printing advantages

[Guest dbledwn11]

what would be the advantages to having your negative printed (for a telecline transfer) to the desired look (i.e. a stop down to brighten the image, or whatever) as opposed to printing at normal exposure and using your editing suite to make the same necessary adjustments (i.e. the same desired look) for the telecline transfer?

 

does that even sound vaguely correct?

Edited October 28, 2005 by dbledwn11

[Stephen Williams]

what would be the advantages to having your negative printed (for a telecline transfer) to the desired look (i.e. a stop down to brighten the image, or whatever) as opposed to printing at normal exposure and using your editing suite to make the same necessary adjustments (i.e. the same desired look) for the telecline transfer?

 

does that even sound vaguely correct?

 

Hi,

 

The main advantage is to the lab who makes more money!

The quality and grading options using the original camera negative are better in my opinion. Its 1st Genration.

 

Stephen

[David Cox]

Hi,

 

The telecine is able to access the full range of the neg, and "choose" which parts of that range make it to a video tape or data file. So there wouldn't be a visual gain in transferring an altered print, except of course you are protecting your original camera neg by not dragging that though the telecine.

 

Just to clarify something, you mentioned "using your edit suite to make the necessary adgustments". Once you have left the telecine with a video tape, you have pre-chosen a great deal and so no longer have access to all the shades that the neg holds. So you won't be able to grade as well from the video tape source in your edit suite as you would in a telecine directly from film. However, what is possible is to scan the neg to a data file format that can hold most of the neg information and then use that in a digital grading solution such as Mistika, Baselight or Lustre. This will become an increasingly popular way of telecining because the transfer of the film becomes an offline process, the neg only goes through the scanner once and the grading can happed in a non linear environment where (for example) two shots from different rolls can be graded back to back.

 

David Cox

Baraka Post Production

www.baraka.co.uk

[David Mullen ASC]

I believe you are using the term "printing" incorrectly. You seem to be asking about the advantage of a shot-by-shot (or scene-to-scene) supervised color-correction versus a "one-light" transfer or "flat" transfer, to be color-corrected later. If so, there is no printing of the negative involved at all.

 

Unless you are asking about the advantage of answer-printing a negative, striking a color-timed IP, and using that in a telecine transfer as opposed to using a negative in a telecine, which has no corrections built-in.

 

"Printing" means copying the image off of a negative onto another piece of film to create a positive image. A telecine transfer is not printing.

[Stephen Williams]

"Printing" means copying the image off of a negative onto another piece of film to create a positive image. A telecine transfer is not printing.

 

David,

 

I know of a lab that tell its clients its better to telecine from a rush print! They even have some clients who believe them. They actually charge 50% more to transfer from a neg! The telecine they use is an FDL 90! the pictures look like poop. For the cost of the print I would prefer to use a Spirit, I would probably save money too!

 

Stephen

[David Cox]

They actually charge 50% more to transfer from a neg! Stephen

 

...my guess is they haven't got insurance for handling neg, so are trying to persuade clients not to bring it to them!!

[Guest dbledwn11]

I believe you are using the term "printing" incorrectly. You seem to be asking about the advantage of a shot-by-shot (or scene-to-scene) supervised color-correction versus a "one-light" transfer or "flat" transfer, to be color-corrected later. If so, there is no printing of the negative involved at all.

 

Unless you are asking about the advantage of answer-printing a negative, striking a color-timed IP, and using that in a telecine transfer as opposed to using a negative in a telecine, which has no corrections built-in.

 

"Printing" means copying the image off of a negative onto another piece of film to create a positive image. A telecine transfer is not printing.

 

You are completely right David, I have used the term "printing" incorrectly, i'm afraid I just don't know all the appropriate terms for the development stage. I suppose I was on some level using my mistakes to also find out the correct terms.

 

My problem stems from the fact that my "film school" deal with all the lab stuff. they take what we've shot, send it to Kodak (I believe they ask for a grading? does that sound right?) and we just wait for the telecine transfer to mysteriously appear on our Avid system. Obviously the editors take over here and any colour correction etc. is done with Avid. As a "cinematography" student I'm really keen to know whats going on with my negative.

 

Given this i probably do mean "the advantage of answer-printing a negative, striking a color-timed IP, and using that in a telecine transfer as opposed to using a negative in a telecine".

I'd like to get more involved with the lab process and make sure the negative that makes it to the telecine transfer has the range I want so as to avoid too much alteration with a programme like Avid.

 

also, i was wondering is the "answer print" stage where necessary adjustments are guaged before telecine occurs? i assume it becomes a positive image at this point?

 

I suppose on big productions telecine is used merely to create an EDL ready for the physical cutting of a negative copy? (or an interpositive copy??)

[Dominic Case]

My problem stems from the fact that my "film school" deal with all the lab stuff. they take what we've shot, send it to Kodak (I believe they ask for a grading? does that sound right?) and we just wait for the telecine transfer to mysteriously appear on our Avid system.

Aarrgghh!

 

It's hard to know where to start.

 

Your film school should be publicly "outed" if they are as neglectful in teaching you the basics of the process as you say. (Even the bit you mention "they just send the negative off to Kodak" is very unlikely: Kodak operate very very few labs around the world.)

 

There is a lot involved in the process -too much for an email. You might need to consult the book list on this site for something that covers film technology in post production.

 

But in brief - most productions telecine from the original negative, so there really isn't any more of a risk to the material than there is in timing it and printing it in the lab. (THis may not be true for the place that recommends telecineing a print on an FDL-90, so their advice is probably good, in the cicumstances).

