Jump to content


Photo

so we all agree???


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 22 January 2006 - 01:57 AM

SO, judging by all the posts about whats the best method of
getting 16mm footage home for editing...telecined straight
to miniDV seems to be the agreed upon choice for best
results?!?

Then, editing on home computer...then dumping back onto
a miniDV tape and then bringing it to a posthouse for a
Xfer to digibeta or HD or whatever you want!?!

Is this about right?

Any tips on what to watch out for along the way?
  • 0

#2 Rachel Oliver

Rachel Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • London, England

Posted 22 January 2006 - 06:06 AM

Hi;

If by this you mean TK to digibeta AND mini DV then cut on mini DV at home and then take an EDL to a post house for a digibeta online then thats a fine way to end up with an SD master, if however you mean just taking your mini DV master to get dubbed to digibeta, that's only losing quality.... either way can work depending on what your ok with.

Olly
  • 0

#3 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 22 January 2006 - 10:39 AM

SO, judging by all the posts about whats the best method of
getting 16mm footage home for editing...telecined straight
to miniDV seems to be the agreed upon choice for best
results?!?

Then, editing on home computer...then dumping back onto
a miniDV tape and then bringing it to a posthouse for a
Xfer to digibeta or HD or whatever you want!?!

Is this about right?

Any tips on what to watch out for along the way?



If you can only afford a TK to dv tape, then go with DVCAM not miniDV. It is a proffesional format that is better in the long run than miniDV. Most all Sony miniDV camcorders and decks will play back DVCAM. If you can afford more than that, do the digi Beta and DVCam at the same time. What is your footage, regular 16 or Super? If Super 16, then bite the bullet and TK to HD. The two formats work very well together.

chris
  • 0

#4 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 January 2006 - 01:24 PM

If you can only afford a TK to dv tape, then go with DVCAM not miniDV. It is a proffesional format that is better in the long run than miniDV.


"Better" in what sense? The information on the tape, and the images it creates, is exactly the same. The only thing you gain with DVCam is potentially - and I emphasize potentially - better integrity and fewer uncorrectable dropouts, and a separate time code track. However, in the real world, I have rarely, if ever, detected any real difference. And there is absolutely no difference in the image.
  • 0

#5 steve hyde

steve hyde
  • Sustaining Members
  • 446 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 22 January 2006 - 07:48 PM

We will never all agree because it depends on what you are doing and what you need. If you are shooting a 30:1 feature film, the workflow you suggest might save you a lot of money.

If you are shooting a 2:1 ten minute short you are probably better off getting a fully graded simul record to DigiBeta and DVcam or getting all of your footage dumped onto a hard drive.

It sounds like you need to get on the phone and talk to a few different post houses to find out what workflow fits your specific needs. Then report back and tell us what they say....

Steve
  • 0

#6 steve hyde

steve hyde
  • Sustaining Members
  • 446 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 22 January 2006 - 08:03 PM

...and keep in mind, by the time you are done shooting it is possible the technology will have changed again.

Kodak is selling this as a post production time saver that negates the need to conform your edits back to your film reels:

http://www.kodak.com...cs/index2.shtml


I haven't used it.
  • 0

#7 Brian Wells

Brian Wells
  • Sustaining Members
  • 438 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 January 2006 - 08:16 PM

telecined straight to miniDV seems to be the agreed upon choice for best results?!?

I don't know what is "best" for your needs, but the DVCPro50 workflow looks pretty attractive to me. I just finished an SDX900 shoot and we're using a little $6K SD93 deck to Firewire the footage into my Apple Powerbook, where I will be cutting in Final Cut Pro. This is substantially better quality than if we had downconverted to MiniDV, but not nearly as expensive as editing uncompressed (like the DigiBeta workflow, for example).
  • 0

#8 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 22 January 2006 - 11:13 PM

You can always "ghetto cine" it, by using a nice 24P camera ( DVX, F900, etc...) and shooting it off the wall.

It works very well, just turn off the automatic poop on the camera itself.

And also, there is NO flicker.

Edited by Jmetzger, 22 January 2006 - 11:13 PM.

  • 0

#9 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 23 January 2006 - 12:38 AM

thanks everyone for all your opinions and info!

its 16mm, not S16.

For lack of money, I'm considering this method:

telecined directly to miniDV,
use my Canon GL2 to bring into my computer,
edit on Combustion and render out final project uncompressed,
dump back onto miniDV,
bring down to posthouse and have them dub onto digibeta for master.

Any arguments or advice on this route?

thanks again,
christian
  • 0

#10 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 January 2006 - 01:07 AM

There's no point in taking a project telecined to mini-dv and outputting it to Digibeta, you won't gain anything that isn't already there on the mini-dv tapes. The compression is already there, you can't really undo it by going to a less compressed format.

If at all possible, supervise your telecine transfer. You'll get the images you're looking for by being there and working with the colorist, rather than someone's best guess at what you want things to look like.

Also, if you have the money to do an online edit, in telecine you could simultaneously transfer to two formats with matching timecode, for example mini-dv and Digibeta. You then cut the mini-dv tapes on your computer, output an EDL which you'd use to assemble the footage from the higher-res Digibeta tapes. Because the timecode matches, you can simply feed the EDL to into the online machine and it will automatically put together your cut in a beautifully less compressed form.
  • 0

#11 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 23 January 2006 - 02:11 AM

does that single generation to my computer and back really
diminish the footage THAT much??

There's another issue here too.......I'm doing effects
compositing on some of the footage, you see...animation
is really my forte, and thats really goal here. And, I
obviously can't afford to get some SGI / digibeta setup. ha!

thanks again,
christian
  • 0

#12 Trevor Swaim

Trevor Swaim
  • Guests

Posted 23 January 2006 - 03:04 AM

I think you are missing the point. digital transfers don't have generational loss, you are copying the bits so if you were to go from your gl2 to your computer, and then back to your gl2 the footage will have no degradation at all. If you were going to a less lossy format, such as digibeta to minidv, then you have to get rid of a few bits of information, like colorspace. Then you put this into your computer you lose nothing, when you output back to minidv you lose nothing, then you go back to digibeta, or hdcam sr or whatever, the footage will never look better than the minidv footage. You will never get the info you lost back.

Think of it like mp3, you listen to a song on cd and it sounds great, you rip it to 64kbps and it sounds like crap. If you then burn that mp3 back to a cd and listen to it, it will sound no better than the 64 mp3, the damage has been done.

Having said that you should be ok going to minidv; but be aware that you will get no benefit from then mastering to digibeta. If you want that quality, then you need to maintain at least that quality throughout your workflow. Whether you online or offline.

Edited by Trevor Swaim, 23 January 2006 - 03:07 AM.

  • 0

#13 Matthew Parnell

Matthew Parnell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Electrician
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 23 January 2006 - 08:40 AM

Most film festivals and tv stations accept DigiBeta as a playout/screening format, so mastering to DigiBeta would make sense. Yes there is no quality gain, but there is a logistical gain.
  • 0

#14 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 23 January 2006 - 04:49 PM

I read ya!

nevertheless, my miniDV route will still be OK for broadcast, wont it?
Its shot on 16mm film, so its 2k...which looks great!

and as long as I Xfer it to what they need (like digibeta), it should be good...right?

thanks aagian,
christian

Edited by thinkmonkeymedia, 23 January 2006 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0

#15 Matthew Parnell

Matthew Parnell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Electrician
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 23 January 2006 - 05:51 PM

I read ya!

nevertheless, my miniDV route will still be OK for broadcast, wont it?
Its shot on 16mm film, so its 2k...which looks great!

and as long as I Xfer it to what they need (like digibeta), it should be good...right?

thanks aagian,
christian


I wont be brilliant and wont maintain the 2k resolution at all. But it will be good enough for broadcast, i have seen more dodgy ways of doing things than what your doing. MiniDV with its compression ratio might make doing effects(esp. bluescreen) difficult, but thats all a part of the chalenge.
  • 0

#16 Rachel Oliver

Rachel Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • London, England

Posted 23 January 2006 - 06:28 PM

Hi;

I wonder if having a pro telecine made from 16mm film only to end up with a mini dv master may be a false economy. Most decent transfer houses will likely telecine to digibeta anyway and just give you a mini dv dub, this way you can have an ok mini dv cutting copy to show around and then if your film goes places you have the digibeta master to online....

Olly
  • 0

#17 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 23 January 2006 - 06:50 PM

I would take it a step farther and have them put it frame for frame onto a DNxHD codec. You could even go farther and make it an uncompressed raw transfer. You dont want a real telecine, those extra frames are a pain and you can do the telecine later (when it makes sense so you dont have jumping cadence) in software. Premeire, after effects and avid all do pulldowns and dont take anything more than a night or two to render long copies.

If you shoot 24fps, then get a codec that can handle that. If you need a tape you can put it to HDCAM-SR or DVCPRO HD, but those will still loose quality. 16mm is expensive so you should push every pixel out of it possible. If you push it directly to a hard drive then the post house can simply record it to hard drive and you wont have to worry about loosing any more quality.

When you get the copy home of the DNxHD, put that into your avid and make a conform clip, probably in DV so you can edit effeciently. Once editting is done conform the EDL to the DNx codec and boom. Instant HD movie in full quality. Hell, you can even call it a DI if you put it back onto film. You also have the option of dubbing to HD tapes at a much better price.

If saving money is important, do as was mentioned above. get the first print in mini-DV (make sure frame numbers will be relatable later) cut your movie and get just what is needed recaptured in the DNx. then conform as normal and you have your HD movie.

bottom line, the only point I am trying to make is if all you want is 4:2:2 comression (or 4:1:1 for DV25) in standard definition, then shoot video. You dont really get a great advantage in picture quality compared to a DVX-100A or similar camera. The only economy in shooting film is for projects where HD or large-screen blowups are possible, good news is now adays you dont need post houses for much, if you spent more than 4K on your edit machine.
  • 0

#18 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 23 January 2006 - 10:26 PM

SO, judging by all the posts about whats the best method of
getting 16mm footage home for editing...telecined straight
to miniDV seems to be the agreed upon choice for best
results?!?

Then, editing on home computer...then dumping back onto
a miniDV tape and then bringing it to a posthouse for a
Xfer to digibeta or HD or whatever you want!?!

Is this about right?

Any tips on what to watch out for along the way?



You are getting lots of info here and it seems like you are settling in on mini DV. I know that this can be a very confusing maze of info and often the easiest way is best. That being said, telecine to miniDV is good enough for broadcast, but not great. May I suggest for the maximum in quality and minimum price that you telecine straight to hard drive as an uncompressed SD file. The quality of this file is better than DigiBeta and the very best you are going to get in standard def. Many labs are now offering this. Many do not charge a premium for this service. I suggest Cinelab.com, they will TK your film at .18/foot as a scene to scene session straight to hard drive. Call them or email them and tell them your situation. Once you get the hard drive back with the files, you can make a sort of window burn version in miniDV and lay that back onto tape as a back up. At least if your hard drive crashes, you will have a tape back up. This is very easy with Final Cut Pro. Unfortunately, if this happens, you lost all that quality, but you can still cut the movie.

But that won't happen, so here is what you do. Once you have the files on your computer, make low res clips from the uncompressed ones, make sure the timecode matches in both resolutions. Use the lower res ones to do your offline, when finished, output an EDL and take your hard drive with the uncompressed media, all the other stuff you have added and a miniDV tape of your final edit to a post house and have them do a proper online. If you have a short film, the cost will not be that out of hand and it will be well worth it. This is IMHO, the best and most cost effective way to do post these days. I have done it for three short film now, using both 16mm and Super 8 and I will never do it any other way, if I don't have to. The cost savings is unheard( you don't have to rent a digiBeta deck, just buy a firewire hard drive) of and the quality is fantastic. If you can't afford an online now, at least you have a miniDV version and you have the umcompressed stuff waiting for when you can afford to. I hope this barrage of info helps, it really is quite easy to do. Good luck.

Chris
  • 0

#19 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 24 January 2006 - 12:31 PM

OK, I've got it!
I've just tested this procedure on my system and it works
great:

I had some 16mm test footage put into an uncompressed QT on a hard drive
(which came off their digibeta Xfer from the film process)

then I pull it into Combustion for editing at home

then I render it back onto the hard drive uncompressed

bring the edited video back to posthouse and put it onto digibeta.

Sound good?


Only one question.....when they gave me the uncompressed QT, the
footage was 720 x 480 (roughly).
for 16mm film @ 2k, I expected larger! Is this right?
  • 0

#20 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 January 2006 - 03:12 PM

Hi,

Well, that's not a 2K scan, that's a standard def scan. Digital Betacam is a standard def format.

I detect a lack of familiarity with the basics here, which is going to cause you problems.

Phil
  • 0


Willys Widgets

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Glidecam

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal