Jump to content

1.37 onto HDCAM-SR


Soren Hiorth

Recommended Posts

Hey everybody

 

I'm shooting my thesis film at AFI in a month. We are right now debating to shoot it on 35mm 4-perf 1.37. And we'll probaply telecine to HDCAM-SR.

 

My question is:

 

Can a telecine-scan, use the entire spatial resolution of HDCAM-SR, by de-squeesing the 1.37 image out onto the 1920x1080 resolution?? I have tried to find out how people transfer a anamorphic neg in telecine to HD, but haven't really been able to find an answer. Hope somebody in here knows how to approach this??

 

Thanks

 

Regards

 

Soren

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this method would defeat the purpose of maintaining the highest resolution since the telecine would first have to stretch the image in order to fit 1.37 to a 1.77 area. Squeezing it back to 1.37 later in post is not going to be a zero loss operation.

I would suggest offlining it first and then scanning selects 2048x1556 on a real scanner, even a telecine direct to hard disk as DPX files would be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I just recently transferred some 35mm that was shot 1.37:1. We did some tests and decided against stretching it like you suggested for the exact reason that was mentioned: the image would be stretched digitally then compressed back to it's original aspect ratio causing a significant softening of the image. So trying to use the whole HDCAM SR frame was actually detrimental to image quality rather than a benefit.

 

If you can afford scans rather than a telecine you can use full 2k width it's proper aspect ratio. If you go telecine then you should keep it pillarboxed on the 16:9 frame. You still end up with 1440x1080 pixels being used for the image area. It's not 2k but it will look sharper than any stretching/unstretching process.

 

 

 

Most films destined for a scope aspect ratio are shot 3-perf Super 35 these days, so what they do with an HD telecined DI or even a real 2k DI is they simply transfer a 16:9 frame, do the DI on that, and then crop 2.39:1 out of the center of the frame when it gets lasered onto a 35mm print. Then they matte it with black bars for Blu-ray/DVD and often leave it open-matte for television broadcast (often to the director and DOP's chagrin).

 

It has been a while since I went through a telecine of true anamorphically shot scope 35, but I believe they switched to a 2x deanimorphisizing lens in the telecine machine, and transferred it letterboxed to the 16:9 frame. That's why 2k DIs are really beneficial for stuff shot in actual scope. You get a full 2048x1714 frame instead of 1920x804 and the frame never goes through and digital squeeze or unsqueeze. Although many indie films you've seen were probably a 1920x804 HD telecined DI. It's definitely not as good as 2k but it's popular because of the cost savings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

We did some tests and decided against stretching it like you suggested for the exact reason that was mentioned: the image would be stretched digitally then compressed back to it's original aspect ratio causing a significant softening of the image.

 

How did you do that test? That's not the result we got at Laser-Pacific, Modern, Encore, etc. Telecine mostly on Spirits.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you do that test? That's not the result we got at Laser-Pacific, Modern, Encore, etc. Telecine mostly on Spirits.

 

We transferred some selected test shots in both ways, resized the stretched version and compared them by wiping back and forth on the telecine suite's HD monitor. The stretched/unstreached version was noticeably softer.

 

Generally stretching/unstretching any image is a bad idea. Maybe with the setup you guys were using it was coming directly from 2048x1556 to 1920x1080. My guess is in our case it was going down to 1440x1080 then to 1920x1080. So if the telecine setup you did it on didn't have this problem then maybe Soren can get it done, but he should definitely do a similar in-suite test first to double check that it is indeed better quality given the particular setup he is transferring on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are right now debating to shoot it on 35mm 4-perf 1.37.

 

I guess it begs the question: if you are going to HDCAM SR in the end why shoot 4-perf 1.37 at all? Are you going for some sort of retro look? Otherwise why don't you just shoot 3-perf Super 35 and end up with a nice full-frame 1.85?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey everybody

thanks for all of your insights. I somehow did not get any email-notifications, so I just checked in now, and saw all your feedback. Thanks!!

 

Talking to our post-supervisor, we found that bars on the sides, is the best way to do this, as have most of you experienced already. But I'm glad to have gotten a second opinion now.

 

Regarding choice of aspect ratio, I'm not going to go into a artistic discussion. But yes - we are aiming to do a 2k DI and go back onto film. There is a possibility, that we not have the money in post, and that's why Im trying to get as much rez down on the tape, should I go straight from tape to film...

 

Thanks guys!

 

Soren

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So if the telecine setup you did it on didn't have this problem then maybe Soren can get it done, ....

 

We did this not just once, but on most of the film originated TV shows at Paramount from the late 90's onward.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...