Jump to content


Photo

HDV For 35mm


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 June 2006 - 01:07 AM

Hi,

I've asked this before a long time ago, but I was hoping to get some more up to date information.

Has any one here shot a feature length project on HDV and then transfered the final to 35mm for projection? What where the results like?

Also, any one shot a feature with HDV and then finished onto a standard def DVD for distribution?

Thanks
R,
  • 0

#2 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 01 July 2006 - 09:08 PM

doing both right now. i'll let you know in a couple of months.

/matt
  • 0

#3 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 01 July 2006 - 09:50 PM

Are you sure it's wise to proceed with such a project and not pre-test the end results?

R,
  • 0

#4 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 02 July 2006 - 08:41 AM

oh, we have shot tests obviously, but the actual feature has not been transferred yet, which i believe is what you were asking. ;-) the same company shot a feature like this last year and that's what's being transferred now, and i'm working on their next one that we're shooting this month and will premiere next fall. hopefully our project will benefit from things learned from the first one.

/matt
  • 0

#5 Michael Most

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

Posted 02 July 2006 - 09:24 AM

Hi,

I've asked this before a long time ago, but I was hoping to get some more up to date information.

Has any one here shot a feature length project on HDV and then transfered the final to 35mm for projection? What where the results like?

Also, any one shot a feature with HDV and then finished onto a standard def DVD for distribution?


As I work in a film lab/video post facility, I've been involved in a few such projects. Here's my take:

If you really want to create a 35mm film version of a project, you're much, much better off shooting on a video format that has a true 24fps capture mode. This would include the HVX200 (not HDV, but a similar price point), the JVC, and to a lesser degree, the Canon. The Sony is perhaps the worst choice for such a project, primarily because it is a 60i system. However you look at it, converting 60i imagery to 24p imagery involves a process that basically produces 24 new images, none of which were photographically captured - they are all interpolated, and are composites of 2 or 3 different half resolution images. In doing this, some images - particularly relatively static ones - will often look just fine. However, any motion is going to be "hit and miss," in other words, the cadence that's introduced will work for some scenes and not work for others. There are other issues as well. All of the imagery will be "softer" than the original, due largely to the same factors as the frame rate change: you're not preserving any of the originally photographed imagery. And any speed changes you do in post will make these problems even more noticeable.

I don't say these things as a guess. I say them from experience in dealing with various film out projects. The best results, by far, are from 24fps original images. The worst are from 60i images.
  • 0

#6 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 02 July 2006 - 02:12 PM

for sure. we're shooting 50i which makes things a lot easier.

/matt
  • 0

#7 Lucita Jones

Lucita Jones
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Other
  • Chile and Costa Rica

Posted 02 January 2007 - 06:22 PM

for sure. we're shooting 50i which makes things a lot easier.

/matt



So am I, I am shooting 50i on the ZiU for a feature that we will transfer to 35mm. Its the first time we ever do this but it seems to be the trend here in Latin America. We still dont know where to do the transfer: Swiss Effects is an option, but there are also other labs in Montreal and Spain taht we are considering. Where are you doing yours?

Good luck!!!!!

Lucita

As I work in a film lab/video post facility, I've been involved in a few such projects. Here's my take:

If you really want to create a 35mm film version of a project, you're much, much better off shooting on a video format that has a true 24fps capture mode. This would include the HVX200 (not HDV, but a similar price point), the JVC, and to a lesser degree, the Canon. The Sony is perhaps the worst choice for such a project, primarily because it is a 60i system. However you look at it, converting 60i imagery to 24p imagery involves a process that basically produces 24 new images, none of which were photographically captured - they are all interpolated, and are composites of 2 or 3 different half resolution images. In doing this, some images - particularly relatively static ones - will often look just fine. However, any motion is going to be "hit and miss," in other words, the cadence that's introduced will work for some scenes and not work for others. There are other issues as well. All of the imagery will be "softer" than the original, due largely to the same factors as the frame rate change: you're not preserving any of the originally photographed imagery. And any speed changes you do in post will make these problems even more noticeable.

I don't say these things as a guess. I say them from experience in dealing with various film out projects. The best results, by far, are from 24fps original images. The worst are from 60i images.




When I decided to get the Sony Z1, it was because of the high resolution. I figured: with a high enough resolution I can do many things in post (like deinterlacing) and still preserve image quality. The 24p, however, would capture progressive but at a lower resolution (less color and image quality). Do you find my arguments hold true at all? Thanks...
Lucita
  • 0

#8 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 05 January 2007 - 09:07 AM

sorry, i forgot to reply. i've seen the results of the first project now. it looks like a dv blowup, only much sharper. the colors and contrast aren't as good as for example hdcam, but it looks sharp and artifact free. much better than dv, not as good as "real" hd, as expected, no surpises. some have said that the interframe compression wouldn't work on the big screen but there were no such problems except some blockiness when the camera shakes or moves very fast, so it's better to avoid such shots.

/matt

with a high enough resolution I can do many things in post (like deinterlacing) and still preserve image quality. The 24p, however, would capture progressive but at a lower resolution (less color and image quality). Do you find my arguments hold true at all?

not really. the limiting factor in those prosumer cameras is the lens. i've found the sharpness of the z1 to be about the same as high end sd (i.e. digibeta). a 720p camera with great glass will outperform both easily.

/matt
  • 0

#9 Carlos Martínez

Carlos Martínez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Director

Posted 27 January 2007 - 02:18 PM

Can anyone provide a list of critical tests to be made for a project that will be transferred from HDV to 35mm?

To start with I only plan to shoot in 50i with the Z1.

But what about the other settings: skin detail, sharpness, etc.?

Swiss effects has a list that can be used as a starting point, but maybe someone else has other suggestions.

Capture of these tests might be made to an Avid Xpress Pro or to a Final Cut Pro, but I think you need an intermediate step for FCP, right?

We shouldn't do anything but cutting the tests on the program, leaving color correction and/or effects for the pre-transfer suite, where we should take the hard-disk to, properly exported.


Carlos
  • 0

#10 Michael Maier

Michael Maier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:19 AM

Just talk to the post house you are using and they will tell you the best way to test and to shoot for their transferring process.

Edited by Michael Maier, 29 January 2007 - 05:22 AM.

  • 0

#11 Michael Maier

Michael Maier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 29 January 2007 - 08:05 AM

But I would just rent a 24p camera for the shot.

Edited by Michael Maier, 29 January 2007 - 08:07 AM.

  • 0

#12 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 29 January 2007 - 08:46 AM

For the cost of the HDV to 35mm transfer you could have just shot it on 35mm to begin with.
  • 0

#13 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:13 AM

For the cost of the HDV to 35mm transfer you could have just shot it on 35mm to begin with.

that's a myth. do the math. and please don't assume a 2:1 shooting ratio "with careful planning" or anything like that. and don't forget that a print from 35mm costs a lot of money too. for the cost of the transfer you can shoot maybe a few hours of 35mm. and then i haven't even considered the cost for renting a 35mm camera suitable for sync sound, or the extra person needed on your crew since you pretty much need both a dedicated focus puller and a loader.

/matt
  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 29 January 2007 - 02:08 PM

Hi,

I've asked this before a long time ago, but I was hoping to get some more up to date information.

Has any one here shot a feature length project on HDV and then transfered the final to 35mm for projection? What where the results like?

Also, any one shot a feature with HDV and then finished onto a standard def DVD for distribution?

Thanks
R,


Hi Richard,

I would wait for a Red camera if I were you.

Stephen

that's a myth. do the math. and please don't assume a 2:1 shooting ratio "with careful planning" or anything like that. and don't forget that a print from 35mm costs a lot of money too. for the cost of the transfer you can shoot maybe a few hours of 35mm. and then i haven't even considered the cost for renting a 35mm camera suitable for sync sound, or the extra person needed on your crew since you pretty much need both a dedicated focus puller and a loader.

/matt


Hi,

Im with Nate here, a film out will cost far more than you will save. If it's a HD only finish than that would be far cheaper.

Older 35mm sync sound cameras are very cheap to buy or rent.

Stephen
  • 0

#15 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:19 PM

frankly i don't think it's about being with someone or not. it's about doing the math. read what i wrote again and let me know exactly where i'm wrong. maybe you pay extremely little for your 35mm services or you pay way too much for your film out?

/matt
  • 0

#16 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:22 PM

frankly i don't think it's about being with someone or not. it's about doing the math. read what i wrote again and let me know exactly where i'm wrong. maybe you pay extremely little for your 35mm services or you pay way too much for your film out?

/matt


Hi,

What do you pay for your film out? I know Swiss Effects I live 5 miles from them.

Stephen
  • 0

#17 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:22 PM

Older 35mm sync sound cameras are very cheap to buy or rent.

older 35mm cameras need blimps and weigh a ton, so you need yet another crewmember just to carry them. i'd be happy to learn of any option i might have missed though.

/matt
  • 0

#18 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:26 PM

older 35mm cameras need blimps and weigh a ton, so you need yet another crewmember just to carry them. i'd be happy to learn of any option i might have missed though.

/matt


Hi Matt,

By older I mean from the 1970's/80's I am talking about Arri BL 1/II's & Ultracams, both weigh about 35 pounds with 400' stock and a lens, easy to hand hold.

Stephen
  • 0

#19 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:02 PM

What do you pay for your film out? I know Swiss Effects I live 5 miles from them.


maybe $50,000 for a feature at the most, same as at swiss effects it seems. minus the maybe $20,000 you'll pay for a timed 35mm contact print and you have $30,000 left. that buys you how much of 35mm stock, processing and telecine according to your price list? according to mine it buys you a few hours, like i said, not nearly enough for a serious feature. and even if you're fine with an arri II or konvas and post dub all audio it will cost you more than a z1, plus i'm still saying you need another crewmember to handle it. no, you need to bring out some hard facts to convince me. ;-)

/matt

By older I mean from the 1970's/80's I am talking about Arri BL 1/II's & Ultracams


ok, and you call those cheap? a package is still maybe $200 more per day than a z1, which adds up to $5,000 for a six week low budget feature. so now you have only $25,000 left. :-)

/matt
  • 0

#20 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:46 PM

maybe $50,000 for a feature at the most, same as at swiss effects it seems. minus the maybe $20,000 you'll pay for a timed 35mm contact print and you have $30,000 left. that buys you how much of 35mm stock, processing and telecine according to your price list? according to mine it buys you a few hours, like i said, not nearly enough for a serious feature. and even if you're fine with an arri II or konvas and post dub all audio it will cost you more than a z1, plus i'm still saying you need another crewmember to handle it. no, you need to bring out some hard facts to convince me. ;-)

/matt
ok, and you call those cheap? a package is still maybe $200 more per day than a z1, which adds up to $5,000 for a six week low budget feature. so now you have only $25,000 left. :-)

/matt


Hi Matt,

The thing is, I dont know anybody who pays list for film & processing. Call your friendly Fuji rep and ask if you can have 100,000 of short dated stock free, see what he says expect at least 50% off list, this is a low budget feature remember!

You can buy a 35mm package for $10k and sell it after the shoot, getting your money back.

Sure if your convinced a Z1 is the way to go don't let me stop you.

Stephen
  • 0


The Slider

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery