File format for 16mm Telecine

[Peter Bitic]

Yeah, that is what I meant (I think so) - some way to process the flat scanner files like you process a RAW file (in Lightroom or Camera Raw) to get a non-flat, naturally-looking tiff or jpg by applying a picture profile to it. Or you can apply the profile in camera as well, if you would like to get a finished jpg without having to deal with software. I would be fine if I got a Pro Res file from a scanner that already had the profile applied to it. I hope what I am saying makes some sense.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Perry Paolantonio]

A flat scan of a timed print should have elevated black levels and reduced white levels, as well as lower contrast overall. If the scanner is properly calibrated, the bulk of what you need to do in post is to bring black down to black and white up to white.

 

The point of a flat scan is to not do any grading during the scan process. It's about trying to capture the image that's on the film, in digital form, without permanently baking in color correction choices like you would in a traditional telecine transfer. The whole idea is that these days you can do that in a second pass in Resolve or most edit systems, so the scan itself is about making sure you retain that flexibility for later color correction.

[Peter Bitic]

A flat scan of a timed print should have elevated black levels and reduced white levels, as well as lower contrast overall. If the scanner is properly calibrated, the bulk of what you need to do in post is to bring black down to black and white up to white.

I see, thanks, so basically it's not that hard to get the basic look from a flat file as I feared it would be (have no experience in this area). That makes sense actually.

[Will Montgomery]

I see, thanks, so basically it's not that hard to get the basic look from a flat file as I feared it would be (have no experience in this area). That makes sense actually.

 

Actually, if you're not familiar with color work it might be frustrating. But you can probably get close.

 

There's a reason why colorists charge what they do. It is a very specialized field, but a good one can make your jaw drop. The good news is that with a flat scan, a colorist can draw an amazing image out of your file.

 

There are plenty of online tutorials now and you could compare it to correcting a raw file so you'll find something online that will point you in the right direction. As a student, I bet you could call a good post house in your area and ask for an hour at a good rate.

[Anthony Schilling]

I would keep it simpler like a quiktime file. It won't take up much space, won't burn up your machine trying to render anything, and it will still look good. You want something that's just plug and play at first. All these new codecs and ever changing PC technology can be a nightmare for someone just jumping into it.

[Perry Paolantonio]

I see, thanks, so basically it's not that hard to get the basic look from a flat file as I feared it would be (have no experience in this area). That makes sense actually.

 

That's the gist of it, but of course the reality is that if you want to really fine tune it you need someone who knows what they're doing, and you need to do it on a system with proper monitors, calibrated, in a room that's got the right lighting and surround color, etc. etc.

 

But to get a flat scan into the ballpark of what it looked like in the camera viewfinder, you can pretty much do it just by looking at the scopes.