The transition continues...

[Terry Mester]

It may have similar colorimetry, but it doesn't have the depth of field characteristics, sharpness, or grain characteristics of 35mm. 16mm also creates some problems when you need to do things like visual effects. There are also those that simply dislike the degree of visible grain on most S16 stocks shot under common conditions. With S16, there is also the additional cost - sometimes considerable - of performing dirt cleanup in post, ...

Did any of those TV shows (who went HD) shoot with 3-perforation Super35? 3-perf S35 would provide the 16:9 ratio of HDTV, and would use 25% less Film than Regular 35mm.

 

One insurmountable problem with shooting in HD is converting it to DTV or Analogue TV. HD looks crappy and out of proportion when altered to fit other picture ratios. It's much easier to convert a Film Frame to the different TV picture ratios.

 

Regarding Super16 graininess, are you thinking more of the 500 ISO stock? For an HDTV production shot in S16, I personally wouldn't recommend shooting higher than 200 ISO. The dirt and debris problem of course depends upon how well the Film is washed before drying.

[Terry Mester]

It may have similar colorimetry, but it doesn't have the depth of field characteristics, sharpness, or grain characteristics of 35mm. 16mm also creates some problems when you need to do things like visual effects. There are also those that simply dislike the degree of visible grain on most S16 stocks shot under common conditions. With S16, there is also the additional cost - sometimes considerable - of performing dirt cleanup in post, something that is unnecessary with electronic alternatives. ...

Another option for Super16 productions that need to shoot a low light scene with 500T Film is to shoot such scenes with 35mm. If there are only a few such scenes to be shot, the extra cost of using 35mm would be minimal. Super35 would save another 25% over Regular 35. I do think that the newer scanning process will prove notably less grainy than Telecine. Older S16 telecined productions should be redone with scanning to see if they're less grainy.

 

If there are any lab workers present, the best way to wash dirt and debris off of the Film is to use a nozzle and hose to spray it down immediately upon hanging it up to dry. This will ensure that the dirt washes away far better than in a container of water. This spray down needs to be done before the Film starts to dry because the drying process results in dirt sticking to the Film with a bond. In this situation it is necessary to re-wet the spot of the Film with stuck on dirt in order to safely wipe away the debris. I've had to do this on my Super8 Film. To keep dust from getting sucked onto the Film in the Projector, I covered over the open edge of the Film Gate with saran wrap. This prevents air (and dust) from pushing into the Projector through the Gate as a result of the cooling fan. You'd be surprised how much dust will get on the Film in the Gate due to the fan.

[K Borowski]

I can only assume Karl is this forward and opinionated in person.

 

Maybe being opinionated is a bad thing, but is being forward?

 

Being blunt, I find, saves SO MUCH time cutting through BS.

[Michael Most]

Did any of those TV shows (who went HD) shoot with 3-perforation Super35? 3-perf S35 would provide the 16:9 ratio of HDTV, and would use 25% less Film than Regular 35mm.

 

Virtually all television programs that are shot on 35mm have been shot on 3 perf format for a number of years now. 4 perf hasn't really been used for television series for at least 8 or 9 seasons (at least 15 on sitcoms), certainly since 16x9 HD deliveries became standard.

 

One insurmountable problem with shooting in HD is converting it to DTV or Analogue TV. HD looks crappy and out of proportion when altered to fit other picture ratios. It's much easier to convert a Film Frame to the different TV picture ratios.

 

The standard method of getting 4x3 from 16x9 is to do a center crop extraction. This is the method generally used regardless of origination. All aspect ratio changes have been done electronically from the HD master for a number of years, so there is no difference between material originated on HD video and film in that regard.

 

Regarding Super16 graininess, are you thinking more of the 500 ISO stock? For an HDTV production shot in S16, I personally wouldn't recommend shooting higher than 200 ISO. The dirt and debris problem of course depends upon how well the Film is washed before drying.

 

It is rather impractical in today's world to light for 200 ASA across the board on a television series. Possible, but not very practical - which is one of the reasons, quite frankly, why Red hasn't made a lot of inroads in network television. As for dirt, regardless of how well the film is handled, there will always be dirt issues, and they are magnified almost fivefold with 16mm due to the size of the physical frame. Any random dirt is much more noticeable because the same size dirt fleck is much larger in relation to the image size than it is on 35mm. Most 16mm shows (currently, Burn Notice, Monk, One Tree Hill, and Chuck are all shot on S16) will budget 6-8 hours of dirt cleanup per episode. That's a lot of hours and a decent sum of money to spend just to retain film colorimetry.

[John Sprung]

Virtually all television programs that are shot on 35mm have been shot on 3 perf format for a number of years now. 4 perf hasn't really been used for television series for at least 8 or 9 seasons (at least 15 on sitcoms), certainly since 16x9 HD deliveries became standard.

 

We've been using 3 perf for over 20 years. If an MOW also has a foreign theatrical release, it might go Academy 4 perf, but the last time we had one of those has to be a good ten years ago or more.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Most]

We've been using 3 perf for over 20 years. If an MOW also has a foreign theatrical release, it might go Academy 4 perf, but the last time we had one of those has to be a good ten years ago or more.

 

Ahh, but that's because you were with Viacom, one of 2 early enlightened companies (my own employer Lorimar being the other). And just to show how long both of us have been around, we (at Lorimar) started using 3 perf in 1986 (with Max Headroom, later with virtually all of our shows). I don't think Viacom adopted it until much, much later - in 1987 :rolleyes:

 

For the major studios, as I recall, 3 perf was adopted first for sitcoms around 1989 or 1990 or thereabouts - basically around the same time Panavision came out with 2000 ft. mags for the G2's. Using 3 perf allowed for almost 25 minutes of run time, allowing an audience sitcom to do only one or, at the most, 2 reloads. Single camera really didn't embrace 3 perf until the late 1990's, when 16x9 came into play, and it became the standard shortly after that when HD finishing came along.

 

Please feel free to correct my timetable if you recall it differently, though.

[Terry Mester]

... The standard method of getting 4x3 from 16x9 is to do a center crop extraction. This is the method generally used regardless of origination. All aspect ratio changes have been done electronically from the HD master for a number of years, so there is no difference between material originated on HD video and film in that regard. ...

Well, this explains why so many regular TV broadcasts can look distorted and out of proportion. TV networks then wonder why people aren't much interested in spending time watching TV. I'm always astounded by how much people will pay for Cable / Satellite fees to get mediocre quality TV. No sooner than the quality of the TV broadcast has been enhanced with HDTV, the quality of TV production is going down by abandoning Film. I haven't yet bought an HDTV, and I don't intend to do so any time soon.

 

... As for dirt, regardless of how well the film is handled, there will always be dirt issues, ... Any random dirt is much more noticeable because the same size dirt fleck is much larger in relation to the image size than it is on 35mm. Most 16mm shows ... will budget 6-8 hours of dirt cleanup per episode. That's a lot of hours and a decent sum of money to spend just to retain film colorimetry.

They should always inspect the Film for dirt immediately after developing. Chances are pretty certain that such stuck-on dirt was left behind from developing. Dust acquired after developing can generally be blown off. I mentioned above a better way to wash dirt off the Film, and to keep dust off in a Projector.

There would also be different problems unique to video like pixellation. How much does the Genesis cost? I doubt lower budget productions could afford it. :blink:

[Michael Most]

Well, this explains why so many regular TV broadcasts can look distorted and out of proportion.

 

That is almost always a problem created by either your local affiliate or, in the case of some cable networks, the network feed. In the case of broadcast networks, there is now only one feed sent, the HD feed. This is the case for all of the US based networks, at least. Any reformatting is done by the local affiliate and has nothing to do with how the show is delivered or mastered.

 

 

How much does the Genesis cost? I doubt lower budget productions could afford it. :blink:

 

It's not intended for or marketed to lower budget productions, although the rental cost has decreased considerably since its original introduction.

[John Sprung]

That is almost always a problem created by either your local affiliate or, in the case of some cable networks, the network feed. In the case of broadcast networks, there is now only one feed sent, the HD feed. This is the case for all of the US based networks, at least. Any reformatting is done by the local affiliate and has nothing to do with how the show is delivered or mastered.

 

Now that NTSC terrestrial broadcasting has been shut down, the domestic networks, O&O's, and affiliates are all 16:9 HD in prime time. Downconversion to NTSC is out of their hands, let alone ours. It happens at the cable, satellite, and telco head ends, of which there are thousands, and in set top boxes, of which there are millions. They mostly center cut, but they can also letterbox, squeeze, 14:9, sparkletts squeeze, or maybe they have some other thing they're doing. At this time, Nielsen tells us that about two thirds of the audience is watching such downconversions on their old NTSC sets.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

They should always inspect the Film for dirt immediately after developing. Chances are pretty certain that such stuck-on dirt was left behind from developing. Dust acquired after developing can generally be blown off. I mentioned above a better way to wash dirt off the Film, and to keep dust off in a Projector.

There would also be different problems unique to video like pixellation. How much does the Genesis cost? I doubt lower budget productions could afford it. :blink:

 

Terry, you have to remember, that these days time is of the essence. When you have television shows submitting thousands of feet a day to be processed, there simply isn't time to inspect and clean it all before sending it to a telecine bay.

 

It's a matter of cost, frankly whether to use ultrasonic cleaning or digital dust busting. But, even with digital ice, film is, by its very nature prone to dust dirt and gunk; digital ice only works on the base side.

 

So, even in clean room environments (which movie labs do use), there is always going to be dust accumulation.

 

It's a simple matter of optics and materials science that something that is blown up more will be more prone to physical defects, like dust.

 

That in mind, 16mm has come a long way. I remember hearing on here how the reason that ECN never caught on in 16mm was that the process was so much more dirty. Reversal dust tended to be a less-distracting black, as well.

 

 

Film and processing is a fascinating field, certainly worthy in my opinion of continued use, but you put it up on a pedestal. Having seen the things that can go wrong first-hand, you shouldn't glorify the process so much.

 

When it works, great, but when it doesn't you have a lot of explaining to do.

[John Sprung]

When you have television shows submitting thousands of feet a day to be processed, there simply isn't time to inspect and clean it all before sending it to a telecine bay.

 

What typically happens is that the lab sends it thru a Lipsner-Smith cleaning machine, puts it in cans, and sends it along to the video house. They run it thru another Lipsner-Smith pass and hang it on the telecine, which usually has particle transfer rollers fitted to it. They don't "inspect" other than looking at what comes out of the telecine. Only very very rarely is that so dirty that they go through a re-wash. It's been years since I can remember having to do that. The one difference is that with 1,1,1 trichlor banned for environmental reasons, cleaning doesn't work quite as well as it used to. The beginning of the season -- right about now, in fact -- is usually the worst time for dirt because the humidity is very low, and there's a lot of static electricity to make crud cling to the film.

 

We cut and color time the video that comes out of telecine, with whatever dirt it may contain -- usually some, but not much. Then it goes through digital dirt fixing, typically an MTI box. You really have to go thru it with a fine tooth comb to find anything after that. Do you see film dirt on recent TV shows on the air?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Terry Mester]

What typically happens is that the lab sends it thru a Lipsner-Smith cleaning machine, puts it in cans, and sends it along to the video house. They run it thru another Lipsner-Smith pass and hang it on the telecine, which usually has particle transfer rollers fitted to it. ...

Hi John,

Can you explain how the Lipsner-Smith cleaning machine works?

[John Sprung]

Lipsner-Smith can explain it with pictures:

 

http://www.rtico.com/lipsner/cf8200p.html

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Terry Mester]

John, do I understand the Lipsner-Smith cleaning machine correctly; those cloth rollers are used to wipe the Film clean? Does the Film get put into this machine while still wet -- immediately after being removed from the final wash in the developing process? I still think it would also be a good idea to spray the Film down with a water nozzle immediately after the final wash, and before putting it in this cleaning machine.

 

 

To help prevent dust from getting on the Film in the Telecine's Film Gate, here is a picture of how I cover the Film Gate of my Projector with saran wrap. It's not necessary to remove the plastic when loading the Film in the Gate since I just fish the Film down through it from the top. This very simple measure prevents a lot of dust from being blown onto the Film in the Gate, and saves even more headaches!

 

[K Borowski]

Terry, as I said earlier, many, if not most, film labs actually have clean-room environments, which is like a giant piece of saran wrap around the entire confines of the room, used to dry, scan, and telecine film.

 

Or, not to be a smart-ass, like an operating room in a hospital with a glass wall, positive pressure blowing excess air out, and sometimes scrubs for the personnel. This is all in an attempt to eliminate dust, but it still will not get rid of all of it; that's impossible.

 

Ultrasonic cleaning, and digital ice further mitigate dust problems, but, with 1,440 frames per minute of run time, there is still a lot of dust that gets past all of that.

[John Sprung]

John, do I understand the Lipsner-Smith cleaning machine correctly; those cloth rollers are used to wipe the Film clean? Does the Film get put into this machine while still wet -- immediately after being removed from the final wash in the developing process?

