Jump to content


Photo

Couple of newbie questions after reading the readers digest


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Josh Allen

Josh Allen

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 May 2008 - 08:28 PM

Hello everyone. First of all a big thank you to those that put that Super 8 readers digest topic together it has greatly helped me.

I have always had a love for the look of film and am now interested in getting into it strictly as a home movie type of user. Wedding, famliy etc. As I said I've read through the help forums here as well as some other sites but I still have a few questions that i'd like to pose to the Vets here.

First I want to make sure I have a few things correct. If I want to film then have it processed then play directly on a projector I need to use Reversal? Secondly when it comes to telecine is there a huge difference (that I will notice with simple home movies) between Say Spectra's services at $275 an hour or smaller sites that offer to do it for .10-.20 a ft.?
I ask because for simple home use if we shoot 48 rolls (for the wedding for example) and have it tele'd at spectra that can get up there cost wise. If this is the best route would I be better off getting one of the home telecine kits that would cost me about the same amount(IE a Workprinter) but allow me to always do my own stuff at home?

Thank you all in advance for you help.

Edited by Josh Allen, 19 May 2008 - 08:29 PM.

  • 0

#2 Rick Palidwor

Rick Palidwor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Director

Posted 20 May 2008 - 07:33 PM

If I want to film then have it processed then play directly on a projector I need to use Reversal?


Yes, reversal.

Secondly when it comes to telecine is there a huge difference (that I will notice with simple home movies) between Say Spectra's services at $275 an hour or smaller sites that offer to do it for .10-.20 a ft.?
I ask because for simple home use if we shoot 48 rolls (for the wedding for example) and have it tele'd at spectra that can get up there cost wise. If this is the best route would I be better off getting one of the home telecine kits that would cost me about the same amount(IE a Workprinter) but allow me to always do my own stuff at home?

Thank you all in advance for you help.


I say it depends on the quality you can expect and can afford. Buying something like a workprinter may be the way to go if you see yourself doing a lot of shooting.

Rick
  • 0

#3 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 21 May 2008 - 05:54 PM

Continuing on Rick's line of thought:

if you want high-quality telecine, going for an expensive set-up using a Rank Cintel or Datacine machine that is far superior than most telecine kits for home use or "prosumer" level transfer machinery that comes in at a cost of a few cents would be the way to go.

What I can assure you of is that to some extent, Spectra asking for more money to use "professional" telecine gear and thus catering for a more professional clientel makes a visible difference in the scanned quality over a consumer market machine scanning "family films to remember" or a homebrew kit.

It boils down to what quality you want and can afford ("money no object" or "good enough shall suffice"). But as a rule: yeap, Spectra's hundred bucks will leave you with a broadcast quality piece of telecine while others cater for home use.

As Rick said: if you have a lot of footage right now and even more in the future but with primarily personal films or family archives, then maybe a workprinter would be worth the investment. It depends on your audience, really...



BTW: I am working on a hub post for the Readers Digest thread on telecine and scanning info and the differences... but it takes some time which I don't have right now. I ask for your patience. Next months should see it posted.


-Michael
  • 0

#4 Josh Allen

Josh Allen

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 May 2008 - 07:33 PM

Thank you Michael and Rick for your responses. I think that I am going to film some footage and then send it to one of the shops that are near me with budget prices then if it doesnt seem quality enough for me I will try out SPectra or one of the other "pro" cine's.

Thank you again.
  • 0

#5 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 21 May 2008 - 11:44 PM

You're welcome! :)
  • 0

#6 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 08 June 2008 - 12:27 AM

This is a tough topic to answer because there are varying degrees of quality at every price point.

Film and video transfers in Northridge California may have the best auto one light film chain set up.\

On the other hand, there are niche transfer places that use workprinters or similar devices and the more jobs they do, the better they do.

I am a supporter of Spectra because they do good work and I'd like to see them get into HD at some point in the near future.
  • 0

#7 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 08 June 2008 - 01:30 AM

I am a supporter of Spectra because they do good work and I'd like to see them get into HD at some point in the near future.


This is what I would like to see as well: Spectra going into HD telecine and scanning!
(yeah, this is a lobby post, moderators, so what B) )

With Todd-AO closing its one-stop Super 8 operation here in London sooner than anticipated, and Andec having stated that they are not investing in HD anytime soon (and also displaying increasingly inconsistent quality, I must add), I might well be forced to shift negative & HD work to the US sooner than later.

To make use of Spectra which I have heard nothing but the best about (unlike some other places), if I want a good, caring and technically-skilled lab for my films that understands their customers, they might well be the place to go for the discerning Super 8 filmer.

After all, they have consistently supported the format and also pretty silently put out excellent products (like V-50) while other companies, mostly in Germany, have loudly proclaimed their innovative capability and technical superiority but have as of yet not shipped a product (like... that other V-50).
  • 0

#8 Josh Allen

Josh Allen

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 June 2008 - 10:49 AM

Since this got bumped I've got another question for you guys. Looking at super8 wiki for cameras that meter correctly and some of the entries can be confusing. For example it says that the Nizo compacts 136, 148, 156 won't meter correctly. But these all come in the "XL" version too and it doesn't mention these. Does anyone know offhand if they can meter properly?
  • 0

#9 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 08 June 2008 - 11:17 AM

Since this got bumped I've got another question for you guys. Looking at super8 wiki for cameras that meter correctly and some of the entries can be confusing. For example it says that the Nizo compacts 136, 148, 156 won't meter correctly. But these all come in the "XL" version too and it doesn't mention these. Does anyone know offhand if they can meter properly?



An add on question. Do the XL cameras in general have more metering flexibility, or less?


Keep in mind that as long as a super-8 camera has manual exposure, the exposure can be overidden manually. If the camera is consistently underexposing by the same amount, you can easily make the adjustment yourself.
  • 0

#10 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 08 June 2008 - 11:44 AM

Josh,

first of all, Alex makes an important point here!

As all the Nizo cameras have manual aperture control, you can easily use the internal exposure meter to measure an f-stop, and then simply close or open up the diaphragm of the camera according to the difference between the exposure index metered in the camera, and the exposure index required from the film stock.
Not at all pressuming that you would do so, but just because a camera can't read 64 ISO isn't a reason not to buy it or use it. Much excellent gear gets ditched for this "reason", which is a bit sad.

Maybe reading this post here clarifies the practical tensions between built-in TTL exposure meter lightmetering, cartridge notch-sensing and the film stocks exposure index a bit more: CLICK ME.

As far as the Nizo small-bodied cameras are concerned, i.e. those bearing the 1xx moniker: they came in three different flavours over the years (early-70s, mid-70s, late-70s). First was the Nizo 1xx, then the Nizo 1xx macro, and finally the Nizo 1xx XL.
All these cameras are more or less identical with the exception of different lenses used. The notch-sensing in these cameras is all identical, reading either 25/40 or 100/160 - i.e. it can't auto-read E-64 out-of-the-box.

BTW: why is it that a Google search brings back better search results than the ciny.com internal search... anyway, here's a link to the first time this was debated in 2006.
The "compact series" are the small-bodied cameras, the big-bodied cameras were those bearing 48, 56 and 80 in their names, and the sound cameras are obviously four-digit. The first read the E-64 correctly, with the Nizo pro going up beyond the ISO 160 limit, while the latter use the SMPTE-compliant multi-pin system (as in Canon 814XL-S and 1014XL-S) up to ISO 400.
  • 0

#11 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 08 June 2008 - 11:54 AM

An add on question. Do the XL cameras in general have more metering flexibility, or less?


A good question, Alex (and nice to see you back here after some longer absence)

Do you mean XL cameras in general, or those XL-featuring models from Nizo specifically?

As re. Nizo: no, the XL moniker doesn't mean that the notch-sensing is more sophisticated

As re. XL: puh, I dunno... I wouldn't say it's that straightforward. I guess because XL was a feature that came up in the late 1970s with cameras then being designed for more film stock variety in mind and having also more eletronification in them, one could state that one is more likely to find greater metering flexibility in those later-generation cameras, particulary top models . Case in point: Nizo sound cameras, Canon sound cameras.

On the other hand, many Japanese cameras with XL of that period don't have more flexible notch-sensing across their range. And some marques, e.g. Bauer, didn't change their two-way notch sensing system ever, which is my the Bauer S 715 XL microcomputer, one of the last and probably the most electronified Super 8 cameras, only reads either 40 or 160 ... just as the entry-level Bauer III XL of that time.

So I guess my suggestion for an anwer to you would be: "Yes, it's more probable for XL cams to feature more nuanced notch sensing, but it's in no way necessarily so..."

-Michael
  • 0


CineLab

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

The Slider

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc