Jump to content


Photo

Raw 16mm Footage


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Curtis Bouvier

Curtis Bouvier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Industry Rep

Posted 17 February 2007 - 10:44 PM

Does anybody have any raw footage, even if its only 5 seconds or so. I'm very curious as to what 16mm footage looks like fresh off the telecine with out any compression or editing. I'm not too concerned about what camera it came from, but preferably vision II kodak if you have.
  • 0

#2 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:01 AM

Does anybody have any raw footage, even if its only 5 seconds or so. I'm very curious as to what 16mm footage looks like fresh off the telecine with out any compression or editing. I'm not too concerned about what camera it came from, but preferably vision II kodak if you have.


http://www.djdecay.c...e/DecoyTest.mp4

Vision2 250T

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov, 19 February 2007 - 12:01 AM.

  • 0

#3 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:31 AM

http://www.djdecay.c...e/DecoyTest.mp4

Vision2 250T


Dear Dennis

I can't see your link, And I'm really interested on your footage!!!!

Best
  • 0

#4 Rod Otaviano

Rod Otaviano
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:36 AM

http://www.djdecay.c...e/DecoyTest.mp4
Vision2 250T

Thanks for posting it, Dennis
Can I ask which lens it was shot with ?

Dear Dennis
I can't see your link, And I'm really interested on your footage!!!!

Right click on it and then "Download Linked file" if you are on a Mac or "Save target as" if you're a windows user. Then open it with Quicktime 7 or whatever other player capable of decoding H264 files.
  • 0

#5 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:50 AM

Thanks for posting it, Dennis
Can I ask which lens it was shot with ?
Right click on it and then "Download Linked file" if you are on a Mac or "Save target as" if you're a windows user. Then open it with Quicktime 7 or whatever other player capable of decoding H264 files.


Gracias Rodrigo
  • 0

#6 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 February 2007 - 02:21 AM

Thanks for posting it, Dennis
Can I ask which lens it was shot with ?
Right click on it and then "Download Linked file" if you are on a Mac or "Save target as" if you're a windows user. Then open it with Quicktime 7 or whatever other player capable of decoding H264 files.



CU of LCD Display (checking flicker) was a 135/28 Chinon


Res Chart

NoName - Zoomed in Meteor
28mm was a Vitiar f2.5
50mm was Chinon 1.7/50mm

CU of Monior Speaker Speaker (checking flicker of CCFL) 135/28 Chinon

Outdoors 1

17-69 meteor, close up of Girl Speaking.

Outdoors 2

17-69 KMZ Meteor - all shots.

Outdoors 3

Police Car + Train - 50mm Pentacon f 1.8


All was shot on a K-3 that had issues between the ground-glass/viewfinder and real film focus.

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov, 19 February 2007 - 02:22 AM.

  • 0

#7 Curtis Bouvier

Curtis Bouvier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Industry Rep

Posted 19 February 2007 - 03:34 PM

http://www.djdecay.c...e/DecoyTest.mp4

Vision2 250T



Much appreciated Dennis, thanks.

Just curious, the footage appears to be interlaced, which would have had to have been added afterword i am assuming, any idea if its possible to have your film developed and saved as a progressive image? or is it somthing to do with the medium it's saved to originally perhapse?

The footage looks amazing tho, shot with a K3 eh?
  • 0

#8 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 19 February 2007 - 03:35 PM

Hey man I checked out , and look ok, some of the shots are dark, but the rest they have this dark matter to it , I like it congrats

Best
  • 0

#9 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 February 2007 - 04:09 PM

Much appreciated Dennis, thanks.

Just curious, the footage appears to be interlaced, which would have had to have been added afterword i am assuming, any idea if its possible to have your film developed and saved as a progressive image? or is it somthing to do with the medium it's saved to originally perhapse?

The footage looks amazing tho, shot with a K3 eh?



I am guessing the interlacing came in from the transfer from Digibeta to Quicktime uncompressed. I don't have a 20k deck to read Digibeta so :-(. I should have done an unsupervised HD and given the post guys a firewire, but I did not really know what I wanted, this is my first roll of film shot.


Hey man I checked out , and look ok, some of the shots are dark, but the rest they have this dark matter to it , I like it congrats

Best


I most def underexposed 3 of the shots, the meteor f-stop skated to f4 from f2. :-(. Apparently it does not "click" just moves. For my first roll of film I'm taking the lessons learned from it.

But I got alot done. I shot for coverage, tried in-camera (adversarial angles) video style, saw how hand held worked, check res and flicker with different available light.

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov, 19 February 2007 - 04:13 PM.

  • 0

#10 Raz Birger

Raz Birger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Israel

Posted 20 February 2007 - 08:42 AM

http://www.djdecay.c...e/DecoyTest.mp4

Vision2 250T


Nice footage :)
but there is no 250T as much as I know, I think you ment the 250D (it's also look more like the 250D).
Thank you fo sharing with us :)
  • 0

#11 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 February 2007 - 10:05 AM

Does anybody have any raw footage, even if its only 5 seconds or so. I'm very curious as to what 16mm footage looks like fresh off the telecine with out any compression or editing.


A transfer to digibeta & then encoded in H.264 is hardly "fresh off the telecine without any compresion" (plus it's an interlaced transfer).

I'm not sure what you want here. Std def ? High Def ? Full bandwidth color ?

A tour of your local post facility might be the best way to see fresh off the telecine....

-Sam
  • 0

#12 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 20 February 2007 - 12:11 PM

A transfer to digibeta & then encoded in H.264 is hardly "fresh off the telecine without any compresion" (plus it's an interlaced transfer).

I'm not sure what you want here. Std def ? High Def ? Full bandwidth color ?

A tour of your local post facility might be the best way to see fresh off the telecine....

-Sam


Yeah, I'm not sure what the point of this "fresh off the telecine" is. The footage I get straight off the telecine, besides being a huge file size, is 29.97 interlaced (without the pulldown removed) and Anamorphic, meaning it is squished to fit a 16:9 frame into a 4:3 frame. And basically it does not look very good.

If you want to see what the footage looks like after the pulldown has been removed (i.e. when it is converted back to 23.98 fps progressive) and stretched back out to a 16:9 image, and in this case compressed using Sorenson Video 3 Pro codec to make the file size manageable for the internet, you can see the clip below. It has not been edited in any way, just the above manipulation. And it was shot on Kodak Vision2 200T (7217) stock.

Telecined footage

-Tim
  • 0

#13 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 February 2007 - 04:54 PM

Nice footage :)
but there is no 250T as much as I know, I think you ment the 250D (it's also look more like the 250D).
Thank you fo sharing with us :)



200T oops. Yeah 250D is not it. Kodak - 7217 Number. 100% tungsten balanced film. Somehow got crossed in my head with Eterna 250 ...

......

Tim, how does one remove the 3:2 pull-down, is there a re-code option in FCP/Avid?

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov, 20 February 2007 - 04:56 PM.

  • 0

#14 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 20 February 2007 - 05:03 PM

I found my first time out the gate with telecine its much simpler to ask for 30fps. This will make the lab assume you shot at 29.97. Footage goes faster, so it takes less room on hard drive for the online, also quicker to capture, and when you import it to a 23.976 project you get a progressive frame, regardless of weather the format even recognizes progressive. It also gives a one-number incriment timecode add for every frame. To me with my limited experience it seems to be the best system. Is there any reason for doing a 24fps with pulldown telecine anymore? I mean with the ability to add pulldown in real time on NLE, I surely can't see a reason to do this. Any thoughts?
  • 0

#15 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 20 February 2007 - 06:44 PM

Tim, how does one remove the 3:2 pull-down, is there a re-code option in FCP/Avid?


My guy who does my transfers, Jake at Downstream here in Portland (whom I highly recommend) runs the film at 23.98 fps on the machine and transfers the film to DVCAM tape as an anamorphic image.

I then import the footage into my computer with FCP 4.5 HD. Then I use CinemaTools to remove the pulldown and I end up with an anamophically squeezed, progressive scan, 23.98 fps clip. If I then want to put that clip up on the internet, I drop it into Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite 4 and output an unsqueezed 16:9 image running at 23.98 fps progressive.

Hope that explains the process,
-Tim
  • 0

#16 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 February 2007 - 09:02 PM

My guy who does my transfers, Jake at Downstream here in Portland (whom I highly recommend) runs the film at 23.98 fps on the machine and transfers the film to DVCAM tape as an anamorphic image.

I then import the footage into my computer with FCP 4.5 HD. Then I use CinemaTools to remove the pulldown and I end up with an anamophically squeezed, progressive scan, 23.98 fps clip. If I then want to put that clip up on the internet, I drop it into Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite 4 and output an unsqueezed 16:9 image running at 23.98 fps progressive.

Hope that explains the process,
-Tim


But then there is no pull-down. Pull-down would be matching 29.97 fps of NTSC to pure 24fps of film via 3:2.... If there is no pull-down there is no half-frame. Unless your pulldown is 2:3:3:2 with real frames encoded in a higher fps DV program stream.

That makes sense, next time I do this I'll ask for that. :-).

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov, 20 February 2007 - 09:02 PM.

  • 0

#17 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 20 February 2007 - 09:52 PM

But then there is no pull-down. Pull-down would be matching 29.97 fps of NTSC to pure 24fps of film via 3:2.... If there is no pull-down there is no half-frame. Unless your pulldown is 2:3:3:2 with real frames encoded in a higher fps DV program stream.

That makes sense, next time I do this I'll ask for that. :-).


Dennis,

The telecine operator runs the film at 23.98 fps (not 24 fps, I'll explain why later), and records the image on NTSC tape. Now the tape is has an NTSC signal on it, interlaced frames at 29.97 fps.

You need a program that goes in there and does a reverse pull-down (removes the pull-down). It goes in and finds all the A,B,C,D half frames and reassembles them, (throwing away the split frames and extras) so you now have a progressive clip that runs at 23.98 fps instead of an interlaced clip that runs at 29.97 fps.

The reason you run the film at 23.98 fps instead of 24 fps is that if you are editing on a computer with an NTSC production monitor, computer programs like FCP can take a 23.98 fps clip and convert it on the fly to an NTSC signal in real time so it can be viewed on an NTSC monitor. It is a much more complicated computer interpolation for the computer to try to convert 24 fps to an NTSC signal in real time on the fly. So if you are editing with 24 fps clips, the playback on the production monitor will be jumpy and skip.

Make sense,
-Tim
  • 0

#18 Curtis Bouvier

Curtis Bouvier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Industry Rep

Posted 21 February 2007 - 01:18 AM

wow.. I've always wondered why 23.98 and 29.97 existed.

Yea I've heard alot about this digibeta etc,

I strictly want my film scanned in to a hard drive so everything stays progressive, digital and 24.00 fps.


Preferably Id like every Frame scanned in as an individual picture. Ive worked with this before using about 3700 digitally created images, importing the images into adobe premier was no problem at all. Fast and easy.

whats the highest resolution the film scanners will scan in at???? let's say at 16mm.

Obviously 35mm is effective at 1920x1080 (35mm is effective at 12MP if you use a high end film scanner)

not sure about 16mm, I would guess 16mm would max out at around 1280x720..

if only i could get some sample footage of 16mm, I could bring it in and have it scanned on a Nikon coolscan film scanner and determin the highest effective resolution.

Apparently the ARRISCAN Film Scanner is capable of scanning in Each frame as an idependant RAW tiff image file... that would be a dream come true for me.

what are your thoughts?

(editing video at 1920x1080 must take a hell of a computer, maybe those mac pros with quad intels i bet)
  • 0

#19 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 February 2007 - 12:20 PM

If you transfer with the film running at 29.97 then there is no 3:2 pulldown, you have one film frame for each full video frame.

-Sam
  • 0

#20 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 21 February 2007 - 01:25 PM

If you transfer with the film running at 29.97 then there is no 3:2 pulldown, you have one film frame for each full video frame.

-Sam


Sam, I have never heard of it working that way, because if you are transferring the film to NTSC, you are going to have interlaced frames no matter what speed you're running the film at.

-Tim
  • 0


Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

CineLab

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Glidecam

CineTape

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Paralinx LLC