 

No, the film is completely dry of the water wash from processing before it gets rolled up at the end of the processing line. It has to be, or it would be ruined by rolling it up with wet emulsion touching the base of the next turn. That's the reason for the big drying boxes and takeup elevators. It's rolled up in cans for several minutes, even up to a few hours, before it goes in the cleaner. If you order B neg transfers, it may even be a few weeks in the can before it gets cleaned again.

 

The cleaning machine uses a solvent, not water. 1,1,1 trichloroethane was the best one, they have "green" substitutes now. The film goes thru the solvent in an ultrasonic tank, then over the cloth rollers, which counter-rotate at 200 RPM.

 

 

-- J.S.

[Terry Mester]

Hi Karl,

You're absolutely right that it's not possible to eliminate all dust. However, every little bit helps. Covering the Film Gate with plastic is a further elimination of dust contamination. I don't know how many labs use the sophisticated dust control setup you describe. I do know that dirt from developing -- allowed to dry on the Film -- is going to be considerably harder to remove than if it's sprayed off with water (as I suggest) before the Film dries.

[Terry Mester]

... Most 16mm shows (currently, Burn Notice, Monk, One Tree Hill, and Chuck are all shot on S16) ...

Do you know if Monk was shooting on Super16 back in the 2003 season? I just got via special order from the U.S. a DTV DVR/VCR, and I now get the HD American broadcasts. (N.B. to Canadians: you are going to be shocked by how good DTV is! It's amazing!) I just seen an episode of Monk from '03 which was 4:3. Was that possibly shot on video? If they shot that using S16, they were chopping off the edges of the Frame.

 

I also just saw an older episode of CSI: Miami on an HD broadcast, and it was also 4:3. If that was shot on 3-perf S35, then they were chopping off the edges.

[K Borowski]

I just seen an episode of Monk from '03 which was 4:3. Was that possibly shot on video? If they shot that using S16, they were chopping off the edges of the Frame.

 

I also just saw an older episode of CSI: Miami on an HD broadcast, and it was also 4:3. If that was shot on 3-perf S35, then they were chopping off the edges.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say.

 

This happens all the time.

 

What used to be done was that shows were shot 4-perf when everything was 4:3. Later everything was switched to 3 perf. with a 4:3 extraction, but in some cases they were protecting for 16x9 too.

 

But, yes, it was common to chop off the edges. There are viewfinders with apertures and "safe areas" overlaid, as well as monitor overlays.

 

"The Shield" which just went off the air, was one of the last SD-finish-only shows I can think of; it was shot on S16.

[K Borowski]

Hi Karl,

You're absolutely right that it's not possible to eliminate all dust. However, every little bit helps. Covering the Film Gate with plastic is a further elimination of dust contamination. I don't know how many labs use the sophisticated dust control setup you describe. I do know that dirt from developing -- allowed to dry on the Film -- is going to be considerably harder to remove than if it's sprayed off with water (as I suggest) before the Film dries.

 

But, Terry, you don't understand. Film is just an origination format now. The last finished-on-film show was "Murder She Wrote" in the U.S. It's been almost 15 years since it went off the air.

 

Film exists as an origination format that is scanned as quickly as possible upon coming out of the processor. It's not projected, it's not printed to film dailies, it is scanned and vaulted. That's it now. There aren't even any cut negative shows anymore, from what I hear.

 

There is no way to keep just negative film completely free of dust, before it is scanned digitally (and a lot of it must be done by hand because it slips past the scanner). But, as others here have said, 16mm it is of such a size that it becomes objectable if it isn't removed.

 

I don't know what the average footage shot for an average episode of TV is these days, but you're talking say, for mathematical simplicity's sake, 20:1 ratios, so figure with a 40 minute hour that you have 32,000 feet (6 mi. or 10.75 km), ~1-1/6 million frames to dust-bust. Simple cleanliness will eliminate a lot of this, but obviously on the basis of shear numbers not all of it.

 

Even with an infinite supply of compressed air, perchloroethane (not the environmentally safe crap that doesn't work as well), particle rollers, and an extra water wash, there are 1-1/6 million opportunities for something to slip past.

 

But, even here, it is a numbers game how to remove dust. If it takes six hours to dust-bust a 16mm show digitally, I guarantee it would take at least twice as long (at least twice as much money) to physically remove the same amount.

 

Also, with dust or hairs in the gate, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove this source when you have only the first-generation copy, no print. You can only add density, not take it out optically.

[Michael Most]

I don't know what the average footage shot for an average episode of TV is these days, but you're talking say, for mathematical simplicity's sake, 20:1 ratios, so figure with a 40 minute hour that you have 32,000 feet (6 mi. or 10.75 km), ~1-1/6 million frames to dust-bust.

 

Most shows shoot 32,000 in the first 3 days!

 

The average drama today exposes about 10,000 feet a day for 8 days. Many episodes will hit 100,000 feet or more. That's what happens when you have two cameras rolling on almost every setup, and, shall we say, slightly less experienced directors than we used to have.

 

I do recall the days when we used to shoot for 7 days, expose about 40,000 feet total, and print about 2/3 of that. And that was on 4 perf. And we seemed to get just as much coverage as we often do today. Funny how that works...

[Terry Mester]

... Film exists as an origination format that is scanned as quickly as possible upon coming out of the processor. It's not projected, it's not printed to film dailies, it is scanned and vaulted. That's it now. There aren't even any cut negative shows anymore, from what I hear.

 

There is no way to keep just negative film completely free of dust, before it is scanned digitally (and a lot of it must be done by hand because it slips past the scanner). But, as others here have said, 16mm it is of such a size that it becomes objectable if it isn't removed.

...

Also, with dust or hairs in the gate, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove this source when you have only the first-generation copy, no print. You can only add density, not take it out optically.

I was thinking of the Telecine machine. The cooling fan for the bulb will bring dust into the Film Gate if it isn't designed to be air-tight. However, dust won't be nearly as visible as dirt and debris left over from developing.

 

 

Michael, is it possible to find out if Monk was shot on Super16 back in 2003? I'm really curious to know.

[Terry Mester]

All right, I found the info on Monk. Here are quotes below from postmagazine.com. The NTSC version is a 3/4 crop of the HD scanned version. I definitely do not like the washed look of the NTSC version, but I would blame that on being an electronic conversion from the HD version. Apparently they get 3-1/2 hours of dailies a day from only two cameras! I can't believe it. There should be less than one hour per day!

 

Postmagazine.com. Article

"The 79-minute pilot was shot in 35mm, but when the series got picked up by USA Network, production switched to Super 16mm for budget reasons. Season one was shot and posted in Toronto. "

"All 29 episodes have been shot Super 16mm with two Arriflex 16SR cameras using mostly Kodak Vision 7279. Film-to-tape transfer and online post is done at Encore Hollywood (www.encorehollywood). "

"Monk shoots mostly on location, and DP Tony Palmeri says he's using post now more than ever before. What he means is that in his head he sees a shot on the screen and knows he can create a look later when he's color correcting rather than spend a few more hours hanging lights. Encore's Spirit DataCine turns all the footage into a Panasonic D-5 master and Betacam dailies that get sent over to Monk editorial at Ren-Mar. Monk uses three Avid Media Composers for offline post, two for the editors and one for the assistant editor to upload footage. "

"Rosen says because they shoot two cameras he often gets three and a half hours of dailies a day. And it's a rigorous schedule, he continues, where multiple episodes are in production and post at the same time. One time, he recalls, he worked on four different episodes in one day. "

"Encore colorist Pankaj Bajpai says to get a good quality HD master from Super 16 you have to start at the beginning and make sure your exposure is correct. He says, "35mm is much more forgiving."

The real challenge, he continues, is controlling the grain. They make two passes from the Super 16mm negative. The HD pass is minimally processed - no noise reduction or crushing of blacks. That HD master is not used until final assembly. The NTSC dailies are a 3/4 extraction downstream from the HD signal and are given basic color correction so they don't look washed out. Bajpai says that during final color correction he spends a lot of time with the DPs and post supervisor getting the look just right."

 

Here's the Link:

http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/Audiences/...20E-Newsletters

[John Sprung]

I do recall the days when we used to shoot for 7 days, expose about 40,000 feet total, and print about 2/3 of that. ...

 

Yup. It was a lot easier on the editors.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Peter Moretti]

Yup. It was a lot easier on the editors.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

I think directors understood editing better and held stronger opinions on how scenes should be cut than they do today. FWIU in the "old days," directors used to frequently came up from editorial, it then changed rising from tv commercials and then even from music videos.

 

I realize that Heaven's Gate is "old" by now, but that film was directed by someone whose background was burning through film to capture that one transcendent image. Michael Cimino made his name in commercials.

 

We also use a much faster, choppier, energetic style of editing now, esp. in tv where you have to keep the viewers' attention. A sequence with lots of cuts and CU's requires more takes and angles and results in more footage being exposed.