s16mm still frame

[Aleksandar Bracinac]

I had first shooting on s16mm 2 months ago. The results are not that good as I did expect in terms of sharpnes and grain. The stock was 7218, camera SR2 and Superspeed primes/Optex 12-120 zoom. Is it possible that telecine suite (some upgraded Quadra) was the problem or maybe I have received bad stock (damaged by x-rays or high temperature). When I've seen original picutre from telecine I've been lost. Fortunately, we get back colours on daVinci and the guy told me that dmin blue was lost. Also... the colorist did some grain removal on daVinci which obviosly doing some bluring and Unsharp Mask effect to reduce grain.

 

Also I've seen on Kodak DVD which is filmed with Vision2 200T 16mm. There is some fine grain, but picture is sharp.

 

On the final I did some grain removal and final grade in combustion and I finish the job very well at the end.

 

 

Here are some examples:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can someone upload few frames to compare please?

 

 

Thank you for reading,

 

 

Aleksandar Bracinac

producer/director

Serbia

[Guest jeremy edge]

Search my posts....

 

Your stills make mine look like junk! lol

 

Of course you are using better lenses and cameras than I am so it's no wonder.

 

It looks like there's a little color correction that could be done but honestly I think you stills look pretty good.

 

What I'm learning is that in 16mm ...is that keeping the grain down can be difficult even with the best stocks.

 

http://backstreetlaw.com/id152.htm

check out the vision 2 frame with the monkey....that's my best still i have on my pc.the exr 100 is pretty grainy.

 

here's a still of some of the eterna 500 I have been trying to do something with;

http://extremesoundonline.com/film3.jpg

[Filip Plesha]

Pozdrav!!

 

Hi there, I'm from Croatia.

 

nice to see someone from this part of the world

[Aleksandar Bracinac]

Jeremy, thank you for the answer and the links. Anyway... I will try to use Vision 2 200T stock on shooting next week to see where is the problem. Anyone can tell me can I overexpose Vision2 200T for 1 stop as V2 500T without degradation?

 

-----

 

Filip, nice to see you too my friend!

I'm from Serbia.

Edited August 7, 2005 by Aleksandar Bracinac

[Filip Plesha]

thanks..

 

Are you shooting a commercial for that beverage ("na eks") or is it just a prop?

[Stephen Williams]

I had first shooting on s16mm 2 months ago. The results are not that good as I did expect in terms of sharpnes and grain. The stock was 7218, camera SR2 and Superspeed primes/Optex 12-120 zoom. Is it possible that telecine suite (some upgraded Quadra) was the problem or maybe I have received bad stock (damaged by x-rays or high temperature). When I've seen original picutre from telecine I've been lost. Fortunately, we get back colours on daVinci and the guy told me that dmin blue was lost. Also... the colorist did some grain removal on daVinci which obviosly doing some bluring and Unsharp Mask effect to reduce grain.

,

Aleksandar Bracinac

producer/director

Serbia

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

IMHO the telecine is overcorrected in sharpness and noise/grain reduction. When overcorrected the pictures take on a 'video' look.

 

Telecines have improved since the quadra was released over 10 years ago

 

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

[Tenolian Bell]

Yes I agree.

 

That is not what film grain looks like.

 

That looks like video artifacts form over sharpening.

 

You can see the same thing if you boost the skin detail too much on a video camera.

[Tenolian Bell]

I mean that is film grain.

 

But it's appearance is artificially boosted from the sharpening.

[Aleksandar Bracinac]

I mean that is film grain.

 

But it's appearance is artificially boosted from the sharpening.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I realise that the first time when I've seen the picture.

 

Anyway... is there a some visual difference between telecining S16 and S16 to 35mm optical blowup?

 

I've seen some S16 optical to 35mm on Fuji DVD and the picture is crisp and clear both with old Super F stocks and Reala. Even better than Kodak's THE DIFFERENCE DVD interviews (some of them are clean, and the other are grainy). It looks like 35 (except DOF). Otherwise, on Kodak's DVD there are some parts of some TV series shooted on S16 and it looks beautiful also. As that was TV series they are probably did straight S16 to HD/SD transfer . After that I've shot this S16 and I've been dissapointed :(

[Stuart Brereton]

Your choice of Telecine makes a big difference to the quality of your pictures

 

This Link will take you to a side by side comparison of identical footage transferred on both an Ursa Diamond and a Spirit Telecine.

 

The differences are obvious.

 

As Stephen points out, a heavy grade, with lots of secondary correction will accentuate the noise in the picture.

