Jump to content


Photo

Has anyone used Bonolabs for transfer to HD?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Thomas Worth

Thomas Worth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 February 2006 - 05:41 PM

I've been thinking about using Bonolabs to transfer some 35mm footage to HD (on a disk), but I need some more details on the file formats. Their website says they can transfer to "10-bit uncompressed high definition," but I can't find anything that says exactly what codec is used. They say they can do Mac and PC, which I assume means QuickTime and AVI respectively. The only 10 bit HD codec I am aware of is the BlackMagic 10 bit codec, which works with both Mac and PC, but I am not sure this is what they are using. I also need to know the resolution of the footage -- 1440x1080 or 1920x1080.

If anyone has used them, I'd love to hear about the experience!
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 28 February 2006 - 03:10 AM

I've been thinking about using Bonolabs to transfer some 35mm footage to HD (on a disk), but I need some more details on the file formats. Their website says they can transfer to "10-bit uncompressed high definition," but I can't find anything that says exactly what codec is used. They say they can do Mac and PC, which I assume means QuickTime and AVI respectively. The only 10 bit HD codec I am aware of is the BlackMagic 10 bit codec, which works with both Mac and PC, but I am not sure this is what they are using. I also need to know the resolution of the footage -- 1440x1080 or 1920x1080.

If anyone has used them, I'd love to hear about the experience!


Hi,

If you want to see results look here!

http://www.cinematog...gitk/digitk.htm

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Craig Knowles

Craig Knowles
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Director
  • Cleveland

Posted 28 February 2006 - 03:43 AM

If you want to see results look here!
http://www.cinematog...gitk/digitk.htm


Wow, that's quite a difference. I was going to do a test run with Bono, but now I'll have to reconsider.
  • 0

#4 Thomas Worth

Thomas Worth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 February 2006 - 08:39 PM

Wow, that's quite a difference. I was going to do a test run with Bono, but now I'll have to reconsider.

Wow! No kidding! That's terrible! What really stands out to me, besides the lack of detail, is the unbelievable amount of noise -- not grain -- in the image. This footage is completely unusable.

Another interesting thing is that the noise appears to be "rectangular" -- it's almost as though the source was 4:3, and then stretched out horizontally to 16:9. Observe the following images (compressed lightly as to not introduce too much JPEG compression artifacts):

A section of the "clock" frame from the link in the previous post:
Posted Image

Close-up of the tip of one of the clock's hands:
Posted Image

The blue channel only (look at that noise!):
Posted Image
  • 0

#5 Mike Panczenko

Mike Panczenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Philadelphia, USA

Posted 01 March 2006 - 08:25 AM

I would definitely consider using The Lab @ Moving Images (I think now owned by Postworks). They are absolutely fantastic, with fantastic results, and, almost as importantly, fantastic customer support. I cannot recommend them highly enough!
  • 0

#6 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 01 March 2006 - 09:17 AM

I would definitely consider using The Lab @ Moving Images (I think now owned by Postworks). They are absolutely fantastic, with fantastic results, and, almost as importantly, fantastic customer support. I cannot recommend them highly enough!



I second that! Fantastic people!
  • 0

#7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 March 2006 - 11:58 AM

Hi,

It's not been stretched; I suspect what you're seeing a subsampled chroma channel of a 4:2:2 image. I suspect that Bono is using the lowest-end Blackmagic card, which is a single-link device and thus supports only 4:2:2 imaging.

Which isn't really what you want.

Migitating this is the fact that, as mentioned, Bono's service seems to be pretty much unattended. I have no experience with Cineglyph, but it shouldn't be that bad, surely? It's certainly very low contrast, which is actually what you want - a full dynamic range 10-bit scan to grade on a desktop system at your leisure. Increasing contrast will increase apparent sharpness.

But yes, if this is the best the system will do, it is barely competent.

Phil
  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 01 March 2006 - 12:21 PM

But yes, if this is the best the system will do, it is barely competent.

Phil


Hi,

I sometimes find that the cheaper facilities will to skimp on maintenance. Quality will in the end suffer.

Just my 2c

Stephen
  • 0

#9 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 March 2006 - 12:34 PM

The side-by-side comparison looks like the right-hand sample has been color corrected, while the left-hand sample looks like flat, uncorrected HD. (Many post houses will actually recommend the flat, uncorrected transfer, their argument being that it gives you the most color correction latitude in post.) If you prefer a color-corrected transfer, be sure you're not getting boxed into a particular look, unless that's exactly the final look you're after. Otherwise, make sure you've got enough luminance to work with, as it's always easier to darken an image than lighten one without degrading your picture quality.

Edited by dgoulder, 01 March 2006 - 12:36 PM.

  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:42 PM

The problem with the Bono example is softness / lack of detail more than the fact that it is a flat low-con transfer -- there is definitely some missing information compared to the other post house's transfer.
  • 0

#11 jijhh

jijhh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Student

Posted 01 March 2006 - 08:55 PM

whats the general price range for, say an hour of best-lite footage at both of these labs (not including drivespace if you need it). does spypost have a system like the drive in the mail system at bono?
  • 0

#12 Chris Burke

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

Posted 02 March 2006 - 09:39 PM

The problem with the Bono example is softness / lack of detail more than the fact that it is a flat low-con transfer -- there is definitely some missing information compared to the other post house's transfer.



yes, I agree. Bono does a flat grade for the straight to hard drive HD transfer. I think they will only do a best light or flat. However the image shown above is clearly softer that the other. Something is amiss.


Chris
  • 0

#13 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 03 March 2006 - 06:01 AM

Yes, there are differences. But as usual people are comparing apples and oranges. Any image that's been fully graded, will always look better than a one-light (grading is ifinitely more important than resolution). It's precisely for this reason many filmmakers never show something that isn't finished to audiences, investors and whatnot - if they don't see it, they can't imagine it.

I bet that if the Bonolabs material was properly graded, just like the other one, less would complain. It's just an unfair comparison.
  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 03 March 2006 - 07:48 AM

It's just an unfair comparison.


Adam,

Why is it unfair? It was a 'Best' light, not one light pass.

Stephen
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 March 2006 - 11:52 AM

You have to filter out the difference in grade in your mind and just look at details. The Bono transfer is missing information that no grade is going to fix. Look at the eaves under the building on the sides of the frame.
  • 0

#16 Thomas Worth

Thomas Worth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:40 PM

I bet that if the Bonolabs material was properly graded, just like the other one, less would complain. It's just an unfair comparison.

I think we're all aware of the importance of color correction. But color correction is not the main concern in this case. The lack of detail (inconsistent at that) makes this HD footage useless! Furthermore, the footage is full of noise, and what is that green cast along the left side of the frame?!

Here is the Bono footage, color corrected by me:
Posted Image

And here is the Spy Post footage:
Posted Image

Considering that most people will have the footage transferred low-contrast so they can perform their own grading, is it still an unfair comparison?
  • 0

#17 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 04 March 2006 - 10:03 AM

I agree, it's pretty bad. But still one should compare apples and apples, I think. They probably graded the good footage natively and not in Photoshop either, which is infinitely better.
  • 0

#18 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2006 - 11:54 AM

The top image (Bonolabs) looks like super 8 reversal with a mediocre transfer. It looks like old lousy K40, at that. Shadow detail is poop. What's with that green on the left side? Not really sharp at all. This is 35mm??? The Blackmagic codec is pretty good from what I've seen. It can't be held accountable for this by any stretch of the imagination.

An incredible comparison. Devasting. Bonolabs no longer is the only direct-to-hard drive HD game in town. They have some serious problems if this is indeed "normal" for them.
  • 0

#19 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 04 March 2006 - 02:21 PM

This is 35mm??? T



Hi,

Super 16.

Stephen
  • 0

#20 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2006 - 03:04 PM

This is super 16???
  • 0


CineLab

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Opal

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Tai Audio

CineLab

Opal

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies