Elliot Rudmann

crell please change your user id to include your full name. Thank you.

1) Has the type of telecine process any influence on the graininess of the DI?

Absolutely, higher end telecine machines like the spirit 2k,4k can get a cleaner image out of the film, but a true film scanner like the Arriscan and Northlight scanners offer superb image quality, with lower noise levels, particularly in the highlights. The exaggerated sharpening in the Spirit telecines often makes the grain look worse; so much to the point where I was convinced that one of our client's footage was shot on super 16, when it in fact, it had been shot on 35mm! That was an awkward conversation... Best ideal process is to go through a post house that uses a dedicated film scanner, not telecine. Cost is a bit higher to use a dedicated film scanner, but you get what you pay for, and often post houses don't like to see their scanner go unused so they can offer some pretty competitive rates against other companies who use telecine bays.

3) If you look at your own footage - would you wish it to be less grainy or are you ok with it at most of the time?

This is a pretty subjective question, but in my opinion: I am pleased with it most of the time. If super 16mm footage is underexposed (and done so on grainer stocks like 7218/19 500T) then it helps to add some NR to the darker areas. Clients of ours who shoot 35mm rarely ask for any type of noise reduction, unless a shot is severely underexposed.

4) Would you consider the removal of grain as bad for the 'look' or do you think cleaner would be better because the release print will add grain back anyway?

Depends how good the grain/noise reduction software is. We use a noise reducer in our Baselight color correction system and it does a fantastic job. It just takes a long time to render. My problem with noise reducers is that it can smooth over textures depending on the scene. It's best to do it shot by shot instead of one overall pass, but who has the time to do that? But to answer your question, I would prefer some noise reduction if I were doing a Super 16 - 35mm release print.

5) Do you see a demand for degraining film?

Not really, most DI post houses offer this service for an additional charge, usually it's included in the billing for a feature length film going through a DI. But this obviously varies from company to company. I speak from my own experience. Apparently Arri has created a noise reduction box that, from what an Arri rep told me, makes Super 16 look as plastic as the RED camera. Now I am very interested in seeing this!

Here's my Super 16 Bolex EBM - S16 conversion by Meritex Inc./JK Camera, with Les Bosher Bayonet to Canon FD lens adapter. Shot some tests with it this weekend, will post the results probably in about 2 weeks.

Lens shown is Canon FD 50mm F1.4. Also have FD 35mm F2.8 and 24mm F2.8. Will eventually spring for a Switar 10mm and 25mm.

I'm shooting a short on 35mm soon and am not sure exactly how this works, but I want to shoot 3 perf. So does that come down to the camera? Or to ordering the film?

 

We haven't ordered anything yet and are not sure what camera we're getting but are in talks with Panavision. Can someone please help clarify?

 

Do I decide to shoot 3 perf only through camera choice? And if so how does that work? Or do I tell kodak this and they give a film for 3 perf?

 

Sorry for the novice question.

 

Thanks.

 

Jase

Your decision to shoot 3 perf will effect how you choose the camera (the camera must have a 3-perf movement - check with your rental house), and how you finish the film. Typically a DI is done for 3 perf since you can't make true prints from 3 perf film. Check with your preferred post house to see if their telecine/film scanner can do this. The filmstock you order will work in a 3 perf camera no matter what. (Just make sure it's 35mm stock haha)

Well, Agfa had a long ongoing research about trying to eliminate silver altogether from film and from what I understand they succeeded. I wonder what happened to those chemists and R&D people? Probably silenced by either Fuji and Kodak or the silver producers...

 

Also, there must be less silver in a slow stock, no? How come there's no price difference......?

Interesting, I'd like to know more about that conspiracy (this isn't sarcasm, I am geniunely interested).

Also Adam, there actually is a price difference between the slower stocks and the faster ones, as seen on Kodak's motion picture catalog (you can download it here: http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Produ...ation/index.htm )

Price of 1000' roll of 5219: $642.41,

Price of 1000' roll of 5201: $623.70.

Wow, Kodak. That's a real dealbreaker if you ask me. That's 1 extra roll of '19 I can buy for every 35000 feet of '01 I purchase. Great. Great. They definitely need to put some more R&D into constructing/designing materials that would allow for a cheaper filmstock. If film is continually seen as a luxury, I don't see how it can maintain a profitable future. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Hi! i'm aware that with modern lenses and film stocks, 1080p can be had no problem from a digital scanning process.

