Jump to content

David Cunningham

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,088

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by David Cunningham

  1. David Cunningham
    Very true that the dynamic range of most CRT systems is fantastic and still superior to single flash ccd systems. But I just find the noise too distracting especially in an already "noisy" format like super 8. I would personally trade off loosing some dynamic range for the image quality and resolution the Cinelab 4K sprocket less system which is very similar in most aspects to the ScanStation. The 5K Xena very comparable to the Director as well.
  2. David Cunningham
    You can get a "cheap" scan of reversal, but it will not lock anything like the projected image. To get close to that, you need an HDR system. The one at Cinelab should be good as well as the Director at MetroPost in NYC. The ScanStation at Gamma Ray Digital is good and probably the best trade off between "cheap" and still good... best bang for the buck... but if you make full use of the qualities of color reversal and have deep blacks and bright whites all in the same image, you will want an HDR.
  3. David Cunningham
    Ditto. Should be fine assuming a good scan, grading and slight over exposure.
  4. David Cunningham
    I wouldn't worry too much about b&w reversal. It's pretty easy to produce and you've always got orwo, foma and Adox.
  5. David Cunningham
    I believe it has something to do with the density of the film layers associated with the multiple b@w layers to witch dye is added after the fact rather than removed.
  6. David Cunningham
    There is no reel solution in telecine. But in scanning you can do HDR via multi exposure. This is how the Director at MteroPost is able to get fantastic results from E100D, Kodachrome and prints. But. It still never looks as good as the projected film. :(
  7. David Cunningham
    True of any grainy film.
  8. David Cunningham
    I have a few plus X left. I hate double X. Too grainy!
  9. David Cunningham
    I think the big difference with the "look" is the fact that modern lcd displays have a 60 or 120hz refresh rate where in between frames is just the transition to the next frame where a projected image has actual blackness between frames. Although impossible to "see" it is perceived and very different. You'll never be able to reproduce that digitally without much higher refresh rates and actual blackness between frames. I have watched interstellar on a 35mm print where the non cgi scenes are actual contact prints, not a DI, and the blu Ray. The difference is night and day. The perceived look it totally different. I'd actually forgotten since this was the first movie i'd seen with a photochemical finish in many years.
  10. David Cunningham
    It does work but you need to employ a good multiflash scanner to do it. The Director at Metrpolis Post in NYC is the best I personally have seen with scanning print films. I would try them. Call Jack. Tell him Dave Cunningham sent you. :)
  11. David Cunningham
    Oh cool! I didn't think anyone still had them. Let me know how much it costs! Very curious.
  12. David Cunningham
    Depends on your goal. For increased saturation and contrast, yes. But for less grain and a flatter look you would over expose. For average day to day use under exposing is probably better and safer. I like to shoot Agfa 200D over myself.
  13. David Cunningham
    Interesting, is that a Wittner loaded cart or someone else? Since it actually tells you on the cart that must mean someone changed their minds and went with under rather than over. I bet it's for the saturation and contrast which is bad when metered at 160.
  14. David Cunningham
    Are you sure it's notched 250? I thought they (wittner) notched it 160D. 250 would be under and is the only way to get any real saturation or contrast out of it, but 160 is over and helps with the chunky grain a bit. I thought the ended up going with over rather than under, but I could be wrong. Either way the 814 xls will do fine. But, manual exposure is still the best.
  15. David Cunningham
    2k and HD are basically the same in wide format like super16. There's virtually no difference. A good 4K scan on something like the Director at MetroPost, Scanity at Cinelicious, Xena at Cinelab or even ScanStation at Gamma Ray Digital may tighten up the grain a bit. But, I'm guessing for the most part it's the under exposure of a tungsten stock and then correction in post pushing that grain more than anything else.
  16. David Cunningham
    Keep posting here Matt. Rob is on this forum pretty often so you might get lucky.
  17. David Cunningham
    Also, an HD scan would likely enhance the grain as well. The relatively low resolution scan would cause grain aliasing that makes the grain chunkier and larger than it really is. In 16mm, 7213 is pretty grainy. I've also found that most transfers of tungsten balanced stocks are far more noisy likely due to the extra sensitive blue layer.
  18. David Cunningham

    2 perf

    David Cunningham replied to victor huey's topic in 35mm

    Ditto. But in Boston.
  19. David Cunningham
    Nice Perry! I'm actually still astounded at how much jitter there is. The frame spacing is all over the place (considering how high end the camera is).
  20. David Cunningham
    I'll take what I can get... if I can print my Super 8 negative to 16 that would be awesome! As for print stock, I believe Andec makes their own or has Wittner do it by cutting down 35mm stock.
  21. David Cunningham
    One quick not on "this looks more grainy than what I project" is to note that you project super 8 reversal. This is negative. Apples and oranges. I wish someone would create a contact printer for super 8 in the USA. Outlet only option these days is Andec in Germany. Otherwise, we will never see a super 8 negative projected. In 16mm printing a negative provides a very slight mask of the grain while scanning it provides a bit of an exaggeration. I assume this can be applied to super 8 and thus more extreme since the super 8 grain is larger to begin with.
  22. David Cunningham
    I'm not talking about this specific video. I'm talking about super 8 as a whole which has a ton of "jitter". The frame is not even remotely registered in this format even when using a projector. The jitter has always been there because the intentional design of the system to have high tolerances allows for the frame to bounce around. This is inherently faulty because the image is jittery, but this jitter allows for the very high fault tolerance of super 8 and thus its ease of use. True. I too shoot home movies in 16mm and other formats. I am hoping to break into 35mm and your favorite cinematographer who shoots 35mm home movies is one of my favorites too. Yes. It's true that 16mm was original an amateur format... As was 8mm. But it was never widely available to the average citizen for two reasons. The most important being cost but the second being ease of use. Both 16mm and 8mm were difficult to use and load, especially in daylight. Super 8 made that easy for all. But, it came with quality trade offs that the market deemed worth it.
  23. David Cunningham
    My point has been made her myself and repeated, but I'm repeating it again. This is all about perceived sharpness for me. That requires proper resolving of the grain. Perry put it perfectly. We're not trying to fully resolve the image on the film but the film itself... The grains of the emulsion. This is very important the more grainy the stock. Even if you plan to remove the "noise" later, the better resolved that "noise" is the better the removal software does at removing it. But again, I have no desire to remove it. It's part of why I shoot 16 and 8 mm.
  24. David Cunningham
    Bill, When they did the scan, were they doing a true 2K scan or simply taking the 4K scan and outputting it to two different formats (one 2K and one 4K). Their Director is capable of doing this so I imagine they simply scanned at 4K and wrote to the two different formats. If that's the case, you are correct. It is highly unlikely that you would see the difference projected on a screen because you would not have the grain aliasing issue as bad as an actual 2K scan. The original data was there and the software then do-ressed it. Keep that in mind if you request a 2K scan... it may not look the same as your most recent 2K scan if the 2K scan wasn't really a 2K scan but a 4K scan down sampled to 2K. FYI, no one beats Jack, Metro Post and the Director in my opinion... especially scanning print and color reversal. Beautiful dynamic range, color and sharpness.
  25. David Cunningham
    For me this all goes back to an argument I've had a bunch of times on this forum about Super 8... Stop trying to make an intentionally high fault tolerant and inherently flawed format a professional standard. When Kodak designed this system the designed it to be simple, fast and cheap. Someone once argued with me for many days that regular 8mm would have to be inferior to Super 8... because why would Kodak develop a lesser system... and of course, my answer was they DID just that with the trade off being ease of use. For me, part of the format is it's imperfections. The concept of Super 8 jitter and graininess have been part of the format since inception. The fact that the center of the image and the edge of the image are never perfectly in focus together because of the lack of a proper pressure plate and inherent curve of the film has ALWAYS been there. It's part of the charm and the look. If you want perfectly registered/stable and sharp film footage, use a good 16mm camera. Super 8 was meant for home movies... there is no reason to try and make it better. That's the charm we're going for. If inexpensive (and decent so I exclude AGFA) color reversal was still available I would only use that for my wedding films. Sadly, it's not so I have to use negative even though the "look" is not quite right. It's all we have left to offer these days. Anyhow... that's my rant for today. :)
×
×
  • Create New...