Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 (edited) Hello, I am currently producing a technical/creative research project concerning Digital Intermediate potential for super8 medium. This project is co-produced by FONDART chilean cultural fund. This project considers following stocks : vision2 100T, v2 200T, vision2 500T, vision2 250D, EXR 50D, and others custom film stocks and will be scanned at 2k data resolution. Here is a link : http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/galler..._2K_PLT_FONDART where you can see an image of an earlier test we have done for this project. (note : the image was compressed to jpeg in order to meet www.filmshooting.com website uploading specifications). This is a vision2 100T image captured through Carl Zeiss T* 85mm lens, developed in ECN-2 in Laboratorios Megacolor (Sao Paulo, Brazil), scanned at 2k data resolution (DPX RGB 10 bits log) through Spirit (I) in The Film Unit (Wellington, New Zealand). The project will end by June 2005 with a technical short-feature released on 35mm (through 2242 intermediate stock at the film recording stage to be done in Chilefilms). Many thanks to Laboratorios Megacolor, The Film Unit and Chilefilms for their help in this project ! Best Regards, Daniel Henriquez Ilic Film Post-Post-Production Freelance Santiago de Chile Edited January 27, 2005 by Daniel Henriquez Ilic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 27, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 27, 2005 How did you put a Zeiss lens on a Super-8 camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 Hello David, I have uploaded the set-up of the camera without the matte-box. Here is the link : http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/galler...ss_classic_pro8 It's an SLR lens adapter to C-Mount that I am using with the Pro8 Classic camera. This adpater was bought in Century Optics. (price USD 70). Best Regards, Daniel Henriquez Ilic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 It looks very good. Is it any better than a HD telecine though? I guess the 35mm print and subsequent screening will tell. How large are the files when scanned? How are you planning to edit the footage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 Hello Zaefod, Thanks. I have already seen the 35mm print (on standard 2383 stock) of the earlier global test. The quality is nice. But for the final project I will be able to do a a color grading at 2k data resolution, so I think there is still some headroom for what I can do in this research with the limited budget we have. The footage is scanned to dpx files (2048x1556) and is aprox. 12 MB per frame, so near to 16 GB per minute. In this research project we do not consider a telecine to HD (in order to compare with the 2k data ouput), because of our limited budget, so I prefered to choose the 2k data output only figure. For my project this is important because I consider to do digital compositions (keying) so I need full RGB quality with no compression. The earlier test (finished on 35mm) also demostrated that keying 2k super8 footage (vision2 100T and vision 200T !!) is possible. Of course that fine details like hair showed problems but in the definitive footage we have shot recently, we hope to get now a clean matte. We used Rosco Digicomp materials plus Rosco Calcolor in special backlight for neutralizing eventual spills, plus the fact that the subject was at a bit more than 10 meters of the Digicomp background. The footage will be edited at 2k data res. in real time through an Assimilate Scratch system in Chilefilms. Best Regards, Daniel Henriquez Ilic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 May I use your frame to demonstrate to some potential investors as to the quality of V2 100T film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewbuchanan Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Wow, beautiful looking frame. I want to see more. Please let us know where and how to see your film when the time comes. Did you shoot with any other lenses? How did they compare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Did you shoot with any other lenses? How did they compare? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, looked at this earlier via the link on CML. I'd love to see some wide shots... -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 Hello... Downix : I would appreciate if you could contact me back in private at micro8@mixmail.com to discuss your proposal. Thanks. Andrew : Thanks. Actually this project is limited in budget, so the final release will be five 35mm prints (2393), two for FONDART, one for Mediateca of UNESCO in Montevideo, Uruguay, and two for me. Anyway if we get a good proposal by conventional or non-conventional distributor, this could have (hopefully) wider 35mm distribution. The point is that this have to be seen in 35mm. What we saw two weeks ago in the big screen was impressive enough to convince me that there is in modern super8 hidden potential. I don't think that this medium is the best choice for long-feature, because for that you have super16 and highier quality format, but for some scenes of theatrical long-features, that really need a different look (without sacrifying exposure latitude or color color reproduction) it is without doubt an advantage to be able to shoot in an another format. Of course this is also true for extreme shots (mini aerial copter....) and for DI short-feature etc... By May 2005 I should be screening the finalized technical short-feature in 35mm, here in Chile, that should be around 10 minutes. Then of course I will let you know what will be the distribution of the short-feature. Regarding lenses... I do have tested (with the same workflow until 35mm projection) : Carl Zeiss T* Distagon 25mm, Planar 50mm, Sonnar 85mm with the SLR adapter to C-Mount and a Schneider zoom 6/66 that is C-Mount. In order to compare the behaviour of the zoom and the Zeiss prime, I have shot a subject in the same light condition with the zoom at 50mm and then with the Zeiss Planar. In 35mm projection it appeared clearly that the Zeiss prime gave a stronger image, with more defined subject lines, more graphical, whilst the Schneider gave a softer image... that is also lovely... but definitely giving a lower image resolution overall appearance. Having seen that early test in 35mm, I am for the current production only working with my set of three Zeiss. If I really need a wide-lens I would switch to the zoom in its 6 to 15mm range. Sam : Yeah.. you are right, wider shots are much critical... It's true. Actually that early test, only have considered medium and tele shot, in order for me to see and form an idea of what what could be the best image quality we could expect and get in this technical research project. Actually for the current production, we are shooting macro, tele, medium and wide-shots (huge and beautiful landscapes in the south of Chile). Thanks for your interest and good words. Daniel Henriquez Ilic Santiago de Chile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 27, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 27, 2005 Hi, That's genuinely impressive. Are you planning to do any stabilisation to the material during the 2K digital stage? Super8 is often really unstable, and with that fixed, it could look really nice. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 Hello Phil, Thanks. Yes I plan to use the DI stage for stabilizing almost all the footage that can be stabilized on Discreet high-end system. I agree that registration is precisely one real limit of super8... but with DI we may be able to go beyond that. Best Regards, Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Have you considered the stabilizer that is on the market now? I hear that it makes quiet a difference. you can find it hear: http://www.andecfilm.de/html/bildstand_e.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Also, forgot to ask. What was your budget? for how much film? Running time, etc??? I would like to know how much shooting a short this way might cost. Do you think that , because it is Super 8 that is being scanned, it might cost less? Perhaps because of a smaller file size or something?? Love to learn more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Hello Zaefod, Concerning the pressure plate, I do own one... but I am not using it with this camera set-up. A test I have done didn't show much difference between using or not using it in my camera set-up. Whilst when shooting on previous project with an other camera (Zeiss Ikon Moviflex camera) I really noticed a difference. Also Phil. Vigeant from Pro8mm explained me that they have done a test with their cameras (like the one I am using on this project) and that they think it is the same to use or not to use the plate with their camera. So I prefer to avoid using it this project, as I will be able to fix the stability after scanning and previous to the 35mm film recording step. Concerning budget, this is aprox. USD 35.000 + for a 10 minutes technical short-feature. In total the project will have used about 70 cartridges. (mostly vision2, some Plus-X and other special custom stocks). We have also bought a complete camera set-up with cristal sync. It's not true that producing a short-feature in super8 through DI is inexpensive. This research project just would like to demostrate the inherent quality that you can get through top quality photochemical emultions in small gauge format... and using DI technique. As I suggested before.. this way of producing imagery (s8 through DI) may be useful for special sequences in theatrical long-feature. I also think that this can be useful for short-feature that would like a 35mm finish using DI potential... but... for making cost lower... it is also reasonable to think on HD DI (real time transfer, smaller quantity of storage needed...). In this project, as explained, we do not have the budget to test every option... and I have prefered to work at 2k data resolution, mainly in order to check keying response. Concerning your question about specific cost for super8 and DI, I imagine that mostly everywhere it would be about the same to rent a scanner suite for s16mm or s8mm... The size of the 2k dpx file we get from the Spirit Datacine is the same as if we would be scanning s16mm... because we are outputing about 3 millons pixels per each primary color channel with 10 bits, in logarithmic scale, quantization (or color depth) for each pixel. In that way we are near to get all the information from the small super8 frame. Best Regards, Daniel Henriquez Ilic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted January 30, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 30, 2005 Hi Daniel, I noticed two razor thin scratches way on the left of the picture (inconsequential in this instance), Can you get wetgate with your transfer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted January 30, 2005 Author Share Posted January 30, 2005 Hi Daniel, I noticed two razor thin scratches way on the left of the picture (inconsequential in this instance), Can you get wetgate with your transfer? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hello, I have checked the frame... I don't see the scratches you mention, but even if they are there... As a generic feeling, the footage seen in 35mm (after all the 2K post-production path) was very clean, due to professional handling during development in Megacolor (then cleaned with ultrasonic Lipsner & Smith device). Also as it was scanned through a Spirit... eventual scratches are less noticeable due in part to the highly diffused Xenon light source within the Spirit. We will not be able to use a wet-gate for this current project... and I do not have any information of a 2K scanner with super8 option, that offer also a wet-gate. Anyway, as we will be in a 2K post-production stage.. we can still clean what need to be cleaned through rotoscopying tools before recording back to 35mm intermediate 2242 film. Regards, Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted January 30, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 30, 2005 um, am I seeing things? :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Henriquez Ilic Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 (edited) Hello, um, am I seeing things? :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...perhaps... ? perhaps not ...? ... I will now leave this internet-thread for some weeks as we now continue the film shooting plan (landscapes shot) in non urban zones in the south. Bye Bye and thanks again to everybody. Regards, Daniel Henriquez Ilic Edited January 31, 2005 by Daniel Henriquez Ilic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Paul Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 This frame looks awesome. It definitely defeats the notion I have gathered by researching this forum, which is Super8 is about same resolution as normal PAL/NTSC video. This frame looks at least as good as a HDCAM frame, if not better, since it doesn't have the digital look, because it it?s not of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted November 30, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 30, 2005 Hi, It's just resolving grain. The 600x450 preview image looks reasonably clean, but even that's got speckle in it. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 This frame looks awesome. It definitely defeats the notion I have gathered by researching this forum, which is Super8 is about same resolution as normal PAL/NTSC video. This frame looks at least as good as a HDCAM frame, if not better, since it doesn't have the digital look, because it it?s not of course. There is a large difference in resolving power between traditional super 8 reversal and the latest Vision2 100t -- or even V2 200t for that matter. Doing some simple rough calculations using the known theoretical limits of the film stocks indicates a topping out of somewhere around digibeta/10 bit standard defintion for the reversals, while the new negatives do benefit from an HD scan. I've found this to be true in practice for my own work, and in other examples I've been able to see. None of them achieve their potential with DV with all its compression and noisy artifacting -- unless that's what you're looking for. It might be in some cases, depending on the project. I noticed a thread just went up on this board with Kodak reference tables on SUper 8 resolution. You could spend some time figuring it all out in theory -- not forgetting that your camera system can be a limiting factor for most super 8 shooters who don't use primes, and they'll fall far short of the potential of the format. Not that all of them care, but that's the way it is. B) edit: Oh, I see it's you who posted the lp/mm thread. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Paul Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 So, when using the new negative stocks, the limitation will really be in the optics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 I think that's the logical conclusion. Provided of course the camera operator or filmmaker is doing everything else right, and everything is shot under the same conditions if you want to compare. These new stocks in the past couple of years are, it seems very clear to me, Kodak's response to HD originated "filmmaking". HD origination is absolutely destroyed in comparison -- even at the super 16 level. Those Zeiss Master Primes and Cooke S4 and Panavision Primo Primes in 35mm film production cost as much as a car so that they can take full advantage of this incredible modern film material. I always look at it this way: when people are testing the quality of their 35mm still cameras -- and even current digital cameras -- what is the first thing they do? They take a small section of the image and blow it up. There is no hiding the quality of the lens this way. A regular snap shot size print tells us something, but a wildly expanded 1/8 section of the negative or digital image will bring out dramatic differences. It's standard practice. And that is pretty much what we do in super 8 all the time. Keeping that in mind, there is no format where lens quality is more obvious than in super 8. In my opinion, as is well known, spending only a couple of hundred extra bucks to use primes, when such dramatic image quality improvement is available in a format, is the biggest bang for your buck you'll find anywhere in filmmaking. Well, next to using better film stock, of course. That's always the most dramatic improvement provided your gear can take reasonable advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now