Robert Houllahan

Hi-

 

...Then someone must have converted a mess of filmos to single perf. Most that I've had or seen (except one very old version, with a tube-finder door) all had single claws and single sprocket drives, including the DR that's gathering dust on my shelf at the moment...

 

which leads me to ask- who's doing your S-16 conversion? I'd love to make this brick of a camera useful again!

I figured that not all filmo's are double claw/sprocket camera's I was surprised when this one showed up in this config. I do not think it is all that old it looks almost the same layout as my Eyemo with the 8-48 fps selector and the motor drive in the same place.

As to the conversion I am doing it, with the help of our machine shop. The owner of the C-n-C shop we use is a neighbor of one of the Cinelab partners and they make all kinds of cool stuff allot of aerospace (they have parts on the ISS) so working out camera parts (and telecine gate parts) is not much of a challenge for them. I made up all of the specs and brought them a Nikon mount and the front of my Eyemo and in a week the two were melded perfectly.

-Rob-

Even with a brand new CRT and an experienced colorist, an old Cintel will not perform very well.

This is true, however if you have a Cintel with all of Dave Walker's parts in it (basically a SD Nova in many ways) it will make a picture which is very close to a Ursa and very good.

Never heard of the Copernicus color corrector, but I doubt it will be able to do any power windowing. For that you need Pogle or DaVinci, basically.

The Copernicus was made in 2000 and does have power windows, you could also use a Baselight or Scratch or any number of other tools other than the standard DaVinci or Pogle options.

Most lab telecines are quite poor, since they at best are there to transfer one lights. Most of the ones I've encountered are horribly poor - grainy s**t-transfers that you could have done better yourself by pointing a DV camera at a screen.

Maybe that is so in the UK but here in the US if you cannot produce good looking work people will go elsewhere.

Also, without being to prejudiced, a colorist who's stuck at a lab that hasn't got a proper TK dept, is probably not that good. There's generally this old approach at labs that if you have some experience with film grading (timing), you're somehow qualified to do transfers on a telecine as well. The two have nothing in common.

Well I do not want to say anything negative here but if you think that is true you have been working in video color space too much, try making a film with a print. Also I am 33, so I have not had time to learn the old approaches yet. I am making a feature film in NYC right now and I am also finishing a 7 min. short both are narratives, the short is a traditional film cut on a steenbeck for a film finish, the feature we are working in video, for now, on a Spirit. I also work at and part own this lab, I take picture quality pretty seriously.

Also I recommended that Elliot might want to work on the DaVinci if he wants to do allot of power window FX but he did say he was on a budget so...We could say that he must do a 4k pin reg Northlight scan and work on a Baselight8 but he would not get past the first few frames when his credit card melts.

-Rob-

Um, so what happens when the claw of a double-perf camera hits the space where there is meant to be a sprocket ?

 

I think you mean to say any single-perf camera can take double-perf film ?

 

The reverse is not true

I am currently converting a Filmo to a Super16 camera with a Arri B-Mount. As the Filmo arrives from the factory it has double perf sprockets and a double pulldown claw, definitely will not accept single perf stock.

-Rob-

I had to do a transfer of a 16mm print with optical sound, the rank we used had an optical sound head on it. I'd imagine most of them do.

Anybody with a Rank Cintel telecine should be able to transfer 16mm optical sound, in sync and in real time to DV. Debenham is in Pittsburgh and has a rank they are a good outfit.

-Rob-

Cinelab offers skip bleach and cross process for Super 8. Better get your oder in before Rob raises his prices.

Chris

yes we do, I was kidding about raising the prices.... :D

-Rob-

I will be shooting a short student film (roughly around 15-20 minutes) in Boston in about a month and I am trying to do research on what would be the best lab to get my telecine done at.

Hi Elliot

The URSA is a later model Rank flying spot telecine, we have put almost all of the "aftermarket" mods available into our turbo rank and I am generally very happy with the picture but the Diamond will be a bit better, to be honest.

