Tyler Purcell

I can't imagine how bad vision 3 500asa will look in super 8, its pretty grainy in 16mm as it is. For super 8, you really need to be in the 50 - 100asa range to keep the grain down and have some sense of a clean image. Since you really can't get 100 anymore, you're kinda stuck with 50. So lighting your night scenes appropriately will be your biggest challenge. Desaturating in post is what most people do anyway, so that's not a problem.

That's correct and in my eyes, there is no reason to scan at a rate higher then the physical resolution. To me its no different then capturing a Hi-8 tape a 1920x1080. The format is only capable of delivering 420 lines of resolution. Bandwidth costs money and the technology existed 10 years ago to make the same network speed we have today, only not enough people were willing to pay for that faster service. As people started paying, the price for the service could be reduced and now we have faster speeds because the cost has been amortized across many people. Mind you, the average bandwidth is still 20mbps, which is slow. As a reference, I've had 100mbps to my house for 13 years. I don't see any substantial increase in average bandwidth with current technology. Verizon is the only company using fiber to the house and it has massive network latency issues. So sure it's fast, but accessing data is slow, because they're overwhelmed with customers. .h265 is an interesting standard because it's the first consumer-level streaming platform which can provide 4:4:4 color space at supposedly 8k max resolution. However, this is all just engineering speak at the moment. When products start hitting the market, we should reanalyze the final format and I have a feeling it's far less spectacular then the white papers. It's true, if anything, we're getting some super fast/small/cheap processors hitting the market. Just look at the iPhone and how much it's capable of doing in such a small package. Yes and there is new storage technology on the horizon which will double current drive sizes and keep the price similar. However, it's not a HUGE savings and it will be a while before these new drives are standard on any modern electronics. So yes, this is a future solution, it's going to take a while to trickle down. Yep, the duplication house I used in Chicago went under as well. It's a real shame because as a filmmaker, you have a lot more control over a disk asset then VOD. This is part of the reason why I think 4k BluRay is already dead in the water and why internet speeds are the leading factor for future high resolution streaming services. Yep and scanner technology will continue going down in price, that's a given. Yep, I'm talking with the Blackmagic guys about it today at an event, I'll report back what I hear. :)

I'm kina shocked DNX works because that's absolutely not a freebee. It must be included in DaVinci.

Even the steady shot has quite a wobble. :( But then again, it wasn't shot on a Logmar.

Yea, this is the problem with Ultra 16mm, it's kinda of a pain to find someone who can do the scanning. Give the guys at Pro 8 a call and see what they say. I'm sure Perry knows as well. ;)

That's odd because DaVinci uses the quicktime formats to work with and my mac has nothing special to make them work. Hit up blackmagic's site, download the manual and do a search for "pro res", I'm certain you'll find the answer.

I'd love to do a 35mm resolution test with modern stocks. Do you think anyone has done it?

