Jump to content


Photo

Resolution / animation/ 16mm?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Mai

Mai
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Other
  • Berlin, Germany and Oslo, Norway

Posted 03 March 2006 - 04:56 PM

Hi there!

I am quite new to this forum, and this is my first post.
(but have already learnt alot of things reading the posts on K-3s)

Now, I am working on an animation to result in a 16mm film.

The animation which contains about 750 drawings,each shown one after the other, two frames each. Thus the animation will have an approximate duration of 1min. The end result: to show the 16mm film looped on a 16mm projector-in a gallery space.

I donĀ“t know if this is the best way to do:

I am scanning all the drawings into my computer, and then delivering all the digital stills to the lab to be transferred to 16 mm film or the cheaper way- to deliver an uncompressed video of all the digital files to be transferred to 16 mm. How much quality would I lose in choosing the cheaper method?

Second question: What resolution and format should my digital stills(being the scans of the drawings) have to obtain the best possible quality on 16 mm film? (I guess that it must be much bigger than the DV Pal res: 576x720 pixels/ 72dpi?)

I hope my questions seem clear and am
looking forward to hearing your advice !

Best regards,
Mai H. G. (visual artist)
  • 0

#2 ChristianK

ChristianK
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2006 - 01:33 AM

Most labs I know will take 2k files (2048x1556) for 16mm. Both Uncompressed Quicktimes and Imagine Sequesnces are typically accepted but you have to check with you lab. I personally prefer a Tiff or Pict image sequences with the naming convention - filename.#####.tif.

Hope this helps.

Christian
  • 0

#3 Shawn Gallagher

Shawn Gallagher
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Other
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 13 March 2006 - 08:37 PM

Hi Mai,

Why don't you just get a cheap Bolex and, single frame, shoot the drawings directly on film.
It might be more expensive for the equipment outlay, but if you sell the camera afterwards (or just rent a camera) it might be a lot cheaper.

Cheers. -Shawn
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 14 March 2006 - 03:51 AM

Hi Mai,

Why don't you just get a cheap Bolex and, single frame, shoot the drawings directly on film.
It might be more expensive for the equipment outlay, but if you sell the camera afterwards (or just rent a camera) it might be a lot cheaper.

Cheers. -Shawn


Hi,

I am sure this is a far cheaper soloution.

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Michael Carter

Michael Carter
  • Guests

Posted 14 March 2006 - 01:06 PM

Since you are scanning them, why put them on film at all? Perhaps the gallery has a PC or a digital projector that could be used.
Do you have a 16mm film projector and extra bulbs? You may also need more than one Print of the animation on film since it'll get dirty and scratched and if it jams it'll burn a hole it it.

A pencil test shot on 7363 and developed by yourself in d-76, but hot, would look great projected.

I'd shoot it on Regular 8mm and back project it in a box viewer. The film loop would be half the length.
  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Opal

Glidecam

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Opal

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks