Elliot Rudmann

That sounds great, Nick. We just color graded an Alexa job the other day, and it's great to see REAL Log files, unlike RED "log". This is something that could be very useful for editors using FCP who don't want to go through Apple Color.

I believe we will see prices come down on HD transfers. However, you still need to pay for the colorist talent which is the most important piece of the equation in a transfer.

Absolutely. It's difficult to explain to people that they'd freak if they saw what actually came off the scanner (10-bit log dpxs), which are extremely flat and pastel. A good colorist with good equipment knows how to interpret and grade those into a how the scene should look. As for rates, a lot of it depends on the lab's equipment (those with Northlights/Arriscan/Spirit datacine will obviously charge a little more because of the increase in scan-quality), the type of color pass you want, and your relationship with the lab. As a colorist, I really enjoy grading film and I try to give everyone the best possible looking image, whether it's a flat pass or a scene-to-scene color; it's in my best interest and my company's best interest. I believe most colorists feel this way so if you disregard skill and motivation, a lot of what you pay may come down to the quality of scan, which is heavily determined by the equipment. Ironically, a Spirit Datacine would have run you $900k to a million a few years ago, where a 6k Arriscan runs about half that price and gives even better quality scans, so who do you think is going to be charging you more to pay off their equipment?

Also Kirk - I hate to brag but I actually sold my Super 16 Bolex 15 months after I bought it for $175 more than what I payed for it...granted the film stock and processing ate up that little profit I made...but nevertheless it was a big accomplishment! After posting it on ebay/craigslist for 4 months and answering at least 100 annoying questions about it, I did eventually find a buyer. It wasn't easy though, and the decline in the demand for 16mm film cameras is exactly why I sold it as soon as I could. The HDSLR revolution is to blame I think, causing much depreciation in the value of all film cameras in general.

There won't be a difference of color range, and the grain will (theoretically) be marginally smaller in the HD version compared to the 2k version, as a slight down-rez will hide some (like an standard def 16mm transfer will "hide" more grain than an HD transfer of the same footage).

But like I said, the difference of grain between HD and 2k footage will be so marginal that it probably won't be noticeable.

Yes you can mount 35mm still camera lenses on most 16mm cameras. I mounted my old Canon FD lenses to my Bolex EBM via an adapter. Made beautiful images, but it was tough to get wide shots without actually buying a wide lens made for 16mm. The "perspective" of 35mm still lenses is effectively doubled on a 16mm camera compared to how those same lenses would look on a 35mm camera.

I say "perspective" because if I say "focal length" I'll get nit-picked to death - even though it's easiest to say that the focal length of a 35mm-mount lens is doubled when you mount it on a 16mm-body.

Ok if movies do go digital [ which as you say they will ] no harm in giving Kodak a great big kick in the balls ! they have with their crap Vision stocks done so much damage to the that "look" of film , unlike Fuji which you can still get that wonderful image .

John you seem to have a deep resentment of all things Kodak that goes beyond personal hatred..care to share? Ex-wife a Kodak rep or something? ;)

If anything, I think the vision stocks (in their sharpness and latitude) have been more effective in helping film fight against digital mediums, which are still trying to obtain such advantages. You could say the exact same statement about digital intermediates, in how scanning in 2k/4k "ruins" the inherent look of film, when in fact, it keeps film alive longer by giving it a place in more modern digital workflows. Kodak AND Fuji both followed these routes by creating film stocks that were more suited to the digital intermediate workflow because they had to evolve to such standards to keep film even more competitive. You just think Fuji has a better "film look" (subjective by all means) because Kodak's new Vision stocks cater to the DI workflow a lot better than current Fuji stocks because Kodak's are sharper, cleaner, and have less grain in the blacks than Fuji's. To each his own I say. The aesthetic look of film may have changed, but I think it's for the better. It's only unfortunate that the options for "creative-looking" film stocks are dwindling.

Hey guys, I'm in the Toronto area. I bought an URSA 1 Telecine from Tom Hilbe (B STOCK TV) total crook btw. It powers up but I can't get the controls to work. Anyone out there know how to fix it? If you (or someone you know) is able to fix it. I will compensate you time and travel.

Have you tried contacting Tom or B Stock TV about the problem?

Hello.

 

I am interested in becoming a telecine assistant. While I have a general understanding of the telecine workflow, I was hoping someone could elaborate specifically on what a facility is seeking when hiring a TK assistant and also a brief outline of the day to day duties of a TK assistant.

 

Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

Aside from knowing how to operate/thread the telecine machine and the color correction system you're using, knowledge of tape decks and laying off finished products/transfer-selects to tape is definitely an essential trait one needs when going into that type of work. Every post house works differently so there's no set outline I can give you of what you'd be doing on a day-to-day basis. Depending on how confident the colorist you're assisting is with you, he/she may have you do base grades on a conformed piece (if you're transferring selects). Prepping the room for clients, getting them lunch/coffee may also be some duties.

Try to get an internship with a post house (preferably one that specializes in doing digital intermediate/film scanning vs straight telecine, as that seems to be where the business is heading). Make sure you stress that color correction is the field in which you want to build your career (which I assume it is because it's the most logical step forward in a telecine/colorist assistant's career). Obviously learn as much as you can from the colorist, TAKE NOTES, always offer to work late, get them coffee, and do whatever you can to get your hands on that color system. It takes a lot of time, a lot of mistakes, a lot of trust from others to get to where you want (a rule of thumb for most jobs).

 

I'd say you'd be better off shooting color (ends to save money?) and desaturating than digital noise removal on Double-X.

Absolutely agree. Grain/noise removal will add a lot of time and money in the post end, I've also found dirt to be an often significant issue when dealing with black and white film. Every time I scan a roll at work, the rollers on the scanner always get gunked up and dirt clean-up is always involved. My belief is that most labs that still process black and white aren't kept as clean as their color negative chemicals/tanks, as it has been an issue I've seen with multiple labs. You may end up saving more money in the long run by shooting color neg and desaturating. Good luck.

I would suggest compressor.

Why in this world of progressive scan LCD TV's and 1080p Blu-Ray players would we work in 23.976 FPS when transferring film?

 

I always understood pulldown to be for interlaced broadcast and especially when transferring film shot at different speeds to another frame rate at the same "perceived" speed.

 

For film shot at 24fps does it make more sense to transfer and edit at 24fps then transcode as needed? I feel like I'm missing something very basic.

Because SMPTE standards require a 59.94/29.97/23.98 hz in order to be compatible with NTSC standards. It all has to do with standards and what is being used now. Of course when you get dpx scans back from a post house you could edit them all at 24.00 fps (or any frame rate you want, really) but you'll have to end up going to 23.976 sooner or later unless you're making a film print. I've never done it, but playback would be weird on a dvd if you burned 24-native material on it versus 23.976. When you transfer stuff in telecine, it really isn't going from 24 to 29.97, the pulldown is making it go from 24 to 23.98 and then to 29.97.

What you really should be asking is: why in the hell did we adopt a fractional frame rate standard?! :-)

I'm selling my Bolex camera on ebay right now, it's an excellent package, with 400ft magazine and motor, and other accessories. See the auction for more details:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Super-16-Bolex-H16-EBM-Professional-Movie-Camera-/180520749495?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item2a07e009b7

I would be willing to sell it for as low as $1600. Thanks!

Very cathartic for me. Thank you!

Arriscan sets it at 2048x1152, but the pixel height can be manually adjusted to gain extra info on the top and bottom of each frame.

Yeah the accessories certainly add up, and the performance might be comparable to the high end systems if you sink enough money into it. I was speaking more about the amateur field of color correction, like those freelance editors who call themselves an Editor AND Colorist, it just makes me laugh. The panel is also something of concern, how fast/easily can you switch between layers, add shapes, adjust and track those shapes, conform projects with JL Coopers and Euphonix compared to the "surfboard" panels? Personally I don't know, but speed (and capability, or the illusion of capability, haha) is something of great importance here when people are paying good money to sit behind you.

Definitely wouldn't cut it for any serious supervised work, no matter what the talent is in front of the keyboard. Render times and performance would be horrendous. Most agency producers, creative executives, directors/dps already know this, and have developed relationships with talented colorists, the majority of whom use...how do I put this nicely...more professional setups. The Apple Color(ists) don't have as much influence as some think when it comes to bringing down prices; you get what you pay for, and I'd go so far as to claim that the people who are actually paying money to have their work color corrected know this as well. Becoming an established, or dare I say "respected" colorist doesn't really come from working on a "beefed-up" desktop computer with a calibrated Apple Cinema display. Maybe one day it will though? Who knows.

For independent work where time really isn't an issue, and a proper color session can't be afforded, programs like Apple Color and Davinci's and Filmlight's OSX software bundles are a great alternative.

Phil, you're a funny guy, and I laugh in agreement with many of your exaggerations/half-truths, especially as an employee at a DI facility. Although I don't think people in Chicago are as boastful as clients/creatives may be in LA, or in your case, London. You must agree with the fact that high end color correction systems like DaVinci and Baselight are built not just for bragging rights and looks, but most importantly speed. And given that agencies and creative executives are becoming more stingy by not paying the cinematographer to supervise the color sessions, a colorist's experience and skill is something not to be overlooked, no matter how much he or she brags about it on TIG.

But in all seriousness, I also notice this recycling of looks. My motto is; once you start to see it proliferating on Vimeo, it's time for a new look.

WOW - thanks Tim!

I've been looking for a forum like that too. I think it would be a great idea, even if parts of it were technical, like explaining how the look was achieved, what adjustments/keys/shapes/tracking would be needed, etc. An all encompassing color correction forum would be very useful because it has (and still is) becoming such a critical, yet often overlooked, component in filmmaking.

When you scan into smaller format film (8mm, 16mm) with deeper resolutions the first thing most people notice is that the grain becomes more pronounced, however more detail is resolved and the image is sharper. If the grain does not bother you and you want greater image resolution (resolution in terms of picture quality, not just pixel quantity), a 2k scan is definitely more suitable than any HD spirit transfer with noise reduction (dvnr) added. Good luck!

I believe Fletcher Camera in Chicago plans on carrying them soon. however, they have yet to arrive. http://www.fletch.com/

I haven't heard of any rental houses that actually have them in stock at the moment...

Any good post production house should be able to mix together those formats (35mm+RED) with no problem. Depending on what color correction system they're using, they should be able to "map in" different resolutions (of the RED r3d files and the 35mm dpx scans) so they mix together in what will be your final output resolution (HD, 2k, or 4k).

8 hours should be plenty. Are you sure you're going to HDV tape and not HDCam or HDCam SR? I ask because you'll lose a lot of quality if you only go to an HDV source. Unless of course that's your only option with which to screen your film. Either way I'd strongly advise you get a higher quality master of your film.

Call the lab about it, and express your concern. The sooner the better.

Has this ever happened to other film you've shot with your Beaulieu camera?

Relisted! Make me an offer.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180506153973

Now with 1 400ft mag + motor, no c-mount adapter.

Can you give me an approximate size that you think the file may wind up being?

 

Thanks again.

8 minutes will be about 113 gigabytes worth of dpx files, since one 2k dpx frame of Super 16 (2048x1260) is about 10 mb. A little smaller if it was scanned at HD. How big the quicktime file is (or m2v/mpeg2 file if you're going to burn to dvd) depends on your compression settings.

They even went so far as to put some kind of weird filter on SOME shots during the nightmare, a kinda halating vingette if that makes sense. It looked like a post effect thrown on at the last minute becuse the director thought "crap, what if the audience doesn't get that this is supposed to be a dream? Mr. Editor, sir, what kind of plug-ins do you have in your editing program?"

That might have been the Panavision hylen system they used on set: http://www.hylensystem.com/