S16 DI

Alex Ellerman · November 5, 2004

I hope this topic isn't too inflammatory... but I'm curious about the S16 to 2K DI workflow... if you have enough money to fund a nice S16 shoot, hire some good people, feed & pay them some money, and then pay for the 2K D.I. and submit the 2k DI to some fests before you seek additional funding pending a favorable reception...

I ask this b/c I've put together six figures (of my own funds) and a location for my low budget thriller and this is the path I'm considering.

Does that mesh with some people's mindsets? I can't see fronting the money for a 35mm print unless you're sure your film kicks ass and has a shot at distribution... as festival peeps are watching on a television set anyway, why not give them a dvd version, right? I know if you get into Sundance you're probably gonna want a print, but it's not an absolute necessity, is it?

Forgive me if this has been covered, but it's not something I see proposed very often. I welcome your thoughts.

theturnaround

Edited November 5, 2004 by theturnaround

Mitch Gross · November 5, 2004

I agree with everything you say except for the part about paying for a 2k DI right now. That's a lot of cash to put out for a festival screening hoping to get an eventual release. Better to transfer dailies to a SD format such as DigiBeta and edit off this. You can color correct this to submit to festivals and should the project be picked up you can then go back and transfer selects in 2k or whatever else for mastering. Don't spend the bucks until you have to, but I think it's a perfectly viable alternative. You probably won't find 2k projection available at stivals any time soon, but you can have it downconverted to HDCam or something similar for projection.

Keith Mottram · November 5, 2004

have you considered doing a HD transfer? You can often get much better deals on a Spirit HD grade than a 2K DI and the blowup quality of HD compared to 2K for S16 is pretty compareable. This would enable you to make an HD master for festivals that accept it and you could then transfer to film when you have the funds.

Keith

November 5, 2004

2k , 4k

Why not 3k?

Alex Ellerman · November 5, 2004

Mitch - thanks for the wisdom, I read your recent 2pop experiences on editing and I greatly appreciate your practical opinion.

Keith - thanks as well, i had not considered that route. Which HD format are you suggesting? D5? or some other format? I don't know much about Spirit HD, or spirit HD versus 2k specifically...

Best,

theturnaround

Edited November 5, 2004 by theturnaround

Keith Mottram · November 5, 2004

Mitch - thanks for the wisdom, I read your recent 2pop experiences on editing and I greatly appreciate your practical opinion.

Keith - thanks as well, i had not considered that route. Which HD format are you suggesting? D5? or some other format? I don't know much about Spirit HD, or spirit HD versus 2k specifically...

Best,

theturnaround

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SR or D5 would be preferable if your NLE can handle dual link, but HDCAM will give you good results and from a recent test the differences between SR and HDCAM once blown up are there, but if its a budget question I would think twice- if you are upgrading a suite and adding costs of SR decks (you'll pay a hire premium for the TK plus SR decks are still a lot more to hire in) you could easily add an extra 5 grand plus onto your budget.

Keith

Edited November 5, 2004 by keith mottram

Alex Ellerman · November 6, 2004

For purposes of this discussion, I was trying to put the formats in order...

1. (Panasonic) DVCPRO-HD (1280x720)

2. (Sony) HDCAM, (1920x1080 pixels, just below 2k film resolution)

3. (Panasonic) HD-D5

4. (Sony) HDCAM SR

is that essentially right?

Thanks for your input - I found some of your posts on editing as well Keith and found them helpful.

theturnaround

Edited November 6, 2004 by theturnaround

Michael Most · November 7, 2004

and then pay for the 2K D.I. and submit the 2k DI to some fests before you seek additional funding pending a favorable reception...

May I ask a pertinent question: is there a reason you feel you need to do a digital intermediate? Is there a particular look you're going after that you can't achieve in production? Are there particular production problems you're anticipating (i.e., weather changes causing matching problems, etc.)? Does the piece have a large amount of visual effects?

Unless your answer is yes to at least one of the above questions, I really don't see the need for a digital intermediate, which comes with a significant price tag. Why not consider a traditional film finish, with a 35mm blowup if necessary? And, more to the point, why not forego the film finish until the finished piece is sold? Nearly all festivals these days have digital projection available, so submission of a video version is not a problem. You could finish on either standard or high def video much more economically than any film finish. Just a thought.

