Bad telecine?

Rachel Oliver · March 15, 2004

Hi, Just got back some 16mm footage of Kodak 320T on mini DV. Am slightly concerned about the huge amount of grain, especially in darker areas of the film. It is the first time I have shot with this stock and although I was aware that there would be some grain, this is almost too much!

I have never seen it boil so much in the shadows? It was a transfer by Pro8 on a rank flying spot with no major grading, just basic exposure and colour correction. any one else ever had one? I'd love to know if the neg is like this or if I could get it re- transfered with better results some where else.....

PS the stock was brand new and totally normal.

Thanks for any wisdom.

Olly

Patrick Neary · March 15, 2004

Hi-

It could just be the transfer (the transfer house will always tell you it's your film, your exposures, your attitude, etc...) I had some 16mm 250d come back from a nameless LA transfer house once and it looked so bad I almost jumped off a bridge. It was incredibly grainy, horrible color, etc. Then we walked it down the street to Fotokem and got another transfer that was just sparkling. Unbelieveable difference!

It could be that you underexposed the neg? but before you throw yourself into dispair, try another X-fer....

Rachel Oliver · March 15, 2004

Hmmm, interesting. I wonder who the nameless LA transfer house was?? I actuallly very slightly over-exposed to try and cut the grain rather than it being under! I am not quite jumping off a bridge yet, but will seriously think about re-transfering. It is just that the blacks are consistently boiling over with grain, it's like a blue snow-storm. Will I be wasting money on getting another transfer done if this is what to expect of 320T?

Patrick Neary · March 16, 2004

whups, it may look like I was trashing Pro8 as the "nameless transfer house", but I wasn't- I actually had an OK experience with them, but with super-8.

320 shouldn't be boiling over with grain, especially if you gave the neg a little extra oomph. The hard part about this is it's all so subjective, what you consider a major grain-fest, I might think is splendid and smooth. But the kind of results you are describing sound exactly like what happened with my 7246. It was all daylight shot in Vegas, all overexposed a half stop or so. The first transfer looked like 500asa, out-of-date, stuck-in-the-airport-x-ray-for 7-hours 8mm. The second transfer (again, done at Fotokem) came up beautiful, and that was just threading it on the machine, the colorist hadn't even dialed it in yet.

anyway, if it's important footage (I'm guessing it is!) another Xfer might be worthwhile, maybe even just schedule a test or the shortest session you can get and have them bring it up onscreen so you have something to compare.

good luck!

Tenolian Bell · March 16, 2004

Hi, Just got back some 16mm footage of Kodak 320T on mini DV. Am slightly concerned about the huge amount of grain, especially in darker areas of the film.

Actually you have to watch out for 77 it is a grainier film. I asked a Kodak rep about this he basically said the process that makes the film low contrast stretches it out and ultimately more grainy.

What you really need to bring the film back to the transfer house is notes on what you did to the film. Especially a new stock you are just shooting with. If you know what F-stop or foot candles your highlights, midtones, and shadows are photographed, then you know where everything in the final image should fall.

Generally after shooting a stock enough times, you instinctually know when you light how the final product should turn out.

I've taken film back that I've felt had a bad transfer, to my experience most places will at least look at the negative because they want your business again. They will at least show you, you underexposed the film.

Some post houses won't be so accommodating, and from there you can decide if you should try another post house.

Rob Belics · March 16, 2004

All this just makes me think editing on film is the best.

Phil Rhodes · March 16, 2004

Hi,

Why would you shoot 16mm vision 320, and then... not have it transferred on a Spirit or something?

If you're spending all that money, it's got to be worth spending a more for a decent transfer, or it's all rather pointless.

Phil

GeorgeSelinsky · March 16, 2004

All this just makes me think editing on film is the best.

Getting film dailies is the best, but editing on film - forget about it. I've done it before and I don't care to repeat the exercise.

If I were king, I'd get film dailies and video dailies.

- G.

GeorgeSelinsky · March 16, 2004

Why would you shoot 16mm vision 320, and then... not have it transferred on a Spirit or something?

That only makes sense if you're finishing on tape and you know what takes you want already.

