Jump to content


Photo

super 16 output


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Tom Hepburn

Tom Hepburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago-land

Posted 15 May 2008 - 09:44 AM

I'm considering a new purchase for a camera that will be either Super 16 or easy to convert to Super 16. My question however revolves around the output and presentation of that format.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not filming for commercial output, this will mainly be for myself. The content will be mostly interviews and some short independent "artsy" projects.

I know that some who use super 16 are having their film telecine output on DV tape
(at 720 by 480) with a letter box. However what I'd like to do is have my super 16 film scanned at HD resolution (1920 by 1080). I have some experience with DVD burning, video editing, etc., but it occurs to me that at this point in time there is a problem burning DVDs that can play at that HD resolution. I hate to bring Blueray into it, but that is pertinent to my situation. Ironically it seems like film (Super 16 in particular) is ahead in technology :)

Exhale,

So my question is, those are using super 16, what are you outputting to?

Thanks in advance,
T
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 15 May 2008 - 10:07 AM

Depends on the project.
I've output to SDDVD a lot, but some of the stuff is for web! Other stuff has gone onto HD masters for broadcast, or for hope of some release later on.
A lot just depends on what the project itself calls for, ya know? (not to mention what's in the budget).
  • 0

#3 Chance Shirley

Chance Shirley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Director

Posted 15 May 2008 - 10:10 AM

For my current feature, we've been getting Super 16 film transferred direct-to-disk, using the DVCPro HD 1080p/23.976 FPS codec. From here, we can down-res for DVDs, and we have an HD master we can use if we get to release the finished movie in some HD format (Blu-ray, etc.).
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 15 May 2008 - 10:15 AM

I should clarify, too, that I was speaking of stuff I've shot's final destination. As an intermediate, we generally transfer to an HD tape during the telecine; but that too depends on how they're doing their editorial work, ya know ?
  • 0

#5 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 15 May 2008 - 11:29 AM

I currently output both Super 16 & Regular 16 to anamorphic SD or 16:9 HD since everything I create is 16:9 these days.

For regular 16mm I crop the top and the bottom and stretch it vertically to fill the frame. There's a little math involved to get it perfect, but the result when imported into Final Cut Pro works great. Just tell Final Cut that the clip is anamorphic and *poof* you've got a 16:9 clip that works great and uses all available pixels in SD. Same for Super 16 but less cropping.

My transfer house has a setting saved for me whenever I show up and it's really easy to do. Their monitor can be set to 16:9 and automatically stretches it back out for viewing there. That's on a Y-Front for SD.

Generally I will transfer to DigiBeta with a DV backup. I use the DV (with the same timecode as the DigiBeta) for editing and if the piece is worth it I can always import the DigiBeta and reconform for that.
  • 0

#6 Richardson Leao

Richardson Leao
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Other
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 15 May 2008 - 01:50 PM

Will,

Sorry my ignorance, but when u dv-convert anamorphic r16 the telecine gate is cropping the film frame above and bellow right? I am now banging my head on the table thinking why I haven't done it in my last telecine...

I currently output both Super 16 & Regular 16 to anamorphic SD or 16:9 HD since everything I create is 16:9 these days.

For regular 16mm I crop the top and the bottom and stretch it vertically to fill the frame. There's a little math involved to get it perfect, but the result when imported into Final Cut Pro works great. Just tell Final Cut that the clip is anamorphic and *poof* you've got a 16:9 clip that works great and uses all available pixels in SD. Same for Super 16 but less cropping.

My transfer house has a setting saved for me whenever I show up and it's really easy to do. Their monitor can be set to 16:9 and automatically stretches it back out for viewing there. That's on a Y-Front for SD.

Generally I will transfer to DigiBeta with a DV backup. I use the DV (with the same timecode as the DigiBeta) for editing and if the piece is worth it I can always import the DigiBeta and reconform for that.


  • 0

#7 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 15 May 2008 - 04:18 PM

Will,

Sorry my ignorance, but when u dv-convert anamorphic r16 the telecine gate is cropping the film frame above and bellow right? I am now banging my head on the table thinking why I haven't done it in my last telecine...

Not sure if it's technically the telecine gate that's cropping the frame, it's basically zooming in and squeezing it left & right (or simply stretching it vertically depending on how the particular machine does it).

Yes, it's better to have this done during telecine as the machine can optically enlarge without loss in quality but if you try to "zoom in" with Final Cut from a standard 4:3 transfer (when working in true anamorphic) a big quality loss is noticable.

Keep in mind that you can "pan & scan" during the transfer as well to frame properly. Takes a little longer but certainly worth it. Another thing I sometimes do is layoff the 16:9 anamorphic then go back and transfer the full 4:3 frame right after it just in case I find something I need in the cropped areas later.

I do however notice a slight increase in sharpness when working in Super 16, so that extra bit of negative really does make a difference although standard 16mm handled this way is still very very good.

If you keep the anamorphic workflow through the entire process and your final output is anamorphic DVD, then you'll be really happy with the results on a plasma or LCD widescreen.
  • 0

#8 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 May 2008 - 12:27 AM

Keep in mind that you can "pan & scan" during the transfer as well to frame properly. Takes a little longer but certainly worth it. Another thing I sometimes do is layoff the 16:9 anamorphic then go back and transfer the full 4:3 frame right after it just in case I find something I need in the cropped areas later.

I do however notice a slight increase in sharpness when working in Super 16, so that extra bit of negative really does make a difference although standard 16mm handled this way is still very very good.


Just keep in mind that the faster the stock the grainier it will be at the time of the "pan and scan."

I usually try not to go higher than 200 ASA for something like that. Although overexposing 500T 2/3 of a stop has worked OK, I find 200 ASA for R16 "pan and scan" to 16x9 is pretty much at the edge grain wise even with a grain-reduction app like Da Vinci 2k.

Unless you REALLY like grain, that is.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 16 May 2008 - 12:30 AM.

  • 0

#9 Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 860 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, Massachusetts

Posted 16 May 2008 - 12:39 AM

For my current feature, we've been getting Super 16 film transferred direct-to-disk, using the DVCPro HD 1080p/23.976 FPS codec. From here, we can down-res for DVDs, and we have an HD master we can use if we get to release the finished movie in some HD format (Blu-ray, etc.).



When you say direct to disk, I think that you mean your footage is stored on external hard drives? Is that correct? If so, what drives are you using?
Lacie, Maxtor, ...? With that codec do you happen to know the storage space to time ratio, e.g. Mini-DV is approx. 13GB/hour stored on an external hard drive.
How much space would 400' of footage take up in GB?

I have a film project coming up and I'd much rather have a telecine that would put my footage onto a hard drive than onto any kind of tape, primarily because of my workflow. Any of the higher format tapes would require decks to be rented in order to play the tapes for capture and that would be pricey.

Thanks!
  • 0

#10 Mark Lyon

Mark Lyon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Director
  • Solana Beach, CA

Posted 16 May 2008 - 10:12 AM

I've had my last few Super16 projects telecined at 1080 24P to a DDR directly from the Spirit, then saved to ProRes HQ QuickTime files on a firewire drive for the edit. This is the best workflow that I've found yet. The quality is a notch up from DVCPro HD files (and you don't have the anamorphic pixel issue). It works out to about 1GB per minute.

Best of luck with your project.
  • 0

#11 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 16 May 2008 - 10:34 AM

Just keep in mind that the faster the stock the grainier it will be at the time of the "pan and scan."

I usually try not to go higher than 200 ASA for something like that. Although overexposing 500T 2/3 of a stop has worked OK, I find 200 ASA for R16 "pan and scan" to 16x9 is pretty much at the edge grain wise even with a grain-reduction app like Da Vinci 2k.

Unless you REALLY like grain, that is.


50D on a sunny day is amazing in this application. I have however shot V2 500T inside under decent lighting and had acceptable results. Noticeable grain yes, but not horrible. The trick is not to use fast stocks as a substitute for poor lighting.

I've had my last few Super16 projects telecined at 1080 24P to a DDR directly from the Spirit, then saved to ProRes HQ QuickTime files on a firewire drive for the edit. This is the best workflow that I've found yet. The quality is a notch up from DVCPro HD files (and you don't have the anamorphic pixel issue). It works out to about 1GB per minute.


I've used a Millennium directly to Final Cut Pro's ProRes HQ at 1080 24P as well. It saves much time in copying the files vs. uncompressed (which of course translates to big money) and the quality is excellent.

That is of course if you're finishing in HD... I haven't figured out a decent delivery method in HD yet as I haven't even picked up a Blu-Ray player. I can send 720p to my Apple TV but that of course butchers the quality.
  • 0

#12 Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 860 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, Massachusetts

Posted 03 June 2008 - 02:33 AM

I've had my last few Super16 projects telecined at 1080 24P to a DDR directly from the Spirit, then saved to ProRes HQ QuickTime files on a firewire drive for the edit. This is the best workflow that I've found yet. The quality is a notch up from DVCPro HD files (and you don't have the anamorphic pixel issue). It works out to about 1GB per minute.

Best of luck with your project.



With the price of drives having dropped so much (just got a 500GB Maxtor for the price of what a 250GB or so would have cost a year ago!) that
1GB a minute is not going to be a big issue I think.

Appreciate the details on workflow too. Thank you Mark.
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Opal

CineTape

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio