Jump to content


Photo

WHAT IS IT WITH THIS VIDEO


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Amarjeet Singh Sadal

Amarjeet Singh Sadal
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 December 2006 - 01:40 PM

i had recently shot this short peice as a part of my ma film production course.



i shot it on 16mm. did everything from conceptualization, cinematography, editing, vfx and sound.

the problem is the look. it is not as good and clean looking as the other 16mm films i have seen. what is missing here. where did i goof up. although the grungy look is quite appropriate for the kinda of film in question that i have made. but we will soon be shooting our final films on 16mm. i certainly would not want it to look like this.

my lighting gear was very simple one i suppose. film speed was 200. lights included 2000, 800, 650, ianaro and dedo. i don remember which was used specifically in which shot. but almost all the backlight was provided by 2000 and closeups where done mostly with dedo.

please advise.
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:26 PM

Looks pretty good for 16mm, from what I can tell from a compressed U-Tube presentation.

What lenses were you using? What was telecine was the film transferred on? To what tape format? How was it posted?

Technical quality is often not one or two things, but a dozen little things that add up. Individually, they may not produce much of a hit in quality, but too many little hits and you start to notice.

But there are also limitations to the 16mm format.
  • 0

#3 Amarjeet Singh Sadal

Amarjeet Singh Sadal
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:39 PM

thanks david. you are right i completely forgot about those aspects.

we used 9mm, 16mm, 28mm, and a zoom lens (i don remember the zoom lens mm)

it was a telecine from film to a beta and then to a minidv. which i digitised and did the post on, since we only have small sony minidv decks which only digitize minidv. don remember the name. then i took a quiktime output as a personal copy which was uploaded on youtube.

also our cinematography tutor said that although the production houses they send for telecine boast of top of the line machines. they usually put student telecine on old and outdated machines which they never commit they did.

also he said that student telecines are usually not graded. that maybe another reason.

the camera was an arriflex sr3 and the lights are also arri.
  • 0

#4 Chad Stockfleth

Chad Stockfleth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 622 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Louisville, KY

Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:59 PM

Telecine to beta and then dubbed to minidv is gonna take a pretty significant hit.

Perhaps next time you can telecine to digibeta and then capture footage somewhere else? that would be a lot cleaner.
  • 0

#5 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 29 December 2006 - 03:00 PM

it was a telecine from film to a beta and then to a minidv


There's the problem right there, probably. Was it regular Beta or DigiBeta? Either way, you're probably going to have some generation loss, hence the loss in quality.

If you're going to the same production house for another telecine, you should find out if they output onto any other formats. MiniDV, DVCAM, etc.
  • 0

#6 Amarjeet Singh Sadal

Amarjeet Singh Sadal
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 December 2006 - 04:41 PM

i agree that there might be a huge loss during the film>beta(not digi)>mini dv
but i can swear that i have seen other films which look quite immaculate on mini dv. yes there was loss on those but not so much so that the entire film look changes.

i still think it was something to do with the telecine.
  • 0

#7 Jon Kukla

Jon Kukla
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 December 2006 - 06:25 PM

It reminds me of some old friends' film school films which were shot on 16mm, printed, edited on a flatbed, and then telecined. So I have to ask - was this a TK straight from the original uncut negative, or is it coming from something else, like a workprint?
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Technodolly

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

CineLab