S16 xfer to digibeta, any reason not go anamophic?

[Sam Frazier]

Question: IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO DO AN ANAMORPHIC TRANSFER (as opposed to full aperture/ letterboxed) ON S16 FOOTAGE?

 

I have read a few discussions about this, but am still a little confused. This is for a short film so I'd probably send DVD screeners and present it in festivals from a digibeta or beta sp tape.

My thought was to telecine the footage anamorpic and crop it a little more in FCP to 1:1.85. By squeezing to anamorphic like this on the digibeta tape I'd preserve more resolution and quality than a letterboxed version.

The colorist at the lab promised me that anamorphic transfers do not crop any part of the image. It just squeezes it in and I can unsqueeze it later in post. So, I should have the same options as far as repositioning framing when I crop to 1:1.85.

I haven't done it, but I understand I could then make widescreen DVDs that would come close to filling a 16x9 screen (only a tiny bit of letterboxing as I'd be 1:1.85) and which would also automatically add letterboxing on 4x3 screens. Also, if I ever needed a letterboxed version for Digibeta or Beta SP I could just render out a letterboxed version from FCP.

 

So, am I wrong about something here, or is there really no reason not to transfer S16 footage anamorphic? If understand things correctly, the only problem would be I couldn't do a timecode burn in on the anamorphic tapes. But, I am new to this and could be missing something here. The tranfer is tomorrow, so PLEASE help me out if anyone out there can. I'll probably spend around $10k of my own money on this project and I really don't want to make a costly mistake so soon.

Thanks ahead of time for any help!

[Stephen Williams]

Question: IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO DO AN ANAMORPHIC TRANSFER (as opposed to full aperture/ letterboxed) ON S16 FOOTAGE? 

 

I have read a few discussions about this, but am still a little confused. This is for a short film so I'd probably send DVD screeners and present it in festivals from a digibeta or beta sp tape.

My thought was to telecine the footage anamorpic and crop it a little more in FCP to 1:1.85. By squeezing to anamorphic like this on the digibeta tape I'd preserve more resolution and quality than a letterboxed version.

The colorist at the lab promised me that anamorphic transfers do not crop any part of the image. It just squeezes it in and I can unsqueeze it later in post. So, I should have the same options as far as repositioning framing when I crop to 1:1.85.

I haven't done it, but I understand I could then make widescreen DVDs that would come close to filling a 16x9 screen (only a tiny bit of letterboxing as I'd be 1:1.85) and which would also automatically add letterboxing on 4x3 screens. Also, if I ever needed a letterboxed version for Digibeta or Beta SP I could just render out a letterboxed version from FCP.

 

So, am I wrong about something here, or is there really no reason not to transfer S16 footage anamorphic? If understand things correctly, the only problem would be I couldn't do a timecode burn in on the anamorphic tapes. But, I am new to this and could be missing something here. The tranfer is tomorrow, so PLEASE help me out if anyone out there can. I'll probably spend around $10k of my own money on this project and I really don't want to make a costly mistake so soon.

Thanks ahead of time for any help!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

I always try to transfer 16x9 Anormorphic for 2 reasons:-

 

1) I don't wan't the editor to correct my framing.

2) I wan't to use the maximium resoloution available from the tape. This also helps if one want's to take stills from the tape.

 

 

Stephen Williams DoP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

[Sam Frazier]

Thank you for your reply. Checked out your site as well. You've done some really cool stuff.

Anyway, I've spoken to a few people about this and appaerently the reason some people choose letterboxed over anamorphic for super 16mm transfers is that unsqueezing the material to a letterboxed version is a task many NLEs, including FCP, do poorly. Apparently you end up with artifacts and some other weird issues.

I have been told that After Effects does a pretty flawless letterboxed version from anamorphicly squeezed material though I have no experience with this myself.

Don't suppose you have any experience of this sort, would you?

Thanks again for the help!

[David Cox]

Hello,

 

Yes you are quite right to do the anamorphic transfer for all the resolution reasons you mentioned. If you are concerned that your FCP cannot do a sensible letter box conversion, most post facilities will have a thing called an ARC (aspect ratio converter). These are real time devices that do a good job of the convertsion. You might then take your final digibeta master to them and have a copy made through one of these, which will then give you two masters - one anamorphic and one not.

 

Try your FCP first though. Rescale artifacts normally show themselves as aliasing on sharp detail in your images, if there are any problems at all.

 

Don't quite see why you couldn't have time code burnt in on your anamorphic transfer. Once squeezed in telecine to be anamorphic, the video signal is technically identical to a "flat" one.

 

Good luck.

David Cox

Baraka Post Production Ltd

www.baraka.co.uk

[Stephen Williams]

I have been told that After Effects does a pretty flawless letterboxed version from anamorphicly squeezed material though I have no experience with this myself.

Don't suppose you have any experience of this sort, would you?

Thanks again for the help!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

I use Premiere for myself and find a rendered letterbox is very good, so I am sure AE is good. I agree with David Cox to use an ARC when in a Facility house.

 

Cheers

 

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com