16mm to digital AND 35mm?

[schnozzle]

So let's say I was going to shoot a project on 16mm film and wanted to edit it on Final Cut. I worked on a music video recently that did this, where the final product was going to be screened on video and on the internet--the director got a telecine and edited it on Final Cut and it was done.

 

But what if I wanted to start a project that I would shoot on 16mm and would probably stay in the digital world--but there's a possibility of making a release print on 35mm sometime in the future. Would I want to get a clean telecine, edit in Final Cut, and then get a digital output to 35mm if needed? Would it be better to bump up the 16mm to 35mm, edit and cut the neg in 35mm and then telecine that for digital distribution?

 

This would be for a very short animated project--3 to 5 minutes max. What would make the most sense?

 

Thanks...

[Guest Kai.w]

So let's say I was going to shoot a project on 16mm film and wanted to edit it on Final Cut.  I worked on a music video recently that did this, where the final product was going to be screened on video and on the internet--the director got a telecine and edited it on Final Cut and it was done.

 

But what if I wanted to start a project that I would shoot on 16mm and would probably stay in the digital world--but there's a possibility of making a release print on 35mm sometime in the future.    Would I want to get a clean telecine, edit in Final Cut, and then get a digital output to 35mm if needed?  Would it be better to bump up the 16mm to 35mm, edit and cut the neg in 35mm and then telecine that for digital distribution? 

 

Thanks...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Depends on whether you want to do alot of stuff digitally (resp during telecine) that you can't do in the lab...

If so, then maybe telecine to HD would be a nice idea. That's definately enough Res. for 16mm and much better than just print to 35 film from a SD tape...

 

-k

Edited January 25, 2005 by Kai.w

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

There are a bunch of choices.. here are a couple off the top of my head:

 

1. Telecine standard def. Edit SD. Burn DVD, Quicktime, etc from SD edit. Conform 16mm neg from SD EDL, blow up for 35mm release.

 

2. Telecine standard def. Edit SD. Selectively scan negs at higher resolution, conform online edit. Downsample to DVD, Quicktime, High-Def master, etc. Record out to 35mm.

 

3. Scan everything at high resolution. Edit in high res. Downsample to DVD, Quicktime, High-Def master, etc. Record out to 35mm.

 

The pros and cons of each vary. I am opting for option #3 on my 35mm work, since from my shopping the cost of an HD telecine was about on par with an SD run, and I am of the opinion that the added cost of going from HD to 2K isn't worth it for my project. I only have one edit to deal with, no recapturing anything, and I can output to DVD, Quicktime, HD or 35mm from a single master. Also, I have complete freedom to do whatever I want effects-wise in post this way. Of course, the downside of going this route becomes apparent when you start factoring in the storage and playback requirements of working at online resolution, especially if you have higher shooting ratios.

[schnozzle]

Hi Sean, thanks for the suggestions.

 

Hmm...considering that I'd only be using Final Cut to cut the picture, and not do any digital imaging, then probably option #1 makes the most sense for me at this point.

 

I think I need to do some more research--things have changed considerably since I cut my last 16mm film myself, which was on a flatbed with mag stock in the mid-90s. I've tried finding info on the web but it all seems to be out of date. Are you aware of a good FAQ or site that covers recent developments? I understand the general principle of what you suggest but there are a few specifics that escape me.

 

Thanks!

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

I don't have any links handy, but google is your friend :)

 

As to the workflow that you're leaning towards.. you probably know all you need to know. If you want to edit in final cut, you need to transfer your film to video in whatever way seems most fitting (DV, DVD, etc.) and then familiarize yourself with Cinema Tools. CT works with FCP to correlate footage, frames, etc. with your video copies. You can pull-up your video footage back to 24fps for editing in FCP (or 23.98). Perform your edit, create your soundtrack using whatever software seems most appropriate and basically get things looking the way you want. When you're happy with it, generate your Quicktime files for the web, and your DVD files (MPEG2), and so on. Video project done.

 

As for the parallel film route... you now basically have to get FCP to dump an EDL which the neg cutter can use to cut the 16mm film to match the video edit. After that point, everything else is about the same as you're used to. You can go through the trouble of doing a magstock soundtrack dumped out of the computer, but you're going to want an optical one in the end anyways, so you can probably skip this step. As to when to make the blowup to 35mm, you're probably best doing your answer printing in 16mm to save on costs. When you're happy with that, I believe you can then take it through an optical stage to 35mm IN, have an optical soundtrack printed, and then merge them both into a print.

 

Of course, I've never done this myself.. just going off of memory here. Did I mention google is your friend?

 

Others may suggest doing the blowup earlier and going through an IP stage.. probably preserve some more quality that way, but at the expense of having to work in 35mm lengths instead of 16mm for your answer printing and colour timing. Best to have to throw away a 16mm answer print as opposed to a 35mm one.

 

Anyways.. hope I'm somewhat on the ball here :P

 

Sean

[Alessandro Machi]

Hi Sean, thanks for the suggestions.

 

Hmm...considering tha :unsure: t I'd only be using Final Cut to cut the picture, and not do any digital imaging, then probably option #1 makes the most sense for me at this point.

 

Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is a very important distinction you are making.

 

What you are saying is you will create your canvas in real life and do not find it necessary to significantly augment your cinematography via digital post. The new wave digitalists call your approach "horse and buggy". I hope in the future some type of distinction can be made where your process is equally respected and acknowledged with digital post enhancement.

 

The latest new wave photo altering digitization is now on the sports page of my local newspaper. Sports event photographs are being digitally altered to CHANGE the NEWS picture to what the photographer or editor wants to show you versus what was actually shot. I'm not talking contrast adjustments, I'm talking changing depth of field and re-selecting what areas shall stay in focus on the final image you see.

 

Digital Censorship is much more en vogue then just plain censorship because the editor gets to participate in the augmentation.

 

 

As for your situation, if you don't shoot a lot of footage, it might be interesting to see if you can make an ultra nice 35mm bump-up negative from your 16mm original, transfer the 35mm version to HD or DI, and then make your edited DI from that. The theory being the increase in negative size will neutralize potential loss in contrast detail, and then when you transfer to video from the 35mm bump up you will get a 35mm "look" in terms of grain.

 

If your set is "locked down" can you afford just shooting it in 35mm to begin with?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, that's what I was thinking -- a 5 minute animated piece must hardly use up any stock, so why not shoot it in 35mm?

 

Or why not shoot it as a bunch of digital stills?

 

Or telecine S-16 to HD, make a downconversion, edit in SD, then get an HD online done if needed and transfer that to 35mm.

[schnozzle]

Well, those are all good questions. The main reason I was going to shoot 16mm is that I own an old Bolex. This project is going to be a cutout film, rather than cel animation, and there would be a homemade animation stand that allows for cutout elements on several layers (via multiple sheets of glass between the camera and the animation stand--I've done this before and it looks cool) so I think shooting it on film (rather than with digital stills, which makes perfect sense otherwise) would actually contribute to the overall feel that I'm going for, which is sort of a 1930's German Expressionist look. Anyone ever seen "L'Idea" by Berthold Bartosch by any chance? It's pretty obscure--but anyway, in this case contrast, some grain, and a bit of flicker would actually help me out--if I owned a decent Super-8 camera I'd probably consider using that.

 

I considered renting a 35mm camera for this, but it takes me quite a while to shoot a cutout animation film--it's not like I just have to burn through a stack of cels, but rather at my pace the camera would go up on a stand and probably stay there for a month or so. I have a small-to-teensy budget and I think it makes sense for me to use a camera that I already own. Although...I wouldn't say no to someday owning a simple 35mm camera for this purpose, like a B&H 2709 or a Debrie Parvo...how cool would that be? Possibly an Eyemo if it could shoot single frame.

 

As for the telecine...this is a pretty new subject to me. Frankly I'd be perfectly satisfied cutting 16mm work print and mag stock on a Moviola (hell, I still have motorized rewinds somewhere) for a release print, and bump it up to 35mm if I got the chance later on. But from talking to people here and elsewhere I gather this is no longer commonly done, or even supported at labs. Is mag stock even made any more, especially since Quantegy shut down production? So my desire to use digital anywhere in the process was, I thought, just a substitute for physically editing with a tape splicer. An adaptation to industry changes since I last shot 16mm, if you will. I am not opposed to digital manipulation (and all of my recent animation has been 100% digital, so who am I to complain?) but I don't think I need it for this project.

 

Any more thoughts on this subject would be very much appreciated.

[Keith Mottram]

The most simple route is to stay 24fps all the way there is then no need to use cinema tools. TK to D5 or HDCAM (pref SR) at 24fps, edit, then master.....thats it, and thats the beauty of FCP. If you cannont afford the cards and storage then TK to 24fps D5/ HDCAM dupe to DVCproHD (more compressed) firewire in, then take your project to another post house with FCP and conform.

