Robert Houllahan

I agree - don't bother 'pulling' the film in processing. Pulling would reduce contrast. Just overexpose as you normally would with negative film and process normally. This is of course assuming that it really is negative film that you are exposing! Can you confirm that it is in fact 200T and not 200D B&W reversal?

The age and type of stock should survive a mere 3 years in the fridge I would think it would be fine too.

-Rob-

This weekend a buddy and I were "employed" to film a colleague of ours wedding. We had access to a super-16 so what the hell why not, plus he was even providing the film. great, awesome! Well the day rolls around and we grab the film from him. Well I guess I cant complain to much since I wasn't paying for the film, but he hands us a recan from a previous project....from 3 years ago. With him being a responsible filmmaker, I know it was kept in the freezer, but I would like to know if their is anything different I should get them to do during processing. Another colleague of mine suggested we overexpose by half a stop but he wasnt really positive if the aging would be that big of a difference. Currently the film is overexposed by a full stop with anticipation of pulling it 1 stop. Any suggestions?

 

Oh yeah, film was Kodak 7278 200t

-James Paonessa

Have your lab run a short "clip" test and put it on the densitometer to get an idea of base fog / aging, etc. and then make a judgment on the pull.

-Rob-

Thanks Robert. I know it might seem strange there being quality problems going from DigiBeta to DVD but there was another thread on this forum which highlighted certain issues with the image using this workflow. I can't recall exactly the details of what was posted but there was some sort of degrading effect, according to the poster. The thread was some time ago. I'll see if I can find it.

I read the following and I have to say that loss of quality from a D-beta to DV dub has never been a problem for me if there is any issue it is so minor as to be negligible. Making DVD's from D-Beta has been a A #1 workflow for years now.

My 0.02c

-Rob-

i can't find anything about an adapter from aaton to arri bayonet mount. It looks impossible just from what i've seen.. aaton seems to have a large flange wihle the arri-b is more compact judging by photos. Are there such adapters?? thanks

More than possible, both Arri B-mount and Arri std mount adapters are available and many people with Aatons (like me) have arri B-mount glass that they use on a LTR, etc.

-Rob-

Well, I can get around it with a regular 16mm projector. I just set my clear scan to 75.4hz and the flicker is gone. (Sony D35W camera). :rolleyes:

Hmmm I have a DXC537 with clearscan which I was not able to get to be flicker free even at 75hz maybe it had something to do with the projector I was using and its shutter angle. I stopped trying to get a film chain working after we built gates for Super8 and Reg8 for our Ranks which do allot better job at this work. Do the HDV cams have clearscan?

-Rob-

I have been trying to transfer some 16mm footage to video using my own and some borrowed equiptment. I am projecting the film onto a small white surface and video taping the image. I am using a Singer Graflex 16mm projector and a Sony HDR-FX7 video camera. I can run the projector at 16fps or 24fps. The video camera records at 1080i60 and has normal shutter settings 4,8,15,30,60,90,100.

 

My problem right now is flickering. No matter what combination of shutter and speed I set the two devices at, there still is a flicker.

 

I have read about projectors with 5 blades which are specifically made for video transfer. How does this work? Do 5 blade projectors spin faster than the 3 blade versions? Is there any way to change the projector I have, or do I need to find a new one in order to have 5 blades?

 

Pretty much, I'm looking to get the best results I can from what I have. Any suggestions or tips would be appreciated.

In my experience with film chain experiments you really need to get a 5-blade projector to eliminate flicker there is no real way around it when going to 60i video. The 5 blade shutter does not spin faster it just presents the video camera more frames which replicate a 3;2 sequence.

-Rob-

Ive heard that going from Digital Betacam to DVD can cause quality problems. So is DVCPro50 better in this regard?

I do not see how there would be problems with going from D-Beta to dvd it is a almost uncompressed 10 bit video format and provides a very high quality original for the Mpeg compressor to "chew on" and usually it is ingested into an editor over SDi uncompressed. DvcPro50 is a much higher quality format than DV and can be edited easily on a laptop, I do allot of my own stuff in DV50 on a 12" G4 laptop with the internal drive, but it is more compressed than D-beta and is a 8bit video format not 10bit like D-Beta. Both are higher quality SD video formats which would make good DVD originals especially from a high quality source like a DSX.

-Rob-

The real bummer is that buyers are very reluctant to leave negative feedback on eBay for fear that they will get a "retaliatory" negative against their own feedback, left by a dishonest seller.

I had this happen after buying a piece of computer equipment (never again on ebay) and the guy in San Fran never sent the thing and I had to go through paypal to try to recover the loot (I got back something like 500 of the 800 bucks) and then after many emails, calls, etc I left him negative feedback which he shot back at me I think he said I was "Impatient" and I thought about getting in the Jag and taking a trip to San Fran with my Mossberg but gas being what it is it would be too much money for the satisfaction and then the jail time would really cut into my film making and lab running...... :blink:

-Rob-

Anybody have a safe way to transport film stock? I have some stock that needs to get from LA to NY. I'd take it on the plane with me, but the way security is now, I'm fairly sure they'll make me x-ray it, which wouldn't be good. Hoping for some suggestions.

 

--Bragi

We have good luck with Fedex and I know that they have special stickers for photo sensitive packages, overnight is best.

-Rob-

I am very partial to a set of Cooke Kinetal lenses I picked up a few years ago. They are old, but the image they put to film is really beautiful. I like them so much I am building custom mounts so I can use them on my "Aaton Mount" Super 16 LTR (the 12.5mm, 17.5mm, 25mm and 50mm all cover Super 16. The 9mm will not.)

I had a complete set for a arri m that I sold to get my ltr54 I thought the cookes were great glass. I would be interested in seeing what your mount looks like if you were to make a few more.....

-Rob-

So everything I wrote was ridiculous.

No I was just trying to be funny and it's and art and a craft and well one should be serious about it one should not take it so seriously.

There are lots of different frames you can compose for i.e. 2:35 in miniDV if thats yer happanstance every job will be priced differently. I am sure you could find a condition where a piece would cost $30m in 2:35 miniDV and one where $100k in imax however both are a stretch.

-Rob-

what do you mean by " a compositor as a color corrector"?

Digital Fusion is really a FX and Compositing package and of course includes a color corrector but a dedicated color package like a Lustre, Scratch, DaVinci, etc. will have more sophisticated tools for color finishing and a more streamlined interface but you will not buy one of these for a personal color station as they are very expensive.

-rob-

Hi there, I have a bit of ukranian color reversal film that I successfully processed using c41 35C (it melts @38), as I would like to have them processed in 120m loads, I wonder if I could just send it to the lab to be processed as ECN2. But I am afraid that it would not survive the machine. Any thoughts, suggestions etc? For example, what would be the working temperature of the ecn chem? Many thanks.

 

Richardson

ECN-2 Developer is 106F or 41C so if it melts at 38C you may be out of luck.

-Rob-

Hello Gents,

 

I just snagged an O'Conner 100 fluid head off Ebay. I'm not crazy about what I payed for it but they come up so rarely that I needed to go ahead and move on it. I hope it works. Where can I get a rebuild kit for it if it's blown its little guts? As well, what's its maximum weight limit. I'l throw a Fries 35R3, XL2 and full-size NC blimp on it. It will also get an assortment of 8" TFT monitors, remotes, varied widgets, and an occaisional obie. Can an O'C 100 handle all that?

 

Thanks,

Paul

I am pretty sure you can get a complete set of rebuild parts directly from O'Connor and yes it will hold all that on the right sticks (i have one)

-Rob-

Hello Gang,

 

I'm wondering if anyone has had a chance to shoot 35mm cine frames of a recently issued, high-res LCD monitor? Since they are going up in contrast and resolution and down in price, I wondered if anyone has shot one to see how well it's imagery transfers back to film.

I know Jeff Kreines at Kinetta is building a 35mm film recorder based on a LCD panel I think a proper camera/panel alignment is essential and then you get into colorimetry issues and calibrating the panel to the film stock. For quick stuff I am sure it would work but any LCD is a 8bit device.

-Rob-

hi

 

i'm doing most of my color timing for shorts in HD with this software

i'm interested about your opinion

I would say that DF is a really good software package with render farm ability and a good Color Corrector which works in hi precision color space. If you can deal with the use of a compositor as a color corrector and you have a calibrated monitor why not?

-Rob-

This photo is by available window light, by the way, but whether artificially or naturally lit, the cost of lighting both shots would be the same.

This is where you have seriously made a mistake David, now that Sol Inc. has been taken over by an intergalactic conglomerate they are raising the rates on photons at an alarming clip. Clearly the use of more photons would drastically increase the costs of this frame you are shooting.

Rob "Injecting more ridiculousness" Houllahan :rolleyes:

Hey guys just searched the forums for threads regarding this but couldnt really find what i was looking for

but yeah here goes

is HD that much better? Ive seen HD filmsf (not hi-end stuff) but prosumer level cameras and well it looks just about the same to me. I know im not a tech guy or anything but this is just me.

 

The only thing ive noticed is more of a hyper reality then DV cameras since everything has more pixels and more is seen the faults of the people turn into big. I remember hearing that a news station had to get rid of their top of the line HD cameras because of this.

as well as their super accurate need for focusing.

 

Any who this is just my opinion but i think this race for SUPER HI-REZ image is getting taken out of proportion.

 

is the trade off beneficial ?

any thoughts?

I think that you generally get what you pay for, hi end HD solutions get more sophisto because they actually do the things they claim, prosumer and especially consumer cameras have a fairly wide range of marketing (i.e. Bulls**t) attached.

I was at a friends the other day helping setup a 4-core mac for editing DvcProHD and HDV and I was looking at a bunch of sony hdv footage and it did not really look much different than most DV I have seen, sorry ;) . It is widely known that a small sensor (1/4" or even smaller in many consumer cameras!) cannot resolve anything near the chip's photosite resolution because of the MTF of the optical system (lens and prism block) will not resolve it, this is basic physics and optics. So there is a optical "filter" limiting resolution at the very front end of the system, all additional resolution is sort of "made up" in the ccd sampling and electronics. People buy "HD" consumer cam's because it's a new thing and consumer electronics and computer manufacturers need to sell people on "new-better" to move boxes out the door and that's about it.

