Telecine from a low-con print

[Jarin Blaschke]

I have always been accustomed to transfering from the original negative when doing a telecine since everything I've shot on 35 has lived only on video. However, one of the latest films I've shot is actually finishing as a contact-printed 35mm print (from 35mm camera original) - I'm quite estatic about making and seeing a print of the film, but am quite concerned about the quality of the video version of the film, since it will be taken from a low-con print and not from the original negative. This is a short film and the director/ financier does not want to pay the extra money to get an IP made, since the cost difference is about a buck a foot. The video dailies were generally of horrible quality, with some scenes made to look like a rap video and valuable shadow detail in night scenes completely squashed while mid to light areas of the frame nearly blowing out. therefore, a tape-to-tape would be useless. If the transfer was made from the cut original negative, would splices jump, or does that depend on the machine used and the thickness of the splices? Are some telecine machines better at dealing with these potential jumps? Also - exactly how inferior are transfers from low-con prints? What kind of image can I expect from certain kinds of scenes (low/hi key, contrasty scenes)? Should dark scenes be printed up on the lo-con and then pushed back down when transferred to tape? There are a few scenes with some hearty contrast. Thanks

 

Jarin

[David Mullen ASC]

You really should convince them to make an IP. It's a short film afterall.

 

A low-con print in the telecine will look like the projection print projected; it's contrasty but accurate enough to match the projected look. You just have less flexibility to lower the contrast for certain scenes or shots.

 

You can transfer spliced negative but at some risk if the splices come apart from the back & forth of the telecine movement, assuming it's a straight-cut neg and not A-B rolled.

[John Sprung]

Have you explained to your director that a lo-con is pretty much useless for anything other than telecine? You can't print an IN from it. It looks too flat when projected.

 

Telecine from the cut neg would be a much better idea. You do have to ask the facility whether they do much cut neg, though. Keeping the machine properly adjusted for cut neg is the big issue.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'd vote for transferring from a color-timed (graded) IP. Actually might save money by shortening the time in the telecine suite, and an IP is a preservation element that can be used to make duplicate negatives if prints are also needed.

[Dominic Case]

You would get better results from an IP, and you might be tempeted to spend more still, because there is more potential for colour correction on telecine, so you'll spend longer in the grading suite.

 

WIth a locon print, you will get pretty muchl what the projection print looks like. But the print isn't any use for anything else. At least with the IP you have a sdafety master, and you are halfway to a dupe neg.

 

Although you could save all those print costs by transferring off cut neg, you will almost certainly have spice problems. Also, the colorist will have to start all over again with the grading, so what you save in printing you will spend in the telecine suite. Also, if you have a wet gate IP or locon print, it will be cleaner: depending on the telecine you use, it may show up any cinch marks that have occurred in cutting and printing the neg.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

so what you save in printing you will spend in the telecine suite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I myself am trying to figure out what to do with my own situation. For a feature, an IP costs around $12,000 to make if my math is correct (and without going to an interneg and a check print, there's no true way to tell what you've got on there). That's a lot of extra time in the transfer suite! A colorist I talked to from one telecine facility said that they can do cut negative no problem. I frankly don't know what to believe anymore, I get a lot of conflicting stories.

 

It seems that most people even when they get an IP are still clocking in 8 to 12 hours with the colorist.

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think three days (24 hours) is the shortest amount of time you want to budget to telecine transfer a feature from an IP, although you could really do a rush job and get it done in two days (16 hours) although you have to take into account the two hours minimum to layback the corrections to tape for every tape version. For example, with a 24P HD transfer, usually you make three masters from the original negative: 16:9 full-frame, 16:9 letterbox (unless the movie is 1.78 : 1) and 16:9 with a 4:3 image with side mattes. These three HD masters can provide all the NTSC and PAL submasters you can think of.

 

If you skip the three HD versions, then usually there are six to eight SD laybacks for home video mastering: 4:3 full-frame (pan & scan) NTSC, 16:9 NTSC, 4:3 letterboxed NTSC, 16:9 letterboxed NTSC, then the PAL versions of the same. Some of those may be skipped depending on your shooting format and deliverables requirement. That's an entire extra day in the telecine room just doing the laybacks to tape.

 

But you'd have to double your budgeted telecine time if transferring from uncorrected negative instead of color-timed IP or Low Con.

 

Plus, honestly, it's crazy to NOT make an IP as a protection master, especially if you are going to risk your original spliced negative in a telecine.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Plus, honestly, it's crazy to NOT make an IP as a protection master, especially if you are going to risk your original spliced negative in a telecine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, what are the chances of a telecine eating your negative? I mean, to even get an IP made you have to have the colorist put your negative through a color analyzer, then it has to make it to a contact printer, which can screw up your negative in the dark where the lab attendant may not know until it's too late. Sounds like you're taking a greater chance there than with a telecine machine which is basically a film reel to reel mechanism.

 

Granted, I understand there's more shuttling back and forth that goes on, but still, it seems that the mechanism on a telecine isn't so nasty. To this day I've never heard of someone who got their negative or IP element badly screwed up on a telecine. I have, however, heard of splices coming apart and going bad during contact printing (it happened on Velvet Goldmine).

 

Let's just take a look at this contact printer:

 

 

and then this Rank:

 

 

What film path looks more treacherous and potentially hazardous to your negative?

 

- G.

Edited March 6, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Saul Pincus]

I myself am trying to figure out what to do with my own situation. For a feature, an IP costs around $12,000 to make if my math is correct (and without going to an interneg and a check print, there's no true way to tell what you've got on there). That's a lot of extra time in the transfer suite!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it'a not a lot of time if you need HD deliverables, which more and more features must deliver alongside their IP. HD vs. SD telecine time is pricey.

 

Saul.

Edited March 6, 2005 by Saul Pincus

[David Mullen ASC]

A contact printer doesn't keep going into reverse and forward, over and over again...

 

Look, it's your negative. If the telecine place doesn't think it's a risk, and you don't think it's a risk, then take the chance... it's certainly been done before, no doubt.

 

I still think you should make a protection master though.

 

You make one before striking multiple prints off of a negative too -- it should be standard operating procedure after answer printing is done.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Modern telecines ARE very gentle to film, but David is correct that remote-controlled shuttling the film back and forth during the grading process by the colorist has more risk of having a poor splice break. Color timing (grading) for additive printing tends to be more of a manual operation, done at slower transport speeds under the direct control of the color timer.

 

Almost all 16mm negatives are cut into A/B rolls (so splices don't show), and it can offer advantages for 35mm too:

 

http://www.acvl.org/handbook/chap3.htm

[John Sprung]

A colorist I talked to from one telecine facility said that they can do cut negative no problem. I frankly don't know what to believe anymore, I get a lot of conflicting stories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It varies from facility to facility. Those who do a lot of cut neg can do it without undue risk. Those who don't do it should keep on not doing it because anyone who has cut neg to transfer should know better and go to the places that do it a lot.

 

Again, if there is a reasonable possibility of needing theatrical release prints, it would be smarter to make an IP first and transfer from that. If not, transfer from the cut neg at a place that can list a bunch of recent cut neg jobs they've done.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Pytlak RIP]

It varies from facility to facility.  Those who do a lot of cut neg can do it without undue risk.  Those who don't do it should keep on not doing it because anyone who has cut neg to transfer should know better and go to the places that do it a lot.

 

Again, if there is a reasonable possibility of needing theatrical release prints, it would be smarter to make an IP first and transfer from that.  If not, transfer from the cut neg at a place that can list a bunch of recent cut neg jobs they've done.

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How often is 35mm original negative cut into A/B rolls for printing/transfer? A few recent "scope" features had single-roll negative splices intruding into the projectable image area (e.g., "Passion of the Christ"). A/B roll "checkerboard" cutting would have hidden the splices.

[K Borowski]

John, did you see The Alamo last year? I noticed splice lines at the bottom/top of frames for every scene change in the movie, which I found unusual. I thought that even without A/B roll printing, 35 has enough image area between frames that even single roll prints wouldn't show splices on the screen.

 

~Karl

[Dirk DeJonghe]

I am amazed that the US negative cutters haven't discovered the german Hammann film splicer. We cut all our S16 single strand mostly, only AB rolls for dissolves when needed and then only the dissolving shots. Much easier to grade and to print.

 

No problem at all making fine invisible splices on CScope negatives. It will also allow scenes to be cut together without losing frames or even redoing a splice on top of a splice.

 

When I started my career, in the early 70'ies an old man from NYC gave me his 'personal' B&H hot splicer since he was retiring. He had used it most of his professional life. I think the design is from the mid 20ies. Some people are still using it now apparently.

[Dominic Case]

Let's just take a look at this contact printer:

 

 

and then this Rank:

 

 

What film path looks more treacherous and potentially hazardous to your negative?

 

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you are comparing a 30 year old Model C printer with a Rank telecine that is so blurry that it's hard to tell its age. But a lot more recent than 30 years.

 

If there was a significant risk running original negative on a Model C I don't think the machines would stil be in use after such a long time.

 

Oh - and don't forget that the film path you see on the printer is for image negative, sound negative and rawstock - three strands of film - compared with one on the Rank. No wonder you see a few more rollers.

[Jarin Blaschke]

Well, in the end, they went with a lo-con and I say without hesitation that I will never transfer from that again - or put up one mean, hell of a fight. The contrast is fine for about half of the film, but for the darker/contrastier scenes, unless the face is frontally lit, the actor's expressions are buried, even in situations where very light caucasian skin was exposed at 1 1/2 to 2 stops under. You can bring it up, but then highlights clip and blacks milk out extremely quickly - plus, there's no detail in the shadows. Milky, featureless shadows were really breaking my heart, especially since I gave such generous exposure on the negative. There's a soft, early morning-light scene by a pond that is gorgeous on the answer print but looks lithographic on the video version. The softness of the scene was destroyed.

 

Never, ever use a low con.