niknaz

I'd say for the one time a shoot goes awry, there are more than a handfull that turn out perfect. I've been on film sets where the camera out and out poops... I've also been on video shoots where the camera poops. Camera rental houses have an emergency number you can call after hours if your camera dies and you don't have a back-up. Then there was that one movie where it snowed the first week then got incredibly warm and everything melted for the last few weeks... let's just say there were delays. :wacko: Seek out experienced DPs, assistants, etc. They'll be able to let you know if something is funny with the camera. Unlike your av center experience most rental houses are very interested in your business and they are very interested in their reputation and for the most part helpful, responsive and nice. It just so happens that these days I am a media technician at a college. I deal with their film and video cameras. 9 out of 10 repairs that come to my attention are from user error. Just this last month three students came to me with bad footage. All three were a result of the students not loading the cameras properly--two cameras are damaged because of it. Sad but true... moral of the story: don't let film school make you afraid of film. ;) Good Luck. -niknaz

I've bought from Film Emporium in NY. They are reputable. There is also Raw Stock. Raw Stock tests the short ends they get (I've been on shoots that have sent off short ends to similar companies---trust me, you don't want to buy short ends unless they have been tested, or unless you like surprises). Of course, if you get short ends, you'll have to spool. As far as the stock is concerned--that's up to you and up to the look of the shoot. Good luck.

For anyone wondering--got the HD footage back and it's better. There is still dancing grain, but it's not distracting and maybe one smearing spot in a scene with kind of abrupt motion. I'll see the SD ftg today. Thank you, everyone for your input! For the next transfer, I'm going to run tests. As far as Minneapolis is concerned--it's cold. I came here from NY thinking it wouldn't be much different--it's in the high 40's there and in the mid 30's w/ (gasp) snow on it's way.... -niknaz

Hi Sam, We should! Yes yes... the film I used *was* waste ends from the countless tv shows I'd assisted on (my poor loader)... and although I kept it quite climate controlled in my house, I *was* there the days when it was sitting on the truck baking. In all seriousness I should note: It maybe sounded like I was griping about this post house--but really it was my ignorance to the process that was the problem. These guys are fantastic. Crash and Sues in Minneapolis. They have a good indy rate--and their staff is on the ball and super responsive. They are re-transferring this film with almost no questions asked. Thanks everyone for your input. -niknaz

What is interesting is 16mm footage shot with Fuji Eterna 500T blown up to fit the 16x9 aspect ratio at the same post house with similar workflow--they transfered to hdcam instead of d 5 had the same amount of dancing grain. Maybe the fact they blew up to 16x9 and I used old stock put us on the same playing field... I don't know. I think I won't know unless I take 100' and get it transfered at another transfer house. I've also shot and transfered this same dated stuff to SD and have been happy. Somehow the grain registers as film grain to me in SD. This is my first transfer to HD. I think I was unclear in an earlier post, the dancing grain/pixels on the screen looks like bad compression to my eye because I've not seen what 16mm transfered to HD looks like. It doesn't register as grain to me like earlier transfers to SD. At any rate, thanks everyone... I'm very interested in your thoughts. -niknaz

It was 7279 more or less from 2001 - 2003. Do you mean comression from the .tiff or the compression going to digital period? I've been thinking about the dancing pixel issue some more and to me it registers as bad compression and not grain mostly because this is the first time I've transfered film to HD. We'll see on monday how the #10 grain filter looks... hopfully there won't be too much trailing (dialed into #14--the highest--was some noticable trailing/smearing). Thanks for your reply. -niknaz

Here's my story: I just got back from the transfer house--thankfully they are transferring the film a 2nd time with a grain reducing filter which helps a little. Situation: 16mm old film stock transfered to D 5 with side bars (so no blow up) then transferring from D 5 to hardrive using DVCPRO HD codec. Even down ressed to SD from the HD ftg it looks really off. Here's a link to framegrabs from the quicktime files from the first transfer: www.niknaz.net/films/Sunshine4.tiff www.niknaz.net/films/Sunshine5.tiff www.niknaz.net/films/Sunshine6.tiff www.niknaz.net/films/Sunshine7.tiff The transfer house uses a C-Reality. I just saw another transfer from someone else using fresh film--same transfer house, 16mm blown up to cover 16x9, same workflow to harddrive and the grain was probably just as bad. Is this what 16mm looks like transferred to HD? I clearly remember during the transfer the color timer telling me the footage looked grainy--and we had a conversation about the grain and decided it was fine--and from where I was sitting 5' away from the HD monitor it did look fine--kind of like grain. When we brought it home and were 10" from the screen-it looked very different. This was clearly my mistake. We won't get this 2nd transfer until monday. This time we're transferring to D 5 and also to DVCAM to do an offline edit. I mean, if we had the money to do it right, we would have shot with fresh film even though I'm not totally convinced that's what's causing the severety of grain/pixel. We're really out of money at this point. Is there anything else I can do? Could a Spirit have saved me? I've learned two lessons: 1) Don't be afraid to invade the timer's personal space and put your nose up to that monitor. 2) Ask for a 100' test before you send your first born child through a machine. I'd appreciate any input! -niknaz

Hi Christopher, My thoughts: I've shot some time lapse at night with a Bolex and an intervalometer by Tobin Cinema Systems that has a "long exposure" mode. This particular motor has an option of shooting with the shutter open from 2 seconds to 50 seconds or 2 minutes to 50 minutes. There are a ton of variable that makes answering your questions hard, so I'm only going to comment on the work that I've done with this motor that relates to your question. I shot time lapse of a moonrise in in a field in Ithaca, NY. I was using a 12mm--so my shot was wide. I shot 7279 with my lens wide open @ t2 and had the intervelometer set to a 50 second exposure. I printed a best light workprint to film and was quite pleased with the results. The sky is tinted blue--I wouldn't say it's super saturated, the trees are silhouettes and the moon moves smoothly through the shot. Now how did I get the 50 sec exposure time? Unfotunately through trial and error. I've had some boo boos in the past. I really recommend going out with a still camera that can accept a polaroid back. That will help you figure out your exposure time on the spot. If I didn't have the moon in the shot, the exposure time would have definitely been longer and the movement of the stars would have been more like streaks. The sky usualy comes out tinted blue rather than black. I've done some time lapse of stars and meteorshowers with not so good results. Mostly because I was shooting in the city where the night sky is light up and there's almost no way of getting clear star streaks. As far as spot metering is concerned--if you plan on shooting the moon with a tight lens--use the spot meter. Otherwise, for the ammount of time you need to leave the shutter open to expose a star, it will be moving (or I guess technically *you* are moving) while the shutter is open so metering it will not be accurate. Hope this helps. Good luck!

From my understanding, Panasonic has a USB 2.0 docking bay that you can hook up to your computer for quick uploading. Depending on your computer, that's faster than digitizing. Also, they have a portable HD bank, basically a harddrive with P2 slots that will transfer 8 min of footage in about 4 minutes. The broadcast world has already started using the P2 system... not neccesarily for HD, though.