[Stephen Williams]

Your choice of Telecine makes a big difference to the quality of your pictures

 

This Link will take you to a side by side comparison of identical footage transferred on both an Ursa Diamond and a Spirit Telecine.

 

The differences are obvious.

 

As Stephen points out, a heavy grade, with lots of secondary correction will accentuate the noise in the picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

IMHO you should nail the look and exposure on the camera negative. Any use of secondary correction will degrade the image. The tools available are very useful but not magic! Sometimes on motion control I bracket exposures +1 and -1 stop. There is a huge difference when you see the shots back to back!

 

Stephen

[Logan Schneider]

What video format did you telecine to? Whenever I have to transfer super16mm to dvcam I want to cry because on the HD monitor it is pristine and once it's on video it looks like it went through vietnam.

 

Logan Schneider

DP

[John Pytlak RIP]

I would agree that most of the artifacts seem to be video related, to the extent that some of the images look more like video than film.

[Aleksandar Bracinac]

I did telecine to digibeta and capture that uncompressed as I did before with Super35.

 

Anyway, I've found commercial which my collegue done with same camera, lenses and stock. He just did telecine in other facility on Spirit and daVinci and picture is great.

 

Now I know where is the problem. I've seen some S16 transfer in same facility which looks better than mine (also same cam and stock) but not that good as I've seen telecined from Spirit.

 

 

The Conclusion... I've bought bad stock and did transfer on bad telecine... Finaly... I am lucky with the picture I have.

 

 

People, thanks a lot for your help!

[John Pytlak RIP]

The Conclusion... I've bought bad stock and did transfer on bad telecine... Finaly... I am lucky with the picture I have.

People, thanks a lot for your help!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you buy your stock directly from Kodak, or was it a reseller? Most of the issues I see were related to the transfer. Exposure to x-rays or poor storage may result in fogging, non-uniformity, or increased graininess, but that didn't seem to be the issue.

[Aleksandar Bracinac]

Hi John,

 

I bought the film from reseller (not official) for this commercial. For the next I will buy direct from kodak, but I've heard that they are not using proper storage of +5 degrees for negatives. I don't know.... I will try and once when I finish transfer I will post few images here. Also, I will use different telecine and will transfer a piece of this film on other telecine to just to see the difference.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Hi John,

 

I bought the film from reseller (not official) for this commercial. For the next I will buy direct from kodak, but I've heard that they are not using proper storage of +5 degrees for negatives. I don't know.... I will try and once when I finish transfer I will post few images here. Also, I will use different telecine and will transfer a piece of this film on other telecine to just to see the difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kodak normally ships and stores color negative film under refrigerated conditions, but not as cold as 5 Celsius. The film characteristics are optimized assuming this normal cold storage and an average time for the customer to receive and use it.

 

Consumer (non-professional) films assume room temperature for storage and retail display, and longer time before use.

 

Again, what I see in your images looks more like a video issue than a film issue.

[Aleksandar Bracinac]

So John, which temperature is proper for nonexposed negative storage?

 

 

In first post you could see raw captured image from digibeta.

 

Here you can see samples after post production:

 

 

 

 

 

[John Pytlak RIP]

So John, which temperature is proper for nonexposed negative storage?

In first post you could see raw captured image from digibeta.

 

Here you can see samples after post production:

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kodak normally maintains a temperature of 55F (13 Celsius) for transporation and storage of motion picture negative films.

 

Your images are looking much better after proper post, so it was likely not a film problem.

[Nate Downes]

Of course this whole arguement about fearing grain is funny to me, as I want there to be more grain in my next work. Personal quirk I suppose.

[Filip Plesha]

not everyone has to follow your choice

[Chris Keth]

Of course this whole arguement about fearing grain is funny to me, as I want there to be more grain in my next work.  Personal quirk I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

There are multiple ways to add grain to a film image. There are limited ways to actually reduce it, though.

[Jonathan Spear]

Hey Aleksandar,

 

Very nice shots man. I like the saturation and color pallete (and the blonde chick). Looks nice.

 

-Jonathan

[Jaan Shenberger]

generally speaking, if you will have access to decent post production tools, then i'd suggest specifying to the telecine operator to add no sharpening whatsoever. this can be added in post and adjusted to your taste, and it's beneficial to apply the unsharpen mask last/after color grading, and especially after grain reduction. sharpening is something that is easily applied but nearly impossible to remove without decimating detail in your footage.

 

your final stuff is a great improvement over the transfer. nice work.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not sure what was so wrong about the transfer -- did you guys expect S16 to look grainless???