Jump to content


Photo

transfer and neg stocks


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 chris kempinski

chris kempinski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 February 2007 - 12:42 PM

I would love to see some samples of 200T or 500T transfered.
If anyone has a sample and could post it on line......
Flying Spot in Seattle told me the transfer to MiniDv was
comparable to 16....... I love super8 and if this is the case I would
love to use it more. As I light for money and shoot for fun, this is
my slower season and money is tight, I don't have the funds to
just go out and shoot for fun right now. :(



Chris
  • 0

#2 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 10 February 2007 - 01:00 PM

If you can wait a few months I'll have some 200T for you to view.
  • 0

#3 Joseph Winchester

Joseph Winchester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin, TX

Posted 10 February 2007 - 02:27 PM

I'm getting some 200T back mid-week trasferred to 10-bit uncompressed. It's just a camera test, but I will certainly share my results.
  • 0

#4 Justin Lovell

Justin Lovell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 25 February 2007 - 01:38 AM

I'm getting some 200T back mid-week trasferred to 10-bit uncompressed. It's just a camera test, but I will certainly share my results.



I'm sure they didn't say that the s8 was comparable to 16mm. You can make s8 look pretty good, but it doesn't even have 1/2 the resolution of 16mm.

Unless they were comparion a fast 16mm 500T compared to a slower s8 50D or something like that.
  • 0

#5 Scott Bullock

Scott Bullock
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Other
  • Denver, CO

Posted 25 February 2007 - 08:29 AM

This entire film was shot on Super 8 using Kodak 500T film. This streaming sample isn't at full resolution, obviously, but I'd say in many places it is indistinguishable from 16mm. It certainly has more character and warmth than DV, IMHO. Yes, Super 8 has less resolution than 16mm, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's going to be of concern to the viewer. The original "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was shot on 16mm and is by far a better film than its "slick" 35mm remake, so resolution isn't really a factor with regard to a film's acceptability, IMHO.
  • 0

#6 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 25 February 2007 - 08:47 PM

Flying Spot in Seattle told me the transfer to MiniDv was
comparable to 16...

It's only really comparable to 16 when they do the transfer... they are the only company I know with a Shadow Super 8 telecine. That with their noise reduction produces an amazing image on Super 8. Pro8mm, Spectra and other houses that promote Super 8 Rank transfers do a good job, but FSFT is about the best I've ever seen on Super 8.
  • 0

#7 John Hyde

John Hyde
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 25 February 2007 - 09:49 PM

It's only really comparable to 16 when they do the transfer... they are the only company I know with a Shadow Super 8 telecine. That with their noise reduction produces an amazing image on Super 8. Pro8mm, Spectra and other houses that promote Super 8 Rank transfers do a good job, but FSFT is about the best I've ever seen on Super 8.


It seems we have different results. I sent some 16mm to Flying Spot and Spectra. Spectra produced an image that was a bit more crisp and detailed. Both films were shot on the same emulsion (7201), day, location and camera (SR II). I decided to continue my project with Spectra as a result. Perhaps you sent in some film that was shot under different circumstances. How precise were your tests?
  • 0

#8 Justin Lovell

Justin Lovell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 25 February 2007 - 11:00 PM

It seems we have different results. I sent some 16mm to Flying Spot and Spectra. Spectra produced an image that was a bit more crisp and detailed. Both films were shot on the same emulsion (7201), day, location and camera (SR II). I decided to continue my project with Spectra as a result. Perhaps you sent in some film that was shot under different circumstances. How precise were your tests?



I've also noticed that spectra does a lot of sharpening to their image in the transfer, which can give the illusion of shooting a higher resolution format.
I've noticed that Cinelab does a good job reducing sparkle/speckle, but as a result their transfer is much softer. It does look very 'slick' but does not have the apparent resolution that spectra has.

Every transfer house will have their own look because the technology varies dramatically for S8 transfers from lab to lab.
  • 0

#9 Matt Sandstrom

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

Posted 26 February 2007 - 03:59 PM

This entire film

either i'm stupid, my computer is, or the site is, because i don't see a film, just a bunch of comments.

/matt
  • 0

#10 Matt Sandstrom

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

Posted 26 February 2007 - 04:20 PM

sorry, it's the computer. javascript is broken. good think it's not mine...

/matt
  • 0

#11 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1582 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 28 February 2007 - 01:48 PM

I've also noticed that spectra does a lot of sharpening to their image in the transfer, which can give the illusion of shooting a higher resolution format.
I've noticed that Cinelab does a good job reducing sparkle/speckle, but as a result their transfer is much softer. It does look very 'slick' but does not have the apparent resolution that spectra has.

Every transfer house will have their own look because the technology varies dramatically for S8 transfers from lab to lab.



You can set the aperture corrector on the Digi4 framestore in a rank to a higher setting which will increase the apparent sharpness of the image Spectra also has a V3 8mm gate which is probably the nicest gate ever made for 8mm film and costs in the 50K range. I have not seen any film from them but I would imagine that it looks great and is naturally sharp.

I liked what I saw from FSFT too even though I generally do not like the Shadow based on my experience with 16 and 35 on it. I have always thought the shadow made a to videoish and over sharpened image, compared to the Spirit or DSX and Millenium machines I have used (the Millenium being my favorite) but it seems to work well for super8. We processed a 200+ roll color neg 8mm job last year and the client put the film on the Spirit at technicolor in NY and did a D5 transfer which looked really great, the spirit is a true 2K res machine (although only 422 color at the imager) while the Shadow is resolution truncated (1440 422 at the imager) but you get what you pay for at 1800/hr on the spirit.

Justin our film has low speckle count because out processing is really clean :D I am constantly working on improving our gate and trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of our Rank I made some changes recently which give a much sharper image and have a whole next generation gate setup in the works at our machine shop. I feel we will be as sharp as any other rank in a little bit. I do not like noise reducers and/or using aperture correcting to sharpen the image and will just be trying to give a natural picture now and in the future.

Just a note about DigiBeta In my opinion the deck is really too much for what you are buying a used DigiBeta deck is $30k a Uncompressed disk transfer is $2K (for a G5, Card and Disk array) the uncompressed disk transfer is better than digibeta in image quality. Any facility that has a "modern" telecine can record to Digibeta through SDI. We have transfered material to Digi in the past (mostly MV work that ran on MTV in Europe, PAL) I looked at the rental deck and could not find where the thing was worth as much as a porsche the rental was $400.00 there are something like 40 tape formats out there now keeping up with all of them can put a small facility like any of us in a bad way.....


-Rob-
  • 0

#12 Justin Lovell

Justin Lovell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 28 February 2007 - 08:38 PM

You can set the aperture corrector on the Digi4 framestore in a rank to a higher setting which will increase the apparent sharpness of the image Spectra also has a V3 8mm gate which is probably the nicest gate ever made for 8mm film and costs in the 50K range. I have not seen any film from them but I would imagine that it looks great and is naturally sharp.

I liked what I saw from FSFT too even though I generally do not like the Shadow based on my experience with 16 and 35 on it. I have always thought the shadow made a to videoish and over sharpened image, compared to the Spirit or DSX and Millenium machines I have used (the Millenium being my favorite) but it seems to work well for super8. We processed a 200+ roll color neg 8mm job last year and the client put the film on the Spirit at technicolor in NY and did a D5 transfer which looked really great, the spirit is a true 2K res machine (although only 422 color at the imager) while the Shadow is resolution truncated (1440 422 at the imager) but you get what you pay for at 1800/hr on the spirit.

Justin our film has low speckle count because out processing is really clean :D I am constantly working on improving our gate and trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of our Rank I made some changes recently which give a much sharper image and have a whole next generation gate setup in the works at our machine shop. I feel we will be as sharp as any other rank in a little bit. I do not like noise reducers and/or using aperture correcting to sharpen the image and will just be trying to give a natural picture now and in the future.

Just a note about DigiBeta In my opinion the deck is really too much for what you are buying a used DigiBeta deck is $30k a Uncompressed disk transfer is $2K (for a G5, Card and Disk array) the uncompressed disk transfer is better than digibeta in image quality. Any facility that has a "modern" telecine can record to Digibeta through SDI. We have transfered material to Digi in the past (mostly MV work that ran on MTV in Europe, PAL) I looked at the rental deck and could not find where the thing was worth as much as a porsche the rental was $400.00 there are something like 40 tape formats out there now keeping up with all of them can put a small facility like any of us in a bad way.....
-Rob-


Hey Rob,

Glad to hear you're making more changes over there. Seems like an ongoing battle to get the best image possible, eh? We should chat a little more off list. Had some other concerns about sparkle and specs, but its from another lab... i think they just don't have the volume of work to keep the machines in tip-top shape.

I did get the last re-transfer back from you via fedex (with a customs bill). Seems they at least managed to get it across the border better than UPS.

cheers,

Justin
  • 0

#13 steve hyde

steve hyde
  • Sustaining Members
  • 446 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 01 March 2007 - 01:34 AM

...here are some compressed samples that I've posted. They were transfered at FSFT and CinePost.

http://www.steve-hyde.com/reel1.htm

hope this helps.

Steve
  • 0

#14 John Hyde

John Hyde
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 03 March 2007 - 10:25 PM

I guess I should add that a big part of the reason Spectra's transfers are so sharp is because they replace their picture tube every 6 - 12 months (at the slightest hint of softening). I was actually there when they were changing out their tube not long ago. Most places leave a picure tube in much longer because they are extremely expensive. They baby their machines and it shows.

In the end, the 16 from Spectra looked as good as any of the more expensive facilities I have used. I only wish they had a key code reader or I would send all of my 16 their way.
  • 0

#15 jason duncan

jason duncan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Other
  • Michigan

Posted 13 March 2007 - 08:41 PM

...here are some compressed samples that I've posted. They were transfered at FSFT and CinePost.

http://www.steve-hyde.com/reel1.htm

hope this helps.

Steve



Steve, that footage is absoluty beautiful. Is it 200T or 500T?

Edited by jason duncan, 13 March 2007 - 08:43 PM.

  • 0

#16 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:27 PM

This entire film was shot on Super 8 using Kodak 500T film. This streaming sample isn't at full resolution, obviously, but I'd say in many places it is indistinguishable from 16mm. It certainly has more character and warmth than DV, IMHO. Yes, Super 8 has less resolution than 16mm, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's going to be of concern to the viewer. The original "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was shot on 16mm and is by far a better film than its "slick" 35mm remake, so resolution isn't really a factor with regard to a film's acceptability, IMHO.


It looked really good, but the colors seemed pretty muted for how 500T normally looks. It may be what you wanted?
  • 0

#17 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 13 March 2007 - 10:35 PM

You can set the aperture corrector on the Digi4 framestore in a rank to a higher setting which will increase the apparent sharpness of the image Spectra also has a V3 8mm gate which is probably the nicest gate ever made for 8mm film and costs in the 50K range. I have not seen any film from them but I would imagine that it looks great and is naturally sharp......


Sounds like an excellent assessment. Better Spectra spend the money on that terrific gate and offer betacam sp and DV video transfers at excellent price points than skimp on the gate just so they can have an inhouse digital betacam deck. Instead they provide the best of all worlds, really good quality film to video tape transfers to both betacam sp and DV video for the cost conscious super-8 filmmaker, and digital betacam transfers when necessary for higher end clients.


Just a note about DigiBeta In my opinion the deck is really too much for what you are buying a used DigiBeta deck is $30k a Uncompressed disk transfer is $2K (for a G5, Card and Disk array) the uncompressed disk transfer is better than digibeta in image quality. Any facility that has a "modern" telecine can record to Digibeta through SDI. We have transfered material to Digi in the past (mostly MV work that ran on MTV in Europe, PAL) I looked at the rental deck and could not find where the thing was worth as much as a porsche the rental was $400.00 there are something like 40 tape formats out there now keeping up with all of them can put a small facility like any of us in a bad way.....
-Rob-


The problem with directly comparing uncompressed 10 bit to digital betacam, betacam sp or mini-dv, and correct me if I am wrong, is 10 bit uncompressed is a computer file whereas digibeta is a video signal. So even if the uncompressed 10 bit signal looks better in the computer, when it is edited on NLE and the NLE edit master is outputted to a video tape, how does that look versus if one started with either digital betacam or betacam sp and used a digital betacam workflow or a betacam sp component signal workflow? That is the comparison that I want to know more about.

As it stands now, I think digital betacam is the ideal video mastering format for Super-8, Betacam sp the perfect combination of cost-effectiveness and quality for Super-8 video mastering, with mini-dv being the absolute best super-8 to video value for the low budgeted guerilla filmmaker. Three video formats that all have their different strengths when it comes to a cost to quality ratio. And then there is 10 bit, which I have not had a chance to work with. Lots of choices, all of them have excellent choices depending on the situation at hand.

....... I am constantly working on improving our gate and trying to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of our Rank I made some changes recently which give a much sharper image and have a whole next generation gate setup in the works at our machine shop. I feel we will be as sharp as any other rank in a little bit. I do not like noise reducers and/or using aperture correcting to sharpen the image and will just be trying to give a natural picture now and in the future........

-Rob-


That is very commendable.

Film and Video Transfers in Northridge California converted a 16mm gate to Super-8 and after a lot of tweaking and experimenting they came up with a winning combination, and they also offer wetgate. That's why I don't believe in absolute statements about any one facility being better all the time in every combination imagineable, each facility develops a strength and clients that most benefit from that particular strength stay loyal to that particular lab or transfer facility.
  • 0

#18 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1582 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:21 AM

Sounds like an excellent assessment.

Thanks!

Better Spectra spend the money on that terrific gate and offer betacam sp and DV video transfers at excellent price points than skimp on the gate just so they can have an inhouse digital betacam deck.

I concur, You can always rent a deck, we did that just the other day, you can rent a deck allot of times for $30K and I think the money is better put into the telecine than a deck.

The problem with directly comparing uncompressed 10 bit to digital betacam, betacam sp or mini-dv, and correct me if I am wrong, is 10 bit uncompressed is a computer file whereas digibeta is a video signal.

Well it is a computer file (quicktime or AVI) that is a video signal, essentially what any of us who offer this are doing is setting up a Mac or PC with a capture card like a Decklink SDI and capturing the SDI output at the far end of the Telecine/Color corrector.

So even if the uncompressed 10 bit signal looks better in the computer, when it is edited on NLE and the NLE edit master is outputted to a video tape, how does that look versus if one started with either digital betacam or betacam sp and used a digital betacam workflow or a betacam sp component signal workflow? That is the comparison that I want to know more about.

If you take the Uncompressed files (Even D-Beta has compression, albeit light) and put them on a timeline in Final Cut (for example) and edit the show together and then plug the SDI out (your D-Beta workflow) into a Grade-A monitor like what we have in the telecine suite you will see the video picture we had in the telecine suite with no alteration, period. If you then plug that SDI into a D-Beta deck and make a master the very light compression of the D-Beta deck will be the first time the picture is altered (compressed) since it left the 10 bit SDI output of the Color Corrector.

We just finished up a Process/Transfer job for one of our clients in Nashville who shot a Music Video (a mix of Ektachrome 16mm X-processed, Vision 16mm, S-8, color neg and Ekta, both straight processed and X-processed) I transfered everything to BetaSP and to 10bit Uncompressed quicktime files (D1 720x486 NTSC) they are doing finish assembly on a Avid Adrenaline and then making a D-Beta master. The BetaSP will just be a backup/dailies format and the Disc will be the working video.

Direct to disc is the way of the future..... :D

-Rob-
  • 0

#19 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:39 AM

High end Videotape and direct to disc probably will mutually co-exist for a while longer. Even though you followed a 10 bit process, the final "real" master is the digibeta, no? So now the additional test to do would be to start with a digibeta transfer and then see if there is a noticeable difference between the 10 bit and the digibeta or even the betacam sp version.

If ten bit is using RGB for it's codec than that would be different process than the component video signal that digibeta and betacam sp use, which is Y, R-Y, B-Y.
  • 0

#20 steve hyde

steve hyde
  • Sustaining Members
  • 446 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:59 AM

Steve, that footage is absoluty beautiful. Is it 200T or 500T?


Thanks. It is a combination of both. The night shots are 200T shot wide open on a Nikon R10 and then processed normal and xfer the FSFT shadow. The bird shots are 500T shot wide open at 54fps and then pushed to 1000 during processing (same xfer)

Steve

Edited by steve hyde, 14 March 2007 - 01:59 AM.

  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Opal

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

The Slider

CineTape

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab