Spirit vs. Ursa comparison screengrabs

[Stuart Brereton]

There have been some discussions recently regarding the relative merits of different Telecine machines. For anyone that's interested, I have uploaded some side by side comparisons from a recent promo shoot. First set are from an Ursa suite, second set from Spirit, identical grades.

 

I have more stills should anyone want to see them.

 

www.stuartbrereton.com/TK test.html

Edited July 1, 2005 by Stuart Brereton

[Stuart Brereton]

sorry, to clarify URSA stills are on the left, SPIRIT on the right

 

my apologies for the large files, but I thought it was important to see them full size.

Edited July 2, 2005 by Stuart Brereton

[Michael Most]

sorry, to clarify URSA stills are on the left, SPIRIT on the right

 

my apologies for the large files, but I thought it was important to see them full size.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, yes, the Ursa (which, BTW, is a standard def device only) has more detail in the blacks (even when you crush the s**t out of them, as in music videos, commercials, and Jerry Bruckheimer television programs), and the Spirit has less noise. I thought this was fairly common knowledge, but thanks for putting up the stills that illustrate it pretty clearly. The difference in noise, BTW, is one of the primary reasons that Spirit transfers are generally preferred for 16mm, particularly when one wants it to look more like 35mm. The noise is more pronounced on smaller formats on flying spot scanners because the scan patch is smaller and the noise floor is higher. This noise is often mistaken for film grain, but it is the combination of both that yields a distinctly "16mm" look - and the noise is largely absent on a Spirit. This, combined with the use of a broader light source (as opposed to the spectral light on a flying spot machine, which tends to accentuate grain edges) makes for a "cleaner" picture, which is very evident when working with 16mm.

[Stephen Williams]

sorry, to clarify URSA stills are on the left, SPIRIT on the right

 

my apologies for the large files, but I thought it was important to see them full size.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

Was it an Ursa Gold or Diamond ?

 

Stephen

[Stuart Brereton]

Stephen,

 

It was an Ursa Diamond, through a Da Vinci 8:8:8 colour corrector, TK to digibeta. The stills are uncompressed screengrabs.

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen,

 

It was an Ursa Diamond, through a Da Vinci 8:8:8 colour corrector, TK to digibeta. The stills are uncompressed screengrabs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

I guessed it was a Diamond, I am a big fan of a C-Reality as well!

 

Stephen

[oscar jimenez]

And for comparison, having both Ursa Diamond and Spirit Vs Sony Vialta, Which should work out the best quality? or what would be the point of reference to have a best choice beetween them?

Thank you

Oscar

[Michael Most]

And for comparison, having both Ursa Diamond and Spirit Vs Sony Vialta, Which should work out the best quality?

 

The one being run by the best colorist.

[oscar jimenez]

I have most times due the telecine of several proyects with Ursa sistems, I have always gone mad with that sometimes "noisy" imagery, even though I know film was properly exposed and checking film code to be shure it is not from sold kind of "old batch " left from supplier. That's why, recently been using more Vialta, and have tasted better quality overall, not necessary that 16 power windows, but the colorist I have used in previous Ursa proy's is a very experiencied and talented senior colorist, still, there is a lot of noise. So for budget reasons, I have either to choose for some proys Ursa Diamond, or Vialta, being the later one $200.00/ hour more expensive than the first one.