 

If you have a supervised transfer, the results could be exactly what you want to finish up with - but as David Cox points out, you don't have much option at a later stage, as the telecine will have discarded all the tonal data you didn't want at the time.

 

If you grade the negative in the lab you could make a print (which would prove the grading to you) or you could make an interpos, which is much better for subsequent telecine transfer. In both cases, the print (or IP) is a new piece of film, which forms a positive image by exposing it in contact with the original negative - and then processing the print. The grading choices are made by the grader on a "colour analyser" (either a Colormaster or a Hazeltine), which previews the negative as a positive image on a video monitor and simulates the printer corrections that will subsequently be made at the time of printing.

 

Finally (your last question), productions that will finish up on film normally go to telecine for off-line transfers that will go into the Avid (or FCP etc), and the subsequent EDL is matched back to the Keykode numbers on the neg stock itself for the neg cutters (and that is a story in itself). This might be a fine cut or it might be full takes that are then digitised (similar to telecine, except that the entire range of the tones on the negative are transferred to the digital file) for a Digital Intermediate.)

[David Mullen ASC]

You can get very high quality when transferring negative to digital -- it just depends on the quality of the original image, the quality of the type of transfer devise used, the quality of the type of color-corrector used, the quality of the recording format used, and the skills of the colorist handling this process. Beyond that, if you personally get to supervise the process, the final image will be closer to what you want.

 

But generally you pay for every extra step in quality. A supervised transfer costs more than an unsupervised one, a new Spirit telecine transfer costs more than an older-model Rank telecine transfer, a transfer to Digital Betacam costs more than a transfer to Beta-SP, a transfer to HD costs more than a transfer to NTSC, etc. You pay for more quality.

[Stephen Williams]

...my guess is they haven't got insurance for handling neg, so are trying to persuade clients not to bring it to them!!

 

Hi,

 

No there just incompetent! They offered me a job 10 years ago as a colorist! At the time the said it was not possible to transfer neg with their Pogle. In 30 seconds I proved it was possible....................they did not want to listen!

 

Stephen

[Guest dbledwn11]

Thank you everyone for all the advice.

 

Another important mistake I may have made was that I seemed to forget that the negative will have gone through its own printing and development stages before the telecine transfer, where of course a dop will also determine an awful lot about how the image looks (pushing or pulling etc.).

 

therefore the stage i was discussing in the original post (the telecine transfer) is not the best place to be making the adjustments I assumed it could be used for (since ideally the developed negative has the desired tonal range), but rather, as David points out, for something like colour-timing (if doing a supervised transfer).

 

ok i'm still a bit confused:-) i'll get it eventually.

any more thoughts/corrections welcomed.

 

Will.

[Dominic Case]

Another important mistake I may have made was that I seemed to forget that the negative will have gone through its own printing and development stages before the telecine transfer, where of course a dop will also determine an awful lot about how the image looks (pushing or pulling etc.).

Well . . . . the negative gets developed first. Almost always it is developed at the standard technique (and you would be well advised to do that until you have learnt a great deal more about any variations from that (such as push and pull).

 

Remember that until the negative has been developed you can't see what you've got on your image.

 

Printing comes after that - if at all, it's rare to print rushes if you are going to telecine.

[Guest dbledwn11]

Almost always it is developed at the standard technique (and you would be well advised to do that until you have learnt a great deal more about any variations from that (such as push and pull).

 

I'm always reading in AC, these forums and other articles about people deviating from the "standard" technique - whether its under/over-rating etc. - i see what your saying about getting used to standard development procedures, but would you explicitly advise someone like myself to not take those risks?

I feel like I understand the process of pushing/pulling, where its application is necessary, the aesthetic implications etc. I was even thinking of using it on my next 16mm film, but your last post has got me paranoid.

 

ps.

Remember that until the negative has been developed you can't see what you've got on your image.

I know your being kind on someone who's probably made themselves appear a little ignorant, but I do my own B&W photography development, I did realise a negative would have to be developed before seeing the image:-) no dis-respect of course and thank you again for all the advice.

Edited November 1, 2005 by dbledwn11

[Dominic Case]

QUOTE(Dominic Case @ Nov 1 2005, 01:48 AM)

 

Remember that until the negative has been developed you can't see what you've got on your image

 

I know your being kind on someone who's probably made themselves appear a little ignorant, but I do my own B&W photography development, I did realise a negative would have to be developed before seeing the image:-) no dis-respect of course and thank you again for all the advice..

Believe me, I have encountered many "filmmakers" who haven't realised that fact. No offence intended. It's good to read that you have some fundamental darkroom basics.

 

Obviously AC etc will report on special techniques - it makes for more interesting reading than a DoP simply saying " I did everything exactly normally". The truth is that only a few percent of the work that I see going through the lab here is pushed or pulled, and even less is bleach-bypassed, and then usually only after tests (which are really essential but do cost money).

 

Rating a film faster or slower is much less dramatic as all you are doing is fiddling with the exposure reading. So you might feel able to predict the results of shooting over or under on your work.

 

That said, as long as you are at film school, DON'T EVER SHY AWAY FROM RISKS, if you think there is something to be gained if you get it right.. If you are shooting another student's film you may need to be sure of your relationship :ph34r: - but apart from that, take all the risks you want to. You won't get many chances later on.

[Chris Keth]

I know your being kind on someone who's probably made themselves appear a little ignorant, but I do my own B&W photography development, I did realise a negative would have to be developed before seeing the image:-) no dis-respect of course and thank you again for all the advice.

 

 

If you do your own B&W processing and printing, you would probably have no problem successfully pulling or pushing (Ansel Adams called it tone contraction and expansion) for a film. You know the effects to gamma and percieved resolution.