Lisala Dolo Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I just wanted to post this link http://www.vimeo.com/1644000 and ask why many of the DIY super 8 telecine systems seem to produce results far superior to many of the commercial transfers I have seen. I realize this is K40 and it shows far less grain than many of the newer stocks but I still think the difference is so great that its worth commenting on. The example i posted also gives much more credibility to using super 8 instead of 16mm for low budget shorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted November 23, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted November 23, 2008 I just wanted to post this link http://www.vimeo.com/1644000 and ask why many of the DIY super 8 telecine systems seem to produce results far superior to many of the commercial transfers I have seen. I realize this is K40 and it shows far less grain than many of the newer stocks but I still think the difference is so great that its worth commenting on. The example i posted also gives much more credibility to using super 8 instead of 16mm for low budget shorts. I consider most of your shots close-ups, and yes, they look terrific. You also incorporate blue skys in at least one of the shots, which is another technique I recommend on my super-8 websites. But, if you ever go to wider shots, the contrast that is acceptable in the close up shots will be harder to deal with. Suddenly, you have more contrast nodes within the same shot, and less resolution to represent each of the contrast nodes. But that is actually still more of a limitation of the video format for not being able to capture the contrast in as pleasing a way as when kodachrome 40 is projected with a nice bright bulb. I wonder if Kodachrome 40 somehow dropped off in quality in the early 90's and was never quite what it used to be. Part of that might have to do with the processing. Once Kodak sold off the processing part of the business in the United States, the processing was ok, but not necessarily as good as it used to be when Kodak actually did it in Hollywood with their own kodachrome processor. I presume the European processing was good however, even till the end. I also wonder if Kodachrome 40 film retained the same level of silver in it, or if formulation changes might have occurred to cut costs. I say that only because after the early 90's, I believe it was harder to get the kind of results you are showing us, not impossible, just harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Guerriero Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Don't forget that this guy "Video Fred" is a bit of a technical expert in video. He made his own transfer system that is of very high resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Wallace Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Don't forget that this guy "Video Fred" is a bit of a technical expert in video. He made his own transfer system that is of very high resolution. Agreed. Fred is no amateur. He posts at filmshooting.com regularly, and I would consider him a subject matter expert. regards, (teadub) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted November 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted November 24, 2008 I don't understand what the last two posts are contributing to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Leal Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 I've read that Freddy uses a TIS (The Imaging Source) DFK31F03 ccd unit with a 45mm Sony macro lens focused on the projector gate. Along with that he has a wet method to minimize scratches and several AVISynth scripts. He also does degraining. Apart from the cost and time of setting up this type of sytem, I imagine that having this setup it might be more viable economically to go with Super 8 vs 16mm, especially with the savings on telecine and transfers and such. Also, owning and using such a device would give one more control over how your transfer looks and would allow further manipulation to your liking. Tough question to answer... many variables to consider. If all things were equal, meaning I found a transfer house that did Super 8 and 16mm transfers both to my liking, and did them consistently, then for me it would be easier to consider the cost of S8 vs 16mm. I'd also consider which "look" I would want more for a given project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted November 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted November 24, 2008 It is a very fine transfer. I would like to see how it handles wider shots with people, backlight group shots with visible backgrounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Guerriero Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I don't understand what the last two posts are contributing to the discussion. Well, let's take a look at Lisala's post again: I just wanted to post this link http://www.vimeo.com/1644000 and ask why many of the DIY super 8 telecine systems seem to produce results far superior to many of the commercial transfers I have seen. I realize this is K40 and it shows far less grain than many of the newer stocks but I still think the difference is so great that its worth commenting on. The example i posted also gives much more credibility to using super 8 instead of 16mm for low budget shorts. Seems pretty obvious to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Guerriero Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 (edited) Don't forget that this guy "Video Fred" is a bit of a technical expert in video. He made his own transfer system that is of very high resolution. Agreed. Fred is no amateur. He posts at filmshooting.com regularly, and I would consider him a subject matter expert. regards, (teadub) I don't understand what the last two posts are contributing to the discussion. Well, let's take a look at Lisala's post again: I just wanted to post this link http://www.vimeo.com/1644000 and ask why many of the DIY super 8 telecine systems seem to produce results far superior to many of the commercial transfers I have seen. I realize this is K40 and it shows far less grain than many of the newer stocks but I still think the difference is so great that its worth commenting on. The example i posted also gives much more credibility to using super 8 instead of 16mm for low budget shorts. Seems pretty obvious to me! Could it be that there are many DIY experts out there that have more time to indulge their time in making their own footage the best that it can be? Edited November 25, 2008 by Marc Guerriero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisala Dolo Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Yes Marc your right hobbyist/perfectionist's - Fred - seem to be able to take super 8 to the next level - better than most commercial transfers I have seen and received. I was just amazed at the clarity and sharpness of the footage and also the lack of grain. Thanks for all of the input, it all seems relevant and constructive. Im just gonna have to work alot harder on my own stuff . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 As far as retaining the specific 'personality' of Kodachrome's colors and tonal scale, it's better than _any_ commercial transfer I've seen, even from 16mm on Spirits etc. Very interesting. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Grahame Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I just wanted to ask why many of the DIY super 8 telecine systems seem to produce results far superior to many of the commercial transfers I have seen. Fred's latest transfers have been absolutely stunning. Part of the answer is that technology has advanced to the point where it is feasible to produce excellent images with machine vision cameras. However, Fred also takes the time to apply plug-ins during post production to improve the quality of his footage. That work can easily take hours or days of computing time and is simply not feasible in a professional environment where work is billed by the hour, especially if multiple tries are required to get it right. Another part of the equation is that amateurs are really dedicated to getting the best quality they can out of their footage. They're not afraid to retransfer things several times to get things just right. That said, it's more or less impossible for a DIY system to outdo a high-end commercial transfer performed by someone skilled. James Grahame (reflex) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 That said, it's more or less impossible for a DIY system to outdo a high-end commercial transfer performed by someone skilled. James Grahame (reflex) I would say this guy is skilled ! As to high end, I don't know: maybe if we saw Arriscanners doing 8/S8 transfers.... but again this would seem to beat a Spirit (a Spirit"1" in any case). Break it down, a Spirit IS a transport and a video camera, no matter what anyone says. I wonder who will be the first to build a DIY rig with RED Scarlet :D -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Boldt Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I must have seen about 300 transfers in the last week and this is tops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted February 15, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2009 Well, let's take a look at Lisala's post again: Seems pretty obvious to me! Could it be that there are many DIY experts out there that have more time to indulge their time in making their own footage the best that it can be? Well, Marc, maybe if you read the very first sentence again, you'll understand my confusion. I just wanted to post this link http://www.vimeo.com/1644000 and ask why many of the DIY super 8 telecine systems seem to produce results far superior to many several commercial transfers I have seen. The above sentence is referring to MORE than one person place or thing, the sentence is actually referring to SEVERAL DIFFERENT DIY telecine systems, and implying that SEVERAL DIFFERENT DIY systems are better than commercial transfers. -------------------------------------------------- An example of wider shots is never provided, nor wider shots with additional contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Boldt Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) It's interesting that he added some digital grain to neutralize the film grain. Maybe it's the same principal as adding reverb to a big hall with bad acoustics. Edited February 15, 2009 by Steven Boldt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Guerriero Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Well, Marc, maybe if you read the very first sentence again, you'll understand my confusion. The above sentence is referring to MORE than one person place or thing, the sentence is actually referring to SEVERAL DIFFERENT DIY telecine systems, and implying that SEVERAL DIFFERENT DIY systems are better than commercial transfers. -------------------------------------------------- An example of wider shots is never provided, nor wider shots with additional contrast. But Video fred is not the run of the mill video guy among the "collective pool" of DIY video guys. And as far as I am concerned, the majority of DIY video guys don't come close to the quality that Fred Achieves. In fact, most of the DIY transfers look no better than film held up to a magnifying glass with a cigarette lighter on the other side for illumination! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I consider most of your shots close-ups, and yes, they look terrific. You also incorporate blue skys in at least one of the shots . . . But, if you ever go to wider shots, the contrast that is acceptable in the close up shots will be harder to deal with. Indeed, the smaller film formats tend to look the best on close up, well lit subject matter. Filming anything on small format that is (creatively) underexposed, with too much contrast or too much detail -and on reversal stock, to boot- and the resulting image starts to degrade _particularly when transferred to SD video, which can't handle either very well . . . Which is not intended to lessen the skill of the person(s) who originally shot and who transferred the footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Van de Putte Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) Indeed, the smaller film formats tend to look the best on close up, Yes, it is the format itself.... An 8mm film frame is very very tiny. 8mm grain is often to large for my taste. That's why I am experimenting with digital removing of all grain. (Avisynth) Fred. Edited February 16, 2009 by Freddy Van de Putte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Yes, it is the format itself.... An 8mm film frame is very very tiny. 8mm grain is often to large for my taste. That's why I am experimenting with digital removing of all grain. (Avisynth) Fred. You are doing a very good job. Do you have examples of footage that is not so close up, wider angle with more contrast? Would love to see that. Can you handle 16 mm footage? What about negative footage? Best, S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Guerriero Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Yes, it is the format itself.... An 8mm film frame is very very tiny. 8mm grain is often to large for my taste. That's why I am experimenting with digital removing of all grain. (Avisynth) Fred. Fred, I tried to send you a private message but your in box is full. I wanted to ask you something about your transfers but I don't want to talk about it in front of other forum members. So, if you Get a chance, send me a private message and let me know where I can contact you. Thanks! Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Van de Putte Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 You are doing a very good job. Thank you Saul :P Do you have examples of footage that is not so close up, wider angle with more contrast? Have you seen my other clips on Vimeo? There are some wide angle scenes there. Can you handle 16 mm footage? Not yet... I need to modify a projector for this. What about negative footage? Brrrrrrrrr.. :( I have done a few promising tests, but I need to learn it. Fred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Guerriero Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Thanks Fred, I sent the message! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan doyle Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) i have seen a bit of freds work and it is amazing.. the best kodachrome transfer i have seen. remember that the cameramen on freds clips are fantastic really talented amateurs,who shoot better 8mm than a lot of pros. so you have 3 things going on the beauty of kodachrome,talented camera guys and fred the transfer king. Edited February 27, 2009 by alan doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now