As for the Copernicus vs. DaVinci I believe Finish has a 2K Davinci which has many more power window type features than the Copernicus does. I have used both the Davinci 2K and Pogle platinum (both with Spirit telecine's, me operating) for my own film work and they are very powerful colorist's tools, they also cost quite a bit.

I use the Copernicus almost every day it is a great all digital 10bit 4:4:4 color corrector and it does have power windows but they are neither as flexible or as powerful as the newer machines. We keep our supervised rate reasonable on this machine. I feel it allows many people, who would not otherwise have the opportunity, to experience the process of working in a telecine suite.

That said I am shooting a feature film in NYC and NJ, roughly 100k ft. of super 16 and some 35. We are processing all of the negative here at Cinelab but the transfer is being done at MI post in Manhattan on a Spirit so...... :rolleyes:

Feel free to contact me at the lab and get other opinions as well, we would be more than happy to process your negative for you and get it to Finish if that is what you decide to do.

-Rob-

Best of luck to both of you in your recoveries!

My upstairs neighbor is going in for breast cancer in a few days, she's 33, cancer is a insidious and difficult to understand disease, it never seems fair. Modern meds have yielded some amazing results....Best wishes.

Houllahan

I sent a roll of kodachrome out to switzerland before christmas. I know they are forwarding the films to Kansas U.S.A for processing which may mean it takes a long time to return but so far I have seen nothing and we are a little ways into Febuary now!

 

Freya

As long as Dwane's got your film you should be ok, perhaps this was sent through the post in europe and again through the post in the US and I think both are slow. Dwaine's website is www.k14movies.com I would send them an email and I am sure they can figure out where your film is, they are a great lab.

-Rob-

Don't let that negative, skip bleach, sit too long either it will change over time! you can bleach it later on though. 500.00? we are going to have to raise our prices! :D

-Rob-

I don't know why this topic has been taken so passively. Kodak is seriously considering selling their film division, which could mean the liquidation of that sector should the right company buy it. It could also mean the end of film manufacturing in Rochester. It's very possible a foreign firm could aquire them.

I think that there are two components to this, the first is that the sale would probably be at leas a five billion dollar transaction and thus completely out of any possible scope or direction of anybody who actually uses the products of the Kodak company. This is a kind of powerless position which is beyond frustration and thus ignored. The second component is probably a hope that if this happens that it will work out well for what we, as individuals, want the furtherance and advancement of our medium.

I do not blame anyone intimately connected with this for not wanting to respond to the news because if it were to happen it would be a earthquake in the industry.

-Rob-

Oh Boy.

Well I think this is a great opportunity for a great US company to completely miss the boat on the future and the thought (mine) that Moore's law is on a collision course with energy supply and it's effect on the Bubble.

I was listening to a PBS radio show in the car on the way home from the lab one night, a few months ago, and they were going on about the place of amateur digital photographers and their effect on photojournalism. At some point in the conversation some blissfully unawares person was going on about how once she had taker her digital photo and uploaded it to the interbleb it would stay perfectly unmolested for the rest of all time.

Not to be a complete cynic of this rosy attitude but what if photoblucket.net.com.web goes out of business? I think that there is the blissful perception that didital things like the interweb, which is certainly interesting and unique by human standards, is nice and smooth and clean because it is a "new economy" thing.

This wonderfullness we are all blabbing away nicely on does have a bit of a backside and that is tremendous energy usage mostly fueled by that most 18th century wonder good old coal. :blink:

Back to that photo and digital media in general, how much energy does it take to make and store a traditional Silver-Halide photograph? and in correlation to that how much energy is put into the same digital photograph over the same 100 year period. I do not have the answer although I am guessing to make the digital photo survive the span of 100yrs. it probably has to have almost constant expenditure of energy (and effort) to make it last and taken into full account I think the total might be somewhat staggering.