 

I was wondering if anybody here has ever seen 16mm from a K3 camera done in 1920x1080 resolution.

 

with the default lens on this camera, do you think it would hinder the film from being capable of having this high resolution?

 

i'm about to cut my film up here and take it down to the photolab and have them scan some frames at the highest res they can, just to see what potential we have.

 

perhaps some of you might have some insight to this?

 

thanks!

 

 

note- (working with standard 16mm here, not super16 unfortunately)

Curtis, an HD scan or HD telecine wouldn't hurt. It may not resolve as much information as 16mm shot with Zeiss prime glass, but it will certainly be a step up from an SD transfer. You'll have more tonal information with which to color grade (especiallyif you go with a scanning route, not telecine). Since you're shooting standard 16mm, you will lose some of your picture area in the process if you go to an HD output when you adapt a 1.33:1 standard 16 frame to a 1.78:1 HD image. You may want to get full frame scans of the image so that you can decide how to letterbox it to HD. If you will be doing a supervised telecine, you can tell the colorist how to reposition the shots with a 1.78 letterbox.

Indian film industry produces more films than any other film industry in the world.I am working as a Di colorist from last 5 years.From my experience people will think 4k to 2k only when the post house doesn't have 4k recording.Like i said earlier Super 2k is best possible solution if you have any budget problems.Otherwise go for 4k recording.

 

Srinivas Mamidi

Super 2k is another good option to consider, but again, if you can afford the extra costs associated with it. Even scanning at super 2k (scanning natively at 4k and having the scanner spit out 2k images) can eat in to your budget more than doing just a regular 2k scan itself. Film scanners like the Arriscan take 4 times longer to scan a frame at 4k than 2k (assuming you don't have their expensive speed upgrade), and the northlight scanner is even slower. Most post houses will charge you more for this extra time needed to scan natively at 4k. Sri, I would be very surprised if the DI house you work at didin't charge for this extra time. The DI house I work at uses an arriscan which produces relatively fast and great 2k scans (natively scanned at 3k resolution) that look only marginally lower in quality than Super 2k scans which take 4x the amount of time. The slight increase in quality seems questionable when factoring in the extra steps/costs. But then again, I've never seen a 2k film-out compared to a super 2k filmout.

Yeah, but there is no way that even S16 '01 resolves 4K worth of information (~12MP per frame). You could conceivable get a better image with a 3.2- or 4K scan, but that is really taking it to the point where you are getting into the realm of diminishing returns.

You're right Kyle, I should have said 2k. 4k for S16 is overkill and sometimes can accentuate the grain

First thing why you want to do that? Next if you are looking from budget point of view.i dont think they will charge you a bomb for a 4k recording.Because scanning to grading and from there to render the 4k files take more time and space.Best solution would be scan and record at S2k(super 2k).http://timtyler.net/JBSX/files/redirect.asp?b=19

Yes, if he's going to end up with a 2k print he might as well just scan everything 2k from the start. Labs do charge more for 4k prints, this cost can be very significant depending on your budget.

Sri - do us a favor and use your full name when you post. It's in the forum rules. Thank you.

Not necessarily. Plus-X has plenty of resolution, and may very well show up the difference between a good film quality lens and one designed for NTSC.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Yeah, if he's going to be getting 2k Arriscans from his footage, or projecting his reversal film on a big screen then the flaws in those TV lenses will certainly be apparent. Most SD telecine transfers probably wouldn't even pick up the theoretical resolution/sharpness capable in Plus-X shot with switar primes. It's such a picky filmstock that the quality of your image is more dependent on how you expose it, not what lenses you use. Aronofsky and Libatique may disagree with me, but this is coming from my experience in film school, where, once projecting our projects shot on Plus-X, it was clear that the best looking projects were ones that were exposed and focused properly.

We really should know what his end game is going to be in terms of digital transfer.

Dennis, if you're going to keep this camera for a while and shoot a lot of film, I would save yourself the hassle and save up for some 16mm lenses/or a 16mm zoom. You never know when in 10 years, hi-rez 4k scans maybe as affordable as SD transfers today.

I really don't like the bulky look of still slr lenses on a c mount adapter.

