Jump to content


Photo

16mm generational loss?


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:34 AM

Im interested in finding out just how high regular 16mm quality is when its been through all its processes

First the Negative which is has been masked for 16:9 Then your interpositive after the neg cut.. and then an internegative before finally a print.. What kind of quality are you left with after these stages? HDV Standard?

OK I realise you could just telecine to HDV from the off and edit colour correct on the computer.. Surely though the high compression of HDV and editing it would have an effect on the look of the final version?

What workflow is best and why.. What quality loss can you expect?
  • 0

#2 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2422 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:57 AM

Unless you needed a lot of prints, which would be a bit unusual in 16mm. these days, you could strike from the original and save two generations.
Widescreen masking can be done as a C-roll on the print. There's no copying stage.
  • 0

#3 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 February 2006 - 08:52 AM

Unless you needed a lot of prints, which would be a bit unusual in 16mm. these days, you could strike from the original and save two generations.
Widescreen masking can be done as a C-roll on the print. There's no copying stage.

Some AND to save costs film on 16mm and blow up to 35mm I know they would use super! But I wanted to know JUST how much is lost using standard16 with this workflow :)

Also how much is lost by transferring to HDV editing then transferring back to film? My guess is you would have quality somewhere between DV and 8mm LESS than HDV.. Just my guess.

The reason I want to know is for future reference in buying equipment..

A C roll? Wouldnt that deteriorate quality too? as the scanner would have to see through that film even if it was Transparent there is still the film? Wouldnt it be better to mask the film through the matte box?
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 28 February 2006 - 08:58 AM

Also how much is lost by transferring to HDV editing then transferring back to film? My guess is you would have quality somewhere between DV and 8mm LESS than HDV.. Just my guess.

The reason I want to know is for future reference in buying equipment..

A C roll? Wouldnt that deteriorate quality too? as the scanner would have to see through that film even if it was Transparent there is still the film? Wouldnt it be better to mask the film through the matte box?



Hi,

Transfering to HDV and back wo film is IMHO a waste of time and money. The quality loss will be huge.

There is no scanner involved in a c roll! Just light through film! You could mask the gate, but not the matte box. 16mm has worked as a projection format for over 75 years, why do you always want to reinvent the wheel?

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 February 2006 - 09:53 AM

QUOTE
There is no scanner involved in a c roll! Just light through film!
----------------------------------------------------
I think you misunderstood The Film itself has substance form it is solid and therefore cannot be entirely transparent
---------------------------------------------------

QUOTE
You could mask the gate, but not the matte box.
-----------------------------------------------------
WHY I Thought thats what Mattes were for?
------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
16mm has worked as a projection format for over 75 years, why do you always want to reinvent the wheel?
----------------------------------------------------
How Am I re-inventing the wheel? Surely asking questions about an established workflow is not re-inventing anything My question is simply what do I lose in the way of quality..

?
  • 0

#6 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:03 AM

I am in complete agreement with Stephan.

But if you are interested in creating a look that adds compression and artifacts as an aesthetic choice, then it may be an interesting way to go.

Prints made from 16mm negative exposed properly and printed properly can look really great without much if any perceived loss in quality, although some may have their own horror stories dealing with the 16mm printing process.

I know some may have a number for 16mm when it comes to data rate comparision, but there are so many variables (filmstock, lenses, lab: processing and printing, lighting) it is more of matter of taste than a data rate for a straight numbers comprarision.

Done right, a 16mm print would certainly be far superior, in terms of image quality, to 16 transferred to, edited on, color corrected with HDV and then sent back to film. There will be so much compression and increased likelyhood of artifacts added during every step, that it will be blown up on a large 16mm or 35mm projection system.

If you wanted to take advantage of some things one may do with a desktop editing system that may prove difficult in the printing process, it would be significantly better to have your 16mm transferred to one of the higher quality video formats than HDV.

But if you want to be really sure do a test all the way to a print first before you commit yourself to you post post-production path.

Just my 2 cents

Best

Tim
  • 0

#7 BritLoader

BritLoader
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:17 AM

on the subject of mattes as a way of creating widescreen. Unless I'm going crazy, a matte is only a way of keeping light out of the lense to prevent flare?
  • 0

#8 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:34 AM

QUOTE
I am in complete agreement with Stephan.
--------------------------------------------------
WHY ?
-----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
But if you are interested in creating a look that adds compression and artifacts as an aesthetic choice, then it may be an interesting way to go.
------------------------------------------------
I stated I wanted to go the normal workflow route I want to LEARN about Film Making NOT Some WORKFLOW you think SUMS me up
--------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Prints made from 16mm negative exposed properly and printed properly can look really great without much if any perceived loss in quality, although some may have their own horror stories dealing with the 16mm printing process.
---------------------------------------------------
Thats not what I ASKED is it?
----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
I know some may have a number for 16mm when it comes to data rate comparision, but there are so many variables (filmstock, lenses, lab: processing and printing, lighting) it is more of matter of taste than a data rate for a straight numbers comprarision.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes all good stuff AND sonmething I am learning about to BUT not the subject of this post?
---------------------------------------------------
QUOTE

Done right, a 16mm print would certainly be far superior, in terms of image quality, to 16 transferred to, edited on, color corrected with HDV and then sent back to film. There will be so much compression and increased likelyhood of artifacts added during every step, that it will be blown up on a large 16mm or 35mm projection system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK This what I want Thank you an acceptance of my question.. Although No answers?
--------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE

If you wanted to take advantage of some things one may do with a desktop editing system that may prove difficult in the printing process, it would be significantly better to have your 16mm transferred to one of the higher quality video formats than HDV.
-------------------------------------------------------------
OK But then we are looking at lots of Money?
------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE

But if you want to be really sure do a test all the way to a print first before you commit yourself to you post post-production path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hERE Is MY Likely path

I will probably have my neg telecined.. Edit the film on computer Using Sony Vegas and add a timecode.. I will then USE a two gang synchroniser to make the corresponding cuts.. I will put them in order and Make an A B ROLL Cutting the negative Myself I will send this off and ask them to correct and make a print..

That is My likely workflow HOWEVER its incidental because the question I asked was about generational loss I wanted to have an understanding a comparison to visualise the different formats and what they can do..

Its for me to be better INFORMED.. Why do I want to be Informed? So any decisions I make in the future regarding workflow formats ect will be done with Knowledge..
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:28 AM

QUOTE
----------------------------------------------------
I think you misunderstood The Film itself has substance form it is solid and therefore cannot be entirely transparent
---------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------
WHY I Thought thats what Mattes were for?
------------------------------------------------------


Hi,

A lens, glass filter & atmosphere are not entirely transparent!

A matte placed in the Matte box will be soft, and will change size as you pull focus. A matte in the camera gate will be sharp as will any hairs or dirt.

Stephen
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:31 AM

Film is not electronic, it's not digital, so the generational loss when duping through an IP and then IN stage cannot be expressed in digital terms. There is a slight increase in contrast, some slight loss of blacks, and an increase in grain as you duplicate the film.

However, if you shot in 16mm, let's say, and then blew it up to a 35mm IP, you're then duplicating 35mm from that point on (35mm IN to 35mm print), and you don't really lose anymore quality so to speak because the grain of the 35mm elements is smaller than the grain in your original.

But when duping, it's not like each step doubles or halves the quality. Intermediate stocks are designed not to add much degradation.

Film negative is meant to be duplicated -- no one projects the original negative. So you have to ask yourself what you are comparing when talking about loss. I've often found, for example, that a 16mm print off of a 16mm negative can look WORSE than a 35mm print made from a blow-up. This doesn't make sense but I think it's because 35mm is just a better projection format so holds up better on a big screen than a 16mm print. And optical printing may be "sharpening" the image in a way that contact printing doesn't. And 16mm printing is not all that good at many labs.

So if your point of comparison is a 16mm print of your original versus a 35mm print made from an IP/IN blow-up, you may not find that the "loss" is that noticeable. You may even prefer the blow-up. (You'll certainly prefer the sound on the 35mm print!)

In terms of blowing 16mm up using a digital intermediate through HD versus an optical process, it's just a difference in look, not so much a difference in quality. The digital blow-up will probably be less grainy but it also may be less sharp, plus may have video artifacts if not done well. However, a digital post may make it easier to add titles over picture, do scene transitions, freeze frames, image repositions, speed changes, etc.

You don't necessarily have to matte the image for the optical blow-up -- the projector will add the 1.85 matte. However, if you go through HD, you'd most likely be cropping the 16mm image to 1.78 in the transfer and outputting it to film with a 1.78 hard matte (unless you wanted a windowboxed 1.37 image).
  • 0

#11 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:53 AM

that a 16mm print off of a 16mm negative can look WORSE than a 35mm print made from a blow-up. This doesn't make sense but I think it's because 35mm is just a better projection format so holds up better on a big screen than a 16mm print. And optical printing may be "sharpening" the image in a way that contact printing doesn't. And 16mm printing is not all that good at many labs.


You EVEN answered a question THAT was in the back of my mind.. I didnt like to ask it though.. I thought that might be the case..(Above) Losing quality through generational loss was a concern I had.. Now I understand How it is with film..

Thanks David !


Stephen

I accept your point about the Matte box..
  • 0

#12 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 28 February 2006 - 12:13 PM

Mark,

Instead of starting numerous posts (16mm generational loss, Removing an Arri BL camera gate, Safe Area Question, etc.)and then railing against people who try to answer your questions and help you, why don't you actually go out and shoot something, and see for yourself what works and what doesn't.

The folks on this forum are incredibly knowledgeable, experienced, and helpful, but you need to go out and do some of the work for yourself. Not only is experience the best teacher, it might also bring a little humility.

-Tim
  • 0

#13 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 February 2006 - 01:10 PM

Mark,

Instead of starting numerous posts (16mm generational loss, Removing an Arri BL camera gate, Safe Area Question, etc.)

---------------------------------------
You want me to stop using the forum?
-------------------------------------


and then railing against people who try to answer your questions and help you,

-----------------------------------------------
I HAVE never Railed against someone trying to help me If your idea of help Is to question the questioner and to ridicule and use them as an excuse to air superiority then say that?
----------------------------------------------

why don't you actually go out and shoot something, and see for yourself what works and what doesn't.

-----------------------------------------------------
So instead of using the forum you want me to go burn and waste a load of film?
--------------------------------------------------------


The folks on this forum are incredibly knowledgeable, experienced, and helpful, but you need to go out and do some of the work for yourself. Not only is experience the best teacher, it might also bring a little humility.

-------------------------------------------------------
Yes some are knowledgeable and helpfull and of course I am grateful to the valuable contributions I can glean although Quite what that has to do chastising me for defending myself Im not sure..

As for Humility I have plenty ALL reserved for those that deserve it HOW about a little Humility yourself eh..
  • 0

#14 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 28 February 2006 - 03:16 PM

Well Mark I guess you wouldn't mind me defending myself then:


QUOTE
I am in complete agreement with Stephan.
--------------------------------------------------
WHY ?


Did you read my whole response? I answered that in the third sentence.



QUOTE
But if you are interested in creating a look that adds compression and artifacts as an aesthetic choice, then it may be an interesting way to go.
------------------------------------------------
I stated I wanted to go the normal workflow route I want to LEARN about Film Making NOT Some WORKFLOW you think SUMS me up
--------------------------------------------------



You did not state that! In part of your questions you expressed interest in transferring 16mm to HDV and back to 16mm. In post number 3 you asked "how much is lost by transferring to HDV editing then transferring back to film?" I was addressing your question. That is not something most would consider "normal" workflow. You also never stated you wanted to go through a normal workflow until you critiqued my answers! In rereading I only found this question from you "What workflow is best and why". By me saying "But if you are interested in creating a look that adds compression and artifacts as an aesthetic choice, then it may be an interesting way to go." Simply means I thought your idea was technically not a very good one, however I was giving you the courtesy of having a creative idea you wanted to run with. As long as there is some creative reasoning for something, I'll listen. If you want me to sum you up then I think you"re a freaking a**ho**! How do you like my addition?




QUOTE
Prints made from 16mm negative exposed properly and printed properly can look really great without much if any perceived loss in quality, although some may have their own horror stories dealing with the 16mm printing process.
---------------------------------------------------
Thats not what I ASKED is it?
----------------------------------------------------


Do you even remember what you asked? You certainly did jackass. Your first question started with "Im interested in finding out just how high regular 16mm quality is when its been through all its processes" and then I touched on the issue David elaborated about: The difficulty some labs have making good quality 16mm prints as opposed to 35mm.



