my film is soft

[David Auner aac]

In any case I'd be happy to apply the $500 your director paid for the 2 hours of telecine toward the cost of rescanning your project at 2K resolution from a Spirit 4K. The results will indeed be sharper than what you have now. Give us a call tomorrow if you want to discuss further.

 

Hi Paul,

 

being not related to Lee's project at all, I have to say that that is quite generous offer. I only wish your example would spread!

 

Kudos, Dave

[Phil Rhodes]

Sigh. I've had 16 come back looking like this. The biggest single problem with shooting any sort of film is that this sort of thing can and will happen and you will probably never figure out what went wrong. If you're a huge feature they'll want to ensure you're happy, but as a little indie, you're way down the bottom of everyone's list.

 

If it's all equally soft it does point to telecine. I would expect any telecine, even an older SD one, to look considerably better than this. If it doesn't, it isn't being properly maintained. Even the nastiest old stuff is capable of better than this if properly looked after. I think anyone trying to upsell you to a more expensive transfer, at this point, is being a bit disengenuous. Even if you're just doing SD, it should still look like reasonable SD. If this is what the "diamond clear HD" looks like, it isn't really even "diamond clear SD!"

 

P

[Stephen Williams]

Sigh. I've had 16 come back looking like this. The biggest single problem with shooting any sort of film is that this sort of thing can and will happen and you will probably never figure out what went wrong. If you're a huge feature they'll want to ensure you're happy, but as a little indie, you're way down the bottom of everyone's list.

 

If it's all equally soft it does point to telecine. I would expect any telecine, even an older SD one, to look considerably better than this. If it doesn't, it isn't being properly maintained. Even the nastiest old stuff is capable of better than this if properly looked after. I think anyone trying to upsell you to a more expensive transfer, at this point, is being a bit disengenuous. Even if you're just doing SD, it should still look like reasonable SD. If this is what the "diamond clear HD" looks like, it isn't really even "diamond clear SD!"

 

P

 

Hi Phil,

 

Your are correct, a Mk III should be capble of far better, let alone the 3rd generation of an Ursa. The tube is almost certanly finished, I suspect they have been running the beam current below spec to try to get the tube to last longer, however there is no evidence that the tube life is extended by doing so just worse pictures from day 1.

 

If the Ursa is not working properly they should get the transfer done on the spirit at no extra cost IMO.

 

Stephen

[David Rakoczy]

Sigh. I've had 16 come back looking like this. The biggest single problem with shooting any sort of film is that this sort of thing can and will happen and you will probably never figure out what went wrong. P

 

I don't believe this for a second. I shoot predominately 16 and mine has never/ will never come back like that. Making this statement with regard to 'cheap transfers' (i.e. you get what you pay for) is one thing... but applying it to 'Film' in general as just something you have to suck up now and then and deal with is wrong... and the once or twice in 25 years there was an issue we figured it out and corrected it.

 

I'd give Film a bit more credit than that Phil.

[Paul Korver]

Sigh. I've had 16 come back looking like this. The biggest single problem with shooting any sort of film is that this sort of thing can and will happen and you will probably never figure out what went wrong. If you're a huge feature they'll want to ensure you're happy, but as a little indie, you're way down the bottom of everyone's list.

 

Hi Phil,

It sounds like you've had some bad experiences with post houses. Most of our clients are indie-types and while I realize we can't make everyone 100% happy all the time we try to be fair at minimum and exceed expectations whenever possible. We're still a small shop and take every complaint seriously. There has yet to be a time (knock wood) when we haven't been able to determine "what went wrong" and correct an issue.

 

If it's all equally soft it does point to telecine. I would expect any telecine, even an older SD one, to look considerably better than this. If it doesn't, it isn't being properly maintained. Even the nastiest old stuff is capable of better than this if properly looked after. I think anyone trying to upsell you to a more expensive transfer, at this point, is being a bit disengenuous. Even if you're just doing SD, it should still look like reasonable SD. If this is what the "diamond clear HD" looks like, it isn't really even "diamond clear SD!"

 

Your are correct, a Mk III should be capble of far better, let alone the 3rd generation of an Ursa. The tube is almost certanly finished, I suspect they have been running the beam current below spec to try to get the tube to last longer, however there is no evidence that the tube life is extended by doing so just worse pictures from day 1.

 

Phil and Stephen,

I'm not sure what experiences you've had with other post houses that would lead you suspect believe we're deliberately trying to put out crappy images. On the contrary we are mildly obsessed with creating pretty pictures. At a fairly high cost to us we do maintain our URSA, PECs and Tube and always run it at full beam current (300). That said, I agree the images Lee posted do look a bit soft but not uniformly so (some look sharper than others to my eye). I, too have seen quite a bit sharper images from our Diamond Clear transfers, however, without critically examining the neg (something we'd be happy to do if Lee or the director would ask us to) there is no way to know for certain what's causing the issue. I'm not blind to the fact that sometimes operator & mechanical errors do occur... In which case we would be retransfer the film for free using the method they paid for... Diamond Clear HD and offer some future discounts as a result of the hassle. My offer to Lee for 2K scans was not an attempt to "upsell"... rather it was in response to Lee's first post in this thread which indicated that 2K was what he was expecting from the outset:

 

I just photographed a film for my friend and the DI we got back is soft. Now I know I couldn't have shot the whole film soft. The film was processed a week after it was shot. I also know that the lens is not the culprit because another production used it after us with no problems. Can a telecine make an image soft? Is that even possible? I don't want to jump to conclusions and start blaming the lab. Anyways, I'd appreciate some input here.

 

Camera-Arri SR

Lens-Zeiss 10-100mm 3.1

Stock-Kodak 50D, 250D, and 500t

Processing-FotoKem and Alphacine

Telecine-Cinelicious (2k)

[Lee Young]

Hi Paul,

I'd like to first say that I started this blog in order to make sure that my equipment or my judgment was not at fault. That being said, I am going off the word of my director and FotoKem that the negative has a lot more detail on it. The images telecined by Alphacine from my prior film look a lot sharper and detailed then the xfer from you guys. This was personally where my expectations were. I understand that you both use a rank telecine. Now if you're saying that your machine cannot preform at the same level as Alphacine's, fine. I'm still not happy, but if that's the best that machine can do, than there's nothing to be done about it. It sounds like you're saying you believe that machine is capable of better pictures as long as there are sharp images on the negative and the operator's not making mistakes.

 

The reason I have not called you is that I didn't want to bother you about it unless I was sure that the negative was sharp. Also, the director plans on stopping by very soon. I appreciate your offer to allow us to use the spirit machine, although it is ultimately up to the director whether he wants to do it, since he's actually paying for it. I also feel that it would be unfair to expect that you guys make us this offer just because I did not bother to find out all the details of the the transfer. All I expected was quality along the lines of the budget HD tranfer I got from Alpha Cine. I very much appreciate that you want to make things right. I am just trusting that FotoKem and Daniel are correct about the state of the negative. If they are not, then I apologize and retract all of this. Again, thank you for the offer, you'll hear from Daniel shortly.

[Paul Korver]

Hi Paul,

I'd like to first say that I started this blog in order to make sure that my equipment or my judgment was not at fault. That being said, I am going off the word of my director and FotoKem that the negative has a lot more detail on it. The images telecined by Alphacine from my prior film look a lot sharper and detailed then the xfer from you guys. This was personally where my expectations were. I understand that you both use a rank telecine. Now if you're saying that your machine cannot preform at the same level as Alphacine's, fine. I'm still not happy, but if that's the best that machine can do, than there's nothing to be done about it. It sounds like you're saying you believe that machine is capable of better pictures as long as there are sharp images on the negative and the operator's not making mistakes.

 

The reason I have not called you is that I didn't want to bother you about it unless I was sure that the negative was sharp. Also, the director plans on stopping by very soon. I appreciate your offer to allow us to use the spirit machine, although it is ultimately up to the director whether he wants to do it, since he's actually paying for it. I also feel that it would be unfair to expect that you guys make us this offer just because I did not bother to find out all the details of the the transfer. All I expected was quality along the lines of the budget HD tranfer I got from Alpha Cine. I very much appreciate that you want to make things right. I am just trusting that FotoKem and Daniel are correct about the state of the negative. If they are not, then I apologize and retract all of this. Again, thank you for the offer, you'll hear from Daniel shortly.

 

 

Cool Lee. I look forward to speaking with Daniel. Very reasonable to expect a similar transfer from a similar (even newer) machine. When he comes by (hopefully he'll bring the film) we can take a look and see if there was any error on our part and gladly rectify them free of charge. But again... if you're expecting 2K quality that would be a different workflow which we can discuss as well.

 

-Paul

[Phil Rhodes]

Certainly the demos on Cinelicious' site look a hell of a lot better than what's been presented here, but I'm still suspicious - it has that universally-soft look that can only happen once you're imaging a 2D image rather than a 3D scene. If the camera was off, you'd expect the focus to be off, not universally soft all over the frame.

 

Wasn't old film stock you'd stored on top of a space heater, was it? Any chance of overdone noise reduction being an issue here?

 

P

[Lee Young]

The negative was taken care of. We kept it in the fridge and we kept the camera out of heat while shooting.

[Tom Jensen]

The negative was taken care of. We kept it in the fridge and we kept the camera out of heat while shooting.

 

What camera was it? Where was it from? Has the flange been checked? You say you were on wide lenses and that gives me some concern. How did the long lens stuff look?

[Stephen Williams]

Phil and Stephen,

I'm not sure what experiences you've had with other post houses that would lead you suspect believe we're deliberately trying to put out crappy images.

 

Hi Paul,

 

Being an ex telecine operator I can tell you your not deliberately trying to put out crappy images. A Rank telecine can be putting out great images one day & look terrible the day after. Generally best left powered up all the time IMHO.

Best,

 

Stephen

[Satsuki Murashige]

I'd just like to add that the initial frame grabs that Lee posted appear to be 604×448 jpegs or thereabouts, not 2K. So we should not be judging the sharpness of his transfer off of these downconverted images. If Lee could post a link to full-res frame grabs instead, then we could at the very least eliminate one variable from the equation.

[Phil Rhodes]

appear to be 604×448 jpegs or thereabouts

 

Sure, but they still look soft as a well-roasted marshmallow!

 

P

[John Sprung]

Lee, how were the images in your post #11 transfered? The same guy with the glasses is in both post #1 and #11, and clearly very much softer in #1.

 

The thing to do is get both the film and the post #1 transfer back to cinelicious, so they can try again on their Ursa, and see if it can be made to do better. There's no way to know for sure without having the old transfer to A/B with the new. They might also want to hang it on the Spirit to see that there's a bunch more in the neg.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Lee Young]

It's actually not the same guy. That was another project. We used the same camera and lens. I will definitely take your advice about bringing all that stuff to the lab though.

 

Tom,

The camera is an arri sr. It's my schools and I don't know where they bought it from. The flange focal distance is going to be checked by visual products soon. The reason I posted the second set of images was to show that the flange focal distance was probably not to blame. I'm not saying that a few weeks can't make a difference, its just not very likely. The stuff with the long lenses does not look any more out of focus than the other stuff. There is nothing in the picture that is sharp. I have now seen some photos from fotokem and I feel fairly safe in saying that the negative is not at fault, although I've seen only a few stills.

 

satsuki,

I don't have any higher res versions of the jpegs. The director does. Here are the jpegs that the director gave me from fotokem that are high res:

 

 

 

I must say these are not the best stills the director could have sent me me because in both the characters are in motion and in the outdoor one I am panning. O well. Its still kind of hard to tell.

[John Sprung]

It's actually not the same guy.

