Search the Community

Hi all, I've recently finished shooting a music video on 4-perf 35mm, 5219. I'm about to send the film off for processing/transfer and I'm sort of stuck as to whether I should get an HD telecine or a 2k scan. The price difference given the amount of film I'm working with is not that large of a concern. My lab of choice (the wonderful Video and Film Solutions in Maryland) uses a Spirit for both. Now obviously, as it's a music video, it'll only ever be viewed on computer screens, so I'm sure the difference won't be too drastic between the two, but there are still some factors to consider. First off, a solid amount of the video is shot in a city (Richmond, VA) at night, with only available light, meaning I was basically consistently rating the film at around 2000 ASA, sometimes higher. So grain will definitely be an issue, and on top of that, I plan on pushing a few of the rolls 1 stop. From my previous experience with 2k scans, it seems as if the higher resolution relative to HD makes grain seem even more apparent in scans than it does in telecine, so would the combination of the thin negative, the push, and the 2k scan make the grain way too intense? I understand that "way too intense" is a vague quantifier, so I guess to put it a bit better, would I be better off in terms of keeping the grain at a manageable level (given the negative that I'll be working with) with an HD telecine or a 2k scan? And I guess in a more general sense, what would be the advantages (or disadvantages) of going with 2k in this situation? Also, this may be a stupid question, but just to clarify my understanding, it's definitely possible to maintain the 1:33 aspect ratio with an HD telecine, right? Any time I've previously had HD telecine of 35mm it's been automatically cropped by the lab to conform to a 1920x1080 frame. But theoretically wouldn't it be possible to maintain the full 4-perf frame with no cropping if I specifically instructed the lab and just have bars on the left and right of the frame? The film was framed for and always intended to be presented in that format. Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks, Dylan

Anyone can look into their film scanner and tell me what light source they are using? Seems like the Spirit Datacines and the Kinettas use either a short-ark Xenon lamp or an RGB tri-LED. But who manufactures these lamps? What are their models? Please help!

Hey guys, Apologies if it's been covered already. I'm in talks with a post house here in Melbourne, Australia to get some 16mm film scanned to a 2K ProRes file so I can edit it. She is telling me that the telecine process is $450/hour then the 'digitisation' is an additional $250/hour. I was under the impression that telecine IS the digitisation of film? Am I wrong on this one? Is it a two stage process? If it is then what would be the point of doing a telecine without the aforementioned 'digitisation'? Thanks again!

if there is a more appropriate forum or sub-forum for this question, please let me know. i have some documenation footage of a live performance which includes super 8 film projections (18fps) on a screen in the background. the footage was shot with a GH2 at 1080i (60i). i ingested the footage into FCP using the compressor setting for "Pro Res 422 for interlaced material". the footage looks pretty good in the timeline but there is definitely a film flicker which i'm assuming is due to the inconsistency of frame rates between the super8 projection and the frame rate of the GH2 which was capturing the performance. my question is, what can I do at this point, if anything, to correct or reduce the flicker, and what would be the best way to shoot something similar (scene that includes 18fps film projection) in the future using a GH2? thanks in advance, _jc