Jump to content


Photo

2K scans for 2 perf at 1868 x 780?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 10:10 AM

I have 2K scans for my 2 perf 35mm feature and the scans are coming in at 1868x780. The reason, I am being told, is because when the scanner used the marquee tool to select the scan area, he selected ONLY the exposed part of the film and neglected to use the optical track. That works for me, except my 4 perf scans are only 1840x1354. Any ideas?
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 02 October 2008 - 10:28 AM

I have 2K scans for my 2 perf 35mm feature and the scans are coming in at 1868x780. The reason, I am being told, is because when the scanner used the marquee tool to select the scan area, he selected ONLY the exposed part of the film and neglected to use the optical track. That works for me, except my 4 perf scans are only 1840x1354. Any ideas?


Your gate was a little wide!

Stephen
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 02 October 2008 - 10:33 AM

I have 2K scans for my 2 perf 35mm feature and the scans are coming in at 1868x780. The reason, I am being told, is because when the scanner used the marquee tool to select the scan area, he selected ONLY the exposed part of the film and neglected to use the optical track. That works for me, except my 4 perf scans are only 1840x1354. Any ideas?


What's 24 pixels... ;)

2-perf only uses Academy Aperture width since Full Aperture gives you a 2.66 : 1 aspect ratio. I believe Full Aperture 35mm scans at 2K are 2046 pixels across, whereas using only Academy width are 1828 pixels across.

So I'm not sure where 1868 or 1840 came from except that perhaps they are scanning slightly beyond Academy width. Doesn't really matter.
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 October 2008 - 10:56 AM

What's 24 pixels... ;)

2-perf only uses Academy Aperture width since Full Aperture gives you a 2.66 : 1 aspect ratio. I believe Full Aperture 35mm scans at 2K are 2046 pixels across, whereas using only Academy width are 1828 pixels across.

So I'm not sure where 1868 or 1840 came from except that perhaps they are scanning slightly beyond Academy width. Doesn't really matter.


David's is right. Image-wise, it is nothing. However, maybe you can get a discount based on the smaller size of the scans! Less scanner work, less money, right? ;)
  • 0

#5 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 10:58 AM

What's 24 pixels... ;)

2-perf only uses Academy Aperture width since Full Aperture gives you a 2.66 : 1 aspect ratio. I believe Full Aperture 35mm scans at 2K are 2046 pixels across, whereas using only Academy width are 1828 pixels across.

So I'm not sure where 1868 or 1840 came from except that perhaps they are scanning slightly beyond Academy width. Doesn't really matter.



Thanks!!! This is the answer I was looking for :) They are in fact scanning a little beyond the width because I have to crop on both sides of the 1868 frames.
  • 0

#6 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 11:00 AM

David's is right. Image-wise, it is nothing. However, maybe you can get a discount based on the smaller size of the scans! Less scanner work, less money, right? ;)



Well, considering what I paid for the scans and the VERY generous discount I was given, I can't complain.

I guess my next question, is should I scale this to a proper size for the edit? Or maybe matte it into a 1920x1080 frame?

- m

Edited by Mike Nichols, 02 October 2008 - 11:01 AM.

  • 0

#7 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 02 October 2008 - 11:17 AM

What stock / camera / lenses did you use? What were your experiences shooting with it, etc? What is your post workflow?

Also, it would be great to see some stills of your footage sometime.

Not everyday do we get people who are shooting two perf 35.

Thanks.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 02 October 2008 - 11:18 AM.

  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 02 October 2008 - 11:54 AM

Well, considering what I paid for the scans and the VERY generous discount I was given, I can't complain.

I guess my next question, is should I scale this to a proper size for the edit? Or maybe matte it into a 1920x1080 frame?

- m


Hi,

You can crop the side, but dont rescale as you will loose quality.

Stephen
  • 0

#9 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 12:13 PM

What stock / camera / lenses did you use? What were your experiences shooting with it, etc? What is your post workflow?

Also, it would be great to see some stills of your footage sometime.

Not everyday do we get people who are shooting two perf 35.

Thanks.


We used a modded Kinor 35c with Vision II 5205, 5201 and 5218. I enjoyed the camera very much. I just had to be extra careful with boom poles!

My post workflow is a tedious one:

Dailies direct to disk telecine
Final Cut Pro offline
EDL
Scans done via EDL
Reconform done in 2K on Final Cut Pro w/Gluetools
This was tedious, because I had to reconnect EVERY CUT individually! Not to mention, I had to crop the DPX stacks in Shake first.

Haven't graded yet. The money has all been spent!! So, I am going to a basic grade of the DPX's in color, hope to sell the film and then do a proper grading.
  • 0

#10 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 12:14 PM

Hi,

You can crop the side, but dont rescale as you will loose quality.

Stephen


I realize that, but how I am going to deliver an HD master if I don't scale?
  • 0

#11 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 02 October 2008 - 02:58 PM

This was tedious, because I had to reconnect EVERY CUT individually! Not to mention, I had to crop the DPX stacks in Shake first.


May I ask, reverse telecine was out of the question?

Thanks for the info.
  • 0

#12 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 03:21 PM

May I ask, reverse telecine was out of the question?

Thanks for the info.


The files were telecine'd direct to disk at 23.98, so I didn't need to reverse telecine.
  • 0

#13 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 03:30 PM

My post workflow is a tedious one:

Dailies direct to disk telecine
Final Cut Pro offline
EDL
Scans done via EDL
Reconform done in 2K on Final Cut Pro w/Gluetools
This was tedious, because I had to reconnect EVERY CUT individually! Not to mention, I had to crop the DPX stacks in Shake first.

Were the dailies telecined to a FCP preset, or what format? Also, how were you able to create a 2-perf EDL in FCP?
Thanks.
  • 0

#14 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 03:53 PM

Were the dailies telecined to a FCP preset, or what format? Also, how were you able to create a 2-perf EDL in FCP?
Thanks.


Rob from Cinelab could probably elaborate further on what he did for the Telecine, but from my understanding, the telecine went through a black magic card direct into FCP 10 Bit uncompressed (in hindsight, this was overkill) SD. I ended up using Media Manager to recompress these files to DV/NTSC for editing and I burned in a timecode track using the time code READER plugin in FCP.

As far as EDL for 2 perf, I just generated a generic standard EDL. The first frame of each quicktime was the ZERO frame and the timecode worked out from there. I did have some issues with accuracy. The scanner had to eye match each pull and we added 2 second handles to cover ourselves.
  • 0

#15 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 02 October 2008 - 04:00 PM

I realize that, but how I am going to deliver an HD master if I don't scale?


Hi,

It would have made more sense to have scanned 1920 x 1080, scaling will loose resolution.

Stephen
  • 0

#16 Mike Nichols

Mike Nichols
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Producer

Posted 02 October 2008 - 04:27 PM

Hi,

It would have made more sense to have scanned 1920 x 1080, scaling will loose resolution.

Stephen


It would have, but isn't 2 perf aperture smaller than 1920x1080?
  • 0

#17 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 02 October 2008 - 08:09 PM

Congrats on your project, Mike. Can you black out the remaining proportions along with a crop to get the 1920 X 1080? You've got room to fudge with in the video's action safe zones. I don't know what that will do to a Barco projector, though.
  • 0

#18 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 03 October 2008 - 01:50 AM

It would have, but isn't 2 perf aperture smaller than 1920x1080?


Hi,

1920 x 1080 is 16x9 so you would have had some overlap of frames that would need to be masked off. The width would be 1920 in HD.

Stephen
  • 0

#19 Robert Houllahan

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

Posted 03 October 2008 - 03:04 PM

Rob from Cinelab could probably elaborate further on what he did for the Telecine, but from my understanding, the telecine went through a black magic card direct into FCP 10 Bit uncompressed (in hindsight, this was overkill) SD. I ended up using Media Manager to recompress these files to DV/NTSC for editing and I burned in a timecode track using the time code READER plugin in FCP.



Unfortunately the two Aaton Keylink keycode readers we have do not read 2-perf and I believe even the latest model of the keylink needs an update to read 2-perf. This leaves fewer options for negative matchback and generating conform lists then with a 4-perf or 3-perf job. We logged all of the keycode numbers and punched the first keycode frame for each camera roll then did a 23.98 transfer to disk, a Dvcam transfer probably would have worked as well.

As far as negative matchback it is less than ideal as there is no way to place the keycode punch on a video "a" frame as you would with a keylink or evertz job. I am glad to hear that Mike was able to get his scans conformed with little problems. I do wonder why the width of the negative was not made 2046 or 1920 in stead of 1868? I would think you could set up the optics of the scanner to the width and then let the height be proportional to the scan width.

-Rob-
  • 0

#20 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 03 October 2008 - 04:26 PM

Matching the work print's telecine to the scan run is really an issue. I couldn't find a cheap and dependable way other than to telecine the Kodak edge code right along with every frame. Between that and telecining the whole roll from head punch to end with matching video at 24P (23.976) I at least have a chance of making accurate and easy scan orders. But even then, I have to renumber the SD timecode before cutting the work print based on the head punch to then be able to accurately make up the scan orders. It was one of those "Cheap, good or fast, but not all" decisions.
  • 0


Glidecam

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Opal

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

CineTape

The Slider

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Opal