My footage seems pretty grainy after telecine

[Thomas Worth]

Here's a still from a 16mm shoot (not S16). The colorist at Entertainment Post didn't do much to the footage, which was Kodak 7218 exposed and processed normally. The whole run came out like this. Any ideas?

 

 

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, it is 500ASA stock in standard 16 - a certain amount of grain is to be expected. Available light night exteriors probably look better on video - see Collateral.

 

Phil

[hmc4me]

Hi. These do not look to bad to me.

Do you have a short clip.

I've noticed that stills never look like the video does.

 

What was your exposure. You know if you overexpose by about a 1/2 stop you can cut down the grain you see from faster films.

[David Mullen ASC]

The grain does not look unusually bad for 500 ASA film in 16mm shot at night. Crushing the blacks a little may help hide some of it, as would a little noise reduction.

[dangertree]

Hello,

 

My 2 cents, ND the heck out of the headlights when shooting a car at night. Otherwise they blow out everything else.

 

What was your exposure anyway? Wide open (at what?).

 

Cheers,

 

Walt

[Thomas Worth]

Thanks for the insight. The stuff above was shot wide open at just over T2, so unfortunately I couldn't overexpose. In the future, I will try overexposure with faster lenses to see if I can cut down on the grain.

 

By the way, what is a better idea: pull processing the footage after deliberate overexposure, or processing normally and having the colorist do it in telecine?

 

I tried grain reduction on the video and it worked well. However, does better software exist that can be utilized during telecine? It seems to me that the footage should be manipulated while in a much greater color space (in this case, straight off the Rank) than when imported into After Effects or an NLE.

 

The ND on the headlights is a great idea, and I will definitely try that the next chance I get.

[Wendell_Greene]

Thanks for the insight. The stuff above was shot wide open at just over T2, so unfortunately I couldn't overexpose. In the future, I will try overexposure with faster lenses to see if I can cut down on the grain.

 

By the way, what is a better idea: pull processing the footage after deliberate overexposure, or processing normally and having the colorist do it in telecine?

 

 

 

Depending on the conditions and what your were exposing for within the scene, you could have rated your film at 320 or 400 instead of 500 and the slight overexposure would have helped tighten the grain.

 

I wouldn't recommend pull processing for night scenes or situation where most of the image in frame is dark since pulling lowers contrast and the speed of your film . Your blacks and blues end up looking gray. Of course, going to telecine you have more control which allows you to add contrast, but it seems to me you'd be working against yourself.

Edited November 21, 2004 by Wendell_Greene

[Alvin Pingol]

Hi Thomas, was there any form of sharpening filters applied to the telecined material?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Two tools are available in telecine - noise reduction and softness. Noise reduction is exactly what it says - it can however behave somewhat strangely on very fast moving objects since i.e. is a grain cancelling scheme that reacts to changes in frame.

 

Softness is new tool built in to the newer 2K DaVinci's and is a very helpful in getting some of that sharp harshness away from especially high contrast images. You just dial in how much you need. I use it all the time and like it a lot - it's different than filtering, but I can't explain how. Just looks very organic. Try it.

 

In post you can always do a bit of de-grain. Usually mostly used to pretty up skin in RnB videos, but is a good tool to make things sharper and less grainy. Beware that it can work strangely on fast moving shots and shots with lots of motion blur.

Edited November 21, 2004 by AdamFrisch

[Thomas Worth]

Hi Thomas, was there any form of sharpening filters applied to the telecined material?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Alvin, I didn't do anything to the footage before posting it here. Those are grabs straight off the tape. The colorist did some general correction, but nothing fancy. Oh and for those who don't know, Entertainment Post in Burbank uses Rank telecines coupled to what look like Cintel graders. I don't think they have da Vincis.

[Nate Downes]

It looks like bad telecine to me. Most of the "grain" is reminiscint of compression artifacts and data noise, in other words a digital pattern and not what I'd expect to see for heavy grain in film.

 

What format was it telecined to? It looks almost like an M-JPEG with heavier-than-average compression. Film grain in it looks pretty good to me, and adds a bit of flavor to it. But some of the pattern in, say, the greys of the tunnel look more like JPEG compression artifacts to me than anything else.

Edited November 22, 2004 by downix

[David Mullen ASC]

The noise, if that's what it is (looks like grain to me) could also result if the shot was underexposed and required brightening in the telecine. This is one reason why crushing the blacks a little will help hide some of that.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Thomas,

I don't know if I agree completely with everyone here. It looks as if it was underexposed by a couple of stops, brightened, and then had alot of contrat added so that your blacks wouldn't stay milky.

 

I've just completed a shoot where I shot in a very similar situation (7218 at night). It didn't need to be brought up but I've posted some frames from my transfer which look (grain wise) better than the stuff you got at your post facility. These are the dailies and have had nothing done. I will admit that these were off of a Spirit and DaVinci 2k. Your images are similar to digital camera photos which have had heavy sharpening and contrast added. You might want to try transferring a 100' somewhere else on the same equipment to see if you get a better result from a different colorist.

 

regards

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually, your shots look higher in contrast, not his. His look a little washed-out compared to yours. The difference could easily be due to exposure -- your frames look better exposed, thus the blacks are richer and the grain is tighter. But your footage may have had some low-level of noise reduction applied, it's hard to tell.

[Thomas Worth]

I will admit that these were off of a Spirit and DaVinci 2k.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, now that's what I would have liked to see from my session. A few questions:

1. Is this regular 16 or Super-16?

2. Did you overexpose and pull it back in telecine?

3. Was any grain reduction performed during telecine?

 

And what is the possibility that the Rank itself is part of the problem? Don't they use CRT imaging devices instead of CCDs (like with a Spirit)? Kind of like when video cameras still used tubes to capture images before CCDs were commonplace.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not so much of a CCD-versus-flying spot scanner issue, but the Spirit uses a diffused light source behind the film rather than a point source, so it tends to hide grain a little more, whereas the grain is more sharply resolved by the flying spot scanner electron beam.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Wow, now that's what I would have liked to see from my session. A few questions:

1. Is this regular 16 or Super-16?

2. Did you overexpose and pull it back in telecine?

3. Was any grain reduction performed during telecine?

 

And what is the possibility that the Rank itself is part of the problem? Don't they use CRT imaging devices instead of CCDs (like with a Spirit)? Kind of like when video cameras still used tubes to capture images before CCDs were commonplace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First to respond to David, mine ARE higher contrast but what I meant was his seemed to be brought up and had contrast added to give him 'blacks' which resulted in grain, as you said. But it also seems to have some other digital artifacts.

 

Yes it was Super 16, but that doesn't make too much difference. I exposed for the existing flourescents and based my lighting on that exposure. It was exposed and processed normally. I'm a little hestitiant to overexpose because I like hot highlights and when you darken highlights in telecine, you get more grain and noise. No grain reduction was used but I did forget to mention that the highlights were defocused slightly in the last 2 frames.

I would guess it's not the Rank but a combination of exposure and the way the color console attached to the Rank processes the data. Ranks can actually produce nice results (by today's standards) in the hands of a good colorist. Spirits tend to hide grain a bit better due to the use of a diffused xenon light source. The light from a tube is more coherent and thus gives sharper grain.

Edited November 22, 2004 by Eric Steelberg

[Thomas Worth]

I think I'd like to try another transfer house just to see if there is any improvement. Can someone recommend one in the Hollywood area? I also favor transfers to PAL over NTSC, so if someone knows of a house that does both, that would be great. Oh and yes, I am already familiar with FotoKem, but they are a little too pricey for my budget (although I do have my stuff processed there).

 

Thanks for all of your help, guys! :P

[John Mastrogiacomo]

This brings up another question. How does the Spirit compare to the Sony Vialta for grain? I read where the Vialta uses fixed array imaging which produces less grain. Does anyone have any experience transferring 16mm or S16 with the Spirit and the Vialta?

 

John Mastrogiacomo

Spectra Video

 

I think I'd like to try another transfer house just to see if there is any improvement. Can someone recommend one in the Hollywood area? I also favor transfers to PAL over NTSC, so if someone knows of a house that does both, that would be great. Oh and yes, I am already familiar with FotoKem, but they are a little too pricey for my budget (although I do have my stuff processed there).

 

Thanks for all of your help, guys! :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[David Mullen ASC]

Both the Spirit and the Vialta use a CCD, the only difference being that in one case, the film is moved past it (line array for the Spirit) and the other, the film is held still in front of it (intermittent movement for the Vialta.)

 

I don't think Fotokem's rate for using the Spirit is higher than other places. Most telecine houses do PAL and NTSC transfers. I've also used a Spirit at Ascent Media and The Post Group.

 

Did you shoot a gray scale at the head of the roll? I'd be curious to see that. It would also tell you if the footage that followed it was underexposed because once you set up the telecine to the gray scale, the footage that followed would look dark in comparison if underexposed.

[Thomas Worth]

I don't think Fotokem's rate for using the Spirit is higher than other places.  Most telecine houses do PAL and NTSC transfers.  I've also used a Spirit at Ascent Media and The Post Group.

Does FotoKem use Spirits? The last time I was in a supervised session there, they were using a Millennium Machine hooked up to a da Vinci. "Kai," the German guy, was the colorist.

 

Did you shoot a gray scale at the head of the roll? I'd be curious to see that.  It would also tell you if the footage that followed it was underexposed because once you set up the telecine to the gray scale, the footage that followed would look dark in comparison if underexposed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I DID shoot a gray scale (and it was very dark), but since I was shooting all over downtown, the lighting conditions I shot the gray scale under don't really apply to these particular shots. Besides, I knew that I was going to do some heavy color manipulation in post and all I needed from the colorist was a general "good" look.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Telecines with diffuse illumination (like the Spirit, which uses a Kodak scanner) will be less likely to enhance any surface roughness like matte particles, and will be more forgiving of any surface abrasions:

 

http://develop.studeo.com/asc/magazine/may99/film/pg1.htm

 

http://catalogs.infocommiq.com/AVCAT/image...dfs/ACF12F1.pdf

 

http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/news/200...ng_Release.html

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressRelea...980624-02.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressRelea...011017-02.shtml

[Thomas Worth]

Okay, here's another frame that exhibits the same problem. This is 7246 (250D), exposed normally. Again, really grainy. This was transferred on the same exact Rank as the previous stuff I posted:

 

[John Pytlak RIP]

Okay, here's another frame that exhibits the same problem. This is 7246 (250D), exposed normally. Again, really grainy. This was transferred on the same exact Rank as the previous stuff I posted:

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That looks like something other than film grain. I suspect the telecine is imaging something on the film surface and enhancing it. Try a different telecine, use a wet gate, or use less enhancement.

Edited November 22, 2004 by John_P_Pytlak

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Fotokem has 6 or 8 Spirits. They've had them for a few years. I've heard projects I've done have gone there for as little as little as $175 for unsupervised sessions. But with telecine especially, you get what you pay for.