 

Oy, sorry.... Perhaps we've discovered the actors' definition of "way too soft".... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Auner aac]

Oy, sorry.... Perhaps we've discovered the actors' definition of "way too soft".... ;-)

 

"Oh no, ma'am, you're not old! But we won't see any wrinkles. I swear!"

 

Cheers, David

[Satsuki Murashige]

This larger frame grab, though it's still not HD size, is helpful because now we can actually see the film grain as well as the hairs in the gate, both of which look reasonably sharp (for a older Rank telecine). This indicates to me that the transfer is probably not the problem. Looks like it might be a problem in camera. Whether it's the flange, lens collimation, diopter adjustment, it's hard to say without more hi-res examples.

 

If you could persuade the director to upload some 100% full-size jpegs from the Cinelicious transfer online and link to them, then we could make a more accurate diagnosis.

[John Sprung]

This larger frame grab, though it's still not HD size, is helpful because now we can actually see the film grain as well as the hairs in the gate, both of which look reasonably sharp (for a older Rank telecine). This indicates to me that the transfer is probably not the problem.

 

Ah, but those aren't from the bad transfer session. Those are a different facility vendor's test transfer from the same negative. Compare them with the stuff in post #1. They indicate that the neg is OK, the first telecine was the source of the softness. The remaining question is whether the problem was operator error, or if that old Ursa just can't do any better.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Stephen Williams]

Ah, but those aren't from the bad transfer session. Those are a different facility vendor's test transfer from the same negative. Compare them with the stuff in post #1. They indicate that the neg is OK, the first telecine was the source of the softness. The remaining question is whether the problem was operator error, or if that old Ursa just can't do any better.

 

-- J.S.

 

I would say maintenance / operation issues. An Ursa can still look very good.

[Paul Korver]

Hi Paul,

 

An Ursa Diamond in good condition should give way better images even from 16mm than I am seeing.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

 

Here's a screen grab from some more 16mm we did telecined to 720p HD using the URSA just today. So either it was operator error or the neg is soft. Lee... I encourage the director to bring the film back in and if it was indeed our fault we'll re-transfer for free.

 

Best,

 

Paul

Edited July 31, 2009 by Paul Korver

[Phil Rhodes]

Yowtch, what stock was that?

 

In any case, the neg should certainly go back and get looked at again.

 

If the Ursa isn't capable of answering the question, the Spirit should be at least capable of diagonsing the fault.

 

P

[Lee Young]

Well, I think anymore speculation is pointless. The director told me today that he was planning on going on Monday. He was going to go this week, but could not free up some time. If you have any questions for me Paul, feel free to call me during the meeting. I believe Andy did the telecine, so same goes for him. The proof is obviously with the negative. I definitely trust FotoKem, since they do great work. I believe those screen grabs from FotoKem were on a spirit. I really am not liking the situation I'm in right now. I wish the negative were with me, but what can I do. From now on, if there are any questions or concerns, talk to Dan. He has the negative. That screen grab does look much better than what we got back. So, I'm curious to find out myself. Thank you to everyone who's contributed to the blog.

[Paul Korver]

Yowtch, what stock was that?

 

Phil... it was 250D ...7205 not the new V3 7207

 

Well, I think anymore speculation is pointless. The director told me today that he was planning on going on Monday.

 

Great Lee... We look forward to getting to the bottom of this.

 

-Paul

[Tom Jensen]

It's actually not the same guy. That was another project. We used the same camera and lens. I will definitely take your advice about bringing all that stuff to the lab though.

 

Tom,

The camera is an arri sr. It's my schools and I don't know where they bought it from. The flange focal distance is going to be checked by visual products soon. The reason I posted the second set of images was to show that the flange focal distance was probably not to blame. I'm not saying that a few weeks can't make a difference, its just not very likely. The stuff with the long lenses does not look any more out of focus than the other stuff.

 

If the flange is out, the longer lens footage will be sharper than the wide due to the increased depth of focus with longer lenses. What lenses were you using? The footage looked OK from the frame grabs.