Telecine: Low con VS. IP?

DD McKellar · February 6, 2005

Hi!

I'm in post production for a 35mm short film, and I will be wanting to telecine the final cut, in order to make DVD's for film festival submissions. I understand that IP's are more expensive to make than low-contrast prints, and that both are regularly used for the purposes of telecine. I need to choose between the two.

What I'm wondering is this:

Is the IP better quality for the telecine, even a little bit? Is there ANY advantage to making the IP over a low contrast print, given that I have no other need for an IP? I will probably only EVER make 2 or 3 answer prints, so I wouldn't need it for reasons of wear and tear on the original. It would seem then, that I should just make a low-contrast print. But if there's ANY quality advantage to the IP, I'd strongly consider it. I would really appreciate any and all accounts of experience on this matter!

Thank you!

-DD

Dirk DeJonghe · February 6, 2005

The answer will depend on the hardware used. In my case a telecine from a low contrast print matches the projected film look very closely. IP can be nice but is less film-like but this is very subjective.

David Mullen ASC · February 6, 2005

The answer will depend on the hardware used. In my case a telecine from a low contrast print matches the projected film look very closely. IP can be nice but is less film-like but this is very subjective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I prefer transferring from IP's because you have more exposure information to work with in the color-correction. Low-Con prints are barely much better than projection prints, contrast-wise, so basically you get the look of the projection print but little flexibility in adjusting it if a scene is too dark or contrasty. However, they certainly take less time to transfer. If you're happy with the look of the projection print and just want that put on tape, then a Low-Con is probably fine.

Dominic Case · February 7, 2005

David is right in saying that transferring from an IP gives the telecine colorist more scope for correction: if you go from a lo-con print then you are less able to correct colour and density. If you are happy with the film grade that might be fine - but sometimes the slightly different requirements of the video format do require a slightly different grade.

The IP would cost more to make, and may possibly end up costing you more in telecine if the colorist takes advantage of the scope for correction, and so takes longer to grade. But you'd get a better result.

The lo-con print isabsolutley no use for anything else afterwards, whereas if you decide to make an IP, you should make it before your 2 or 3 release prints - that way it does serve as a safety master, in case of damage to the original neg: also it's more useful as a preservation master.

John Sprung · February 8, 2005

Lo-con printing is sort of a dinosaur. I remember doing one in 1989. When TV shows started to telecine dailies and assemble electronically in the mid-80's, the volume of lo-con being done dropped way off. You might also consider telecine from the cut neg. Ask the facilicy if they do much of that, because it takes some extra care to not bump on the splices and to handle the irreplaceable original. Going from cut neg to 1080p/24 will get you a master that can be downconverted very nicely to anything that exists on the electronic side. Don't spend your money on a lo-con to get a contrasty look. Instead, find a colorist who can do what you want from neg or IP.

-- J.S.

Edited February 8, 2005 by John Sprung