 

Keith

[Alessandro Machi]

The most simple route is to stay 24fps all the way there is then no need to use cinema tools.  TK to D5 or HDCAM (pref SR) at 24fps, edit, then master.....thats it, and thats the beauty of FCP.  If you cannont afford the cards and storage then TK to 24fps D5/ HDCAM dupe to DVCproHD (more compressed) firewire in, then take your project to another post house with FCP and conform.

 

Keith

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is firewire considered an actual alternative to serial digital, or is firewire "serial digital-lite"?

[Valeriu Campan]

Yes, that's what I was thinking -- a 5 minute animated piece must hardly use up any stock, so why not shoot it in 35mm?

 

Or why not shoot it as a bunch of digital stills?

I am seconding David's suggestion. Use a DSLR camera and capture with a program like BTV Pro from http://www.bensoftware.com that can also export your files as a quicktime movie as well...and perform the editing in FCPro. It will also give you the option to send the files to a laser film recorder for 35mm prints later.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Is firewire considered an actual alternative to serial digital, or is firewire "serial digital-lite"?

 

SDI is not compressed; most video over firewire is heavily compressed. Actually the firewire bus protocol is more than fast enough to handle uncompressed SD, and it runs DVCPRO-100 fine, but that's the distinction between the bus and the data you choose to put on it.

 

Phill

[Valeriu Campan]

I am reconsidering my suggestion about using a DSLR.

I have just tested a brand new Nikon D2H camera ( shot so far only 25 frames).

There are inconsistencies between frames in both JPEG & RAW modes. The byte count of the frames varies with +/- 1%, (e.g. 3850 to 3792 bytes).

Also, you can see exposure differences between frames. The lens was wide open at f 2.8, and that means that the shutter speed is not consistent.

Because you are shooting cell animation and the dynamic range is not such an issue, another option I could suggest is to use a machine vision camera like Pixelink:

http://www.pixelink.com/products_info.asp?id=48 or maybe wait for the soon to be released Altasens chip that will be used in cameras from Silicon Imaging or Sumix (even Kinetta).

All theese cameras can output TIFF files that can be converted to Cineon format for color correction and 35mm film recording.

[Alessandro Machi]

Hi,

 

> Is firewire considered an actual alternative to serial digital, or is firewire "serial digital-lite"?

 

SDI is not compressed; most video over firewire is heavily compressed. Actually the firewire bus protocol is more than fast enough to handle uncompressed SD, and it runs DVCPRO-100 fine, but that's the distinction between the bus and the data you choose to put on it.

 

Phill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

DVC-Pro. I had heard of DVC-25 and DVC-PRO 50, I didn't know about DVC-Pro 100. Could you give a quick overview of each?

[David Mullen ASC]

DVC-Pro.  I had heard of  DVC-25 and DVC-PRO 50, I didn't know about DVC-Pro 100.  Could you give a quick overview of each?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DVCPRO100 is another name for DVCPRO-HD, used by Panasonic for the Varicam.

[J.M. O'Malley]

I am also about to shoot a 16mm short, and have similar questions. Here's how I'm planning to do it:

process and telecine to mini-DV

edit in Final Cut Pro

have negative conformed to edit decision list

print to 16mm or possibly blowup to 35mm

 

A question that I have is about DAT. Do I just give the edited DAT and the cut negative to the lab and they put them together onto a "composite print"? What do some labs mean when they say that they don't provide optical sound and you have to provide your own? Is there another type of sound that isn't optical?

Also I had been under the impression that you can have all this done at the same lab. Now that I'm doing research, it looks like you have to find an independent person who cuts negatives. Confusing.

[Dominic Case]

Do I just give the edited DAT and the cut negative to the lab and they put them together onto a "composite print"? What do some labs mean when they say that they don't provide optical sound and you have to provide your own? Is there another type of sound that isn't optical?

Whatever your final mix soundtrack is on, it must be transferred to an optical negative before any prints can be made. Some labs have this facility in-house, but if they don't they ought to be able to at least point you at an independent transfer facility. Some might take the job on board and farm out the transfer part of it.

 

Remember that if you have a 2-track mix on DAT, you will need to remix if you are going to a Dolby SR track. Then there's the Dolby licence.

 

Also I had been under the impression that you can have all this done at the same lab. Now that I'm doing research, it looks like you have to find an independent person who cuts negatives. Confusing.

Again, not many labs have a neg cutter on the staff - but most larger ones have an independent cutter on the premises. Some labs will package up all these services even if they have to outsource some of them - other labs prefer to keep the deal simple, and leave you to source the best provider for each bit.

 

This is where you get on the phone to ask the lab(s) of your choice what services they will undertake, and who they recommend for anything they won't do.