So Kodak sells it's film division to the lucky Chinese Lucky film co.? maybe they would take it and reap great rewards going into the future. We here in the USA can go on to the point where all we do is sit across from one another and sell insurance back and forth until the lights go out. Ouch! :o

I personally think there is a grand place in the future for photochemical stuff and that it's environmental footprint has a potential to be quite small compared to what it gives humanity. There has been, what? 40yrs. now, of a juggernaut of growth and arrogance with the building of the computer industry and with that a view that digital technology should consume and "solve" all of human endeavor no matter whether the new technology under performs, makes vastly more complicated, and consumes much more that what it is replacing. So here is my contribution to (nobel prize worthy :P ) world economic theoryis that in the future economics will have to be closed loop instead of open ended. As we gather more information about our home this will become more apparent and easier to define, or we can blow the planet up, which is fine too! I will get back in my spaceship and me, Bibble Dave Chapelle and those cloned white chicks will just move on. :lol: The next 50 years will be interesting.

-Rob-

So let's say I'm mixing down a film project which will be projected on 35mm Dolby Stereo, should I take the specs of the optical track into account? Like EQ'ing away anything that's below 30 Hz and above 12,000 Hz since it's not gonna make it into the print anyway?

I am planning to do the sound mixdown full bandwidth i.e. 24bit 96k and have my sound mixer apply a bandpass filter to it to check for compatibility with the 16mm optical track. That way I have a fuller soundtrack for the dvd and a good idea of the sound from the projector.

-Rob-

If you are talking about S16, 35mm print, lowest cost and highest quality then the obvious solution (time-tested) still is a direct blow up to 35mm positive. If you need more than a few prints, then IP blow up is still slightly cheaper than DI and you will definately get the film look and S16 feel. Why make it complicated?

I think Dirk is right here a good photochemical finish will look better than a hack DI.

-Rob-

CD: 20-20,000 Hz, s/n claimed to be 80-90-? dB but has quantization noise instead of the soft hiss of analog. Very low level signals can be distorted. Overload results in hard clipping.

 

1/4" analog tape: depends on equipment and speed, 30-16,000 Hz, 50-60 dB. Overload gives less objectionable distortion, reducing the extreme waveform spikes of speech or singing to make it sound louder on average.

I have recently heard some 1/4" tape which when played back at my friends sound studio really struck me. The recording was of a piano concerto and I thought it was better than any such recording I have heard on CD.

I have heard a lot of 16mm print soundtrack over the last 4 or 5 years here at Cinelab and I think that there is allot of sound you can stuff into that little squiggle.

-rob-

Most projectors are sort of flat (maybe -6 dB) from 100 to 5000 Hz. Figure the s/n is about 40 dB. If the audio will be heard through a projector that is clattering away in the same room as the audience, make any important audio be within a very narrow volume range. Volume compression of speech is recommended. Don't boost frequencies below 100 or above 5000 to try to overcome projector limitations as this really won't help and it will just reduce the volume.

 

16 optical is not really hi-fi but it can sound pleasant like a good AM table radio. Avoid trying to use a Poulenc Pipe Organ Concerto for background music. :-)

Thanks Clive!

This is about what I figured from what I hear in the lab but wanted a bit of a confirmation for working with my sound mixer.

No Pipe Organs! Damn, well there is always the DVD! :lol:

-Rob-

Hi,

 

I'd encourage you to avoid 16mm optical sound like the plague - those specs sound about right, and it sounds really poor.

 

Phil

Well the film is a std.16 original which I just cut on a steenbeck and I had planned to make a print from the beginning so there is no avoiding the sound.

We make allot of 16mm answer prints here at Cinelab and while I agree that 16mm optical is fairly lo-fi it can be tailored to be acceptable in it's own way.

-Rob-

Does anyone know what the specs are for 16mm optical sound? Is there a Kodak paper?

I was thinking a frequency response in the 200hz to 6khz range and 40db to 50db S/N is this about correct?

Mixing my soundtrack and making a print :)

-Rob-

Thanks for your replies, every bit of adivice is a help.

 

Just to clarify I am new to DI but have used Super 8, 16mm and Super 16 for some time. I have a Canon Scoopic 16M and have used an A-Cam Super 16. I have always had my film telecined via a Rank to Digibeta or DVCAM and then edited on computer and the final project is always in video. There's never been the need for a 35mm print and in that respect DI is something new to me.

 

I am trying to get to grips with a standard workflow method, if there is a standard way of working with Super 16. I am dealing with people/funders who can't think beyond Digital and HD and believe that the anythng in this day and age will be cheaper to shoot on HD apply a film look and then output to 35mm. for projection. I on the other hand want to use Super 16 as understand it and feel comfortable shooting it.

 

I don't really understand what the easiest and cheapest way is to get a 35mm print from Super 16. The traditonal route getting a neg cut, labs etc seems cumbersome, whereas the DI route seems easier, but is it a lot more expensive?

 

Pav

There are some good deals to be had in pin registered scanning these days PM me off list and I can give you contact info for a really reasonably priced scan service in LA which does Super16 scans.

-Rob-

I had two prominent neg cutters in the city refuse to take on my job because I didn't have keycode. They didn't care if I didn't hold them up to a guarantee for sync, one kindly said "Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, do it yourself". Thanks, but I'm not about to spend a month doing this...

 

As always a big thank you in advance,

 

- George.

George,

Give Matthew Wagenecht a call he is a very experienced and meticulous negative cutter here in Massachusetts, he also has 35mm and 16mm camera gear and shoots a fair bit. I think he would at least consider taking the job and I know that if he did it would get done right.

Matt 617-244-6730

-Rob-

Hi Chris (and others),

 

I'm V.P. Marketing & Sales for Lasergaphics.

 

Here's the real scoop on the The Director scanner. About 2 years of R&D are coming to a long-anticipated close and the scanner is almost ready to ship. Should be shipping just prior to NAB. The speeds are 9+ fps at 1.85/3-perf/HD and 6 fps at 2K full aperture. From a single scan we can output 2K, HD and/or 1K proxy in DPX/Cineon, TIFF and/or QuickTime formats. The 35mm-only and 16mm-only versions are $199K. The 35/16mm version is $249K. We have already completed about 50 customer scan tests. The pictures are excellent and the feedback from customers is very positive.

 

It's really not too good to be true; it's our business model and it works very well for us and our customers. I'll be happy to do a film test for you if you'd like (send me up to 300 frames to scan) - I'll send you back the film and data. I'm confident you'll love the results.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Best,

 

Steve Klenk

I for one would like to know more about the technology used in this scanner, i.e. light source,kind of sensor, dmin/dmax calibrations, etc. I will plan to send a test in.

-Rob-

Hi

 

I am planning to do a film on Super 16 I am trying to understand the post production route.

 

After processing should I have my film telecined to HD, SD, 2k, 4k? I want to edit using my Avid Xpress HD nd then want my edited tape to be transfered to 35mm (is this DI?). Is this a normal way to work? I want to use Super 16 for the look and feel I need ti add in computer graphics, titles and animation when editing but I need a 35mm print. What are the DI costs? And what does the process involve? Grading? Interneg? a 35mm print?

 

I need to understand the process - please someone help?

 

Pav

It sounds like you think you want is to transfer your film to HDV (XpressHD??) I do not think this software will deal with a high quality HD format, furthermore I do not think anyone could/would transfer to HDV as no deck I have looked at has any real I/O on it.

A better solution would be to get a Keycode transfer to Dvcam and make a neg cut list as Phil suggests which you can then have conformed and have an optical blowup done. For the sections of the film where you need Digital FX I would suggest creating those in the computer (AfterFX, Digital Fusion, Shake, etc) and then have them shot individually to 35mm neg on a film recorder.