QUOTE
I know some may have a number for 16mm when it comes to data rate comparision, but there are so many variables (filmstock, lenses, lab: processing and printing, lighting) it is more of matter of taste than a data rate for a straight numbers comprarision.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes all good stuff AND sonmething I am learning about to BUT not the subject of this post?
---------------------------------------------------


You really don't remember what you wrote do you? The gist of your questions was that you want to know the straight comparision between a digtial format, an analog and a combination of the two. That's what I was trying to answer. Again David elaborated on this issue.



QUOTE
Done right, a 16mm print would certainly be far superior, in terms of image quality, to 16 transferred to, edited on, color corrected with HDV and then sent back to film. There will be so much compression and increased likelyhood of artifacts added during every step, that it will be blown up on a large 16mm or 35mm projection system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK This what I want Thank you an acceptance of my question.. Although No answers?
--------------------------------------------------------


What?? You're saying that you finally liked my answer but that it provided no answers.


QUOTE
If you wanted to take advantage of some things one may do with a desktop editing system that may prove difficult in the printing process, it would be significantly better to have your 16mm transferred to one of the higher quality video formats than HDV.
-------------------------------------------------------------
OK But then we are looking at lots of Money?
------------------------------------------------------------


Newsflash: filmmaking is expensive. Get use to it.


QUOTE
But if you want to be really sure do a test all the way to a print first before you commit yourself to you post post-production path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hERE Is MY Likely path

I will probably have my neg telecined.. Edit the film on computer Using Sony Vegas and add a timecode.. I will then USE a two gang synchroniser to make the corresponding cuts.. I will put them in order and Make an A B ROLL Cutting the negative Myself I will send this off and ask them to correct and make a print..
---------------------------------------


And you consider that a "normal workflow". I'd like to sell you a bridge then. Good luck. Are you adding sound to that witches brew Einstein.


---------------------------------------
QUOTE
You want me to stop using the forum?
-------------------------------------

if your going to be an ass then yes. If you want to have a polite, and professional discourse, then please continue to participate.

-----------------------------------------------
QUOTE
I HAVE never Railed against someone trying to help me If your idea of help Is to question the questioner and to ridicule and use them as an excuse to air superiority then say that?
----------------------------------------------

personally I tried to answer your questions politely and professionally and you disected every sentence here on the forum criticizing anything that you feel was out of the ordinary. I tried to be as straightforward as possible talking about the pros and cons of your suggested work path as a whole. If you felt I had an air of superiority then perhaps you may have some insecurity issue yourself. Anyone who knows me in the real world knows I do not have an arrogant bone in my body. I basically feel I had said the same thing as David, he may have been more eloquent, by the gist was very similiar. Especially about the inabilty to compare digital and analog formats in a straightforward manner.

-----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
So instead of using the forum you want me to go burn and waste a load of film?
--------------------------------------------------------

Yes you idiot, that is what cinematographers do. If anything is in doubt you test test test! Experience is often the best and only teacher. You can only convey in words only so much when it comes to cinematography. The rest you must do and see for yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Yes some are knowledgeable and helpfull and of course I am grateful to the valuable contributions I can glean although Quite what that has to do chastising me for defending myself Im not sure..
-------------------------------------------------------

No one here was attacking you until you Tim Carroll saw your digital behavior. Everyone was trying to be helpful. If you perceived an attack then again that is your issue.

---------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
As for Humility I have plenty ALL reserved for those that deserve it HOW about a little Humility yourself eh..
----------------------------------------------------------

It is unfortunate that someone makes a post on this forum looking for help and then criticizes some of the people who took time and try to help them. However well intended, some may be right, others may be completely wrong, some may have interpreted the question differently, or perhaps the original question was imprecise, but in any case, there is no reason you have to behave like an ass. If you want to behave like a moron there are plenty of other places you can go. This website is not some lame ass Yahoo chat room.

Best

Tim

Edited by heel_e, 28 February 2006 - 03:21 PM.

  • 0

#15 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 February 2006 - 03:27 PM

Well Mark I guess you wouldn't mind me defending myself then:
QUOTE
I am in complete agreement with Stephan.
--------------------------------------------------
WHY ?
Did you read my whole response? I answered that in the third sentence.
QUOTE
But if you are interested in creating a look that adds compression and artifacts as an aesthetic choice, then it may be an interesting way to go.
------------------------------------------------
I stated I wanted to go the normal workflow route I want to LEARN about Film Making NOT Some WORKFLOW you think SUMS me up
--------------------------------------------------
You did not state that! In part of your questions you expressed interest in transferring 16mm to HDV and back to 16mm. In post number 3 you asked "how much is lost by transferring to HDV editing then transferring back to film?" I was addressing your question. That is not something most would consider "normal" workflow. You also never stated you wanted to go through a normal workflow until you critiqued my answers! In rereading I only found this question from you "What workflow is best and why". By me saying "But if you are interested in creating a look that adds compression and artifacts as an aesthetic choice, then it may be an interesting way to go." Simply means I thought your idea was technically not a very good one, however I was giving you the courtesy of having a creative idea you wanted to run with. As long as there is some creative reasoning for something, I'll listen. If you want me to sum you up then I think you"re a freaking a**ho**! How do you like my addition?
QUOTE
Prints made from 16mm negative exposed properly and printed properly can look really great without much if any perceived loss in quality, although some may have their own horror stories dealing with the 16mm printing process.
---------------------------------------------------
Thats not what I ASKED is it?
----------------------------------------------------
Do you even remember what you asked? You certainly did jackass. Your first question started with "Im interested in finding out just how high regular 16mm quality is when its been through all its processes" and then I touched on the issue David elaborated about: The difficulty some labs have making good quality 16mm prints as opposed to 35mm.
QUOTE
I know some may have a number for 16mm when it comes to data rate comparision, but there are so many variables (filmstock, lenses, lab: processing and printing, lighting) it is more of matter of taste than a data rate for a straight numbers comprarision.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes all good stuff AND sonmething I am learning about to BUT not the subject of this post?
---------------------------------------------------
You really don't remember what you wrote do you? The gist of your questions was that you want to know the straight comparision between a digtial format, an analog and a combination of the two. That's what I was trying to answer. Again David elaborated on this issue.
QUOTE
Done right, a 16mm print would certainly be far superior, in terms of image quality, to 16 transferred to, edited on, color corrected with HDV and then sent back to film. There will be so much compression and increased likelyhood of artifacts added during every step, that it will be blown up on a large 16mm or 35mm projection system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK This what I want Thank you an acceptance of my question.. Although No answers?
--------------------------------------------------------
What?? You're saying that you finally liked my answer but that it provided no answers.
QUOTE
If you wanted to take advantage of some things one may do with a desktop editing system that may prove difficult in the printing process, it would be significantly better to have your 16mm transferred to one of the higher quality video formats than HDV.
-------------------------------------------------------------
OK But then we are looking at lots of Money?
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsflash: filmmaking is expensive. Get use to it.
QUOTE
But if you want to be really sure do a test all the way to a print first before you commit yourself to you post post-production path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hERE Is MY Likely path

I will probably have my neg telecined.. Edit the film on computer Using Sony Vegas and add a timecode.. I will then USE a two gang synchroniser to make the corresponding cuts.. I will put them in order and Make an A B ROLL Cutting the negative Myself I will send this off and ask them to correct and make a print..
---------------------------------------
And you consider that a "normal workflow". I'd like to sell you a bridge then. Good luck. Are you adding sound to that witches brew Einstein.
---------------------------------------
QUOTE
You want me to stop using the forum?
-------------------------------------

if your going to be an ass then yes. If you want to have a polite, and professional discourse, then please continue to participate.

-----------------------------------------------
QUOTE
I HAVE never Railed against someone trying to help me If your idea of help Is to question the questioner and to ridicule and use them as an excuse to air superiority then say that?
----------------------------------------------

personally I tried to answer your questions politely and professionally and you disected every sentence here on the forum criticizing anything that you feel was out of the ordinary. I tried to be as straightforward as possible talking about the pros and cons of your suggested work path as a whole. If you felt I had an air of superiority then perhaps you may have some insecurity issue yourself. Anyone who knows me in the real world knows I do not have an arrogant bone in my body. I basically feel I had said the same thing as David, he may have been more eloquent, by the gist was very similiar. Especially about the inabilty to compare digital and analog formats in a straightforward manner.

-----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
So instead of using the forum you want me to go burn and waste a load of film?
--------------------------------------------------------

Yes you idiot, that is what cinematographers do. If anything is in doubt you test test test! Experience is often the best and only teacher. You can only convey in words only so much when it comes to cinematography. The rest you must do and see for yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Yes some are knowledgeable and helpfull and of course I am grateful to the valuable contributions I can glean although Quite what that has to do chastising me for defending myself Im not sure..
-------------------------------------------------------

No one here was attacking you until you Tim Carroll saw your digital behavior. Everyone was trying to be helpful. If you perceived an attack then again that is your issue.

---------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
As for Humility I have plenty ALL reserved for those that deserve it HOW about a little Humility yourself eh..
----------------------------------------------------------

It is unfortunate that someone makes a post on this forum looking for help and then criticizes some of the people who took time and try to help them. However well intended, some may be right, others may be completely wrong, some may have interpreted the question differently, or perhaps the original question was imprecise, but in any case, there is no reason you have to behave like an ass. If you want to behave like a moron there are plenty of other places you can go. This website is not some lame ass Yahoo chat room.

Best

Tim


I think this post about sums up exactly what I mean.. You show yourself in your true light..
  • 0

#16 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 28 February 2006 - 04:54 PM

[quote name='heel_e' date='Feb 28 2006, 08:16 PM' post='93147']
Well Mark I guess you wouldn't mind me defending myself then:
QUOTE
I am in complete agreement with Stephan.
--------------------------------------------------
WHY ?
Did you read my whole response? I answered that in the third sentence.

************************************


What you actually put
Prints made from 16mm negative exposed properly and printed properly can look really great without much if any perceived loss in quality, although some may have their own horror stories dealing with the 16mm printing process.
So exactly how does that answer my post You just took my post and made the question what you wanted it to be


************************************************
QUOTE
But if you are interested in creating a look that adds compression and artifacts as an aesthetic choice, then it may be an interesting way to go.
------------------------------------------------
I stated I wanted to go the normal workflow route I want to LEARN about Film Making NOT Some WORKFLOW you think SUMS me up
--------------------------------------------------
You did not state that! In part of your questions you expressed interest in transferring 16mm to HDV and back to 16mm. In post number 3 you asked "how much is lost by transferring to HDV editing then transferring back to film?" I was addressing your question. That is not something most would consider "normal" workflow. You also never stated you wanted to go through a normal workflow until you critiqued my answers! In rereading I only found this question from you "What workflow is best and why". By me saying "But if you are interested in creating a look that adds compression and artifacts as an aesthetic choice, then it may be an interesting way to go." Simply means I thought your idea was technically not a very good one, however I was giving you the courtesy of having a creative idea you wanted to run with. As long as there is some creative reasoning for something, I'll listen. If you want me to sum you up then I think you"re a freaking a**ho**! How do you like my addition?
*******************************


Here is my original post then
Im interested in finding out just how high regular 16mm quality is when its been through all its processes

First the Negative which is has been masked for 16:9 Then your interpositive after the neg cut.. and then an internegative before finally a print.. What kind of quality are you left with after these stages? HDV Standard?

OK I realise you could just telecine to HDV from the off and edit colour correct on the computer.. Surely though the high compression of HDV and editing it would have an effect on the look of the final version?

What workflow is best and why.. What quality loss can you expect?

What is this not a normal workflow?

As for calling me an Arsehole this about sums up your answers to questions doesnt it..



**************************************************
QUOTE
Prints made from 16mm negative exposed properly and printed properly can look really great without much if any perceived loss in quality, although some may have their own horror stories dealing with the 16mm printing process.
---------------------------------------------------
Thats not what I ASKED is it?
----------------------------------------------------
Do you even remember what you asked? You certainly did jackass. Your first question started with "Im interested in finding out just how high regular 16mm quality is when its been through all its processes" and then I touched on the issue David elaborated about: The difficulty some labs have making good quality 16mm prints as opposed to 35mm.
*****************************************************


You didnt touch on it at all you changed it to and I quote

Prints made from 16mm negative exposed properly and printed properly can look really great without much if any perceived loss in quality,

So you didnt did you?


*******************************************************
QUOTE
I know some may have a number for 16mm when it comes to data rate comparision, but there are so many variables (filmstock, lenses, lab: processing and printing, lighting) it is more of matter of taste than a data rate for a straight numbers comprarision.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes all good stuff AND sonmething I am learning about to BUT not the subject of this post?
---------------------------------------------------
You really don't remember what you wrote do you? The gist of your questions was that you want to know the straight comparision between a digtial format, an analog and a combination of the two. That's what I was trying to answer. Again David elaborated on this issue.
*************************************************


Actually its you with the memory problem Read my original post..


***************************************************
QUOTE
Done right, a 16mm print would certainly be far superior, in terms of image quality, to 16 transferred to, edited on, color corrected with HDV and then sent back to film. There will be so much compression and increased likelyhood of artifacts added during every step, that it will be blown up on a large 16mm or 35mm projection system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK This what I want Thank you an acceptance of my question.. Although No answers?
--------------------------------------------------------
What?? You're saying that you finally liked my answer but that it provided no answers.
******************************************************

NO
I am saying OK This what I want Thank you an acceptance of my question.. Although No answers?


********************************************************
QUOTE
If you wanted to take advantage of some things one may do with a desktop editing system that may prove difficult in the printing process, it would be significantly better to have your 16mm transferred to one of the higher quality video formats than HDV.
-------------------------------------------------------------
OK But then we are looking at lots of Money?
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsflash: filmmaking is expensive. Get use to it.
**************************************************

Yes that is why being frugal and careful with money is important and is why Directors who can bring films in ON or below budget get work


*****************************************************
QUOTE
But if you want to be really sure do a test all the way to a print first before you commit yourself to you post post-production path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hERE Is MY Likely path

I will probably have my neg telecined.. Edit the film on computer Using Sony Vegas and add a timecode.. I will then USE a two gang synchroniser to make the corresponding cuts.. I will put them in order and Make an A B ROLL Cutting the negative Myself I will send this off and ask them to correct and make a print..
---------------------------------------
And you consider that a "normal workflow". I'd like to sell you a bridge then. Good luck. Are you adding sound to that witches brew Einstein.
********************************************

What are you ON? I never said this was a normal workflow actually its cost effective certainly not the ideal..
---------------------------------------


*******************************************
QUOTE
You want me to stop using the forum?
-------------------------------------

if your going to be an ass then yes. If you want to have a polite, and professional discourse, then please continue to participate.
*******************************************

I would never participate here on your rules.. WHY do you think your in charge?


*************************************************
-----------------------------------
QUOTE
I HAVE never Railed against someone trying to help me If your idea of help Is to question the questioner and to ridicule and use them as an excuse to air superiority then say that?
----------------------------------------------

personally I tried to answer your questions politely and professionally and you disected every sentence here on the forum criticizing anything that you feel was out of the ordinary. I tried to be as straightforward as possible talking about the pros and cons of your suggested work path as a whole. If you felt I had an air of superiority then perhaps you may have some insecurity issue yourself. Anyone who knows me in the real world knows I do not have an arrogant bone in my body. I basically feel I had said the same thing as David, he may have been more eloquent, by the gist was very similiar. Especially about the inabilty to compare digital and analog formats in a straightforward manner.
**************************************************

You never answered nothing only to change the subject be abusive and disruptive all to attract attention to your over inflated ego

****************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
So instead of using the forum you want me to go burn and waste a load of film?
--------------------------------------------------------

Yes you idiot, that is what cinematographers do. If anything is in doubt you test test test! Experience is often the best and only teacher. You can only convey in words only so much when it comes to cinematography. The rest you must do and see for yourself.
*******************************************************

Back to the insults now Im glad thats what you do Tell you what must cost the production dept are do you write your own checks..

*********************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Yes some are knowledgeable and helpfull and of course I am grateful to the valuable contributions I can glean although Quite what that has to do chastising me for defending myself Im not sure..
-------------------------------------------------------

No one here was attacking you until you Tim Carroll saw your digital behavior. Everyone was trying to be helpful. If you perceived an attack then again that is your issue.
***************************************************


Perhaps you should reread the posts although I dont think that would do much good



******************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
As for Humility I have plenty ALL reserved for those that deserve it HOW about a little Humility yourself eh..
----------------------------------------------------------

It is unfortunate that someone makes a post on this forum looking for help and then criticizes some of the people who took time and try to help them. However well intended, some may be right, others may be completely wrong, some may have interpreted the question differently, or perhaps the original question was imprecise, but in any case, there is no reason you have to behave like an ass. If you want to behave like a moron there are plenty of other places you can go. This website is not some lame ass Yahoo chat room.

Best

Tim
*************************************************


Funny really because it sounds like your talking about yourself


***************************************************

Edited by Mark Williams, 28 February 2006 - 05:03 PM.

  • 0

#17 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:11 PM

Who is in their true light now?


As for me, I think this would be a good time for me to apologize to Tim Tyler, David Mullen and the body of people who regularly use this website for my participation in this arsinine and absurd thread. I'm sorry to all.

Best

Tim
  • 0

#18 Scot McPhie

Scot McPhie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 211 posts

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:31 PM

Going back to the original question - why are you looking at HDV as your NLE format to transfer to?

I know there are codecs for it, and a certain amount of support for it, but it has huge colour compression. I've never done it but I've heard there are transfer houses that will do still image captures direct to hard drive. that way you could have a numbered sequence of stills at uncompressed HD quality- you could render them out to SD size clips for editing and then (once edited) run all those settings over the originals and get an HD master to print back to film on.

This is all with in the realms of current consumer PC technology and would probably save you money over the normal HD workflows, as well as avoiding most (if not all) of the digital artefacts many referred of the posters to here.

Once the HD DVD burners are out you could probably even master to your own HD DVD.

Scot
  • 0

#19 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 01 March 2006 - 06:59 PM

Mark Williams, you clearly prefer arguing to finding out information. You ask questions and then pick holes in the answers - and you reject any further information as "not what I asked". Did it occur to you that this is not your personal tutorial space (or rant room)? It's possible other people might be interested in learning from the conversation too.

I'm only joining in here to deal with an unanswered point that came up early in the thread. Someone mentioned a C-roll for creating the mask on a print. You asked if that would cause quality loss as the "scanner" (perhaps you meant printer) would have to see through that extra layer of film. Well here's why not: (for the information of anyone who is interested).

1. The C-roll is printed separately, by a third run on the printer, after the A&B rolls have been printed. As a negative, it consists of a black image area with clear framelines around the outside. It allows the masked edges to be burnt to total black, while holding back any exposure inside the frame area. It is not even on the printer when the image is being exposed.

2. There are instances when a separate roll is used to mask a frame edge, (or to burn in subtitles, another application). When that is done, you have the three rolls of film running through the contact printer together. The mask (C-roll, title overlay, or whatever) is closest to the light. Then comes the image negative, emulsion side in contact with the third layer which is the raw stock roll. The "C-roll" or matte isn't in between the neg and the raw stock, so there is no reason for image deterioration in this instance either.

By the way: if you avoid this whole issue by masking in the camera, then go for a gate mask, not in the matte box (which will be unsharp and inaccurate). That's been said already. But if this is a film project, for film printing, why 16x9 masking? That's not a normal aspect ratio for film.

Just another point: If you are planning to cut the negative yourself following the method you outlined (or any other method for that matter) then I wish you lots of luck. Neg matching is a specialised skill. The chances that you will actually cut the negative correctly are slim. The chances that you won't (unknowingly) damage the negative, or splice it badly, are equally slim. Fianlly, the chances that anyone will want (or even be able) to help you out of the mess (based on your attitude on this list) are negligible.

So, good luck with your project. At least you'll be learning.
  • 0

#20 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 01 March 2006 - 08:01 PM

Just another point: If you are planning to cut the negative yourself following the method you outlined (or any other method for that matter) then I wish you lots of luck. Neg matching is a specialised skill. The chances that you will actually cut the negative correctly are slim. The chances that you won't (unknowingly) damage the negative, or splice it badly, are equally slim. Fianlly, the chances that anyone will want (or even be able) to help you out of the mess (based on your attitude on this list) are negligible.

So, good luck with your project. At least you'll be learning.


Dominic,

You bring up a very good point, there is no way on earth I would ever try to cut my own negative. I have seen the huge problems dust and dirt cause, and the thought of even touching the negative sends shivers. For fun I have cut reversal film, and shown it on a projector for kicks. But for a real project, there is no way to keep your work area as clean as a negative cutters area, not to mention the art of splicing and cutting. It is not just a razor blade and splicing tape.

I have to admit, the time I did the reversal film it was great fun using the Bolex splicer, beveling the edges, gluing and joining the clips. Just came out dirty and a bit scratched. But like I said, it was for fun, not for a real project.

-Tim
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Opal

Tai Audio

Technodolly

The Slider

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

CineLab

The Slider

Opal

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS