Pictures of a 10 bit Super 8 transfer

[Guest santo]

Here's some pictures from a transfer I just got back. It's a direct to harddrive 10 bit 4:2:2 transfer of Plus-X footage from Debenham who just began offering this service. No I don't work for them or anything, just thought some people might be interested to see what this kind of thing looks like if they're used to crappy miniDV transfer quality of their super 8 footage. It really only costs a hundred or two more to get footage transfered this way than to miniDV, and it looks way better. I'm going for a dreamy/nightmare quality with this project, tentatively titled POE LOST POE, and used a lot of shadows, hard light, and soft-focus techniques, and wanted to make sure the transfer captured what I had on film. These are unretouched except for the text box. If I can figure out how to put up an MPEG2 clip of a few shots in motion somewhere and link it here, I'll do that later. These are big bitmaps, but only 4 of them to give a proper impression of what it looks like instead of jpegs which are okay, but not quite the same.

 

Probably a good idea to right click and save them to your computer rather than open to save a little bandwidth for the site, and as reference material you can look at, but that's up to you.

[Grainy]

hey Santo, those look gorgeous, esp. the first two daylight shots.

great work!

regards

G

[timHealy]

I'm curious about your workflow and forgive me if this is a basic question. How are you doing your post?

Can these files be imported easily into Final Cut or Premiere for editing?

 

I'm interested in doing this with some super 8 footage. With my 16mm stuff I do for myself I usually transfer to digibeta and work with a mini dv or DV cam dub.

 

Thanks

 

Tim

[Guest santo]

Thanks, Grainy!

 

heel_e, these are just mov files which can be used in Final Cut, Premiere, and Sony Vegas as long as you've downloaded the Blackmagic universal codec which is free on Blackmagic's website.

 

I worked out the least expensive way to get to a digibeta master and am going to be able to deliver a completely edited short on harddrive for a run through to digibeta when, hopefully, I get to put the film into some festivals. It should save me a lot of money. Just sent in my film and had it transfered direct to hard drive, came on a nice Fantom Drive pretty much at cost, about 130 or 140 gigs for 75 minutes of raw footage. My work flow completely bypasses DV compression and firewire for what is only a 100 dollar premium (plus harddrive cost), and the final output is an uncompressed file. I'm not 100% sure if it's going to be 8 bit or 10 bit yet, to be honest, but getting it in 10 bit costs no more at the transfer stage. I know most NLE systems output to digibeta in 8 bit, though it is really a 10 bit standard. At any rate, even at 8 bit, I'm still miles ahead over DV.

 

So far I have no problem using even Sony Vegas with a pretty modest set up AMD 64 x2 3800+, GeForce 6200 and a gig of ram. Of course I'll no doubt make up some proxy dv files for editing just to take it easy on that computer if I decide to edit with it, but it's a good idea with probably any system.

[Chris Fernando]

Santo,

Nice stuff. Love the texture and grain on the last one and the first two are nice too. How does the 10 bit stuff compare to the projected footage?

[Anthony Schilling]

Never heard of this Debenham... have a link? I've been looking for ways to go straight to hard drive. getting a digibeta deck has always been out of the question.

[Robert Hughes]

Santo, I downloaded stills #1 and 2 into my Windoze box, but when I tried to open either as a bitmap in Paint it came back, "not a valid bitmap file". Another program, Imaging Preview opened it but said it was in TIFF format.

 

The focus seems to change in different parts of the image. Did you use a wide angle lens, or a diffusion filter? Nice to see some of your work.

Edited November 12, 2005 by Robert Hughes

[Alessandro Machi]

I don't know if this comment should go into a new topic thread but isn't it true that black and white film transferred to video automatically gives 50 additional lines of resolution above and beyond what color video can reproduce because of the absence of the chroma signal?

 

I think it is true because I read it out of a SMPTE magazine years ago. So, does that mean that black and white film should be transferred in the same exact manner as color, or can corners be cut because the transfer already is automatically going to be at a higher resolution?

[Taki Bibelas]

Direct to harddrive is something I've been thinking about for a while now. I spoke to a place in Switzerlad that can get my films just after development at the Kodak lab. They scan to Hard drive at a resolution of 800X600 using the codec Huffyuv (not great if you are on a Mac). They are called www.cinetis.ch (or Bolex Digital). The other option I was thinking about was doing the transfer on a Flashscan machine to a DigiBeta with a mini DV copy, edit from the mini DV and then get someone to comform the Digibet at a later stage when it comes time to release the film. Any thoughts on this workflow ?

[Guest santo]

The other option I was thinking about was doing the transfer on a Flashscan machine to a DigiBeta with a mini DV copy, edit from the mini DV and then get someone to comform the Digibet at a later stage when it comes time to release the film. Any thoughts on this workflow ?

 

Should work pretty well if you did that. This guy with the super 8 film in Cannes did a similar workflow:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/s8mm/crowe.jhtml though it doesn't say it in the article I don't think. I'm pretty sure I heard that he first did a transfer to DV, edited, then sent out DVD for festival entry. Then when he was accepted transfered again to digibeta and completely re-edited to conform.

 

Obviously either his options were limited or he was learning the ropes. I notice he's using a Canon home movie camera, so I would guess he's a talented filmmaker still learning the ropes.

 

A more efficient way would be to do what you suggest, Taki, but to use what I believe is called an .aap file. So save your DV file to your computer and name it whatever you name it and edit away. Then save an .aap file -- I'm pretty sure that's what it's called, I'll have to check again -- which is an interchange file for any professional NLE editing program with all your edits on there. Then bring that and your digibeta tape in and any other files you used for sound and whatever and have them make a file on their computer from the digibeta tape and name it the same as what you named your DV file and then let the NLE assemble from there. No doubt some tweaking will be needed, but it will save lots of expensive time in a professional edit suite conforming the whole thing from scratch.

 

WARNING: I am not a post production expert by any means!

[Guest santo]

Santo, I downloaded stills #1 and 2 into my Windoze box, but when I tried to open either as a bitmap in Paint it came back, "not a valid bitmap file". Another program, Imaging Preview opened it but said it was in TIFF format.

 

The focus seems to change in different parts of the image. Did you use a wide angle lens, or a diffusion filter? Nice to see some of your work.

 

They are originally tif files, but I can't upload tif files to this site it seems, so I changed the extension to bmp.

Same file, just a different extension name. I'm sure people will be able to get them one way or another.

 

Yes, I used both a wide angle lens and diffusion filters -- but not conventional ones. For the wide angle shots -- pretty much all of these four I think -- I used a Leicina Special with the macro Cinegon 10mm prime with a Century Precision Optics .55x adapter mounted inside the lens hood of the Cinegon. for all except the drawer shot (I don't know why I put that up actually, I've got a lot better interiors...), I also put a clear filter on the wide angle adapter and used some Scotch tape in strategic areas as a selective diffusion filter.

 

I'm a big fan of Freddie Francis's work on DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE and love the way he employed the filters he used from, I believe, THE INNOCENTS, which were red and/or green striped with clear centres. He used them quite differently in THE INNOCENTS which is black and white and in GRAVE in that wonderful lurid Hammer Eastmancolor. The only time they don't work well is when he moves the camera and all of a sudden you become aware that there is something in front of the lens that this movie is being made with. Otherwise, it's a really cool technique for locked down shots adding a lot of "production value" without a whole lot of lighting time.

 

 

Never heard of this Debenham... have a link? I've been looking for ways to go straight to hard drive. getting a digibeta deck has always been out of the question.

 

http://3516.com/

 

Santo,

Nice stuff. Love the texture and grain on the last one and the first two are nice too. How does the 10 bit stuff compare to the projected footage?

 

I didn't project most of my footage because I immediately got nailed with a sprocket chewing projector when I tried to look at my first reels I had developed. So I only watched them on a viewer to make sure I had my shots and get an idea if I needed to reshoot anything. Looking at this footage I probably should reshoot a few things, but maybe I can do enough tweeking in post to get away without it. Specs on the lens in macro mode for example show up.

 

As far as I can tell, though, this standard def 10 bit pretty much captures it all. It's certainly up to the task of traditional super 8 reversal, in my opinion. DV certainly is not.

[Alessandro Machi]

Obviously either his options were limited or he was learning the ropes. I notice he's using a Canon home movie camera, so I would guess he's a talented filmmaker still learning the ropes.

 

Are you refering to his film camera or DV camera used in the inital transfer?

 

Or are you trying to stir it up by claiming the 814XLS is a home movie camera? The 814XLS is one of the best cameras ever made.

[Robert Hughes]

"I also put a clear filter on the wide angle adapter and used some Scotch tape in strategic areas as a selective diffusion filter."

 

That is a neat effect! Funny I've got some old Bausch & Lomb Baltar lenses that have that same effect on 35mm. But I can't make them stop doing it.

[Taki Bibelas]

Then when he was accepted transfered again to digibeta and completely re-edited to conform.

 

 

....but to use what I believe is called an .aap file. So save your DV file to your computer and name it whatever you name it and edit away. Then save an .aap file -- I'm pretty sure that's what it's called, I'll have to check again --

 

 

Thank you for that information, I wouldn't want to re transfer anything ever. The thing with suoer 8 is that as soon as it is out of the reel for the first time it picks up a lot of dust, real fast. The first scan needs to be the last, in fact I don't like to even look at the film before the transfer. That is why the first time will be to digibeta or prehaps to hard drive. (I will speak to Stuart Debenham later today about uncompressed 4:2:2 10 bit SDI 270Mb/s to Hard Disk). I will also look into the .aap file. The idea is to have the conforming done to something already scanned. Have you tried editing the 10 bit uncompressed files you got without making a DV version out of it?

[Guest santo]

Have you tried editing the 10 bit uncompressed files you got without making a DV version out of it?

 

Sure. Playing standard def 10 bit straight is no problem probably for any decent multi-media computer. Editing runs okay for a few cuts, but beyond that things get a little wobbily, images stutter if you're putting in any kind of effects.

 

It's just standard practise to make proxy DV copy files with big 2k or hd or uncompressed standard def like this and edit those. Then when it comes time to render and probably do some final picture tweaking, you just click and replace them with the big uncompressed standard def or high def files that take their place in the timeline and then let it chug away and render from those. Probably you know that, but I'm just writing this for future reference as this will become more common and there'll likely be people searching this out in the forum who are new to this stuff.

 

I'd avoid watching your super 8 film more than one quick viewing. With negative you really can't at all, of course. But for reversal it's worth one quick run through a viewer that's gentle on the film to see if you need to do a couple of quick reshoots before you send your film off for retransfer. I'm glad I did and reshot a few reels. Absolutely avoid a projector with its sprockets and hot light and long dust gathering path, though.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The problem with HuffYUV is that it's pretty unreliable, and as far as I can tell is no longer under development. I've had very bad luck using it in Premiere, especially in Pro 1.5, although it's usually possible to decompress it to an uncompressed stream and go from there.

 

The good news is that there's a replacement; Alparysoft (famed for their superb free denoiser for Virtualdub) have a codec (FourCC ASLC) that provides better lossless compression than HuffYUV, including very high lossless compression modes that aren't practical in realtime but which make a lot of sense for temporary disk storage in these sorts of applications.

 

Now, the not so good news is that there are known problems with this codec in Premiere as well, but I would suggest that any application currently using HFYU should probably transition to ASLC as it's no worse for compatibility, better for compression, and at least is under development with a stated interest in solving the compatibility issues. It's only free for personal use, so anyone using it for a commercially-oriented service would have to negotiate a fee with Alparysoft.

 

Alparysoft, a group of Russian mathematicians working in the field of motion imaging, are well worth checking out on the web, as they have a lot of very cheap or free software of a quality that usually costs a lot of money. They have a superb deinterlacer plugin for Premiere, but I haven't tried it myself.

 

Phil

[Will Montgomery]

Glad to hear they do good work, I've been considering sending footage to them for a while.

 

I've also done the Bonolabs 10-bit HD direct to disk and have been amazed at the resolution possible out of Super 8, especially the negative stocks.

[Taki Bibelas]

I've also done the Bonolabs 10-bit HD direct to disk and have been amazed at the resolution possible out of Super 8, especially the negative stocks.

 

Why do you think the resolution is better from the negative stock? I wold think K40 gives the least grain and sharpest image. You just need to be carful when exposing.

[Matt Sandstrom]

Why do you think the resolution is better from the negative stock? I wold think K40 gives the least grain and sharpest image.

not so. the negative stocks are much sharper than kodachrome, i've tested it both with charts and in real situations. in fact in my opinion the reason kodachrome is so low grain is because it's so soft you don't see it. this is not to say the negatives aren't grainy, because they are, but then again i like grain.

 

/matt

[andres victorero]

Hi santo the pics are impessive, great job. the movie looks "POEtic" very amazing look. I´d love to see some stuff of this project.

 

I love the B/W film and I´m thinking shoot the next project (short film) in plus-X S8. I´ll shoot some test with Plus X and some filters in the lens like yellow/red/green for improve the contrast more. Someone have shot Plux X with yellow-red filters? looks more contrastly?

Edited November 15, 2005 by andres victorero

[Guest santo]

thanks, andres!

 

I've only ever used two colour filters for my Plus-x stuff.

 

The green is excellent if you're shooting outdoors with plants and leafs. It really does bring out the detail more in a way which can't be done using any NLE environment or telecine. It also does interesting things with skin tones in daylit scenes.

 

The other filter I've used is the camera's internal orange filter, the 85. It's not overly strong, but just right for bringing out cloud detail. Again, this is something which simply can't be done using any video process. What information is there is there on the film and can't be enhanced if it doesn't exist.

 

I don't have a polarizing filter that fits at the moment, but I would like to try that some time with plus-x.

 

Beyond that, I haven't tried a red filter or others with this film stock. It would be terrific for day for night shots, making the sky nice and dark. A classic technique.

 

Honestly, you can probably get away without filters for general shooting.

 

The most important thing is to go out and shoot a few test reels with your equipment and film stocks you want to use. That is crucial. Sorry if I get on my soapbox here, andres, but this is an area which gets me worked up. :)

 

WARNING: SOAPBOX AHEAD

 

I don't know how many times I've read now on various filmmaking boards about new filmmakers who just got a camera they either bought or had serviced or whatever and they just start shooting some big project, not having any clue if it works properly or not! No idea about even details like if that lens hood is vignetting in wide angle. No idea about anything major, certainly, and yet they're spending all this money and getting all these people to help out, usually counting on their good will -- being cheated basically of their time to try and help the filmmaker. And on top of that, the new filmmaker hasn't often even shot just a couple of test reels with a film stock they wanted to use to see how it looks or acts in the situations required for their film! They just go out and shoot away! :blink: :blink: :blink: It's crazy to read about this again and again. Stop it! It's painful to watch! Test your equipment. Test the film you're using. Damn it!

 

SOAPBOX OVER

[andres victorero]

Hi santo, thanks for your answer and advice. I learn a lot :)

[Steve Wallace]

The other filter I've used is the camera's internal orange filter, the 85. It's not overly strong, but just right for bringing out cloud detail. Again, this is something which simply can't be done using any video process. What information is there is there on the film and can't be enhanced if it doesn't exist.

I love the way B/W stocks look with the 85 filter. A little more dramatic than a yellow, but yet not too strong.

[Guest santo]

Yes, it's great isn't it? Just right!

 

Just a note for people new to super 8. With a conventional consumer/amateur grade super 8 camera (all except Beaulieu 2008 to 9008 and Leicina Special) you have to cut out the filter section of the super 8 cart so that your camera will be able to engage the internal filter with black and white super 8 film. Take a look at a K40 or the new 64t cartridge and compare and you'll see that there is no lower notch in black and white film to prevent the filter from being used in amateur cameras.

[Alessandro Machi]

not so. the negative stocks are much sharper than kodachrome, i've tested it both with charts and in real situations. in fact in my opinion the reason kodachrome is so low grain is because it's so soft you don't see it. this is not to say the negatives aren't grainy, because they are, but then again i like grain.

 

/matt

 

I'm not sure the Kodachrome we get today is as good as the Kodachrome from the late 80's and early 90's. I think the older Kodachrome rocked.