Chris Burke

You will be loosing resolution from the overall image because, you are essentially taking an "almost square" and chopping off the top and bottom and then enlarging what is left, to fit the 35mm neg. So the image will suffer. Why didn't you shoot with the 16:9 adapter? In any case, the image will probably be softer than if you had shot with the adapter, but not bad. If you poke around this website and perhaps DVXuser.com, you will find literally reems of discussion about this very topic. In short, this camera does pretty well for what it is, many like the results. Keep in mind what I said before and that if your shots were lit poorly, you may not like it. Some labs will do a free or really cheap 1 minute test of your material, which I highly recommend before your final film out. Sorry to ramble on a bit, but I would also recommend that you do a proffesional level color grade of your final cut, one that cateers to the labs specifications for the print. It never really got that big of a theatrical releasem, but the film November with Cortney Cox, was shot with a DVX100 and blown up to 35. Not sure if there is any other film out there now that you could go and check out at the local theatre. Anybody else have an idea?....

Don't rule out a Nizo 6080. If you are going to be shooting sync, this is the camera to get. Chris

In reference to the picture quality, in a word, fantastic. Given the fact that it is Super 16 and that it can use PL mount lenses, you can get a picture that will rival even 35mm. That is to say, as long as you use really sharp lenses and shoot with any of the fantastic new stocks Kodak has available for it. Sadly no Fuji film comes in the special 200' loads. It is a great B cam, or for getting into really tight spaces. chris

What 123 is looking for, a new sort of scope scenario for Super 16, is something I have thought about a lot lately. I know that Canon manufactures an anamorphic adapter for 2/3" digital cameras. It compresses the image horizontally to fit into a scope(2.39:1) format. Much the same way the 16:9 adapters that are out there, do for the DVX100 and the like. Why not one of these for Super 16? It would be cheaper to make one of these than to go out an manufacture a whole new lens line. You would have to have a compression factor of 1.44 to make the resulting image 2.39.

David, Do you know where I can check out an example of this, other than shooting a test? I am considering this stock in Super 16. Shooting will be at night in a car driving through the Big Dig, a monster public works network of tunnels underneath Boston. Lots of flourescent banks and sodium lights I think? Grain I like, what the grain looks like matters a great deal. I know a test is essential and I fully intend to do one, I'm just looking for examples. The Fuji rep even said that he can send a 35mm cassette for a still camera with any stock loaded. I will test with that film, extracting a Super 16 size image from it. Chris

I agree with you, much more style than substance. Probably the only two people in the world who actually like the film, are in this thread. As stated before, it was really hard to get invested in any of the characters. I did not care what, if anything, happened to them.

Technicallly speaking, depending upon the lab that you use (search this forum for a thread posted last week about this very topic) you may be getting a digibeta quality transfer simply dumped onto tape. Some labs, ie Cinelab.com, transfer uncompressed SD straight to hard drive. Uncompressed SD is of better quality than digibeta, not much, but better. Often and increasingly more so, many labs are offering this service at NO PREMIUM charge. So why not do it? Get the best that SD can be for little money. The file or files you would get are an uncompressed Quicktime file, either 8 bit or 10 bit, get the 10. You need a RAID to play back files of this type, so if you don't own one, you will be doing an offline/ online edit scenario. Search for the affore mentioned thread and good luck. Chris

I am not sure if you can deliver a 720p master for broadcast. Anybody else know? If not, you would have to up res to 1080, which would yield a slight hit in quality. Why not Super 16 and master to 1080? I am not sure how long your piece will be, but 16 may well be cheaper than HD. Better look as well. My two cents. Chris

sounds interesting. Could you please post a photo of this mount? Thank you. chris

But a digital refitting of a theatre cost what, quarter million US on average? What would this proposal cost? I know that digital is facing an uphill battle because of the high cost to the theatre. Studios may shy away from this because they are looking to save money by not having to make huge amounts of prints, where digital projection is much cheaper for them in the long run.

It is not an assumption. Go out and get some prices. Kodak charges 15.50 per 50 foot cart. Sure the 16 cost a little bit more, but for the bump in quality and running time, the cost savings means less and less. You pay a little bit more than 30 cents a foot for Super 8 raw stock and another 30 or so to process. Telecine to hard drive as uncompressed HD, which is what I would do with the Super 16, cost exactly the same amount. My point was and still is, the prices savings isn't a whole lot, so you really are only going for look.

I have heard excellent reports about them as a lab and as a business to deal with. The few time I spoke with them on the phone, they were very friendly and informative. They truly wanted to talk with me and take the time to make sure all my questions were answered. That being said, they do not currently offer direct to hard drive as a telecine option. It is probably forth coming and I for one can't wait. Chris

Good question. I guess the only real reason is for it's look. I have been pricing out shooting a 20 minute short on 7217 Super 8, transfer to hard drive as uncompressed HD. Both Super 8 budget and the Super 16 budget have the same scary minimum shooting ratio of 6:1, and both cost roughly the same amount of money. So it must be for the look. chris

If you are shooting the 7217, then may I suggest that you buy direct from Kodak. The filmstock and carts are better than those you will get from Pro8mm. They use lots of short ends for their film. In terms of how to rate the film and the color cast, test. Many say rate the stock at least 2/3 over. some say rate it at 100 asa. I would shoot a test roll and see what works best for you. Good luck

It all boils down to your hard drive speed. If you are going to conform your online material at home on your own system, you will need a RAID. SCSI or SATA II will do it. Here's the catch. SATA raid will set you back about 1500. I am not sure how long your pieces is or what sort of effects are in it, but 1500 is about a day at a really good post house using all their stuff; proper monitors and all kinds of tape decks for output. A SCSI raid will cost much much more. So, if you intend to do all your films this way from now on, then the SATA raid may be an option. If not, go to a post house to have it done. They have done this sort of thing many times. Good luck

This is NOT the case in the labs that I have spoken to. What happens is that the SDI out from the telecine is going straight into a computer into a computer via a Decklink card or the equivilent. Actually, it is probably going through a color corrector first, then into a G5 or some sort of PC. For SD, this is cheap and easy, for HD, not that much more difficult. The biggest drawback is storage space. Ask around to see if they are going to tape first then to hard drive, if so, there is a quality hit. How much depends on what kind of tape it is coming from. Bono goes straight to a G5, Cinelab does the same as does Movielab. All three are in the US, use them if you can. Can't toot the straight to hard drive enough if you are on a budget and want the best of both worlds. Chris This is the real world translation, but many people use the word scan when referring to telecine and they are not incorrect. Telecine by definition means: Flying spot scan. Hint hint from the post house in Seattle. Cine means scan. The word for film in Gaelic is scanna. So we are all talking about the same thing. I think the confusion is centered around thinkmonkeymedia's general lack of understanding involved with all this technical jargon and understandlibly so. It took me a while to wrap my brain around it all. Wikipedia has a very clear and concise definition about all of this stuff and I highly recommend lots more research via the web and phone calls to the lab you choose before jumping in. Good luck. Chris

Fair enough, but how? I have looked and looked and can't figure it out. No luck in My Controls or My Assistant. Sorry for sounding rather stupid. I do always end my entries with my real name. Chris

Just saw it last night and I was wondering, was it an optical blow up or DI? I really liked the film and the look of it. Super 16, yeah! chris :D

You are getting lots of info here and it seems like you are settling in on mini DV. I know that this can be a very confusing maze of info and often the easiest way is best. That being said, telecine to miniDV is good enough for broadcast, but not great. May I suggest for the maximum in quality and minimum price that you telecine straight to hard drive as an uncompressed SD file. The quality of this file is better than DigiBeta and the very best you are going to get in standard def. Many labs are now offering this. Many do not charge a premium for this service. I suggest Cinelab.com, they will TK your film at .18/foot as a scene to scene session straight to hard drive. Call them or email them and tell them your situation. Once you get the hard drive back with the files, you can make a sort of window burn version in miniDV and lay that back onto tape as a back up. At least if your hard drive crashes, you will have a tape back up. This is very easy with Final Cut Pro. Unfortunately, if this happens, you lost all that quality, but you can still cut the movie. But that won't happen, so here is what you do. Once you have the files on your computer, make low res clips from the uncompressed ones, make sure the timecode matches in both resolutions. Use the lower res ones to do your offline, when finished, output an EDL and take your hard drive with the uncompressed media, all the other stuff you have added and a miniDV tape of your final edit to a post house and have them do a proper online. If you have a short film, the cost will not be that out of hand and it will be well worth it. This is IMHO, the best and most cost effective way to do post these days. I have done it for three short film now, using both 16mm and Super 8 and I will never do it any other way, if I don't have to. The cost savings is unheard( you don't have to rent a digiBeta deck, just buy a firewire hard drive) of and the quality is fantastic. If you can't afford an online now, at least you have a miniDV version and you have the umcompressed stuff waiting for when you can afford to. I hope this barrage of info helps, it really is quite easy to do. Good luck. Chris

Any HD telecine could handle the film shot on a Max 8. Besides, isn't this new format much better suited for HD. I have a Nizo 6080 with an enlarged gate and have done a good deal of calling around to see if this would present a problem. the short answer I always got was "it won't". Most all TK suites can pull out to see the extra area that has been exposed. I have not done the HD route yet, but my research is pointing to the fact that either a Shadow, Spirit or Cineglyph will do a good job of it. Chris

If you can only afford a TK to dv tape, then go with DVCAM not miniDV. It is a proffesional format that is better in the long run than miniDV. Most all Sony miniDV camcorders and decks will play back DVCAM. If you can afford more than that, do the digi Beta and DVCam at the same time. What is your footage, regular 16 or Super? If Super 16, then bite the bullet and TK to HD. The two formats work very well together. chris

why even bother with HDV? Why not DVC PRo HD as an offline? It seem to me a waste of time, since probably for the same price you could TK to hard drive or some better tape base format. chris

I thought Session 9 looked amazing. I know they used a huge light package and really took the time to light it well. In this case it did look like film. Since then, I have not like the HD look. Too soft and washed out for my taste, but I agree with you all, HD is what it is. I am not the biggest fan, but it does have it's own nitch. Miranda July has quite a past as a video artist, so I think that the look really suited the film and her for that matter. chris

check out www.kayelights.com they sells lots of used equipment chris

I have gone to their website www.movielab.com and seen the prices which seem to be too good to be true. 9.8¢ for color 16mm processing is way cheap. So what is the catch? What are your experiences. I am looking around for a lab and if they are any good, I may just give them a try. How about their telecine? How have they treated your film? Thank you for any info. Chris