Jump to content


Photo

Sony Z1 to 35mm film.


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Ian Vernon

Ian Vernon

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Director
  • NorthWest , UK + LA

Posted 14 August 2006 - 05:01 AM

Does anyone know any films that have been shot on the Sony Z1 HD camera and eventually telecined to 35 mm? And what the quality is like? Or any information on the best small HD camera to get the best telecined results.?
  • 0

#2 Michael Most

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

Posted 14 August 2006 - 08:44 AM

Does anyone know any films that have been shot on the Sony Z1 HD camera and eventually telecined to 35 mm? And what the quality is like? Or any information on the best small HD camera to get the best telecined results.?


Telecine is film to tape transfer, not the other way around. You don't "telecine" video to film.

There is no "best" among cheap cameras for film recording, but in general, you are much better off with those that offer a true 24 frame mode than units like the Sony that are 60 fields, interlaced. The entire notion of shooting on a $3000 camera if your need is a 35mm film print is questionable, as it will cost you a lot more than you can probably afford (based on the fact that you're using a $3000 camera) to accomplish the 35mm film recording and printing. The negative and print stock, along with the processing of both, the creation of an optical track negative, and the cost of recording to film is going to run you at least $300 per running minute (that's a very low end price, with the quality befitting that low end price). The truth is that probably 98% of the posts here referring to projects that are going to be "shot out to film" never get past the video projection stage, if that far. I'm not saying you're in that 98%, but that happens to be the truth.
  • 0

#3 Chris_Burket

Chris_Burket
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 August 2006 - 11:31 PM

Does anyone know any films that have been shot on the Sony Z1 HD camera and eventually telecined to 35 mm? And what the quality is like? Or any information on the best small HD camera to get the best telecined results.?


I am currently working on a project that will be combining footage from the F900, Z1u, HC1, 35mm, and super 16mm. Prior to going forward with the Z1u and HC1, we did a 35mm film out test at E Film. We tested in both NTSC and PAL.

For our workflow we captured via firewire into FCP, then took the drive to an online house and had them make two master tapes on HDCam. One for the NTSC material, one for the PAL. Then we took these HDCam tapes to EFilm. They converted them to 24 fps using a teranex converter, then brought that 24 fps tape into their system and shot it out to film. We screened the print in their theatre and it looked really nice. In my opinion, the PAL looked a little better... but that's just my thoughts.

We also saw a reel of stuff they had made from the DVX (the film "November") and some other stuff that was shot on the F900 and Varicam. The F900 and Varicam stuff looked the best by far. The DVX also looked absolutely incredible considering it's an SD consumer level camera.

One thing to note when using the HDV cameras for film out: None of them (aside from the JVC camera and HVX200) shoot true 24fps progressive. That means they need to be converted by a box like a teranex or snell and wilcox. Usually when performing this type of conversion, these boxes will throw out fields and interpolate the missing field to create progressive frames. This means you actually loose resolution and the box is throwing out fields and rendering them again. You could also use an Inferno, I've seen this done and it sometimes looks better than using a box like the Teranex, but sometimes it just looks the same.

Another thing to consider is that all these outputs and conversions (HDcam output, Ternanex, inferno) are very costly.

Honestly, if you are starting production on a low budget project and want a route to film out if you need it, I would shoot with the JVC HDV camera, or the HVX200. That way you have true progessive frames all the way through the pipeline. If those are too expensive, I would personally shoot with the DVX before I would shoot with the Z1u. You get true progessive frames, and personally, I thought it looked a little better in 35mm. But that's just my opinion, some may disagree.

However, if you already have a bunch of HDV footage from the Z1u and you need to print it out to 35mm.... It can be done, it's a little complex, but it looks pretty darn good all things considered. You should do a 1 minute test prior to paying for the whole film out of course. Judge for yourself.
  • 0

#4 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:30 AM

the best conversion for going from 50i or 60i to 24p is with the current build of shake, better than inferno and better than snell and wilcox which is limited in deinterlacing options. shake also costs about £300 which will be cheaper than going either of the previously mentioned routes. anyone with a rudimentry understanding of the programme should be able to perform the conversion. as always it is best to test test test test......

keith
  • 0

#5 Michael Most

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

Posted 16 August 2006 - 09:04 AM

the best conversion for going from 50i or 60i to 24p is with the current build of shake, better than inferno and better than snell and wilcox which is limited in deinterlacing options. shake also costs about £300 which will be cheaper than going either of the previously mentioned routes. anyone with a rudimentry understanding of the programme should be able to perform the conversion. as always it is best to test test test test......


One very important thing to keep in mind regarding 60i to 24p conversions is that you're much better off doing them at the beginning of the process than at the end. In other words, converting all sources prior to final conforming. A Teranex, or any other converter, uses shot detection to determine when a cut has occurred. Since every single frame of a 60i->24p conversion is an interpolated one (i.e., none of the resulting images are as photographed), any "hiccup" in the shot detection or the motion interpolation will cause a corresponding "hiccup" in the 24p result. If you examine the output of a Teranex conversion frame by frame, you'll likely find that the first frame of many cuts - and, occasionally, other frames as well - are "blurred" combinations of two different images. The only way to avoid this is to separately convert every shot in the show, then put them back together again.

Of course, a much, much better way is to shoot with a camera and recording system that does 24p to begin with. Contrary to what appears to be popular belief today, you can't take anything that's "digital" and magically make it anything else that's "digital" without paying a price.
  • 0

#6 Olivier Vanaschen

Olivier Vanaschen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 16 August 2006 - 09:15 AM

It's way easier to start with 50i. Take 50i in post, deinterlace to 25p, slow everything down to 24p (correct the audio pitch) and you'll have a pretty good result. Many many movies shot on video were done this way: Anniversary Party, 28 Days Later, Dancer in the Dark,...

DVFilm has a good FAQ on their site.
  • 0

#7 Ian Vernon

Ian Vernon

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Director
  • NorthWest , UK + LA

Posted 17 August 2006 - 03:33 AM

It's way easier to start with 50i. Take 50i in post, deinterlace to 25p, slow everything down to 24p (correct the audio pitch) and you'll have a pretty good result. Many many movies shot on video were done this way: Anniversary Party, 28 Days Later, Dancer in the Dark,...

DVFilm has a good FAQ on their site.


Hi guys!
thanks for all the advice.
I neglected to say I would have been using a PAL version of the Sony, as I am UK based.
But I met the VERY informed Alan Roberts (Tech guy at the BBC / and various bloggs) at the BBC the other day. And the best budget camera he recommended was the HVX200.
He tests every HD camera he gets his hands on, and in some cases takes them apart.
Was also the Tech advisor to the DOP's on Blue Planet, Bleak House and many more prods.
You can also get his white pages and settings for many HD cameras from the BBC website.
So, I'm going the HVX 200 route...Unless you know better?
  • 0

#8 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 August 2006 - 08:57 AM

Hi guys!
thanks for all the advice.
I neglected to say I would have been using a PAL version of the Sony, as I am UK based.
But I met the VERY informed Alan Roberts (Tech guy at the BBC / and various bloggs) at the BBC the other day. And the best budget camera he recommended was the HVX200.
He tests every HD camera he gets his hands on, and in some cases takes them apart.
Was also the Tech advisor to the DOP's on Blue Planet, Bleak House and many more prods.
You can also get his white pages and settings for many HD cameras from the BBC website.
So, I'm going the HVX 200 route...Unless you know better?




Can you afford the P2 cards to shoot with the HVX?
If you want more resolution you can try the XL H1 or the upcoming new smaller and cheaper canon HDV cameras, which deliver 24-25f and offer more resolution than the HVX. However HDV compression sucks if you plan to do heavy color correction. But i wonder if having 1440x700 (vertical aprox resolution) pixels in HDV is better than 960x540 dvcproHD image from the HVX200.
  • 0

#9 Ian Vernon

Ian Vernon

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Director
  • NorthWest , UK + LA

Posted 17 August 2006 - 10:38 AM

Can you afford the P2 cards to shoot with the HVX?
If you want more resolution you can try the XL H1 or the upcoming new smaller and cheaper canon HDV cameras, which deliver 24-25f and offer more resolution than the HVX. However HDV compression sucks if you plan to do heavy color correction. But i wonder if having 1440x700 (vertical aprox resolution) pixels in HDV is better than 960x540 dvcproHD image from the HVX200.

Grief Macgregor, your photo looks just like a Mcgregor I know in LA!
Anyway, I will be using P2 and / or firestore to get the least compression and highest res.
I don't know anything about the Canon HDV? Does it deliver true 24P, or does it throw away pxels like the H1 does?
  • 0

#10 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 August 2006 - 07:31 PM

Grief Macgregor, your photo looks just like a Mcgregor I know in LA!
Anyway, I will be using P2 and / or firestore to get the least compression and highest res.
I don't know anything about the Canon HDV? Does it deliver true 24P, or does it throw away pxels like the H1 does?




They trow away some vertical pixels, but even doing so, it delivers more resolution than the HVX.
  • 0

#11 Ian Vernon

Ian Vernon

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Director
  • NorthWest , UK + LA

Posted 18 August 2006 - 01:51 AM

They trow away some vertical pixels, but even doing so, it delivers more resolution than the HVX.

Thanks!
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Opal

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

CineLab

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Visual Products

CineTape

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post