https://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_Windows

If you use a SMPTE resolution chart on a film camera, you will be able to understand film's actual available resolution. Sure, the chart is more line based then pixel count, but we can extrapolate pixel count based on the lines we see in the scanned image. This varies on stock grain density of course, but the tests were all done with 200T Vision negative. You can read more about this study in the paper called "Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation" http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_resolution_english.pdf Now, I do understand these tests were done with what we'd consider "antique and outdated" stock. Our modern stock is FAR superior in many ways. However, it's pretty conclusive that 35mm color negative has 2400 lines of resolution and since they were testing at 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and we know horizontal and vertical lines would be the same. We can extrapolate a theoretical maximum resolution of 4440x2400, which is slightly above 4k. 16mm is less-than half the size of 35mm, so that means it's right around 2k. With super 16 being being only slightly higher then that, only if low-grain stocks were used. Now, I didn't take part in those tests, but I have done my own resolution testing as part of school. We found that 16mm negative had around 750 lines of resolution, using a very similar chart and projected onto a huge wall as a still frame, so we could really get detail. Yes, there are many variables in this discovery and modern stocks are better. So this is where I get my "knowledge" from. A little bit of relying on other people's studies AND doing my own experimentation. That I agree with whole heartily. But let me respond to my reasoning below… First and this is a huge misconception, most television is 1080i/720p and we are damn lucky to have those resolutions. Within the current standards, it will be impossible to update to 2k, let alone 4k. Plus, there isn't a single true 4k consumer-grande television on the market. Second, I recently did research for another thread and found out, only 40% of all movie theaters in the world have 4k projection. That means, most theaters are 1920x1080 or 2k and the vast majority of big hollywood theatrical films are finished AND distributed in 2k. Third, streaming services which claim to be 4k like Netflix, Youtube and Vimeo, are a complete failure because to get that resolution through the already extremely limited bandwidth available to consumers, they have to compress the ever-living snot out of the images, making them very soft, negating any of that added resolution. Fourth, digital cinema projectors use three imagers and there is zero percent chance they're calibrated. So even if you were to make a 4k DCP and rent a 4k theater, you aren't seeing anywhere close to 4k worth of resolution. With that said, the only way to see a true 4k image is at one of the big color correction facilities in DPX on their monthly calibrated 4k projector. Even then, I've been pretty un-impressed with many of those facilities in Hollywood. There are only a few that have surprised me with decent projectors and resolution. I understand for bigger theatrical productions where the filmmaker may not hold the rights to the negative and the film is guaranteed a theatrical run, you do want the highest quality possible for your budget. However, most people shooting S16 aren't doing big theatrical runs and the cost difference between 2k and 4k workflow is astronomical, for resolution they will never see outside of the lab where it was scanned. If their film does well, they can always go back and re-scan the negative at any resolution they want with the backing of a distribution companies piggy bank. This is why cataloging key code and reel numbers during post production is so important. In summary, I agree that getting the highest quality master possible is important, but that's why you shot on film in the first place, that's your "master". For post production, you edit and deliver to the max resolution of your pre-planned distribution method. If that's blowing up to 35mm, then you cut the negative and blow up to 35. If that's television, you'll finish in 2k and down-sample to 1080i for broadcast. If it's internet/web, who cares what it is, damn thing will look like crap anyway. You can always go back and re-scan, you can always get more resolution out of your image as the imager resolution increases and the costs to use those scanners decrease. People put too much emphasis on resolution and not enough emphasis on how consumers will see that resolution. P.S. I do plan on finishing my upcoming S16 film in 4k using the Blackmagic real-time scanner. This is simply because we will be doing theatrical and most of the film will be low-grain 50 asa stock, so you will see more detail in the image. So yea, you can call me a hypocrite! LOL :)

I know you think it's a software/digital glitch, but unless I'm not understanding how the software works, we'd see the same issues with the perf and we don't. If you can post some other good scan's of Super 8, I'd love to see them.

Truthfully, good modern color negative stock has a much greater dynamic range then most digital cameras. So even if you make a grievous error with exposure, you maybe able to learn from it and still have a good workable image. Technically film is a lot easier to shoot then people make it out to be. It has set rules and guidelines you must follow, all of which you can notate on a little card that you keep with you, to remind you what to check before shooting. Having a good meter is really the only thing you need because everything else is simply turning knobs on the meter and camera. You will learn what to meter within a given scene and use that skill to make a proper exposure over time. Reading books and understanding theory will only get you so far, experimenting and understanding the dynamics of film, really allows you to take that next step. I never got to shoot color negative in school, they always taught with black and white reversal, which is very challenging to expose properly. I highly suggest buying a wind-up Bolex R16 camera. They're really easy to use, have a fixed shutter speed and are cheap to buy with lenses. 100 foot spools are cheap to buy and process and they give you a bit more run-time @ 24fps then super 8, which is nice. Plus, there are no batteries necessary, so nothing really stops you from grabbing the camera and going to shoot. Then you can get the lab to process and make a one light print of your film and project it. This way you can see exactly what your negative looks like without going through any digital processes. All of this by the way, isn't very expensive, you've just gotta buy a meter, camera, projector and go experiment! Once you get the techniques, then it's really easy to rent or buy a better camera and shoot something for real. I too am dismayed with the lack of film programs out there. I'd love to do something about it when and if I have money!

The only correlation is the camera. That's why I'm guessing, that's where the problem lies. The film needed "stabilization" according to Friedemann, so if it were perfect on the scanner, he wouldn't have needed to use it.

Yea, I read that yesterday and I take it with a grain of salt. I've been in his place before, the last thing you want to do is be interviewed when your in the middle of cutting something. Your mind is focused on the cutting, not the stupid questions the interviewer is asking. He clearly had no interest in doing the interview, some of his answers were like "I'm done with this" so I assume that's why he seems frustrated.

So wait… your contemplating it's a problem introduced post scan? The original posters clip has the same problem… so… could they have used the same post processing? (seems unlikely) Honestly, I don't think it's something done after the scan because it doesn't effect the perf. You'd see the same rocking motion with the perf, but you don't. Maybe it's a red herring, but it's absolutely a game stopper in my opinion.

When companies make multi-thousnd dollar cameras for a format that's "inherently flawed" it really riles me up. It's like making a DV camera with a 1080p HD CMOS sensor, what's the point? I don't think super 8 is intentionally flawed and the minor flaws it has, are easy to fix. Logmar fixes MOST of them, but they can't fix the cutting of the stock, that's down to the manufacturer. My issue is that people spend money assuming they're getting the best quality possible and they aren't. My beef has nothing to do with buying a used camera on ebay for $100 and running some film through it. My beef has to do with people spending thousands on a "better" camera and it having lots of other flaws.

There are many companies who cut their own stock and still have these problems (more about this below) Here are some examples which are not from the same camera and all have the same problem. https://vimeo.com/groups/super8/videos/87243287 Now… with that said… I haven't been able to find very many scans of other cameras where the entire frame is in the scan. Most people crop it out, so comparing to other cameras has been hard. I've done some comparing, but other cameras have such horrible registration issues, it's almost impossible to figure out if it's just registration.

Bingo! :)

Videotape your projector with a super 8 shot that's locked on a tripod. I've done this and it wobbles all over the place. Mind you, I only have one super 8 projector right now, an Elmo ST180, but I rebuilt it recently and everything is in tip top shape. I've done the same test with my Kodak 16mm projector from WWII and the rocking chair effect was nonexistent. Sure, it had registration problems, but what projector doesn't? That was a rhetorical question… :)

You're a funny guy Carl! You will never meet someone my age, more into film then I am. But that's beside the point. Kodak has done a great job producing some fine new stocks. Camera companies have spent boat loads of money making new cameras. Lab's have re-worked gates and developed their own telecine/scanning solutions. A lot of money has been put into this format and the image looks great! However, there is one nagging defect that keeps it from taking that next big leap. I'm a film guy and I want my camera negative to be perfect, not need cleanup work in post production. The format will never progress with an inherent problem like this existing and the only solution is transferring it to digital formats for stabilization. We need a stock and cameras which are made better and don't have these problems. Then anyone, anywhere who transfers Super 8 to digital or even blows it up to 16/35, won't see these problems ever again. My frustration is that fixing things digitally doesn't solve any problems. Re-inventing the format, doesn't either. The solution is simple, it's small scale and it's something that will keep the format exactly what it is today, without these problems.

Actually, film isn't very costly to shoot. I will most likely be shooting my next feature in super 16. Even at a 10:1 ratio, including all lab costs 2k scan of all the negative, it's only around $50 grand. Kodak's deals on 16mm are excellent, you just need to call them up and work out the pricing. Smaller labs are willing to work deals as well for bulk pricing on low-budget features to keep them busy. Super 16 @ 50ASA (daylight) and 250ASA (interiors) has very little grain with Vision 3 stock. It blows up very nicely to 35mm for theatrical and makes a great scan to 2k for DCP. Personally, I think this is the best time to shoot film because equipment hasn't been so cheap to rent, Kodak hasn't been so motivated to sell stock (in order to keep the format alive) and labs have been willing to negotiate in order to keep their employees working. Still, $50k JUST for film expenses is a lot when you think if I shoot the same movie on my Blackmagic cameras, that cost goes down to maybe 2k for some new cards and a bunch of hard drives. In my opinion, 35mm is cost-prohibitive for most low-budget productions. When you do the math it's not 3x, but more like 5x more then super 16mm when you include rental and support. The cameras are heavier/bulkier and require expensive lenses to work. I've always thought about buying a 35mm film camera, but when you look at the cost to run the damn thing and you look at the extra quality which nobody will ever see, it just doesn't make sense. I have the same feeling about digital cinema with all this 4k and 6k nonsense, nobody watching your low-budget production is ever going to see that quality. So the only point of shooting something on an ultra-low budget show in greater then 2k, is to brag about it. Sure, if your plan is to shoot in 35mm and only use a film process, that's great. However, 2 perf is pretty much incompatible with everything else. You can't view it on a bench editor or moviola without seeing one frame blurred on top of another frame. You can't print it without going through an optical process to anamorphic for theatrical. So the cost of dealing with 2 perf in post, outweighs the advantage of shooting the format to begin with. It's far better to shoot academy 4 perf anamorphic, which is a one-to-one camera to print format. I just feel more people who want to experiment with film, should really look at the current 16mm options because you'd be shocked just how cheap it is. Building a class around modern S16 would be awesome. Have a bunch of SR3's, teach the telecine process and editing in Avid, to then cut your negative and learn how blow up's to 35mm work. This way students can get the best of both worlds, they will learn how to shoot on film AND get a 35mm academy ratio print of their final product. If I had money, this is something I would heavily invest in. Our youth really is interested in film and offering them that kind of opportunity for success within the modern film workflow, would be great. It saddens me greatly to see schools ditching film for digital cinema cameras, which are practically point and shoot compared to film. In my opinion, when you can run the camera for an infinite amount of time without incurring a hefty financial penalty, there isn't any incentive for the students to really learn things. Once there is a financial burden, you really focus on making the product good.

Then give us an example of a clip without this problem.

Unless you plan on doing theatrical release, the DPX files aren't necessary. Pro Res 4444 is 12 bit, 4:4:4 color space and pretty high dynamic range. Unless the project will need major correction for some reason, the pro res will work great AND doesn't need anything special to playback, unlike DPX. When your done editing and coloring, you can make a DPX for archiving purposes out of DaVinci, but in terms of your scans, just use Pro Res. Yes it's true, Blackmagic uses a compressed version of RAW, so it's not quite the same.

Yep DPX for sure. However, DaVinci is free and has a great editor built in which reads everything. So maybe an option vs Sony Vegas? One side note, DPX is 10 bit and Pro Res 4444 is 12 bit.

Well, it's true if you actually think about the comment instead of being offended… If you were to cut the negative and make a 16mm print, you'd have MUCH less grain. If you were to blow up that cut negative to 35mm, you'd have MUCH less grain. If you were to scan at 1080p or 2k, you'll have less grain. So basically, by scanning at 2k (which is higher resolution then the actual image itself in most cases) you aren't capturing anymore "pertinent" information, you are simply capturing more noise, more grain. Then to make an acceptable image, you're running it through noise reduction. Where, if you just captured it in 2k to begin with, you wouldn't need to go through that process.

I was referring to left side with the perf's moved to the right side like you suggested, it was a theoretical situation. Again, who cares about a moving perf… I care about a stable image, one without the rocking chair syndrome. That's what the audience see's, not the perf and not the side of the frame. Actually it's not what so ever. I see the image itself wobbling all over the place and the right side "bellowing" left and right, inconsequential -out of sequence- of the image wobble. Naa, this is clearly gate wobble, nothing to do with the scanner and everything to do with the original captured image in-camera.