my film is soft

[Roger Richards]

I have to throw my two cents in here about the great service I have received from Paul Korver and Cinelicious, and the quality of the Diamond Clear HD they offer. Recently I had film emulsion and lens test transfers from S16mm, 16mm and S8mm done at Cinelicious and they ALL looked considerably sharper than the frame grabs I see here.

 

One lens I used was a Zeiss/Optex 12-120mm T2.4 and even wide open it was quite sharp. I shot it on an Aaton XTR-Plus I bought a few months ago, the lens was actually out of collimation and Bernie O'Doherty sorted it all out by adding a shim to the lens so the FFD would perfectly match the camera. Interestingly, the FFD discrepancy was something the previous owner, a decent and very knowledgeable guy, had no idea about, just thought the lens was a bit soft.

 

BTW, I have no financial or other interest in Cinelicious, just that they have done good stuff for me in the past. That Paul would make the offer he has here is completely in character.

 

I hope you guys can get to the bottom of this soon, and that it is something simple. Good luck, and please let us all know.

[Tim Carroll]

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.

 

Actually you can knock the FFD out in a matter of seconds, it doesn't take a few weeks. Put a moderately heavy zoom lens like a Zeiss 10-100 on the camera, then set it in the back of the car and drive around. Or, with the lens attached and the camera in it's flight case, knock the case over or set it down hard. If it is a "student camera" I would not be surprised at all if someone put the zoom on the camera and then moved the camera around. Any bumping or banging the camera into anything, with the zoom lens on there, will knock the FFD out. Remember, the tolerance on the FFD is less than one tenth the diameter of a human hair, so it doesn't take much.

 

I agree that the FotoKem images look a bit soft too.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Hunter Hampton]

Lee-

 

Thought I should say a few things;

 

Paul is a friend and I have transferred film on his Ursa using the "Diamond Clear HD" Rig- not the best set-up in the world but its certainly has its place and I feel its worth its price, with all that aside for the moment I see some other issues here;

 

First, it would have been courteous to attempt to contact and resolve this issue directly with Cinelicious before publicly disclosing your issues, and of course if your needs weren't meant after contacting them, you could have told the world that the transfer was bad. However, jumping the gun on this can make a mess for a company and can leave a stain that isnt very easy to clean up- even after the issue is resolved now.

 

The main problem seems that you have had a communication error with your director, not sure what your director told you but transferring on an Ursa isnt anywhere close to a "2K DI" - doing a 2K transfer is going yield much better results than doing the Diamond Clear HD method- but its going to cost A LOT more than $275 an hour! (If you want a 2K DI- cinelicious can also handle that for you)

 

The secondary issues are, and not to try and discredit you in anyway, but your a student who rented a 30+ year old SR1 camera with an older 10-100 from your school and shot regular 16, that can be a cocktail of technical issues including getting a sharp image. This of course could have not been your fault at all.

 

 

 

Just a few things to remember: 16mm isnt exactly the sharpest and cleanest format in the world- especially if your used to seeing images from HD video cameras. Try not to get unrealistic expectations from inexpensive equipment or unrealistic expectations from 16mm (I have had them in the past!), its always going to be softer than 35mm or HD cameras- and to get it as sharp as it can be, its going to take a modern camera, modern lenses, and a 2K transfer (not to mention accurate focus).

 

 

I wish you the best on your film and hope you and the rest of your crew have learned a lot from this experience- I know for certain Paul and the rest at Cinelicious will go out of their way to please and meet the needs their clients- highly recommended group of people to work with.

 

Best,

 

-Hunter

[Will Montgomery]

I'm gathering a batch of Super 8 and 16mm to send off to Cinelicious next week. I can't say enough about the great color and service.

 

I just noticed the processing rates when transfered there... at 12 cents a foot that's 6 cents cheaper than the lab I love here in Dallas so I'll be sending the 16mm to Cinelicious for processing as well (I know they send it out but they have a great deal with a really good lab.)

[Lee Young]

"First, it would have been courteous to attempt to contact and resolve this issue directly with Cinelicious before publicly disclosing your issues, and of course if your needs weren't meant after contacting them, you could have told the world that the transfer was bad. However, jumping the gun on this can make a mess for a company and can leave a stain that isnt very easy to clean up- even after the issue is resolved now."

 

I was unaware of what the issue even was. That is why I started the blog. I didn't start this blog with any preconceived notion the Cinelicious had screwed up. I think my first post is clearly not confrontational. I also have observed from working with a few different labs and post houses that they are very reluctant to admit that any mistake has been made on their part. I'm not saying this is true of Cenelicious, but it is in the interest of any company to protect the integrity of their workers and general work ethic. I understand that, but its not always the best way to get to the bottom of an issue. If I would have had the negative, I would have been glad to talk to them about the issue, but the director had the negative and I thought he was in contact with cenlicious through the process. BTW, I still have not seen the negative or the newly transferred material.

 

Everything you have said about student filmmaking can be quite true and has been for me many times.

 

I have shot a lot of 16mm and am aware of the limitations of the format. I am a student and have much to learn, but I have been around 16mm and film in general for a while. I have got back some wonderful looking and not so wonderful looking footage. An SR camera with this particular lens is capable of excellent pictures that in my opinion can look very good. Definitely not as crisp as HD, but certainly sharp. I would have to disagree with you that you need modern cameras and lenses to make sharp pictures. There are sharp old lenses and soft old lenses. There are also sharp new lenses and soft new lenses(not nearly as many). An old camera in good order, loaded properly, etc. should not hinder the lens from taking sharp pictures. That being said, it definitely helps having newer equipment. If I was shooting on a 416, there would have been less to settle. I do not feel I am expecting too much, but I have reasons to believe that the blame can go in both directions now.

 

Here is what I have heard.

1. Definitely lens probelms-the director has told me that the wide shots usually have foreground elements that are not supposed to be in focus in focus. This leads me to believe there were collimation issues. That camera and lens are at Visual Products now. I now know it was time for that camera to be serviced. So, Tim, you are probably correct.

2. The director has told me that the telecine was set for reversal film instead of negative film. Of course, the thinner non-reversal film would be a little out of focus during telecine because of this.

 

The director told me that Cinelicious was very nice and did what they could to make him happy. He considers the issue resolved. So, I'll speak for the director and say that Cinelicious is not the boogie man. They were extremely cooperative and did a great job on transferring the film a second time. Thank you Paul and the rest of the cinelicious team.

 

PS

Paul, if anything I said about your meeting with Dan is not true, I apologize. I am, again, going on second hand information. Thansk again.

[Lee Young]

Hunter,

I am sorry. I misread your post. You are correct that in order to get the sharpest images possible of the format, you need the newest equipment. For some reason I remembered you saying sharp images in general. I apologize.

[Paul Korver]

Hey Lee,

No worries man. It's all good on our end. Just glad we were able to work it out for you guys.

 

-Paul

[David Rakoczy]

I just noticed the processing rates when transfered there... at 12 cents a foot that's 6 cents cheaper than the lab I love here in Dallas so I'll be sending the 16mm to Cinelicious for processing as well (I know they send it out but they have a great deal with a really good lab.)

 

 

Why not deal with Fotokem directly?... they'll do it for that....