Jump to content


Photo

Scans playing back fast...


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Nichols

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

Posted 10 June 2009 - 11:52 AM

I have some 2K DPX scans of 2 perf that are playing back fast! It looks like 12 or 18fps, but Quicktime reads as 24fps. The footage was definitely shot at 24fps. The scanner and I are both a bit stumped. Anyone with any thoughts?
  • 0

#2 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 10 June 2009 - 01:10 PM

That is exactly what you would get if you use a 4-perf transport instead of a 2-perf??
  • 0

#3 Mike Nichols

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

Posted 10 June 2009 - 03:04 PM

That is exactly what you would get if you use a 4-perf transport instead of a 2-perf??


And that is exactly what happened! After I posted, I called the scanner and mentioned that and he realized that was the error...Too few 2 Perf jobs out there...Although the Penelope is slowly making her way into the wild.
  • 0

#4 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 June 2009 - 03:46 PM

Although the Penelope is slowly making her way into the wild.


And Panavision says they have a dozen 2 perf bodies currently available... -Pana VP Andy Romanoff last Saturday.


Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com
  • 0

#5 Mike Nichols

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

Posted 10 June 2009 - 04:56 PM

And Panavision says they have a dozen 2 perf bodies currently available... -Pana VP Andy Romanoff last Saturday.


Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com


It will be interesting to see if the interest in 2 perf ever elevates above the ranks of the hardcores...
  • 0

#6 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 June 2009 - 06:31 PM

It will be interesting to see if the interest in 2 perf ever elevates above the ranks of the hardcores...


Yes, I wonder. At the Cinegear show Kodak held a seminar on 2 perf production, I wrote a synopsis of it here. There we are in a screening room @ Paramount full of production types, old school guys w/gray or white hair. Vilmos Zsigmond is in the audience, among others. VP of marketing for Panavision is there. The DP of the network show "Ghost Whisperer" is talking about how he snuck 2 perf into the show. And Kodak paid him (I would have to assume) to shoot a full production value 10 minute demo in 2 and 3 perf.

If 2 perf is going to get some real traction, now is the time. If not, well... it's going to remain on the fringe. Who knows? There have been some bets placed on it, we'll see if they pay off.

Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com
  • 0

#7 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

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

Posted 11 June 2009 - 10:26 AM

Necessity is a mother. When the economy was hot folks could easily afford to go for the larger 4-perf frame. With the economy caving-in, we'll see if folks go to 2-perf to stay in film or if they'll ditch film altogether for dig-acq.

I'm rooting for 2-perf.
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 June 2009 - 11:11 AM

With even 16mm having a hard time, I don't think 2-perf. is really going to catch on. If anything, I see it just costing Kodak more because some of the 3- & 4-perf. shows will switch down. Too bad if you ask me.

That stupid f*&^ing strike really did a number on Eastman Kodak and FujiFilm.

One thing I would like to see happen is people ditching 16mm, except for aesthetic reasons, in favor of 2-perf. But what is shot on 16mm anymore? Wasn't "The Shield" one of the last?

Have they gotten it to the point yet where, after all the workflow is finished, 2 perf. is actually the same cost as or cheaper than 16mm?
  • 0

#9 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 June 2009 - 11:20 AM

I'm rooting for 2-perf.



Ditto!

The point of the seminar was that one can shoot film at 1/2 the cost of 4 perf, 2/3 the cost of 3 perf with no noticeable loss of quality from the larger formats. Kodak (and a few other people) are hoping that when productions factor the true cost of digi acquisition and post compared to 2 perf 35mm, there will be enough advantages to keep the film rolling. I hope so too, of course.

Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com
  • 0

#10 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 June 2009 - 11:57 AM

Have they gotten it to the point yet where, after all the workflow is finished, 2 perf. is actually the same cost as or cheaper than 16mm?


S16 and 2 perf 35mm film and processing costs are approximately the same. But 2 perf has significantly more exposed film real estate than S16, even when cropped to 16x9. It also offers the possibility of a 2.4:1 release with even more negative area. The significant improvement of film stocks is an important factor here too-- that's why 3 perf got traction after all. With Kodak, Panavision and Deluxe behind 2 perf it is no longer on the fringe. Regular budgeted shows can use their familiar vendors and workflows.

Of course this is going to cost Kodak if people start shooting 2 perf instead of 3 or 4 perf. It would seem to me that they are trying to keep film in the game. They are losing market share big time to digital, here's a strategy to maybe keep a little more film rolling during the decline.

Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 June 2009 - 12:25 PM

Ditto!

The point of the seminar was that one can shoot film at 1/2 the cost of 4 perf, 2/3 the cost of 3 perf with no noticeable loss of quality from the larger formats. Kodak (and a few other people) are hoping that when productions factor the true cost of digi acquisition and post compared to 2 perf 35mm, there will be enough advantages to keep the film rolling. I hope so too, of course.

Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com


Yes, I am rooting for it too, don't get me wrong, but I think it is too much of an underdog.

The aspect ratio of 2.4:1 makes it a strange choice for TV at all.

The "true cost" of digital acquisition is no higher than film, in that, unfortunately, there is a trend towards expecting cinematographers (David Mullen I've heard talk about this often) work for free in the DI suite or just live with the results.

In this post-control crazy world we live in there is a huge time cost but seldom any monetary cost.

I hear the exact opposite is true in the high-end fashion photography world, where the big cities are still shooting primarily with film because they charge for every second of post production time, as they should.

And, unfortunately, just because film looks very good on the negative doesn't mean it is a finished product.

With the intetentional bad looks like bleach bypass, that really don't exist at all in something like say fashion photography, images are almost always being manipulated off of the standard color-timed look.

I only see 2-perf. hurting Kodak's film sales because of the aspect, unless 2.39:1 TV catches on.

I hope it doesn't.


But yeah, I am routing for the underdog too. An underdog is better than nothing.
  • 0

#12 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 June 2009 - 01:54 PM

The aspect ratio of 2.4:1 makes it a strange choice for TV at all.
//
The "true cost" of digital acquisition is no higher than film,
//
In this post-control crazy world we live in there is a huge time cost but seldom any monetary cost.
//
An underdog is better than nothing.


TV is 16x9 now. 2 perf is cropped to 16x9 for tv. So is S16. Lots more negative than S16.

I said "true cost of digi acquisition and post". The whole process. Moving and manipulating data is not free. 2 perf film aquisition may put it closer to electronic aquisition when all factors are calculated, at least that's what I think Kodak was trying to present. Film also has monetary archival advantages that need to be considered.

I don't know which world you're living in but in mine, time cost = monetary cost. Time = money.

Yep. We're all rooting for the underdog.

Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com
  • 0

#13 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:39 PM

TV is 16x9 now. 2 perf is cropped to 16x9 for tv. So is S16. Lots more negative than S16.

I said "true cost of digi acquisition and post". The whole process. Moving and manipulating data is not free. 2 perf film aquisition may put it closer to electronic aquisition when all factors are calculated, at least that's what I think Kodak was trying to present. Film also has monetary archival advantages that need to be considered.

I don't know which world you're living in but in mine, time cost = monetary cost. Time = money.


Yes, but S16 is natively 16:9. And 2-perf. is still, from what I hear marginally more expensive than S16. Maybe that isn't true with ends, but I highly doubt any TV show is going to dare shoot with ends.

Moving and manipulating data isn't free, but when there's no other option but to move and manipulate data (you can't finish a show on film, or transfer it for free with film; film is always more expensive here).

As far as monetary archival advantages, this will probably never be in film's favor again because there are currently no shows I know if that cut neg. before transfering. So you have to go back and re TK or scan everything every time.

Film always looses here now too. All the neg. cutters aparantly slit their wrists in NYC.


As for the last statement, please don't be rude because we have a difference of opinions. I want to shoot everything on film just as desperately as you, but the numbers are in and film is almost always going to cost more. Whether the quality gained by that cost is deemed worth the extra money is up to the production companies.

I personally feel it always is worth it.

Then again, I think shooting on 500T, especially in 2-perf. or 16mm ought be outlawed, yet people seem to gobble the stuff up anyway when the cost of faster stock I feel would be quickly compensated for with savings from slower stock offset by having to set the lights brighter.


Now again, this whole notion that digital always generates more data and more work on the post end is ridiculous. I can be just as frugal with tape as I am with film. Because people aren't working this way doesn't mean they can't be made to.


One of my big gripes about two-perf. is the ratio. Whether or not it's bigger than S16 is irrelevant to me. S16 is essentailly dead on HDTV unless the production wants grain, which most don't. Viewers hate grain too, in general.

What'd be a smart move is if someone came up with some sort of anamorphic top-to-bottom element that'd enable you to use the whole negative area and compete with the real contender in the 21st Cenutry, HD.

Next step in the process is someone getting some thrifty older, cheaper lights and cinematographers starting to use slower stocks again.

5201 in 2 perf. would be quite a contender, as would the 100T and 200T stocks.
  • 0

#14 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 June 2009 - 04:42 PM

Yes, but S16 is natively 16:9. And 2-perf. is still, from what I hear marginally more expensive than S16.
//
As for the last statement, please don't be rude because we have a difference of opinions.
//
Then again, I think shooting on 500T, especially in 2-perf. or 16mm ought be outlawed,



S16 is 1.66:1. 16x9 is 1.78:1. S16 requires cropping to 16x9 too.

Karl, please don't take my statement as rude. It wasn't meant to be. I meant it sincerely. I dig the format, I spent a fair amount of my cash on the format (can't convert these cameras back to 4 perf!) and I push it as a way to help people shoot the films they really, really want to make. I respect that you have a different perspective on many issues. I'm not saying I'm right all the time, I'm expressing my opinions, that's all. No one really knows the future of S16 or 2 perf, we're all just taking an educated guess.

Concerning your note about 500T in 2 perf, I wish you had been in the Gower Theater at Paramount on Saturday. 500T in 3 perf and 4 perf projected in HDCAM SR and film output from the HD scan on a 30ft screen. Looked fantastic. Really. You should ask Vilmos what he thought.

You're all right Karl. Don't take me too seriously, I don't!


Bruce Taylor
www.indi35.com
  • 0


Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Abel Cine

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Tai Audio

CineTape

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc