, more balanced, plus handles vertical subject matter better.

 

Since there are no 2.39 TV sets, scope images that are letterboxed will generally be shorter vertically on TV rather than wider horizontally as in most theaters, so the impact is less strong.