Jump to content

Elliot Rudmann

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Elliot Rudmann

  1. Hi Dennis, Those prices are definitely exorbitant and, in my opinion laughable, but they're obviously not unheard of. Labs with higher overhead generally need to milk customers for those little services that, in reality, don't take that much time or effort, excluding extensive lab work/film repair. When you have your film processed, you should ask the lab to prep it for telecine/transfer, and they will add the leader, so there shouldn't be much (if any) lab work to do for the post house doing the scanning. If you're based in Illinois, you should check out the post house I work fo
  2. Hi Ram, Have you looked at the files outside of the color correction suite with a basic LUT (look-up table) on them? Were the images underexposed (leading to extra noise)? Did you shoot with a high-ISO? It's hard to diagnose the issue without seeing examples from the RAW log image and color corrected images. As a baselight colorist, I have seen Alexa get a little noisy when it's underexposed and brightened up in the color suite, or when the operators lift the ISO sensitivity to shoot in darker areas. I know this is a late response, but hopefully you've figured out what happened.
  3. Hi David, I work over at Nolo Digital Film in Chicago and I appreciate you putting us on your list of contenders! Just so you know, the Arriscan cannot accept 8mm film, only 16mm and 35mm. Like Mr. Korver stated, outfitting a custom 8mm gate would be too cost prohibitive for a budget medium like 8mm, though I feel that --unless you really want the 8mm look -- it's almost as cost effective to shoot/process/scan 16mm now...but that's a separate debate. The Arriscan produces amazing 16mm/Super 16mm 2k scans that yield a very natural grain structure and sharpness throughout the image, he
  4. vibrant? if anything I feel it's a bit desaturated, smokey background (00:39) gives more contrast-separation between foreground/background. More of a yellow-green type of warmth, probably supplemented by muted set design. I think most videos back then were shot on 35mm, I can't say for certain regarding this video, but I would think a Janet Jackson video could pull such a budget for 35mm :-)
  5. Undocumented? I really don't think so! Lol. All I can say is that when we have the 16mm gate up, there's a selectable geometrical setting in the arriscan gui that says "16mm-4k" "Sampling 6k" - "Size [px]: 4096x2520" (that 4k pixel resolution fits proportionally within the super 16mm 2k res of 2048x1260). The pitch setting for 16mm-4k does change but I'm not sure how much until I actually see it scan.
  6. I operate an arriscan almost every day of the week so I'd consider having first hand experience. If you can get a free test by all means do it and see the comparisons for yourself. Georg - The arriscan sensor has a native resolution of 3k by 2k pixels, microscanning is done to create the 6k-4k scans. During the microscanning the sensor shifts and grabs different parts of the image to make up the 6k frame. It does this whether or not you have 16mm or 35mm loaded in the scanner. The amount of optical shifting and microscanning done varies between the 16mm and 35mm frames obviously because o
  7. For the 2k option, yes it scans at 3k and downsamples to 2k. Our scanner has the 6k option. Frames scanned at 4k are actually scanned natively at 6k and downsampled to 4k. You don't hear this being done with Super 16 because it doesn't need to be done with Super 16. The difference between oversampling Super 16 at 3k vs 6k in the Arriscan is barely noticeable. 3k is already overkill. The theory that there might be more to gain from S16 from a 4k scan is too far from the reality at this point in film scanning technology. Like Will said, spend that money on something more tangible.
  8. 4k for Super 16 is overkill in my professional opinion. This seems to be something that a lot of clients or 16mm enthusiasts don't understand or like to hear. I did a real-world test myself with the Arriscan we have at work with a professionally shot feature film we were working on. The end sequence had a lot of awful looking blowups/resizing/digital zooms that we were hoping would look marginally better if scanned at 4k. The grain was barely sharper and there was no overall visible difference. This was the case with scenes shot on Kodak 7218 (500T) and Kodak 7212 (100T) that were processed no
  9. A few projects we've been getting at work have been shot with Alexa but NONE of them have shot RAW, all prores 4x4. Upon further investigation I heard from someone that renting the recording accessory that allows the ingest of the Arriraw t-link signal costs more than the camera rental itself! Google has come up short in helping me find a definitive answer here, so I was wondering if anyone could confirm this, or has any realistic rental figures for getting the ideal raw footage from the camera. Has anyone here actually worked on a project where Arriraw was recorded out of the Alexa? I know th
  10. How was it transferred? That example looks very soft but it could just be compression.
  11. Definitely right Paul, we use an Arriscan and I would say that, if given the choice (and free accessibility to both), I'd rather have my own work scanned on the Arri vs the Spirit. The tests I've seen (not the ones that Arri showed us), from a SDC 2k vs Arriscan showed that the Arri held up better better in the highlights (less noise) and seemed to have more "real" sharpness, in other words, the scans from the SDC looked a bit oversharpened, maybe even grain reduced as the Arriscan consistently had more texture. Were these differences extremely significant? Not at all, and I don't think most c
  12. Yes, pin registered will produce more stability throughout, it's the advantage of having a less-than-real-time scan time. A Spirit's real time ability is excellent/efficient for HD dailies but for higher quality work and finishing a film scanner is really the best way to go, as it will produce scans with more sharpness and range (advantage of the arriscan's two-flash system). In terms of cost, I know the Arriscan, even with a 16mm+35mm gate is actually quite a bit cheaper than a Spirit Datacine, and I would guess requires less maintenance as well.
  13. I'll try to answer some questions for you, Will. [[[i'm curious how different telecine houses work because where one place does something "all the time" another one might never work that way. It's kind of interesting how there isn't a standard.]]] If all of the companies used the same standard and workflows, the one with the cheapest prices would probably win out :-) but seriously, the simplified workflow is pretty standard actually, it's what the client wants at the end that can change how things are done. Also, technology and newer systems/upgrades play a big part in determining wo
  14. Phil, I mention that process because it's actually a very common workflow where I work, and for lower budget clients, it's often the preferred one since it's less work for us given that we're a smaller company than most post production houses that do telecine/scanning. Sometimes the film students/independents want to grade their scans (on Apple Color or whatever platform..) so they specifically ask for DPX log files back, so we give them dpx right out of the scanner. Scan and copy to hard drive, bam, done. We do own an SR deck that we often use for the higher end clients who are finishing thei
  15. LOL. You and I are quite the elitists, Will! Well it would be the opposite way around, if he wanted a prores color corrected file at the end. But if he wants just DPX, all the lab would have to do is scan the film to dpx, grade accordingly, and spit back out dpx, which may actually save him some money vs going to prores because it would cut one step out (dpx to quicktime conversion) for the lab. The prores codec is proprietary to Apple, and as far as I know, isn't licensed out to high end color correction systems. However, a third party software like Pomfort Silverstack can be used t
  16. Arriscan film scanner directly outputs 10-bit log dpx files, other scanners should do the same. Scan film to dpx, color correct dpx, deliver final dpx/QuickTime/mxf, etc.
  17. Any decent post-house shouldn't charge you for the marginal difference (in resolution and file size) between 2k scans and HD scans.
  18. there was a short film at Sundance 2006 called "Before Dawn" - a 14 minute continuous take on a technocrane I think, absolutely phenomenal film.
  19. Yeah a kodak rep told me about this 2 months ago, they're starting to phase it out. Great stock, but if the v3 200T is just as sharp and has better grain, there's no reason to keep the other one around.
  20. Can't forget about the cost differential and the decaying knowledge of film-based workflows through generations. Cost being that when you do get a camera, lets say, that looks like raw footage from the Alexa that costs under a grand (or some ridiculously cheap number), the majority of producers just won't bite the bullet to shoot film when the difference in superficial (not aesthetic) quality is so marginal. "Decaying knowledge" in that the majority of younger filmmakers growing up are so dumbfounded when it comes to shooting film. "People still use that?!" And this mentality will eventually c
  21. If they can afford to rent Alexa, and pay the extra costs associated with an SR tape workflow, they can afford an hour or two of color.
  22. Or the producer with the checkbook holding the gun to the colorist's head.
  23. haha, great title for the forum topic. Bet they just added that look in color correction.
  24. Like Rob said, since it's white, it's just a piece of dirt from the transfer. A full ultrasonic cleaning may be overkill if it's just in those three instances. Dirt management software like Revival can temporally remove those (through manual operation) in less than 5 minutes. They should probably just lay off those fixed selects to another tape.
  25. please, PLEASE, before you anyone starts editing the footage, add source timecode to the .mov files. It looks like you have a good understanding of what the camera can handle on set. Make sure the skin tones don't clip out, flat is the best thing to aim for but I wouldn't make any extreme adjustments to the image adjustment settings in camera, as you don't really gain anything in the lowlights of scenes except muddy blacks. I would try some tests with an ultracon filter if you'll be shooting in some uncontrollable lighting situations (outdoor, high contrast stuff).
×
×
  • Create New...