It's good to get a cheap transfer done first, just so you know what you've got, and then you can pair the footage down to what you really need transferred supervised and then go deluxe.

If you have even a 5:1 shooting ratio it makes economic sense.

- G.

Michael Nash · March 16, 2004

The Spirit is a great machine, but you can get really good results from less expensive hardware. The hourly rate can really add up if you've got a lot of footage. I've gotten really nice results from Ursa Diamonds and the like, at much cheaper than the book rate for a Spirit.

However, telecine is one more place where you don't want to skimp TOO much, as you don't want it to become the weak link in the image chain. I always supervise my transfers (as much as possible), as unsupervised can be like Russian roulette! Heck, even supervised transfers at the wrong facility can come up disappointing.

It's true that Vision 320 is flatter and therefore reveals a little more grain than a similar speed stock like 250D, but not a HUGE amount more. If anything it shows up in the midtones, not blue spots in the shadows. I've shot plenty of 7279 which has coarser grain than 320, and had it come up squeaky clean in telecine.

It sounds like it's worth taking the film in for a supervised transfer, just so you can verify what's on the film. The colorist will be able to tell you if your density was correct. Like others have suggested the telecine house may be able to let you thread up the film for free. But to me this is one of those scenarios where I'd just go ahead and pay for a retransfer and chalk up the expense as education, where you get to sit down with the colorist and really pick apart the film and the telecine technology. I figure I spend about 15 minutes of each transfer session just asking the colorist questions and trying new things!

Marc Wielage · April 22, 2004

Hi, Just got back some 16mm footage of Kodak 320T on mini DV. Am slightly concerned about the huge amount of grain, especially in darker areas of the film.

Yeah, I've seen this problem often, particularly in shots that didn't have enough fill light for video, or in cases of underexposure. There's ways we can minimize the grain and eliminate the blue haze that typically comes up there, but a lot depends on the quality of the transfer equipment and the skill of the colorist.

I've color-timed film on nearly every device that exists, for more than 25 years, and I think that you'd be hard-pressed to beat the Spirit, particularly for 16mm (or Super 16). The degree of grain is reduced quite a bit on this device, particularly when the film is well-exposed. If you're on an older Rank (like a Mark III or an Ursa), they're going to be noisier and the film won't be as steady -- as a general rule. The newer C-Reality's are pretty good, but I would still give the edge to the Spirit for 16.

My advice would be to ask for another transfer (with you present at the session), and ask the colorist to try some different set-ups to see if that improves the exposure for video. At worst, you can ask for some grain-reduction, which is typically available in a real-time box (like the DVNR or Scream) or as a rendered process (like DRS). All grain-reduction processes can result in artifacts and visual flaws, so they have to be used very carefully to minimize the drawbacks. I find a little goes a long way.

At worst, you might find that you need only retransfer the really grainy shots on different equipment in order to improve the look. Also, be sure you watch this footage on carefully-adjusted, broadcast-quality monitors. If your DV is being played back on a regular consumer set, what you see may not quite be what you've really got.

--MFW

Rachel Oliver · April 22, 2004

Thanks Mark, I subsequently found since my post that the DigiBeta master looked far far better in terms of the grain than the DV clone, it only seemed to happen when dubbing to a higher compression format? I fixed the DV cutting copy in FCP by reducing the mids and messing with the contrast and saturation a little, as I said the DigiBeta master looked much better when Onlined and from a broadcast monitor, I guess I wont take what I see on DV as final in future.

Olly

GeorgeSelinsky · April 22, 2004

I'm getting my dailies direct to Mini DV and it really is just a dailies format - quite an i mprovement over 3/4 inch and Hi8 though. You can't really tell grain or focus through it. By the time it makes it to VHS it looks no different from 16mm., especially if you recompress.

- G.

Phil Rhodes · April 23, 2004

Hi,

Bear in mind that Digibeta to DV looks significantly nastier than uncompressd (straight off the telecine) to DV. DV is fine until you try to do anything with the image, such as apply colour correction, but I wouldn't consider lots of bluish grain to be an inherent problem in this process.

Phil