Jump to content
Jeremy Rumas

S16 to 35 blowup options

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I am considering shooting S16 negative film for a surfing documentary I am working on. I am trying to get a clear idea of the workflow that lies ahead. My final goal is to have this film on 35mm at a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

 

I am wondering whether to get my footage professionally scanned and then edit digitally, and then print back to 35mm. Or to get a workprint made, edit the traditional way, and then optically print to 35mm from my S16 negative.

 

All titles and credits will be created on paper and shot on S16. There will be no special effects. The only effects of any kind will be dissolves and fades.

 

So my questions, comparing optical blowup to DI:

 

1. Which option gives the truest reproduction of the original S16 film?

 

2. Which one costs more?

 

thanks,

 

Jeremy Rumas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

 

I am considering shooting S16 negative film for a surfing documentary I am working on. I am trying to get a clear idea of the workflow that lies ahead. My final goal is to have this film on 35mm at a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

 

I am wondering whether to get my footage professionally scanned and then edit digitally, and then print back to 35mm. Or to get a workprint made, edit the traditional way, and then optically print to 35mm from my S16 negative.

 

All titles and credits will be created on paper and shot on S16. There will be no special effects. The only effects of any kind will be dissolves and fades.

 

So my questions, comparing optical blowup to DI:

 

1. Which option gives the truest reproduction of the original S16 film?

 

2. Which one costs more?

 

thanks,

 

Jeremy Rumas

 

Best to work with your lab and transfer house, who can tell you what workflows they can offer, and at what cost.

 

Kodak Laser Pacific has some on-line information about workflow:

 

http://www.laserpacific.com/what_we_do.html

 

http://www.laserpacific.com/pdf/LaserPacific_inDI_v2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look in the archives. I've described the steps in great detail in the past.

 

With what you describe, certainly an optical blowup will be dramatically less expensive and the results will be excellent. A DI will be very nice indeed but could cost as much as three times more to get to the 35mm prints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John and Mitch,

 

Thanks for the info. I'm glad to know optical blowup could be a good option, plus save me some money. I've been dealing with pixels shooting mini dv this past year, and like the idea of putting my hands on film again and doing things the manual way. I also like the idea of not converting the images to pixels along the way. I will look into the archives.

 

On a similar note, is there anyone else out there who can see the pixels in 35mm projections of films that utilized DI? When I sit up close at theaters it seems like I can see the pixels. I'm not refering to the film grain, I'm talking about actual pixels, locked into position on screen. I notice it in bright areas of the projection. I saw Narnia a few weeks back and sat up close, 5th row. In the scenes where white snow took up the whole screen, I swear it looked like viewing a giant LCD monitor set to white. I see it in digitally created logos/titles as well if they are light in value.

 

-Jeremy

Edited by Jeremy Rumas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a similar note, is there anyone else out there who can see the pixels in 35mm projections of films that utilized DI? When I sit up close at theaters it seems like I can see the pixels. I'm not refering to the film grain, I'm talking about actual pixels, locked into position on screen. I notice it in bright areas of the projection.

 

-Jeremy

 

Your eyes are not deceiving you, although some D.I. post facilities will try to convince you otherwise. The brightest areas are the most taxing to reproduce, resolution wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a similar note, is there anyone else out there who can see the pixels in 35mm projections of films that utilized DI?
If the Di was at 2K (most of them are) and it's a good quality release print, then sure you can see the pixels. They are certainly larger than the average grain of the negative stock: so if you could see grain on a print of a photochemical dupe, you will see pixels on a 2K dupe.

 

A 4K scan will get closer to capturing the grain structure of the image, and even a good print will have trouble matching the 4K resolution, so you are ore likely to see the grain.

 

For the purposes of watching the movie, you are probably sitting too close ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seen Narnia (sitting in the middle row of a 295 seat cinema) and it looked OK to me. No Pixels that I could see, but of course I was not looking for pixels, I was watching the movie.

 

The thing that erks me if people that go to movie just to talk about the pixels, film grains, blowouts, color problems, ect.. makes me think there going to the movies for the wrong reason... Anyone else agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Trevor Swaim
I seen Narnia (sitting in the middle row of a 295 seat cinema) and it looked OK to me. No Pixels that I could see, but of course I was not looking for pixels, I was watching the movie.

 

The thing that erks me if people that go to movie just to talk about the pixels, film grains, blowouts, color problems, ect.. makes me think there going to the movies for the wrong reason... Anyone else agree?

 

i see where you are coming from landon but you need to remember that you are on a filmmakers fourm not a film watchers fourm. it is the job of many of the people on here to actually notice pixels, film grain, blowout, color problems etc. when you spend most of your day watching for this stuff you get tuned to it and can't help it, it jumps out at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm glad I have not been imagining this. The 2k/4k reasoning makes sense to me. And yeah, 5th row is too close for my taste, but the theater was pretty much full when we got there.

 

Landon, I watch movies to first of all enjoy them. But I also watch movies with a very discerning eye for detail. I'm interested in learning as much about the craft as I can each time I view a film. I brought this up because I'm curious about the DI process. And myself, if I am spending thousands of dollars of my own money and a few years worth of my time, I really want to understand how I can best get my vision up on screen. And my vision for this particular project does not include a grid of pixels. That's why I want to put my digital camera to the side for now.

 

I didn't go into Narnia looking for pixels. I went to have an enjoyable time with my girlfriend. I just happened to notice pixels and was surprised. I know that if I am going to go through all the work of shooting on film, and then blowing up to 35mm, I want to do what it takes to get the imagery I want.

 

peace

 

Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    FJS International



    Wooden Camera



    G-Force Grips



    Rig Wheels Passport



    CineLab



    Visual Products



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Glidecam



    Tai Audio



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Metropolis Post



    Just Cinema Gear



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Ritter Battery



    Serious Gear



    Abel Cine


×
×
  • Create New...