2 perf 35mm process and telecine

Erik Turestedt · March 23, 2009

Hi guys,

First of, I logically assume that 35mm 2perf is developed the same way like all other 35 perfs?

My workflow would be to telecine to hd-preferably prores 422 on disk.

Anyone know good labs that handle 2 perf telecine (europe or us)?

I mailed Bonolabs, still waiting for reply... But it would be nice to hear if someone did 2 perf there..

Regards,

Erik

James Compton · March 23, 2009

http://www.cinelicious.tv/ - BUDGET 2K Transfers - PRORES 4:2:2

http://www.posthouse.com/ - RANK TURBO - PRORES 4:2:2

http://www.cinefilmlab.com/ - SPIRIT HD - PRORES 4:2:2

http://www.vta.com/contact_us.htm#top - ITK MILLENIUM - PRORES 4:2:2

John Sprung · March 23, 2009

First of, I logically assume that 35mm 2perf is developed the same way like all other 35 perfs?
Anyone know good labs that handle 2 perf telecine (europe or us)?

Yes, 2. 3. 4. 8, or 12 perf, it's all the same to the developing machines. It's all the same raw stock.

Most any facility that has a Spirit should be able to figure out how to do 2-perf. One of their engineers will likely have to look it up in a manual, so ask your local video service vendors if they want a 2-perf job.

-- J.S.

Robert Houllahan · March 24, 2009

Yes, 2. 3. 4. 8, or 12 perf, it's all the same to the developing machines. It's all the same raw stock.

Any modern telecine can do 2-perf with a adjustment to the servo. We are able to provide 2-perf dailies to 1080 pro-res hq now as well..

-Rob-

Srinivas Mamidi · March 24, 2009

Hi guys,

First of, I logically assume that 35mm 2perf is developed the same way like all other 35 perfs?

My workflow would be to telecine to hd-preferably prores 422 on disk.

Anyone know good labs that handle 2 perf telecine (europe or us)?

I mailed Bonolabs, still waiting for reply... But it would be nice to hear if someone did 2 perf there..

Regards,

Erik

We did one digital intermediate for one norway film "Den Siste revejakta" which they shot in 2perf.If you want only HD transfer you can do telecine in any spirit datacine.If you want any information please check with our post house.

http://www.pixion.tv/ and http://www.molinare.co.uk/#4

Srinivas Mamidi

Paul Bruening · March 24, 2009

Hey Erik,

Your email in-box popped up as full. So, I copy and pasted my answer to your PM into this thread. Hope it's useful.

Thanks a lot Paul,

And isn't there any problems to mount an nikon f mount lens on an arri 2c or other filmcamera?

Since the nikon is intended for SLR...

But of course still lenses cover more area than motionpicture lenses, or at least so I've heard.

Aren't there any focusing problems?

And did you figure out a good follow focus for it?

Regards,

Erik

Sure. There are quirks to using Nikons. But, they aren't insurmountable. The main issue with members here is the short throw on the focus ring. Cine lenses have more rotation travel per measure of distance than SLR lenses. Therefore, the Nikons are harder to pull focus on than a cine lens. A little turn on the focusing knob pulls focus faster and farther. Some, here, say it is too difficult to hit marks accurately. A little of that issue has to do with the gear ratio of the focusing unit. I use an old Mitchell unit that does fine. Some units don't work as well, though.

As far as the mods needed to use a focus pulling mechanism: You have to have gear rings installed on the lenses. I had Matt Duclos do mine. Then you have to have a focusing device that will accommodate all of the differing lens ring diameters. My Mitchell already adjusted to barrel width variations.

The last focus issue is direction. Nikons go opposite turn direction from cine lenses. This is only a problem if your focus guy chooses to make it one.

Each camera has its issues with cross mounting Nikons to them. You'll have to work that out with your modification tech. I know people have had good results with Eyemos, Konvas 1Ms and 2Ms, Arri IIs and IIIs and older cams like my Frankenmitchell. Generally, Nikons have a larger distance of FFD (flange focal distance: the distance between film plane and lens mount seat). So, they clear just fine on most cine cameras. Your tech guy should know if it will be a problem on whatever camera you choose.

I have heard gripes from the occasional member here that Nikons have inconsistent minimum apertures between sizes. That's true. Some are faster and some are slower. The ones you'll use the most tend to be the faster ones. Some say fast is a deception since all lenses perform best somewhere in the middle aperture setting. That's true too. But when you're shooting at night and you can't afford to drag in a bunch of lights and you need the shot and you can live with a slightly softish image, then, that f1.2 50mm Nikon starts looking really good.

As far as the image area, the Nikons are made to cover an SLR's full frame. A cine frame is half that. A 2-perf frame is about half of the cine frame. Some here will say that you are using only 1/4 or so of the Nikon's true resolving power since you are using an area smaller than the designer's intent. That's true. But the glass in them is good enough (True Nikons with recent manufacture, not the latest Cosina knock-offs) that they still resolve very well. One of the benefits of using only the middle of the lenses glass is that you won't encounter any of the aberrations that automatically come near the edge of any lens. You'll be using only the "sweat spot". That's both true and untrue. Really good cine lenses don't exhibit a lot of edge aberration anyway. That's part of why they are so unbelievably expensive. It's just an inherent benefit to using SLR lenses that you avoid edge aberrations.

Just at hand I can't think of any other quirks. Some more may occur to me later. Ask the group and see what they think. You'll get a couple, "Do a search," answers. But you really ought to get more opinions than just mine. Generally speaking, the guys that are used to using the realy good cine lenses won't like the Nikons. Guys like me who are usually broke and grateful for any break, love them.