But would that be a viable alternative?

Absolutely, especially if you already own the lenses. However, one concern is that older SLR lenses are a bit more contrasty than built-for-16 lenses like the switars. They can still give you pretty sharp results though. Nevertheless, on any black and white reversal film, like plus-x, added contrast is usually the last thing you want. Additionally, the focal length of any given 35mm SLR lens on a 16mm camera is effectively doubled. 50mm becomes 100mm, 25mm becomes 50mm, etc. etc.

A zoom lens like the switar c-mount 16mm-100mm is a good choice, especially for it's F1.9 speed. There are cheaper brands available, usually popping up on ebay.

I am preparing for a short comedy that will be shot on the Panasonic HPX500 with the Pro35mm adapter. I am currently interested in finding out what that main visual differences are going to be between Zeiss standard, super speeds, ultra primes, master primes and cooke s4s. In general and with this particular camera. Advantages/Disadvantages.

Lawrence,

Without a doubt, the master primes are going to give you the best edge sharpness, and least chromatic abberration at the biggest apertures. I used to work at a rental house that collimated each of these types of lenses, and I can say that a master prime (at an identical focal length to an ultra prime), is much sharper at around the corners, even at f1.3. The cookes/ultras/masters are pretty heavy though compared to the zeiss standard/super speeds. (Master Primes being the heaviest, a lot of glass in those guys!). Cookes are a bit softer in their falloff but a lot of DPs like the look that they give; this may be something you want considering how sharp video is already. Master primes are also very expensive to rent, probably around $240/day per lens. The ultra primes following not far behind.

The ultimate question is, how will the look of each of these lenses suite the story? Only testing these can ensure the best creative decisions.

Elliot

From time to time you see some good deals on tv C-mount zooms lenses on ebay.

Will these lenses work properly on a bolex?

Or are these something you should steer away from?

I'm talking about the manual iris lenses.

Also what is the difference between c-mount and cs-mount?

thanks

TV c-mount lenses are of sufficient quality for shooting on B&W, but for color you may notice their weakness; more color abberations, lack of sharpness, even when shooting at deeper apertures.Test test test.

I want to shoot a sunset for a film I'm doing. It would be a very brief scene working as a transition between two different scenes. Since it is so brief, I'm going to use 200T film stock which I bought for the other scenes (don't want to buy a whole roll of daylight film for a scene lasting 5 seconds or so).

 

I figure I'll probably have to use a CTO filter on the camera to get it to look right. But my next question is with exposure. What is the average foot-candles measurement of a sunset? I'm assuming its much less than say noon time or even afternoon lighting.

 

I actually don't have the option of going to the location days before to measure a sunset so I'll have to estimate as best as possible before hand.

 

Any thoughts?

Hey Steve, giving you an objective light reading of a sunset, even an average reading, is somewhat difficult. What kind of sunset are you hoping for? A perfectly clean one with no clouds and just the naked sun, or a hazy/cloudy sunset? Either of which can give you dramatically different light readings. Also how you shoot the sunset (eg. telephoto perspective, wide angle perspective) will dictate how you measure the scene as well. If it's a wide angle shot you'll probably want to expose for the surrounding sky/clouds, if it's an extreme telephoto shot, then obviously keeping the sun in a tolerable range is important.

I wouldn't worry about using any sort of CTO filter, assuming you get this footage telecined, the colorist could easily add the warmth back in (if desired). You'll definitely want some ND filters though, and possibly some graduated ND filters at your disposal (depending on your composition). Either way, I wouldn't go into this situation with a set measurement in your head. The spot meter is your best friend. If you don't have a spot meter, you can do what some DPs do, where you point the incident meter dome at the sunset and underexpose 1-2 stops from whatever your incident reading is. If you have time, maybe bracket some shots too.

Hey guys - thanks for all the responses. Kori thank you for the links to those clips. Do you think the colorist might have repositioned them at all during telecine? (Like zoomed in a bit to hide vignetting?) I'd love to see that other clip you were talking about as well

I'll do a few tests myself. I will be renting out the 10mm Switar and testing it in a week or two on my S16 bolex EBM. I'll shoot wide open, stopped down, focus close. etc.., do a variation of those things, I'll get them scanned on the arriscanner here at work I'll post them up on my website. Might be a few weeks though. Thanks again!

Elliot

i'm looking movies shot on 35mm reversal stock.

any examples would be greatly appreciated. thanks.

I think parts of Domino were filmed w/ 5285 ektachrome

Hey Everyone

This is a scene from a short film, that never got finished. Please take a look and let me know what you think.

 

 

Thanks

-Paulo Uchoa

Hey Paulo - I can't say much about the aesthetics or the writing since, as you said, it is from an unfinished film. Nevertheless it seems like a good starting point for a short film. I think it is lit very well and consistent, but the camera operation seemed a bit sloppy at times, particularly the shakiness in the opening dolly shot. Additionally you crossed the line at the cut @ 1:20, that was kind of jarring to me. And the shot at 1:40, the close of up of the owner, has a little too much head room for my taste. Just some thoughts.

Elliot

Will the switar 10mm give enough coverage on my Super 16 Bolex EBM to prevent any sort of vignetting? I have tried to find information about using this lens on a S16 bolex but haven't found anything helpful. Thanks for your time and response.

Elliot

Looking to purchase a 400' magazine (with motor) for my bolex ebm, preferably one that is modified for super 16 use. Anyone know of a place/person(s) selling these? Thank you!

Hello Elliot, yes, I meant doing a 2K masternegativ from my 4K-DI. Is it possible to do the downvonvertion on the arrilaser or does ot have to be made in the DI first?

 

Olivier

Olivier, it would be best to have the DI company down-rez your 4k files to 2k and then send them to the arrilaser, simply because it would be easier to manage (because of the smaller file size).

Hello all. is it possible to to da 2K-masterneg (arrilaser) out of a 4K-DI? Thanks for some response.

Olivier

Oliver - do you mean getting a film print out of a 4k DI? I'm not sure what you mean by master-neg, because wouldn't your OCN be that? Doing a 4k DI to print with no downconversion can be very expensive compared to downrezzing your 4k footage to 2k and then going to release print, which would be much more practical.

Maybe it's the scanner-operator, but to me the scanner (quick&dirty 2k telecine?) is crap and should only be used for dailies, not BR-transfers/DIs...

I couldn't agree more. 2k telecine is no match against a 2k scan from a dedicated film scanner. This is highly evident in wider shots, where more noise is apparent in clean, blue skies and edges are often oversharpened. Scans from the Spirit 2k seem to fall victim to this.

Absolutely Phil, I do believe that 2k can sometimes be overkill for the higher speed 35mm stocks, but the lower grained ones like 5212 and 5201 I feel deserve it (especially if exposed well and shot with sharp lenses). I do feel that 2k scans (even from 500 ISO stock) from our arriscanner hold its own against HD video and especially 2k RED material, which I find a bit too compressed for up close viewing, even on our 2k projector. We recently scanned in a commercial shot on 5212 with master primes and, when projected (from our digital projector) I was quite amazed, although this project won't get a film release so I can't say for certain it would look better than an HD video digitally projected. But like you said, it's the actual material that is filmed (or recorded) that makes the ultimate difference in how much can be truly resolved.

Hey Joe ?

Good question, relatively complicated answer? skip to the last two paragraphs if you don?t want to be really confused J

Before choosing between whether to shoot anamorphic/super 35/flat (1.85), you should ask yourself what your final output is going to be? Will you be printing back to film? Or will you end up needing an HD-master for television and/or DVD release? Or all three?

It?s very rare for us to receive films that were shot with anamorphic lenses go through the DI process and end up going back to a 2.35 film out. Shooting with 3-perf super 35 gives you virtually the same image quality when going through the DI process to a 2.35 finish and potentially saves thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollars in budget (anamorphic lenses cost considerably more to rent than spherical ones for S35, plus savings from shooting 25% less film stock with 3 perf). Basically, it?s rare to see someone shoot a project anamorphically with the intention of doing a DI finish.

Many old school DPs love the look of an optically printed/contact printed anamorphic print, and while I?ve never seen a comparison between a 2.35 film print made from a DI anamorphic print and an optical anamorphic print, my personal opinion is that the optical print would look better. A 2k scan just wouldn?t do it justice.

Nevertheless, if you were doing a DI to film-print for an anamorphic project, we would scan the entire frame, (2048x1556- stretched/unsqueezed), then color grade it in the proper squeezed format (2048x8xx), and print back to film with the unsqueezed frame, so that the projectionist would de-squeeze it with the proper lens, haha ? don?t think I?ve ever used ?squeezed? so many times in one sentence.

So if you?re doing a film-out from a DI anamorphic project (intended for 2.35 projection), it will look better than a 1.85 DI finish on film because there is simply more image space on the anamorphic negative. Anamorphic cinematography uses the full frame of the 35mm image, Super 35 and Super 1.85 do not. So you will get more resolution out of a scan from a negative shot anamorphically, but even then, a 2k scan of it will barely edge out the 2k scan of a Super 35 negative; that being the case, why even shoot anamorphic? Think of it this way; 2.39 anamorphic more of a *look* whereas Super 35 is simply an aspect ratio.

If all you?re going to do is end up with an HD master after the DI, then the difference in image quality between shooting anamorphic/Super 35/Super 1.85/ even academy 1.85 will be virtually indistinguishable. If you?re going to a release print, you need to figure out how you want it projected; 1.85 or 2.35? If 2.35, an anamorphic 2k DI will look all right (not as great as a contact print or optical finish), and a Super 1.85 2k DI will look better in 1.85 projection and 2.35 projection than an academy 1.85 negative would (more negative is used in Sup1.85). And a 3 perf Super 35 2k DI will look virtually the same as a 2k anamorphic DI in a 2.35 film projection with maybe a very slight decrease in image quality because S35 doesn?t use the whole frame. See this website for info on different aspect ratios: http://www.efilm.com/aspect_ratio.php

Assuming that you lit and exposed your film well, I believe that image quality in the DI process is determined more by the scanner/telecine machine and the colorist than the aspect ratio in which you shoot. I feel that 3 perf Super 35 format is the most practical way to go through a DI if you want a film release print projected at 1.85 or 2.35 because most 35mm projection formats (virtually everything but anamorphic) don?t even use the 4 perforation height of the 35mm frame. To echo what David Mullen says: It?s a matter of look. Check out what he says here: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=10982

Oh yes.

Hey Alex - first off congratulations. I was in your exact situation this time last year. I had just graduated with a degree in Cinematography and photography, and looking for work in post production, with my ultimate long term goal as becoming a colorist. However, I was looking in Chicago instead of LA, so the odds were quite against me (Chicago has maybe 10 colorists total, LA has at least two hundred). Like you I sent out a lot of resumes and more importantly, hand delivered them to the actual places of interest. I was shooting for any type of assistant position, and even some payed internships. I was even lucky enough to sit down with a few of the managers, (who probably got tired of me stopping by so much) who were kind enough to give me a scoop of harsh reality, that no positions were available, but that they would consider me for an (unpayed) internship sometime in the future. One place that I kept consistently soliciting for work was a small DI house that had just opened on the west side of Chicago. Eventually they were nice enough to let me help out with some small things, although for no pay. Meanwhile, I was lucky enough to get some low paying gigs as a Camera PA on some Chicago shows (ER, and Nothing Like the Holidays) because I was good friends with the 1st A.C. I kept going back to this DI house and in July, they started hiring me for some part time (paying) work, like digital clean-up (dust busting), and assisting in film scanning. The colorist was nice enough to teach me the basic controls of their Baselight color correction system, and after hours, I even got to color correct a music video gig I had shot. Meanwhile, to pay the bills, I was balancing this with some other part time work I had at a camera rental house. Well, to wrap this up, starting Monday, I begin working full time at this DI house as a "Digital Intermediate Assistant".

I consider myself very lucky, especially for someone looking for post production work in Chicago. Nevertheless, I think you're very smart to shoot for entry level, vault positions in the post houses out in LA. Because even getting those positions can be very challenging. The key is to familiarize yourself with the people in these companies in which you are interested. Don't take 'no' for an answer, but at the same time, be realistic. There is a lot of competition for these jobs in LA. Don't be stubborn enough not to get a small part time job on the side just to support yourself (even if it isn't in your ideal line of work). Be persistent and understanding when handing out your resumes. Look for internships, and don't be too afraid of working a little bit for free. Because if it's for a company you really want to work for, then it demonstrates your dedication and integrity. Making the people comfortable and familiar with you can take some time, but it's the most important step in giving them enough confidence to hire you. Good luck!