Jump to content


Photo

Film flickering shaking, strobing - Some general Questions


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Lambis

Lambis

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 April 2010 - 12:50 AM

First hello to everyone. That is my first Topic Cinematography Forums.

I am a still photographer from Sweden that going in to shoot his first short art movie.

I think after much reading etc i go with a Beaulieu 4008 or R16 (Depence the look).

Now my, maybe stupid, Question.

In extremly many films i have look Online (S8mm & 16mm) There is a shaking, strobing etc..

The Image looks not stable and i am talking not about Pans & Zooms.

Off course Big Movie productions use many stabilisers and crans etc to make smoth movements BUT
my Question is Depence those to the camera Gear, how the film is transportet, Shutter Speed as I belive its more comon to S8mm
The same with the flickering.

Is there any way to avoid Flickering, strobing etc.

Thanks
Lambis
  • 0

#2 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 21 April 2010 - 07:39 AM

First hello to everyone. That is my first Topic Cinematography Forums.

I am a still photographer from Sweden that going in to shoot his first short art movie.

I think after much reading etc i go with a Beaulieu 4008 or R16 (Depence the look).

Now my, maybe stupid, Question.

In extremly many films i have look Online (S8mm & 16mm) There is a shaking, strobing etc..

The Image looks not stable and i am talking not about Pans & Zooms.

Off course Big Movie productions use many stabilisers and crans etc to make smoth movements BUT
my Question is Depence those to the camera Gear, how the film is transportet, Shutter Speed as I belive its more comon to S8mm
The same with the flickering.

Is there any way to avoid Flickering, strobing etc.

Thanks
Lambis



A lot of the flickering and strobing seen on stuff online, especially 8mm film, is down to poor telecine - either done at home, or by 'high street' style consumer transfer firms that will convert your 'home movies to video'. Not all of these companies use equipment that will generate this look, but many do.

Even if you pay for a proper high quality telecine, you might notice registration issues (especially with super 8) where the picture oscillates up and down slightly. This is due to limitations in the camera design (or more specifically, the cartridge design in super 8).
  • 0

#3 Lambis

Lambis

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 April 2010 - 10:06 AM

Thanks Ian for the info.

So its mainly a issue of Bad Telecine and mostly Super 8's cartridge design. If i get it right then a 16mm or Super16mm camera with good Telecine would do a better job.

I am living in Europe Sweden and as far as i know i havent find a 16mm or Super 16mm telecine tranfer (that is good and not overprised).
In Sweden i have found a shop that do Super 8mm (flashscanHD, 3CCD HD chip, Laserstabilisation, Apple ProRes 422 codec with 10 bits color 1280x720@50p). No Idea what those

Thanks for the answer as i am novice in those thinks and i really need to know more before i deside wich way i go.
Still I am between a 4008, 16R or K3. (the 16mm & Super 16mm cameras are off course welcome but i will not dare buy one if i am not sure where and in what price i can transfer & Telecine my film)

Again thanks (And btw.. I have know already your name from the videos i Vimeo :-)
  • 0

#4 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 21 April 2010 - 11:06 AM

I'm afraid I don't know what facilities exist in Sweden, or elsewhere in 'mainland' Europe. But I think in terms of telecine you do get more-or-less what you pay for.

Regarding cameras - certainly as far as 16mm is concerned, given the choice of a K3 or a Beaulieu R16 - I'd go for the R16. The registration is better, there's a wider range of lenses available, it's electric (no spring to keep winding), and the speed regulation is better (still not crystal locked, but better than clockwork).
  • 0

#5 Andreas Wideroe

Andreas Wideroe

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Kristiansand, Norway

Posted 22 April 2010 - 11:55 AM

I'm afraid I don't know what facilities exist in Sweden, or elsewhere in 'mainland' Europe. But I think in terms of telecine you do get more-or-less what you pay for.

Regarding cameras - certainly as far as 16mm is concerned, given the choice of a K3 or a Beaulieu R16 - I'd go for the R16. The registration is better, there's a wider range of lenses available, it's electric (no spring to keep winding), and the speed regulation is better (still not crystal locked, but better than clockwork).


There are several places in Sweden that offers excellent transfer of 16mm films. There are a couple listed here: http://tig.colorist....i/FacilityTable

I personally own and use both the Beaulieu 4008zmII Super8 camera and the Krasnogorsk K3 16mm camera. Both are great cameras for their use. The 4008 is the best (?) Super8 camera around (in my opinion) while the K3 is a nice starter camera. Beware of light leakage if you try timelapse shots with a K3. The R16 is a nice camera, allthough I haven't used one myself. If I were you I'd go for a Beaulieu camera and the main reason why you would want to do that is because you have the best Beaulieu serviceman living in Stockholm, Sweden: Björn Andersson (Swebaco Filmkonsult). Check him up in the Yellowpages and ask if he has a refurbished camera for sale. I bet he has.

About telecine and filmtransfer. As Ian says, you pretty much get what you pay for. I'd personally avoid all kinds of home/semi-pro companies offering transfer to video services using projectors in any way. The Flashscan machines are OK, but one of our telecine machines (FDL-60) that is over 30 years old gives better pictures than the Flashscan8 and even better than the FlashscanHD when we upconverted the output to HD. That says something about imagequality of professional telecine machines. Newer machines would ofcourse give you better images. Here are a few things that professional telecine machines does better: sharpness/details, dynamic range, colorimitry, image stability, safe filmtransport and more.

Good luck! I'd go for a Beaulieu (heck - even only because of the name! :D )

Best regards,
Andreas Wideroe

---
Norsk Smalfilm AS <post@smalfilm.no>
http://www.smalfilm.no

Filmshooting | Com - http://www.filmshooting.com
  • 0

#6 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 April 2010 - 01:31 PM

I remember using Beaulieu R16's 40 years ago when they were new. They were a poor design, and not particularly reliable even then. If you want registration, you'd be much better served by an Arri 16-S.

Since this is your first time going from still photography to motion, perhaps you'd do well to borrow a consumer video camera to test, experiment, and practice. Learn the basics of matching and cutting without the expense of film.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#7 Kent Kumpula

Kent Kumpula
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Sweden

Posted 22 April 2010 - 07:44 PM

The Flashscan machines are OK, but...


I´d say they are a lot better than "OK", actually.

You can check some of the music videos I have transferred from 8mm film here: http://www.uppsalabi...glish/?page=134
And you have clips in HD resolution here: http://www.uppsalabi...glish/?page=137 , check the clip with the dog and the butterfly.

If those are not enough you can see more clips here: http://www.uppsalabi...glish/?page=131

Something that is very interesting is the relativety between price and quality. Sure, if money is no problem get a Spirit transfer, I´m sure there will be some difference. But the big question is: Is the difference big enough to justify the extra cost? Most people I know will tell you it isn´t.

But again, if money is not an issue, and if the image quality on the cluips I linked too is not good enouh... ?

Edited by Kent Kumpula, 22 April 2010 - 07:45 PM.

  • 0

#8 Lambis

Lambis

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 April 2010 - 07:06 AM

I was already in contact with uppsalabildteknik and i think i talked to Kent. He have give me some great advice and thedo a great job for Super 8mm, and the Price are really good. (Sad they dont support 16mm & super 16mm telecine)

back to the Issue with flickering shaking, strobing and general imaging quality this was the one think that have make me scared to go with Super 8mm. As i am totaly new in this Game and dont know much i was all the time between film DSLR or HDV
Off course Film is my love as and a super 16mm would be ideal but far away from my budget as the only solution is a Beaulieu R16 or K3 and i dont know those cameras att all.!!

Now the thinks are so... I know EXACTLY what i like to do and what to shoot and if i think that there are 2 short films that will be max 6 min longs i try to capture them in the best posible quality.
One NEED to be Super 8mm as i need this homemade, amateur feeling and the special color and Grain
The other now its more harder to shoot and much DOF and low light where the Highlights & blacks need to have definition. Not much grain and a very very stable picture. Thats make DSLR maybe not the best choice and thats make a Super 16mm so atractive for me.
  • 0

#9 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 23 April 2010 - 10:48 AM

... Thats make DSLR maybe not the best choice and thats make a Super 16mm so atractive for me.


If it needs to be Super-16 then that rules out the Beaulieu R16 (which can't be converted to S16), and whilst the K3 can be converted, you'd need to find something other than the standard lens that comes with the camera - as that won't cover S16 (at least not at the wider end).

The other thing to consider is that the K3 can suffer individual 'quirks'. It's a good basic camera, but some examples are better than others.

I'm not about to argue with John's comments regarding his experiences of the R16, and I would agree an Arri 16S would be a much more rugged camera, but my experience using my own R16 (on a non-commercial, occasional basis) hasn't shown any problems. I suspect so long as you look after it, the R16 can perform fine. My own example arrived with a distorted turret - it seems a common problem experienced when people try fitting and using heavy zoom lenses that weren't designed for the camera. I sent it away for a full service and had the turret plate changed for the fixed single-lens version, designed for heavy lenses. Since then it's given me good service and steady pictures.

Film maker Leo Dickinson used the R16 whilst filming on the north face of the Eiger (along with a Scoopic), and also took the R16 to document a group kayaking down the Dudh Kosi from the base of Everest - so they can't be too fragile if looked after properly!

Don't forget both the R16 and the K3 are loud noisy cameras. With care it can be possible to record sound outdoors whilst filming with them, but trying to record sync. speech will be a 'challenge', seeing as neither camera is crystal-synced. Dependant upon exact model, it is possible with care to adjust the R16 to be very close to 25fps by monitoring the roll-bars on a TV, but I still wouldn't recommend it for anything requiring much more than very occasional (short) synced speech.
  • 0

#10 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 April 2010 - 01:31 AM

The big issue with the R16 in the old days is that they would pick perfs, and then those perfs from the exposed film would catch on the unexposed and get dragged back into the feed sprocket and jam. It happened many times on several bodies. That the film can rub on itself in opposite directions is just bad design.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#11 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 24 April 2010 - 11:37 AM

The big issue with the R16 in the old days is that they would pick perfs, and then those perfs from the exposed film would catch on the unexposed and get dragged back into the feed sprocket and jam. It happened many times on several bodies. That the film can rub on itself in opposite directions is just bad design.


Ah, right. Thanks.

I've read various comments about different R16 problems, or things to be careful of, but hadn't come across that one before.

I don't know if the design changed between early and later models, but on mine there's a chrome post that goes between the feed and takeup sides to prevent them rubbing against each other. Either way, whether the film rubs or not, it's not desirable for the camera to damage the perfs in the first place - perhaps something for me to watch out for in future.

<<Loading an R16 link>>
  • 0

#12 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 24 April 2010 - 04:35 PM

The reason why film strobes is because it is shot at 24 frames per second. I shoot most of my stuff at 30 frames per second which reduces the strobing yet still retains much of the film look.
  • 0


The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Glidecam

Technodolly

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

CineTape