Jump to content

16mm to Final Cut Pro--best approach?


schnozzle

Recommended Posts

I haven't shot film in a long, long time and a lot of things (namely digital editing) have happened since. But I've brought my 16mm camera out of the mothballs to work on a music video project--the piece will be a combination of dv footage and 16mm and it'll be edited on Final Cut Pro. The final product is aimed at tv and a net streaming only, so no film release print in the end.

 

My question is: given that the film I shoot will go straight into the computer and not touched afterwards, is there an advantage of shooting negative rather than reversal film? I've looked at Pro 8mm in Burbank and they offer a package to sell, process, and telecine 16mm negative (I think it's short ends) to Mini DV, which would be handy for dumping into the computer. The whole process works out to be about $100 for 100 feet of film; I'm having a hard time figuring out if this is a good deal, or if just buying 16mm reversal film and having somewhere else process & telecine would be more cost-effective.

 

Any suggestions would be very much appreciated...it's been a long time and I've forgotten a lot.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's far safer to buy origonal Kodak stock and have a seriously established lab take care of the developing rather than use any "fringe" companys. No offence to Pro8 but I've done it both ways and I know which way i'd go, (even if budget is tight) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachel, can you suggest a lab for this (assuming you're in Los Angeles, which may be an incorrect assumption)? No offense to Pro 8mm either--I think I investigated it first because I was attracted to the "one-stop-shopping" concept, but I can very easily believe there are better options.

 

I should note that the amount of film involved would be very small (200-300 feet max for this project).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were in the UK like me I could help but alas you are stuck in LA with a much higher standard of life including almost constant sunshine, palm trees everywhere, mountains and beaches Oh yeah and an actual film industry too! Poor you <_<

Anyhow if you hang out for a while someone from your Cosy beach town will unveil a new universe of film labs and post houses for you to pick over.....

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Super-8 Dealers and Labs:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/l...4.4.10.10&lc=en

 

Kodak Super-8 films:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/f....4.10.4.4&lc=en

(expect Kodak VISION2 products soon, including 500T 7218)

 

Super-8 Tips and Links:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/t....4.4.10.8&lc=en

 

Other Super-8 articles:

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...00/super8.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit off-topic, but since you bring it up: I would trade LA for the UK at any time. I know many will disagree, but, in my opinion: the constant sunshine is only nice if you are within a few miles of the coast, where the ocean keeps temperatures relatively steady. But housing is outrageously expensive there, meaning most of us have to live inland where it's essentially a desert. Very hot and very dry, it gets very oppressive very quickly. Also, we have the worst air quality in all of the United States (officially, according to the EPA), horrible traffic due to inadequate public transportation (we have trains, but they only run North-South, not East-West. Brilliant), a population that rises by 80-100 individuals every day, and, I just learned, currently the worst levels of unrelieved stress on the San Andreas fault in 1500 years, meaning the probability of one or several large earthquakes within the next couple of years is very high. And as for the mountains and beaches, everyone who lives here goes ape over them when they first move in and then never have any time to take advantage thereafter. The last time I was at the beach I didn't notice that it was against the rules to bring along a glass bottle and got a ticket for $180.

 

So, in essence, the standard of life here, unless you are very wealthy, is crap. And palm trees frequently have rats living in them. They like to hide in the old fronds, you see. Still want to live here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent suggestion! Although, I have to admit, I'm not a DP, I'm more of an animator.

 

How about a dorky pseudo-hipster exchange program? That goes for me, actually. I have no idea if you're a dork or not. Do you have dorks in the UK?

 

ANYWAY--to get back to the original subject, I'd be very happy to hear about peoples' various experiences in processing & telecine-ing small runs of 16mm. I gather everyone is in agreement that there's no real advantage in using reversal stock for this application?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The place I use here has a minimum 400ft deal so if your under that you still pay the 400ft price, I noticed Pro8 were doing a 300ft package deal a while ago?

Neg stock (especially Vision2) transfers really well to video, reversal can be a bit less "predictable" but can look amazingly cool although as I'm sure you know you need to expose it very carefully due to the tiny lattitude.....

PS I'm definately a dork

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, it's comforting to know dorkiness is international.

 

I'll check to see about the Pro 8mm deal. I thought about that but I'm pretty sure I only need 200 feet. How sad that an extra hundred feet of film actually makes a difference to me at this point. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to get footage cheaply onto video, it's just not easy to do that with great quality. You'll generally get a better quality image with negative because it has a great exposure range and the transfer systems are designed for this. Getting the footage onto video can be accomplished is a few ways, but the highest quality is in a proper telecine suite. You can have a "one-light" transfer done which is the cheapest where the colorist simply sets the exposure based on your first few feet of film and then lets it lay down to tape with no adjustments, or you can have a "best light" transfer where the colorist does some general overall changes. Or you can do a "scene to scene" transfer wher the colorist will adjust the image throughout as he best sees fit, or finally you can do a "supervised" transfer where you are in the room with the colorist, telling him brighter, darker, redder, contrastier, etc. As you can imagine these rise progressively in costs. Your best bet is to contact some local labs to find out what sort of deals they'd be willing to make with you. In LA there are plenty of options. Trying calling Fotokem in Burbank to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey there,

 

I would agree that you might want to pick a really good lab for the telecine servies. A few factors would be to considered whether you want it supervised or not, the staffs at the lab and of course the budget you have. Like Mitch said, it depends a lot on what you want to do: One lite print, Scene to scene etc. For the past projects, I have telecined in a few houses here in LA. You might want to check out these couple of places:

 

Entertainment Post in Burbank

Yale Lab

Fotokem

Crest National

 

One thing that I heard is that Fotokem will reduced the number of sessions for 16mm teleine. But you still might want to check out and ask them about it.

 

Entertaintment Post and Crest National are the two places that I have best experiences with, and I am not sayig that the rest of the labs are no good. You just need to find out the best one that fits you and your project. One good thing you should do is to call them and find out more because you will be surprised at how the prices varies from places to places, if that is a main concern for your project.

 

So good luck and have fun.

 

PS By the way, I am an animator too....trying to become a DP. Maybe I would like to join the exchange program....anybody?

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Mitch, on the other hand, is a geek, not a dork. I'm a geek but I used to be a dork and a geek. Then I got married and had kids. Now I'm just miserable.

My personal definitions:

 

Geek -- Someone who was WAY to into Star Trek as a kid. David Mullen, ASC and I are prime examples because, well, we're both still kinda into it. If you're into the tech of how they made the special effects or ever went to a Star Trek convention then you are also a NERD. I am proudly both (so, so sad).

 

Dork -- Six words: Charles in CHarge Fan Club President. I am not a dork.

 

I'm married and now have a kid, and soon I'll make the gradual transition from Geek/Nerd to Middle-Aged Man, driving around in my minivan dispensing advice on old cameras, cleaning rain gutters and tax exemptions. Shoot me now. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I am not in favor of the reductionist definition of "dork" as defined above. To me a "Charles In Charge" fixation places one firmly in the "geek" category. In my experience:

 

A geek is defined by a willful pursuit and embrace, beyond all reasonable standards of enthusiasm, of a subcultural phenomenon; whereas

 

A dork is a person who, by virtue of personal and sometimes physical eccentricities, is just plain weird.

 

Therefore, geekdom is a matter of personal choice, and dorkdom is a socio-biological category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...