Theo Lipfert

... and the reason the telecine house is probably going to BetaSP first is that they have their system connected that way (for the color space reasons mentioned by Oswald) then they just copy to miniDV or DVCam if that is what the customer wants. When I get archival film transferred by Colorlab, they send me both a BetaSP "original" and the miniDV dub they make from it. I doubt you would see any difference if you found a transfer place that went directly to miniDV. Theo

I just had the same dilemma -- here is what I did. I had the telecine place make two copies -- both stretched, but one with timecode and one without. That only added $79 to the bill since they could run both simultaneously. Regarding the choice of stretched in the first place: if you search for my posts, I asked the same question a few months ago and came to the conclusion that the film image filling the 4x3 then unstretched in Final Cut would give me better resolution. (If I am delusional about this, please, someone tell me!). I am planning to go to DVD from FCP via Compressor and DVD Studio Pro, although first I will experiment with compression settings, etc. DVCam is not the best choice, but it works. You can always retransfer later if you get some budget. Oh, and you don't have to look at squeezed images on your screen: use an anamorphic preset on your editing software and your image will be 16 x 9. Search in the help file for your software for "anamorphic" or "16 x 9" and they will tell you how to set this up. Theo

Just a comment on the After Effects part of this equation: have you tried a plug in called Twixtor? It will create frames between the existing frames of your footage, rather than just make a frame from one of the video fields. I used it to slow down archival footage for a doc I did. It can create some really wierd morphing effects too, if you are not carefull, or if that is what you want. Theo Bozeman, MT

Hi: Is the computer screen part of the narrative? Or is shooting the screen a cost saving move? You are on the right track with using a Cinema display -- or any LCD monitor rather than a CRT - which would introduce flicker due to the mis-match of camera frame rate and monitor refresh rate. Don't go on my advice alone, but I don't see any reason it won't work just fine. Any way you can test a few feet to judge exposure? Theo Bozeman, MT

Even with a one-light transfer (the cheaper way to go) 16mm edited in Final Cut can look way better than DV. Even running at the speed of video (29.97) and not the speed of film (24) it still has a film quality that you can notice. If you go to film festivals and watch the shorts programs, you can see the difference. I have seen some good quality DV projects (and I would like to think I have made some good quality DV projects!) but the stuff shot on film (and shot well on film -- lit well, composed well, etc.) just looks much better. The color, the lattitude of exposure, the lack of that harsh video edge sharpness -- it all adds up to a better viewing experience. The reason festivals are a good place to see the difference is that most times, all the other variables are the same -- DV and film are often both being projected from BetaSP (analog video) in the same room on the same screen with the same (video) projector. I had the experience at 1 Reel film fest in Seattle watching my short DV project in a big theatre (500 seats) and projected with love and care. Looked really good -- looked great for DV. Then I saw some projects shot on Super 16 -- the curtain pulled apart for the widescreen 16 x 9, and wow! Same audience, same projector --but that was a "film." I literally said to myself, OK, thats the next step! So 6 months later I bought an Aaton Super 16 camera for my next projects. Bottom line: some projects were made for DV -- like video diary Docs, stuff where you need to shoot hour after hour of footage. But others call for film -- like experimental shorts, short narrative pieces, etc. And working on film transfered to Final Cut, for me at least, is the sweat spot. Edit at the kitchen table, project from video etc. -- then if the opportunity arises, go back to the original film and transfer it to HD, finish on 35 -- whatever -- you have the quality in your original aquisition format to go anywhere for the final product. Re: painting. I was doing silkscreen on canvas -- a lot of photoshop based imagery, some archival, historical stuff mixed with contemporary snapshots and patterns. Kinda ala Rauchenberg (or so I would like to think on a good day). Haven't been doing it since I caught this film bug, though.... Theo Bozeman, MT

Hi -- I don't have any to spare -- but you can get it direct from Kodak pretty quick. I see you are listed as a student -- you can get a discount for minima stock with a copy of your ID. I have ordered and gotten it within two days. Good luck. Theo

Greetings fellow painter! I have shot some "one man band" projects, trying to keep things simple yet professional. One idea for the audio is to get a Marantz compact flash recorder (670 is the model, I think) which is about $600 or so (probably less). You should be able to rent one as well. If you are just connecing a shot gun or wireless, it is really easy to just set levels, hit record, and sling the thing on your back while you run the camera. You will end up with AIF, WAV, or MP3 files which you can just drag to you desktop and sync up in Final Cut (or whatever). Be sure to use a slate -- or at least have your talent do a big clap while the film and sound are running -- makes syncing much easier. There is no loss of quality moving digital files around. Whatever you do, do not record onto analog tape (like cassette) -- you will have a hard time syncing up. Hope this helps. Good luck, Theo Bozeman, MT

I just asked this same question when I picked up my new minima from Abel, and at DV Expo. The "best" DV-style option seems to be the Glidecam V8 -- but having used the smaller Glidecam with an XL-1 I had a hard time with complicated moves and with avoiding the "rocking boat" look. The next jump up seems to be the Steadicam "flyer", but that is about $5,500. Big jump. Have you posted in the Steadicam forum? I searched for "minima" recently and didn't find anything. Good luck. Theo Bozeman, MT

If those are your only two options, definately go with DVCam. The resolution is the same, but the DVCam format is more stable and should have fewer, if any, dropouts. Theo Bozeman, MT

Thanks for your help. I will post when I get it all sorted out and installed. Best, Theo

Thanks so much for the informative response! <snip>Personally if that were me and I had access to an HD deck, I'd be looking into obtaining a Kona HD card and onlining it to HDCAM myself - you don't even need fast drives for most of the work, you can let some desktop machine chug through it.<snip> And I don't need a raid? I only have a G5 dual 1.8 -- but I guess I could do an offline first, then recapture through the Kona. What about Aurora Igniter? What is the cheapest way to capture HDCam if I don't need the reverse telecine function since I will, for the time being, be finishing in video of one sort or another? Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it! Theo Bozeman, Montana

Hello: I have read through dozens of posts (and many replies by David Mullen and others) but am still having trouble with a workflow question. Sorry if this is kinda basic. I will be shooting a short on Super16 and editing on FCP. The intended audience will be festivals and later, home-made DVDs. I am (obviously) hoping for the best, "film-like" image, but have experienced a huge variety of projection standards at festivals. Most festivals I attend are projecting BetaSP for their shorts programs. It seems many times like the festival either has two projectors (one set to 4:3, one 16:9) or the projectors are reading a 16:9 flag and switching the throw of the lens. (Is this possible?) Is there a workflow which would preserve the most information from S16 through DVCam to BetaSP without letterboxing a 4:3 image? Is this anamorphic telecine? Can you do that from S16 to DVCam? In other words, how do I preserve the 16:9 of the super 16 if my final delivery format is BetaSP? Is this just a question of trusting the projectionist will flip a switch to project an anamorphic BetaSP image correctly? I know in authoring DVDs you can indicate the 16:9 format to be detected (hopefully) by the player. I do also have access to HDCam decks and could downconvert to DVCam if that would help. I think the telecine cost may be prohibitive, so I have even thought of first editing with a one-light cheap DVCam telecine, then telecining selects to HDCam. Please understand this film is financed through change found in couch cushions! Thanks for any advice. Theo Lipfert Bozeman, MT

Thanks for the replies. Sorry about the worms! I took your advice and read through some archival posts. I guess the best idea would be to just get another Visa card and go for the PL mount. If I bought one prime lens, I could always rent others when need be. I understand from talking to Abel Cine that you can't just swap out the Nikon mount for the PL in the field. OK, so last question is: which brand of prime gives me the most bang for the buck? And where do you buy prime lenses (new) anyway? When I google for them, I always seem to end up at Mandy or Ebay. Is there a "normal" or slightly wide angle lens for super 16 for under $2500 new? Thanks in advance for any help or advice. Theo

All opinions welcome! I am going to buy an Aaton Minima after shooting with an XL-1 for a few years. I have a choice in mounts -- either Nikon or PL. The cost of prime lenses seems to be around $5,000 for a 25mm. I don't want to use a zoom because I want to hand hold and be inconspicuous, and I understand that zooms throw the balance off. Has anyone used Nikon still lenses on an A-minima? Does this defeat the purpose of shooting on 16? I will be shooting short narratives, short docs, and some experimental stuff. I will be posting to dvCam initially, then to HD. I hope to finish to 35 on at least some projects. Last question, if the image quality is okay with Nikon still lenses, does the focal length change due to the difference in film size? Is a "normal" Nikon lens on a 16mm film camera a 25mm? Thanks for any and all replies.