Alex Ellerman · November 7, 2004

Thank you for the inquiry - it helps me orient my thought process. My film is a thriller, 98 pages, small cast, limited locations, etc. There are no dogs/kids/cgi, sfx, etc.

The DI stemmed from working with S16. I thought it was the preferred route to take for presentation. I figured it would create a high quality product that would validate & preserve the benefits of my choice of using S16.

I've learned that perhaps finishing and delivering an SD copy may be sufficient... The subsequent question for me is if I could deliver a DI/HD copy to festivals as opposed to a 35mm print? It's a variable question b/c of the differences in fests, of course, in terms of equipment for projection and distribution potential provided by the fest.

I have lots to learn,

theturnaround

Edited November 7, 2004 by theturnaround

Michael Most · November 7, 2004

The subsequent question for me is if I could deliver a DI/HD copy to festivals as opposed to a 35mm print?

I don't know of any current film festival of substance that only accepts 35mm prints.

You haven't even started shooting yet. I suggest that at this point, you take off your artist's hat, put on your producer hat, and start thinking a bit more like a businessman, particularly if it's your own money. The only time you'll really need a 35mm print is when the picture goes out for theatrical distribution. You're currently a long, long way from that. Your aim at this point should be to shoot in a format that allows you maximum quality for limited investment, and the ability to be converted to different distribution formats with minimal loss. Those are both good arguments for shooting in S16, as you're already aware. The next step is to shoot the piece and put together a "screenable" version to attract attention and distributors. In this day and age, that can be anything from a DVD to HD projection to film projection. But as a businessman (I hope you've got that hat on now...), it should be clear that film projection is not going to get you a deal any quicker than the other options. The deal will be made based on the merits of the material - story, direction, commercial (or other) appeal, originality, and numerous other factors - and, to a lesser extent, production values, which can easily be judged in any of the aforementioned formats. On any limited budget production, anything that isn't absolutely necessary needs to be sacrificed for the greater good. In your case, that's even more important because it's your own money. Spend that money wisely, where it matters. And if a 35mm print is still what you feel is important, understand that a digital intermediate is by far the most expensive way of achieving it. Don't be guided by industry hype, be guided by common sense and reality.

Fulgencio Martinez · November 7, 2004

Hi,

I have a feature to be shoot in a few months.

I´m thinking about using a hd DI from my s16 neg. (100T & 200T vision2)

Maybe i will have a changing weather.

I´m thinking about as i want to fake some speed ramps shotting a scene at 50fps and slowing to 24 at some points. we have to shoot very quick so this could be done in post easier than setting a real speed ramp.

The thing is that i love the look of traditional s16 and want the film to have natural feeling.

Will i get many video artifact from a D5 DI?

Michael Most · November 7, 2004

The thing is that i love the look of traditional s16 and want the film to have natural feeling.

Then finish on film. If you need specific sequences that are problematic to be adjusted digitally, then do only those sequences digitally.

HD is not DI, any more than DV is S16. It is a video format, and as such, operates in a different and far more limited color space than film or full digital scans. When you transfer to an HD video format, you are changing the colorspace in which you are working, which leads to a more "video" look when you attempt to translate it back to film. The colorimetry is not the same, contrast is changed, flesh tones look different, and other artifacts come into play. Resolution is not the sole determining factor in image processing, there are a lot of other parameters involved. Some have gotten good results in spite of this, but the system itself is not intended for this use. If you really want to work this way, I would strongly suggest doing some tests first. You might not like what you see, but then again you might. That's for you to decide based on your own material and your own taste.

John Sprung · November 8, 2004

i want to fake some speed ramps shotting a scene at 50fps and slowing to 24 at some points. we have to shoot very quick so this could be done in post easier than setting a real speed ramp.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Frame rate, let alone speed ramps, can't really be faked at all well in post. Temporal interpolation is still an unsolved problem. It would require object recognition, so it's equivalent to the problem of robot vision. For speed ramps, you need to do it in production.

-- J.S.

Fulgencio Martinez · November 8, 2004

Hi,

I will do some test about it, but shooting at 48 or 50fps and taking it to 24 doesn´t need any temporal interpolation as it isn´t needed to create unfilmed frames.

I think it´s a fact of take out some of the frame.

It would be the same if i had a 24fps image and want to slow it. i´d have a problem there.

I could be wrong about this.

I know the issues about colorspace but i won´t be doing extreme color grading so maybe the artifact will be less visible.

I´d love to hear if there is anyone with experience about process.