Cahit Tomruk

The clip for the song has been at last officially release so I am reposting the final result.

I used the neatvideo denoiser plugin in most of the scenes to great results.

Slight color grading with magic bullet but nothing major, colors were vibrant enough to begin with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QV4g4Na3Yo

PS. try to watch in 1080p. it makes a difference, as even 720p is heavily compressed

I have a Letus 1st generation 35mm adapter. I removed the flip image mirroring system to make it more compact. Now I have access directly to the grounding glass but there is lot of vignetting and stuff so I will use an achromat.

The question is, should I use a 72mm achromat and attach it to the Canon HF10 (37mm) with step up rings, or use a 52mm achromat and use step up rings on both sides? What will give the best results?

I have applied some magic bullet filters but nothing major, colors were more or less as vivid as this. I was really happy with the telecine done by Uppsala Bildteknik.

I recently shot a super8 film for the music track of a local artist. Concept was of a pagan-forest type little story so we shot in the woods over a cold January weekend.

The clip was shot with a Nizo S56 using 100D film.

The footage was not the best as we run out of time (it was raining/snowing and we had to interrupt shooting) and also the old Nizo was getting stuck (due to cold weather?). It turned out that it was filming at the odd frame rate of 14.5 (was hard to do the lip sync)

Anyway, heres the almost finished clip

Let me know what you think

Brilliant work, well done

Has anyone tried using steadicam with Super8.

There are some nice options like this

some of which are relatively cheap for someone to experiment with.

has anyone tried any similar solutions for stabilized shooting?

Can you give a quick description of what is involved with AVISynth and how you use it on a Mac? I didn't realize it was available for a Mac.

Well, it is not, I was running Windows with bootcamp and I loaded the script in Virtualdub as usual

Love it.

 

How long does the script take to clean one roll of Super 8?

 

Have you tried it with any 16mm footage?

I'd say that the scripts takes around 3-4fps to process on an iMac, which means roughly 15 minutes per roll. I have only tried this script with 8mm material but I am planning to do some experimenting with random footage that I get from youtube. its surprising how much better some clips can be

coming back to this old thread with some short film that has been "restored" with the avisynth script. pretty good results

ORIGINAL

RESTORED

the Putte script for avisynth is truly amazing!

You can do a lot of fine tuning depending on the material you have to work on each time but even with the ready-made script the results are stunning. I am sure better results can be achieved if there is time to test different settings of the script.

its amazing how much information is revived!

this one looks less grainy when it is actually playing, but still could be denoised a bit with some tweaking.

Hi Andries,

 

Good point. I was testing the camera and just wanted to shoot some nice locations. I didn't have any actor

on hand to create movement.

 

Thanks,

 

Robert

I dont think that necessarily there has to be movement. I very much like the effect and feeling that the static shooting of those locations gives.

it looks very good. nice selection of images. i could easily imagine that as the intro/start titles for some movie

But, with analog machines, all but the vary latest still rely a great deal on the skill of the operator.

 

The best machine with a bad operator won't produce as good a result as an older machine with a skilled color-balancer.

 

 

Despite not being color-blind, I find proper color balance very difficult, myself. Even in Photoshop, far easier than optical or video-analyzers, it is very difficult getting colors "right."

 

There are also different schools of thought here. Some colorists tend to make everything warm to flatter flesh-tones. I prefer truly neutral color. What some colorists call "correct" I call too much red and too little blue.

 

So a very important factor is good verbal communication between the filmmaker and the colorist to make sure you are both on the same page. A sample still photo or a reference of some kind is far better, too, than written instructions.

 

Grey cards with instructions in the footage are helpful too.

 

But a lot of times instructions aren't followed. A famous example is the makeup test with Majel Barrett (Nurse Chapel) in Star Trek who was being used to do a makeup test for the green Orion Slave Girl makeup.

 

The lab kept timing the skin back to proper magenta and they kept applying more and more makeup, wondering why they couldn't make her green. Proper communication with the colorist would have bypassed these problems.

i am not really talking about the colors when comparing those two labs. i am satisfied with the results of the first when it come to colors, and they can be slightly corrected in final cut afterwards as well. the very weird thing though is the abrupt fading, why you think this might have happened?

thanks

I got my first test roll few days back processed and transferred to miniDV by bluecinetech in london. I took the film for telecine to a local 'lab' which would do it for a really cheap rate just to check out if the quality was passable.

https://download.yousendit.com/dVlvUGhld0FZY1NGa1E9PQ

On that link you will find the same clips of work of both labs. 1 is bluecinetech and 2 the local guy.

As you can see 1 is much sharper and looks better in general. 2 has washed out colors and most importantly at very bright scenes in the middle of the frame the colors are 'burned' because of the lamp which looks very poor (see 1'40"). I think that this guy might as well just capture from a wall projection. In case that helps understanding his technique the very first 1-2 seconds (before the butterfly scene) at the first clip are from the telecine of 2nd lab that got into the first clip by mistake.

However 2 feels sometimes smoother. For example check the fade in/out test at 1'05". On number 2 is very smooth when on 1 looks abrupt. Why you think this might have happened?

I would also like your opinions on the processing which for me looks ok, not many stains, dust, etc. what do you think?

Ideally, all results should be as close as possible to a standard result, at least with ECN-2 and E-6. B&W has no set standard.

 

You want a lab that has minimal physical damage to your film (scratches), the best dust control, and results that are closest to the Kodak specifications.

 

Where cost enters into this equation is up to you, but the saying "You get what you pay for" holds true here.

 

Also keep in mind that, in general, S8 film doesn't warrant the same level of attention and care as 16- and 35mm customer footage does from most labs.

 

As it is the smallest and most prone to showing the effects of dust and scratches of the commonly-used movie film formats currently in use, S8 needs the MOST care to avoid the effects of said. So I feel it is kind of a losing battle with most labs.

 

Another problem with S8 is that labs tend to charge must more per foot compared to what you'd pay with 16mm or 35mm. You tend to get the best price, per unit area, in processing costs with 35mm negative.

 

 

Hope I've adequately answered your question.

thanks for the quick reply. i guess that yes, a cheaper processing might mean 'dirtier' results when it comes to the physical form of the film. if i understood well though, a cheaper processing cannot really affect drastically the actual quality of the material such as sharpness, colors, etc, right?

One last question.

How different can processing come out in different labs.

Judging from the results of telecine of my first S8 roll from two different labs, it makes a big difference where you do it, but do you think that also processing can be different in each lab?

Sure you can. But I doubt any lab would install it.. it's too dangerous, generally, to their main business, 16/35mm development and they'd not want to break their very expensive machines.... also it would probably be easier to just build your own developer (or buy one) and run it yourself.

hmm, can you shed some light on how to build or where to buy one?sounds interesting

PS.my girlfriend asks if you are polish

Yepper, it's automated so it goes through machines which carry it through the differant baths. Don't forget, you're dealing with feet of film (50 ft if i recall for S8mm and normally 100+Ft for 16/35mm) so it needs to be able to move through all this contraption in a certain amount of times. The chemesty is the same for all negative color films these days ENC-2.

i guess this means that with some macgyver thinking someone can create some sort of adapter that would make the 8mm film fit in the 16mm machine in a satisfactory way. id have to look into it.

Same Chemicals, Different machines... It's smaller than other formats, just as 16mm is smaller than 35mm, so you can't run it through a 35mm machine or a 16mm machine because of the physical dimensions of the stock. Same reason why my Colorist has to change bits on the Spirit telecine when i bring in S16mm film.

i was under the impression that developing mainly involves putting the film into chemicals. does it have to go through some machine when developed? (im not refering to telecine which obviously needs dedicated machine)

how different is super8 than 16mm or 35mm and other types of film. Why does it require a dedicated lab to process why it can be done by labs that do other films as well?

Here in athens its impossible to develop it without sending it abroad and i'm trying to figure if it is really that hard to develop it. From what my amateur eyes see there is ektachrome 64T film for 16mm cameras for example, isnt it processed in similar way like super8 equivalent?

thanks

Only question is if the telecine was done on a pro deck, in which case it might be in DVCAM format even if it's miniDV tape.

 

If a pro telecine house did it 9/10 I get DVCAM formatted tapes that only play on DVCAM decks or something like a sony portable miniDV deck.

 

If it's a film chain type telecine place then you maybe fine with a cheap camera. Just keep your receipts in case you need to return it.

Telecine is done by bluecinetech in London. If the minidv tape was to be played only on specific machines they would mention i guess as they know im a beginner.

another question. does the minidv to computer transfer happen realtime or it can be transferred faster than 1x

I am considering of getting the cheapest miniDV that I can find in order to be able to transfer the telecined material and I am wondering if the camera affects the quality of the transferred movie in the end?

Does it make any difference if you are using a 100$ or 1000$ model of miniDV camera when capturing to computer?

Ok, from the info I found, ektachrome 64T is tungsten so for daylight I need the built in orange filter.

They guy who sold me the camera told me to not use it, and confused me a bit

forgive me if you already know this, but using color correction filters (blue, orange, etc) is for when your lights don't match the type of film you are using. the advice of always using a blue filter indoors probably assumes that you always use "D" (daylight) film. if so, this rule of thumb will generally get you acceptable results.

 

the good news is that film is pretty forgiving and the lab can correct a lot of stuff for you - the rest you can usually fix on the computer. but if you want the best results, it's a good idea to read about color temperature. here's a decent article that shows you what type of filter to use under various types of lights:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Guide-to...emperature-4804

 

have fun with your nizo!

I am using the standard ektachrome 64T.

When I shoot outside I keep it at lightbulb position and for indoors I need a filter, right?

I have a nizo s56 and the seller told me that for outdoors i should set the switch in the 'lightbulb' position and use a blue filter for indoors.

is this information correct?

thanks