PICSCAN

[Rodrigo Prieto]

I have experienced many headaches with telecine "interpretation" for daylies on features I have shot. It seems very difficult to have a true "one light" telecine. Has anyone used the PICSCAN FILM LEADER SYSTEM to deal with this issue? Good results? Can you still manipulate the image after "zero" setting has been determined (if you do need some correction, for example if you lost the 85 filter for exposure, but need to add it back in timing)? I am currently prepping a film and would appreciate any ideas to avoid needing more advil.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

It's a headache (not that I've ever needed it for dailies) not being able to

see how the neg looks "straight out of the box". Many times I've wanted

to see how a particular film stock looks "bare" (especially when you're

trying out unusual processes or stocks) before they start tweaking,

only to see the colorist scratching his head. There's no zero setting on

these machines unfortunately so there's no comparison or a constant

to compare to. I can't seem to understand why, 'cause it'd be a piece of

cake to agree on a setting that would constitute the "norm", wouldn't it?

[John Pytlak RIP]

That's what the Telecine Tool Kit materials from Kodak are for:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/tools/

 

You can specify that your film be transferred "one light" at the normal TAF setup:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/tools/taf.shtml

 

Or use the Kodak Telecine Exposure Calibration Film:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/tools/tec.shtml

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> 'cause it'd be a piece of cake to agree on a setting that would constitute

> the "norm", wouldn't it?

 

Well, there's just one or two variables! You'd need one for every stock, surely?

 

Phil

[Marc Wielage]

Well, there's just one or two variables! You'd need one for every stock, surely?

That's essentially correct. Kodak's Telecine Calibration System does a surprisingly good job at showing you essentially what's on the negative -- based on Kodak's own color science. The box will automatically detect what stock is being used, and adjust itself automatically. (The operator can also intervene, in case the box is malfunctioning or in case there's a problem with the Keykode.)

 

The only problem I can see with the TCS is, you're at the mercy of the accuracy of the lab in developing the negative correctly. And woe be to you if you deviate from normal exposure and density. As long as the negative is OK, what you get out of the TCS box is pretty close. (Note also that I believe a good, experienced colorist can duplicate the effect of the TCS box, given enough time and talent. We typically will come up with a specific set-up for the telecine equipment for each project, and use that same machine and set-up for the duration of the shoot, assuming the same emulsion type. There might be a "day exposure" and a "night exposure" setting, with some variations, plus matching A&B cameras, but that's all.)

 

At the same time, you then run into the problem of, "do you want to actually see what's actually on the negative, or do you want to see a pleasing picture that will show the director and editor how the image will actually look on a print (or on TV)?" In my experience, the two things are not always the same.

 

I consider it a major job of the telecine colorist to help make the cinematographer look good. If I ever see a problem in dailies, I'm on the phone to the DP or the gaffer in 30 seconds warning them that I see a problem. By the same token, as long as the DP sends me notes (or indicates notes on camera reportsor on slates) that he or she wants a specific look, we'll bend over backwards to make it look that way, and retain everything that's shot on the set.

 

It does help us when the crew shoots grey scale charts and so on at the start of each new lighting set up, and to pull any filters so as to at least give the colorist (and lab technician) an idea as to what "normal" exposure is. Kodak's charts are as good as any; I personally don't like color charts, but if a job is going to go through conventional lab color-timing, it makes sense to have those at the head of every shot, for the lab timer.

 

--Marc W.

colorist

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

This is the problem with video dailies. You really never know how good (or bad) of a job you're doing. What I do now is shoot with a digital SLR whith the same exposure I use on camera, then email the photos (with notes) to the colorist after they've had MINOR tweaks in Photoshop. It has weaknesses (shoulder latitude) but in the end gives the best results if I can't have film dailies.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I personally like to use my Nikon and Kodak still film to get a rough idea of what is going on with my images. If I wanted to I could go to the still lab and ask them to print something up or down, just to get a rough idea of what is going on. Of course, I have to adjust to the slightly higher contrast of the still print versus projection, but it's still better than just relying on the vudeo dailies.

 

Furthermore, with my project now I get more "monthlies" than dailies, so I've been using a combination ofvideo footage and my Nikon to get an idea of what's happening. The one regret is that the Nikon doesn't let me tell whehter or not I'm in focus, and neither do video dailies.

 

I have been tempted to ask the colorist to make the image approximate a print more, but I'm afraid since I view my stuff on a consumer TV set (I don'thave an expensive monitor to look at them) I don't know what to expect really, it's such an inexact thing. I usually like to simply turn up my set's contrast or go into Premiere and play with the "levels" slider.

 

- G.

[Tenolian Bell]

At the same time, you then run into the problem of, "do you want to actually see what's actually on the negative, or do you want to see a pleasing picture

I would rather see what's on the negative first. Before a lot of tinkering changes the look. For one a DP gets to see any mistakes made and learn from them. Two it alleviates any arguments with the colorist over what the film originally looked like. Three if you are testing a new film stock you get to see what it does naturally.

 

If the DP only sees pleasing pictures tweaked by the colorist you never learn from your mistakes or can improve on your photography.