-Rob-

Given a choice, would you fellas recommend the O'Connor 50D or the 100 model? And what about a choice set of sticks?

I would look for a 50D and a set of peter lisand sticks they were a popular set together and the 50 is good for a camera in the weight range you a using, I have a 50 and a 100 which is too big for a smallish hd cam like the jvc.

-Rob-

that will one great effect S16 lens

 

will see?

meanwhile I will love more info on some cool wide angle lenses, plus some footage or frame grabs that will great

thanks guys

 

Best

I am prepping 2 of my cameras for 3 days of shooting and I just put my Peleng 8mm and Kinoptik 5.7mm on my Super16 LTR54, as a refresher, I usually use the Peleng 8mm on my eyemo. These lenses are fairly similar in FOV for S16 and I do not think you would be mad at the Nice Peleng 8mm. Ups is that it has better sharpness edge to edge than the kinoptik, is readily available, and you can use it on a 35mm camera as well (where it is a full 180 FOV) the downs are that it's slower at 3.5 vs 2 and it does have a bit less of that Warped Bendy look as I see the thread has gone to 3.5mm and 1.9mm lenses since I last looked, sign me up! I would like to see that 3.5mm on some S16.

-Rob-

It should work for you. I have done it. The trick is a telecine service that will transfer at 9fps, as it's not that common, but maybe you have that part worked out. Is the look exactly what you want? Not sure. You have to try it.

Rick

Any Rank with a metaspeed will be able to run at 9fps, we routinely transfer at 5fps for one client and the machine is capable of transfer of film at any speed between 1fps and 40fps with no real issues. Other Telecine's like the Spirit can do the same.

I just shot a 10min little super8 film on 500t and shot much of it undercranked, anywhere from firing off single frames by hand to setting my Bauer's intervalometer and ramping fastest speed was 18fps, and then transfered at 18fps to disk. I speed changed the video to between 40% and 60% of it's original video speed. I have some really nice looking flash frame looking stop motion out of this one. I would suggest a slow speed transfer and some combo of that and post manipulation for this look.

-Rob-

If you're just transferring the D-beta to film, that's a video-to-film transfer really, although you could consider the D-beta as the "digital" part of a digital intermediate. But generally the digital stage has to be higher in quality than standard def video.

 

If you just retransfer the film and conform in HD, that's HD mastering, not a digital intermediate.

 

Digital intermediate mainly means "film-digital-film" -- digital as the intermediate stage for creating an element for cinema release. Usually this means transferring the digital master to a film element for printing, but the term has been expanded to also creating digital masters for digital projection.

Of course David has said it well, DI does have intermediate in it, furthermore I think it's important to understand that the idea behind this type of work is to represent most or all of the information in the original negative digitally and this means working in hi dynamic range rgb color and not the limited dynamic range and colorspace of all types of video, hd included except maybe Hdcam-SR. Also 2K seems to be the "standard" these days and it represents a bit more resolution than 1080p but much more range and color.

-Rob-

I do not think reversal is a problem for transfering, in fact it might even be easier to transfer. Im pretty sure all places scan reversal, so that shouldnt be a problem.

 

However, as you might already know, its easier to fix a poorly exposed negative film than reversal. Negative my nature has simply more latitude. With reversal, its basically what you see is what you get, a negative image can be manipulated more.

 

Reversal film can also be ''prepared'' for telecine through various techniques such as ultra sound or ''wetgate'', so I wouldnt worry.

The reason that people are more careful with negatives is because theyre more volounarably, theyre more easily scratched. Also

dirt is always a problem, and since negative films are inverted dust is more visable and distracting. This is because dust is white when

the image is inverted, and its a lot more visable than black dust you see on reversal.

 

/Jan

Any real modern telecine (SD, HD) and certainly 2K 4K etc scanners have no problem running reversal it is no easier or harder than negative.

-Rob-

One disadvantage, I'd imagine, would be the loss of your ability to under-sling that camera if you did the top-handle assist.

I personally would not want that big chunky thing on the top of my LTR looks to me like it makes a mess out of the nice ergo of the camera and if you can get a side/internal tap so much the better. I am fitting a B+W PAL tap to mine on the side.

-Rob-

The Cineon system was introduced around 1993, I believe. And back then 10 bit was big thing.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but if understand it correct, all high end DI's use this file system, right?

 

If so, why not use a high color bit depth, is it simply to little improvement to be worth bothering with?

Cineon is 10bit logarithmic not linear like 10bit video, the log nature of the file allows for it to represent the same info as 16bit linear with less data. All DI systems/DI's do not necessarily use cineon DPX files, in several flavors, are popular too. There are 16bit 32bit, etc. files used and remember cineon, dpx, etc. are RGB formats and each color is represented by the bit depth i.e. 16bits each for Red, Green,Blue.

-Rob-