Is Telecine of 16mm film at HD used for final edit?

[Stephen Perera]

....my first EVER footage shot on 16mm is coming back me via certified post tomorrow or the day after....

 

...the footage has been Telecine'd to HD size and exported as ProRes 422 on a pen drive.....its coming to me clean of timecode marks etc so I can use in the final edit......

 

My question is......does anyone use Telecine for final piece edit?

 

Obv its to save money on 2k/4k scans that I ask....

 

.......the final piece will be on social media and at its largest viewed size on a 43" TV at the factory for tourists to watch when the master blowers are not there making glass at the time

 

OBVIOUSLY all I have to do is watch the footage on the mentioned TV and make a decision but I wanted to know if people in my budget situation use Telecine in final edits

 

Tech details

Film: Kodak Vision3 500T

Camera: Aaton XTR XC

Lens: Cooke Varokinetal 9-50mm

Format: Standard 16mm

Client: Gibraltar Crystal

Footage: master glass blowers making pieces at the glassblowing factory to edit into a piece for marketing purposes and for walk-in visitors to watch

[Robert Houllahan]

Allot of work is 1080p for final edit and distribution, even with 4:3 standard 16mm or super-8mm material.

[Stephen Perera]

Thanks for taking the time to answer Robert....so you're saying there's no reason why the Telecine HD footage (not 2k scan or 4k scan) can't be used for the final piece as is????

Edited March 20, 2018 by Stephen Perera

[Perry Paolantonio]

It all comes down to what you need - if you're satisfied with the 1080 transfer and you don't higher resolution, then it's good to go. But if you need a 2k or 4k DCP or you want to stream it at higher resolution, you'll have to re-scan.

[Stephen Perera]

Thanks Perry........

 

......thankfully nobody's saying 'NOBODY uses Telecine these days its only for editing before rescanning the film'.....so there's hope!

 

I really hope the Telecine is good enough quality (my budget!) for the max size it will be viewed at......I just hope it doesn't look like VHS tape when displayed on the TV!!!!!!! if I can get by on Telecine HD then its down to me to frame things properly and shoot it all properly which is a challenge I accept!

 

I'm going to run the footage through DaVinci Resolve before outputting an edit for the client to watch.....I need the green light from them to carry on filming.....they want to see 'my vision' for the piece....I sold them on using film due to the nature of their product.....the thing is when I film their production stops so it has to be purposeful!!!!

[Robert Houllahan]

What telecine? If you get a scan to 1080P on a Spirit with a good operator it will look very good.

[Perry Paolantonio]

......thankfully nobody's saying 'NOBODY uses Telecine these days its only for editing before rescanning the film'.....so there's hope!

 

"Telecine" is just a generic term and it applies to a lot of different systems. Technically, something like a Retro 8 is a telecine. So is a Spirit. They're very different beasts, but they share a name. A telecine done on a Rank is not going to look like one done on a Spirit.

 

As Rob points out - it depends on what the hardware is and how competent the operator is.

 

(I've seen scans done on $500,000 data scanners that were totally awful: clipped, incorrectly color balanced, etc. Operator skill is a big part of any transfer, despite what some manufacturers might tell you).

[Stephen Perera]

ah good point...well.....nothing more to it than wait and see what i get!!!!

[Prashantt Rai]

What telecine? If you get a scan to 1080P on a Spirit with a good operator it will look very good.

 

 

 

Agree with what Rob says. My documentary footage (S16) looks good on 1080P HD "Scan".

[Stephen Perera]

thanks for the continued support with comments appreciate it......cant wait to see this footage!

[Tyler Purcell]

I like 1080p telecine for 16mm, I think the machines just look wonderful. Scanning can bring in all sorts of other issues like added noise that kinda blends in to a telecine.

 

If it weren't for modern deliverable requirements, I'd telecine everything I did.

[Perry Paolantonio]

I like 1080p telecine for 16mm, I think the machines just look wonderful. Scanning can bring in all sorts of other issues like added noise that kinda blends in to a telecine.

 

Then you're not using very good scanners.

[Tyler Purcell]

Then you're not using very good scanners.

I mean I've had things scanned on various scanners, been at this for quite some time. I just find scanners to be crisper and deliver a lot more detail, hence they pickup on the noise a lot more. Where telecine machines are a lot softer, which kinda hides the grain structure.

 

"Added noise" refers to film grain that is hidden on telecine machines.

[Perry Paolantonio]

"Added noise" refers to film grain that is hidden on telecine machines.

 

"noise" and "grain" are not the same thing.

[Stephen Perera]

right, i have more information......they do the telecine etc on a Tobin for 16mm and 8mm with a 1920 x1080 resolution.....file becomes 10 bit 4:2:2 ProRes

[Robert Houllahan]

With all due respect to Clive Tobin a Tobin is no Spirit.

 

I think the Tobin 16mm machine was $3500 new.

 

Our DFT Spirit-2K was delivered to a post house in LA in 2008 and I have the paperwork, it was $1,185,000.00

 

The Spirit is a true RGB 16bit scanner and the Tobin is a 8bit consumer analog camera with a dubious light source and sprocket transport.

 

Find a Spirit or ScanStation or just about anything else.

[Will Montgomery]

Remember, much of those wonderful Star Wars Prequels were shot in HD and effects output in HD. Not 2k, not 4k...HD. George liked to save time and money. But maybe that's not a good example...

[Stephen Perera]

I'm just after clean footage if I shot it clean...and at its max quality as is.........I dont want scanner/telecine operators who apply noise reduction (for example) cos HE/SHE thinks grain is bad....nothing worse than seeing those noise reduction products out there for photographers who just miss the point

[Will Montgomery]

These days it seems best to get a completely flat scan with no noise reduction and treat it as a "digital negative" and almost make "work prints" from that with a basic color job applied so when you show others the edit they don't cringe (or just apply basic coloring in the NLE). Then when the edit is locked sit down with the colorist and pay him lots of money to make it look amazing.

[Stephen Perera]

yes Will I'm going to get 'log' scans (the flat scan you refer to) at 2k of all the footage from the lab and do it all myself in DaVinci Resolve.....the only way I will embrace the grain and not get the smudgy noise reduction baked in

S

 

These days it seems best to get a completely flat scan with no noise reduction and treat it as a "digital negative" and almost make "work prints" from that with a basic color job applied so when you show others the edit they don't cringe (or just apply basic coloring in the NLE). Then when the edit is locked sit down with the colorist and pay him lots of money to make it look amazing.