This was a typical workflow on a film like the original "Jurassic Park" (I believe) where the bulk of the film was a traditional neg cut and conform with color timing done in the printer. Dinosaur shots recorded to 35mm on a solitaire or similar were then cut in.

I would think the advantage of this kind of workflow today would be cost i.e. you do not have to scan all the film and similarly you do not have to shoot everything out to 35mm either.

-Rob-

The rate varies a lot depending on the machine. Some commercial machines apparently do 50-200 feet / minute. Smaller machines are usually a lot less. 5-10 feet/min.

 

The temperature, film path length and speed of the film are important processing parameters.

 

Henry.

Our slowest machine (an Allen Porducts we use for B+W Negative and Print) does 50fpm our Color print machine is up to 200fpm and machines for running 35mm print in large batches are 500fpm or faster I believe. The really fast print machines are sprocket drive.

-Rob-

I appriciate the advice Rob, I'll DEFINATELY keep it in mind while setting the place up. As I said dust is going to be our most insidious enemy. I may even see if I can come up with a way to safely enclose our take-up reel in clear plexi-glass as well.

You might even want to think about building the exit end of your film processor (That Bray looks so small! to me how many feet /min is it supposed to run?) in a "clean" room with your assembly bench. Just go in there and as the film exits grab it and straight on the bench for assembly. Just a thought.

-Rob-

Robert,

can you tell me more about your third best friend? Is the 'drybox' a room or a cupboard/compartment or the last stage in the processing machine?

Would be very useful to know a bit more about what you advise here.

Cheers,

Richard

I advise throwing your wet film in the cupboard!! :lol: NO No thats not right! :blink:

Think about what is happening to film as it is being processed, it is in 100% humidity until it makes the transition from the last chemical or wash bath and goes into drying. Dust and dirt really do not have a chance to accumulate on the film in the wet stage of the process, in fact a good way of getting really stubborn dust out of the film is to "re-wash" it which warms and softens the film and emulsion and allows it to release lightly embedded particles which really get shaken out by the turbulation in the chem tanks.

So you have clean, wet warm film which then has to make the transition to the drybox which has a set of heaters and blowers and this is the first spot where dust can be applied to the film. Every part in this stage has to be scrupulously clean, tack-cloth every surface again and again, the blowers must be absolutely clean and the air being drawn in must have enough flow volume and be very finely filtered through at least 2 if not 3 stages of filters with the last stage being very fine hospital grade Hepa filters which are sealed to the blower intakes.

We also have Plexiglas boxes on hinges which cover the film on it's takeup reel and the dry film passes over a set of 3" PTR's as it exits the drybox. Once the processed film is tightwound on the flange there is no opportunity to get dust on it until you take it to the bench to prep it for transfer/print I would suggest building a dedicated room for bench handling because it does not sound as though you can control the total environment in your facility as well as you might like. Think about putting a bench in a sealed room with positive airflow and more Hepa filters, TACK CLOTH EVERYTHING! If you have a clean Drybox and a Clean handling area you will have generally clean film, oh and watch out for that static too.

-Rob-

Still the highest quality image out there, even if the 34 inchers weigh about 200 lbs...who cares! How often are you going to be moving your TV around! ha ha

Up until about a year ago I had a 3 CRT 8" Sony projector with a line tripler (I was living in an old mill) sort of the best of both worlds all the nice picture you get from a tube set and a large projected picture. Some of the nicest in home theatre pictures I have seen were with a 9" Sony G90 CRT projector and a high end scaler. The 9" crt's will do 1080p.

I now live in a situation where a CRT (or any) projector is impractical so I scrounged up a 42" nec plasma on ebay for 200.00 with broken analog input. I got a Mac Mini and connected it to the plasma over DVI and it makes a acceptable picture, that is if you do not mind banding and the occasional solarization that you get from the display obviously not even being able to resolve 8 bits (probably more like 6bits) oh well.

I do like the look of the newer plasma's more than the LCD's which I think for the most part are so flat and dull why bother?

-Rob-