Jump to content


Photo

anyone have 16mm tele'd to HD...


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 seth christian

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

Posted 25 January 2006 - 11:18 AM

looking for an image to view that is 16mm
telecined to HD!

Know where I can view some?

Anyone have one?


Then the same footage in only SD if someone
has a link?
  • 0

#2 seth christian

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

Posted 25 January 2006 - 11:53 PM

here's a link for 16footage telecined to SD,
http://www.posthouse...processing.html

but still cant find a link to show 16 to HD or 2k scan!

:o(
  • 0

#3 Michael Most

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

Posted 26 January 2006 - 01:55 AM

looking for an image to view that is 16mm
telecined to HD!

Know where I can view some?


Turn on your television and watch any of the following shows:

One Tree Hill
The OC
Gilmore Girls
Veronica Mars
  • 0

#4 seth christian

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

Posted 26 January 2006 - 10:35 AM

these shows don't originate from 16mm film do they?

I watched a behind the scenes to Veronica Mars
recently and that wasn't no film camera.
  • 0

#5 Patrick Neary

Patrick Neary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Portland, OR

Posted 26 January 2006 - 11:02 AM

I'll beat Mr. Pytlak to the punch: :)

http://www.kodak.com...0.1.4.3.6&lc=en

I didn't know folks were still using the Elaine. The last time I asked about it at Panavision, they looked at me like I was asking about a deformed cousin they had hidden in the closet...maybe i just misinterpreted.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2006 - 11:47 AM

"Veronica Mars" is shot on film -- there have been articles in various magazines about it.

According to the April 2005 ICG Magazine article, it's shot on a Panavision Elaine on 7218 and 7248, although I could have sworn reading an article elsewhere that it was shot on Fuji. Maybe they switched after the first season.
  • 0

#7 Michael Most

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

Posted 26 January 2006 - 01:06 PM

"Veronica Mars" is shot on film -- there have been articles in various magazines about it.

According to the April 2005 ICG Magazine article, it's shot on a Panavision Elaine on 7218 and 7248, although I could have sworn reading an article elsewhere that it was shot on Fuji. Maybe they switched after the first season.


That is correct, they switched to Fuji for the second season (the current season). Partly for cost savings, partly because following tests, they simply preferred it for the look they're trying to achieve. Having said that, I'm pretty sure the change would not have been made hade Victor Hammer returned to shoot the show (he didn't, his A-camera operator Joaquin Sedillo was moved up this season, and is doing a fine job).

these shows don't originate from 16mm film do they?

I watched a behind the scenes to Veronica Mars
recently and that wasn't no film camera.


Yes, they are all shot on 16mm, or I wouldn't have suggested watching them.

I don't know what kind of "behind the scenes" you think you saw, but "Veronica Mars" has been shot on S16mm film since the second episode (the pilot was on 35mm).
  • 0

#8 seth christian

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

Posted 26 January 2006 - 02:26 PM

cool! you learn something everytime here @ cinematography.com


thanks ya'll for your info, My tests look better & better everytime I shoot.
I learn something new everyday here on forums, especially
Mr. Mullen, he's great!

thanks again,
christian
  • 0

#9 Matt Frank

Matt Frank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, Ca

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:47 PM

That is from a commercial shoot I did a couple weeks ago. The lab was Video Post & Transfer out of Dallas


Posted Image


It is not the best shot but we needed the 2K scans for a print ad so we didn't scan the whole thing at 2K only the frames we needed for print.

Edited by Matt Frank, 06 February 2006 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0

#10 Keneu Luca

Keneu Luca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 February 2006 - 04:41 AM

Turn on your television and watch any of the following shows:

One Tree Hill
The OC
Gilmore Girls
Veronica Mars

Yes, they are all shot on 16mm, or I wouldn't have suggested watching them.



Are those shows 16mm or super 16mm? The orignal post asked for examples of 16mm. Not super 16mm.

And if it helps, I believe the film Tigerland was shot on 16mm.

Edited by Keneu, 09 February 2006 - 04:45 AM.

  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 February 2006 - 09:58 AM

Are those shows 16mm or super 16mm? The orignal post asked for examples of 16mm. Not super 16mm.


It doesn't make a difference if you're talking about a 4x3 broadcast. You use the same negative area whether you shoot Super-16 or regular 16mm, so it's completely valid to look at Super-16 as an example.
  • 0

#12 Michael Most

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

Posted 09 February 2006 - 11:31 AM

Are those shows 16mm or super 16mm? The orignal post asked for examples of 16mm. Not super 16mm.


16mm film is 16mm film, regardless of how much negative area you use, and regardless of whether it's single or double perfed. Besides, I don't know anyone who shoots straight-16 anymore, particularly for television. Many current stocks are only available single perfed because of this.

Also, as David has already pointed out, the negative area for a 1.33 extraction from a 1.66 S-16 frame is the same as straight 16 because the formats have common heights.
  • 0

#13 Keneu Luca

Keneu Luca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 February 2006 - 04:05 PM

It doesn't make a difference if you're talking about a 4x3 broadcast. You use the same negative area whether you shoot Super-16 or regular 16mm, so it's completely valid to look at Super-16 as an example.


I guess it depends on why the person wants to see examples. Yes 16mm film is 16mm film, but there is a differnce in the final product if its super or standard. Like you said, you dont know anyone who shoots standard. This is because they are different.
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 February 2006 - 01:47 AM

I guess it depends on why the person wants to see examples. Yes 16mm film is 16mm film, but there is a differnce in the final product if its super or standard. Like you said, you dont know anyone who shoots standard. This is because they are different.


I don't think you were listening. If you watch a 4x3 full-frame broadcast of something shot on Super-16, the QUALITY IS IDENTICAL TO SOMETHING SHOT ON REGULAR 16MM because you are just using a regular 16mm area of the Super-16 frame for the 4x3 video transfer.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL PRODUCT in this case.

The improvement with Super-16 only comes in widescreen applications.
  • 0

#15 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 February 2006 - 02:16 AM

Here's a totally untechnical opinion. A while back I was evaluating 16/S16 taken to HD as a capture option over HD or 35mm and, personally, I found the majority of the footage to look grainy. When I saw the movies "Tigerland" and "Jack and Rose" - which were shot on S16 and upped to 35mm. I thought some shots seemed extra grainy though they had the full filmstock lattitude - so there was a trade off. I'm not sure why the material I saw on HD seemed more grainy than what I saw in the theater, if anything I would imagine that the degraining technology on telecine's would have made it less grainy. Perhaps they were not used.

Check out everything that people suggested. Personally, I was disappointed in the amount of grain that was exhibited in what I saw (even in the best cases) and actually leaned towards shooting F900 for what I was doing. If it was a heavy exterior I would maybe feel otherwise UNLESS that exterior involved a lot of solid color ranges (filed of grass or snow or desert) because that's where the grain showed up the most.

Just my evaluation, your and others views may vary. And i'd be curious to hear them. (BTW we just recently went over the question again for another shoot and decided on the F900 over S16 again except for the exterior where we are going to use 35mm 3 perf.)
  • 0

#16 Tenolian Bell

Tenolian Bell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 907 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 11 February 2006 - 03:39 PM

If your barometer for what makes a good image is based on grain being bad. There is no reason to make a comparison because HD will win that every time. S16 and in many cases 35 will loose, because without grain there is no image.

What is bad grain or too much grain is subjective for the viewer. You have to keep in mind that whenever you put an HD image and a S16 image side by side you are going to see grain in the S16 image. I don't think that makes the S16 image bad, its made from crystals and the HD image is not.
  • 0

#17 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 February 2006 - 07:35 PM

I highly recommend everyone check out Marcel Zyskind's great work in "Tristram Shandy", which just opened, mixing 25P HDCAM (Sony HDW-750) with Super-16, 35mm, and some DV in there (somewhere), all cropped to 2.35 and released in 35mm anamorphic.

While for the most part, the HD is easily identifiable to the trained eye, it intercuts much more closely to the other formats than you'd think. The Super-16 is a little grainier, but it also holds up quite well blown-up to 35mm anamorphic. There are some dusk landscape shots of the mansion that are either HD or 35mm and look great.

Again, it's always the bright things in frame that give HD away compared to film (burned out practicals, hot sun, etc.) But overall, an interesting-looking film that is quite funny too, in a sort of "8 1/2" way (with snatches of Nino Rota's music to boot, as well as the classical pieces used in "Barry Lyndon", etc.)

Anyway, it's a good movie to give you a sampling of what different formats can look like. I assume it all went through an HD or 2K intermediate.
  • 0

#18 Joshua Reis

Joshua Reis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 February 2006 - 08:34 PM

Hi, I don't have any standard 16mm captured in HD at the momment, but I do have a bunch of Super 16 still frames that you can view at the link bellow. They are all 8bit tiff and jpg clones at 1920x1080 res.
HD stills
http://www.joshuareis.com/super16

As a tech note, all the footage was shot with an Arri SR 2, Zeiss 12-120 zoom. Transfer was done on a Spirit 2k and recorded onto 24P HDCAM. All the footage was captureed single link 10 bit 4:2:2 uncompressed and extracted as 8 bit tiff files that are 1920x1080. All the Rome footage is 7205, Lake Tahoe is 7245, LA footage is 7218. For Super 16, I have been impressed with the results. I have also been invloved with some Blu Ray HD testing, and have a sample 1920x1080 H264 quicktime file. Its very interesting to note, how the H264 codec really softens / reduces the Super 16 grain. I'm not sure if this has to do with the codec itself or is mainly caused by this particular encoder. To the eyes, the H264 codec looks cleaner (less contrasty grain) and is more pleasing to view than the uncompressed master file. Here is the link, requires Quicktime 7 or newer to view.

HD H264 1920x1080 and 1280x720 Quicktime samples

http://jrlab.us/super16/quicktime/
  • 0

#19 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11939 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 February 2006 - 09:04 PM

Hi,

Random motion will tend to defeat MPEG-4 style compression, which uses the repeatability of moving picture elements between frames. This actually makes it work rather like a noise reduction, sorry, grain reduction device, so it's not surprising that you like the compressed version in some ways.

Phil
  • 0

#20 Aleksandar Bracinac

Aleksandar Bracinac
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Director
  • Belgrade, Serbia

Posted 12 February 2006 - 11:09 AM

Joshua,

Can you tell me which stock(s) you have used fot those stills?



Aleksandar
  • 0


Opal

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

CineLab

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Tai Audio

CineTape

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC