Jump to content


Photo

Film in Post


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Centera

Nick Centera
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • San Diego

Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:36 AM

Hey, I just had a question on what the usual steps are for when going into post with film? I have shot 16mm and gone through a standard def. telecine, we ended up editing with this footage and this was basically our final footage. I am asking what is the usual route for getting into post with film, say 35mm here. Would I be able to go through a hi-def telecine scan and have a pretty good image to use as the final image?

Nick
  • 0

#2 K Borowski

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

Posted 16 January 2012 - 06:57 AM

That or true 2K scans (4K is almost never worth it in 16mm). There's also the quality issue of linear versus logarithmic scanning, where you can tweak and access higher quality color density if there is more severe exposure, color balance issues.

There are telecines/datacines, and scanners. The latter tends to be more expensive, but of a higher quality. Telecine, think of a film projector with an HD camera 1:1 copying the frame more or less steady in the gate. Scanners scan each frame. They tend to be slower, hence the higher price, but they produce a steadier image and much sharper frame quality.


I'm sure someone with more time can cover this in greater detail.

2K is 10% higher resolution than HD, roughly than 1080P (1980 lines across the width versus 2048 for 2K).
  • 0

#3 Phil Soheili

Phil Soheili
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Milan, Italy

Posted 17 January 2012 - 03:28 AM

@ K. Borowski:

Good day!

As I will have to scan my approx. 550ft of Vision3 (250) later this year and I used to
think 4k was just slightly below 16mm physical resolution of the 16mm neg.
Could you please explain a bit further why "... true 2K scans (4K is almost never worth it in 16mm)"

Thank you,

Phil

  • 0

#4 Cory Zapatka

Cory Zapatka
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 17 January 2012 - 09:42 AM

4k scanning for a 16mm film is completely overkill at this point in time. Most editing programs still can't edit in 4k, and even national theaters are only starting to use 4k projection. 2k projection is a more common and easily editable format, but even for the purposes of a student film (which I'm assuming this is, due to it being posted in this forum), even 2k might be over the top. I've been blown away by the HD Super 16 transfers I've had done at National Boston.

But I may be wrong.

@ K. Borowski:

Good day!

As I will have to scan my approx. 550ft of Vision3 (250) later this year and I used to
think 4k was just slightly below 16mm physical resolution of the 16mm neg.
Could you please explain a bit further why "... true 2K scans (4K is almost never worth it in 16mm)"

Thank you,

Phil


  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport