Jump to content


Photo

2k scan or HD telecine for 4-perf 5219?

35mm 5219 telecine 2k scan grading music video film push processing

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 Dylan Lewis

Dylan Lewis

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:09 AM

Hi all,

 

I've recently finished shooting a music video on 4-perf 35mm, 5219. I'm about to send the film off for processing/transfer and I'm sort of stuck as to whether I should get an HD telecine or a 2k scan. The price difference given the amount of film I'm working with is not that large of a concern. My lab of choice (the wonderful Video and Film Solutions in Maryland) uses a Spirit for both.

 

Now obviously, as it's a music video, it'll only ever be viewed on computer screens, so I'm sure the difference won't be too drastic between the two, but there are still some factors to consider. First off, a solid amount of the video is shot in a city (Richmond, VA) at night, with only available light, meaning I was basically consistently rating the film at around 2000 ASA, sometimes higher. So grain will definitely be an issue, and on top of that, I plan on pushing a few of the rolls 1 stop. From my previous experience with 2k scans, it seems as if the higher resolution relative to HD makes grain seem even more apparent in scans than it does in telecine, so would the combination of the thin negative, the push, and the 2k scan make the grain way too intense? I understand that "way too intense" is a vague quantifier, so I guess to put it a bit better, would I be better off in terms of keeping the grain at a manageable level (given the negative that I'll be working with) with an HD telecine or a 2k scan? And I guess in a more general sense, what would be the advantages (or disadvantages) of going with 2k in this situation?

 

Also, this may be a stupid question, but just to clarify my understanding, it's definitely possible to maintain the 1:33 aspect ratio with an HD telecine, right? Any time I've previously had HD telecine of 35mm it's been automatically cropped by the lab to conform to a 1920x1080 frame. But theoretically wouldn't it be possible to maintain the full 4-perf frame with no cropping if I specifically instructed the lab and just have bars on the left and right of the frame? The film was framed for and always intended to be presented in that format.

 

Any help is greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks,

Dylan


  • 0

#2 Stephen Murphy

Stephen Murphy
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2014 - 04:19 AM

Get a 2k scan
  • 0

#3 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1050 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 13 February 2014 - 08:33 AM

I know this is unrelated, but I love that you've shot a video on film! It's been a while since I've seen those two words in that order :)


  • 0

#4 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 February 2014 - 08:33 AM

I agree that you should get a 2K scan and that Video Film Solutions in Maryland is fantastic....  But....

 

If you are truly concerned with dynamic range, properly resolved grain without added noise in your blacks, etc...  I would send your film for an HDR 2K scan at MetroPost in NYC.  They have a LaserGraphics Director which uses a full frame monochrome sensor.  If you request a full HDR transfer each frame will be scanned 9 times!  That is, it will get 3 separate intensity/exposure scans in red, blue and green.

 

Sprit Datacine's are great machines and I love the results.  But, if you truly want all the information off your film and a true "film like" image, I would go with MetroPost.

 

If you're closer to Boston, Cinelab also has an HDR monochrome home-built system.  Technically, it should be at least as good if not better.  It's called a Xena.  But, I have no direct experience with using the HDR functionality there.

 

Here is a 16mm film clip done by MetroPost.  There is no noise reduction, just color/light grading.  (There are some Super 8 parts... not done by MetroPost).

 

 

I have sent this film to many different scanning houses and I have yet to see one come close to getting this same result.  All the others are noisy or have clipped highlights or muddied shadows.  This came out just as I'd hoped.

 

Dave


  • 0

#5 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 February 2014 - 08:45 AM

Oh, as for the 2K vs HD part... Definitely go 2K...

 

You say the grain is "more apparent" with your 2K scans.  This is probably true because it will be better "resolved".  This also makes it easier to remove with noise reduction software since it's sharper and more specific.  If you look closely at an HD vs 2K scan of the same 35mm footage, you should notice that the grain isn't gone... just aliased and muddied so it almost blends in with an out-of-focus background.  But, make your in focus images look muddied or less sharp.  

 

I shoot mostly Super 8 and I still find a 2K scan worthwhile because of how perfectly resolved the grain ends up being.  It makes it easier to remove in post and leads to a sharper looking overall image because the muddied grain isn't distracting from the image.  There isn't enough "resolution" on Super 8 for 2K, but the increased grain makes it's even more important to resolve said grain.

 

You should see pretty much the same results via either HD or 2K from the Spirit at Video Film Solutions, other than the grain discussion above.  They literally use the same 2K Datacine equipment... just one setup outputs to HD and the other to 2K DPX/Prores, etc.  So, the machine and "quality" should be the same.

 

Dave


  • 0

#6 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 February 2014 - 08:51 AM

Sorry... another post... lastly note on the 4x3 frame...

 

Yes, if you request "pillar boxing" they should deliver a 1920x1080 frame with pillars on the sides.

 

If you request a 4x3 2K frame, you will actually get even more (above and beyond) a 16x9 2K.  You will get an actual 4x3 DPX or Prores file with a 2048x1556 image area rather than a wide screen 2K which is 2048x1240.  A correctly framed 2K 4x3 will give you 1556 of image hight resolution top to bottom compared to only 1240 if it's 16x9 pillar boxed 2K and compared to 1080 hight resolution of pillar box HD 16x9.  I'm not sure why no one can seem to do the same thing with HD 1920x1080 scans...  <shrug>

 

Dave


  • 1

#7 Evan Andrew John Prosofsky

Evan Andrew John Prosofsky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 13 February 2014 - 03:44 PM

I've always been a huge fan of doing true 2k on the scanity at cinelicious even if its for music videos. But, if its seriously affecting your budget, I'd suggest doing a telecine so you can spend more time on getting the color right. On the web, it can be VERY difficult to tell the difference. As much as I would love to tell myself otherwise...

 

2k scans:

 

HD Telecine on a Spirit:

(this was underexposed two stops on 5219 so will give you a great idea grain wise where you're at)


  • 0

#8 Dylan Lewis

Dylan Lewis

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 February 2014 - 08:10 PM

Thanks guys for all of your responses! David, I've heard great things about the Lasergraphics Director, I'll have to ask Metro Post for a quote. And you've definitely made a strong case for 2k in terms of grain resolution.

 

Also, Evan - it's cool that you commented on this post, I really dig your work and that Nightlife video was actually the video that gave me the confidence to really push into the realms of underexposure with 5219, so thanks, it's a beautiful piece of work. Was that shot with only existing/available light? I'm a bit nervous that I may have pushed a bit too far into the dark, Richmond's not exactly a brightly lit city and my light meter was pretty much consistently giving off a 1.8 (even rated as high as 3000 occasionally), but my lens (didn't have the budget to rent!) is a rehoused still photography lens that only opens up to f/2, so I'm basically just losing sleep until I can get the film processed. But it's good to know that even with 2 stops underexposure, a Spirit telecine can yield results that beautiful.


  • 0

#9 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 February 2014 - 10:07 PM

Thanks guys for all of your responses! David, I've heard great things about the Lasergraphics Director, I'll have to ask Metro Post for a quote. And you've definitely made a strong case for 2k in terms of grain resolution.

 

 

Tell Jack Rizzo that Dave Cunningham of New England Vintage Films sent you!


  • 0

#10 Evan Andrew John Prosofsky

Evan Andrew John Prosofsky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 14 February 2014 - 04:27 PM

Thanks guys for all of your responses! David, I've heard great things about the Lasergraphics Director, I'll have to ask Metro Post for a quote. And you've definitely made a strong case for 2k in terms of grain resolution.

 

Also, Evan - it's cool that you commented on this post, I really dig your work and that Nightlife video was actually the video that gave me the confidence to really push into the realms of underexposure with 5219, so thanks, it's a beautiful piece of work. Was that shot with only existing/available light? I'm a bit nervous that I may have pushed a bit too far into the dark, Richmond's not exactly a brightly lit city and my light meter was pretty much consistently giving off a 1.8 (even rated as high as 3000 occasionally), but my lens (didn't have the budget to rent!) is a rehoused still photography lens that only opens up to f/2, so I'm basically just losing sleep until I can get the film processed. But it's good to know that even with 2 stops underexposure, a Spirit telecine can yield results that beautiful.

Thanks Dylan!!

 

I shot wide open on master primes and my meter read between .35 and .7 for most of the night work. I had a small litepanels LED i used to add direction to the light but it really wasn't adding much exposure.


  • 0

#11 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 16 February 2014 - 12:05 PM

I find the whole 2K option a little baffling. Does the extra 132x132 pixels make that much of a difference over 1080P? Unless there is a difference in the capture/output method, I can't understand why a 2K option even exists. Why not something a little closer to 4K like 2.7K?


  • 0

#12 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 February 2014 - 12:44 PM

It's true that 2k doesn't make a huge difference for 16x9. But, in 4x3 it's significant, especially if you plan to reframe/crop/ or zoom to 16x9. You get 2048x1556 with 4x3 2k. That's a big difference in the 1080 height.
  • 1

#13 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:26 PM

When I had my 16mm negative scanned to HD tape, a 2K Spirit Datacine was used and it turned out beautifully.  So when talking about HD telecine & 2K scans, isn't the process pretty much the same?...


  • 0

#14 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:58 PM

When I had my 16mm negative scanned to HD tape, a 2K Spirit Datacine was used and it turned out beautifully.  So when talking about HD telecine & 2K scans, isn't the process pretty much the same?...

I'm wondering if a 2K scan results in a file of uncompressed individual frames? As opposed to a Telecine which outputs a standard video file.


  • 0

#15 John Jaquish

John Jaquish
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 February 2014 - 04:47 PM

The 2K scan scans each film frame as an individual DPX file which forms an image sequence. Each frame (for 2K) is around 12 MB, so it adds up... The amount of information captured and stored in a 2K scan vs. an HD telecine is massive. It's not just the resolution that's to be considered, but the bit depth and video compression (or lack thereof in the the 2K scan). 

 

I'm actually in a similar boat for a feature film. I just sent tests out to a couple of labs on the east coast and had the film both scanned and telecined. The difference between the 2K scan and the telecine is certainly apparent, even after the 2K image sequence is compressed to the same format as the HD (in this case, ProRes). 

 

Although, I haven't uploaded anything and considered online compression. At that point, I'm wondering how obvious it would be...

 

Personally, this is the first time I've worked with 2K DPX files (I've always had film telecined to HD, and have been pretty comfortable sticking with HD ProRes), and I'm already a little overwhelmed. I'd certainly much rather go for the quality of a 2K scan, especially with considerations of projecting the project eventually. Although, I'm taking into account the massive storage that would be required for storing and backing up all the footage for a feature. Plus, the additional cost of the scan itself, of course. On a low budget, I would be a bit more comfortable sticking with HD and then having the finished edit scanned from an EDL, if things are looking promising. Although, I don't know what the additional costs at that point would be...

 

Also as was pointed out, I do like the ability to reframe within the full 4-perf frame that the 2K scan offers.


Edited by John Jaquish, 16 February 2014 - 04:48 PM.

  • 1

#16 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 16 February 2014 - 05:51 PM

It's not just the resolution that's to be considered, but the bit depth and video compression (or lack thereof in the the 2K scan).

 

This is absolutely correct, but Anthony's question was about resolution. So if you assume an HD transfer was pillarboxed rather than 1.78:1, the actual image area is somewhere around 1440x1080ish (1.55 Million pixels). If you transfer that same film to 2k at 2048x1556, it's over 3.1 Million pixels. Even if the film was shot with the intention of cropping for 1.78:1, the 2k scan gives you greater flexibility to reframe shots in post, rather than baking those decisions in when doing the transfer.

 

In terms of your own scans, you have a few options: you can request the scan be done to a format like ProRes 4444 (which is definitely easier to work with for most people, and in many cases is good enough as the final format). Alternatively, you could make 2k Prores files from the DPX sequence in any of a number of applications. This becomes a proxy for the DPX scans. So you can edit, reframe, etc in your NLE, and then do your final grade and conform the DPX files at a facility that's set up to handle it more easily than one can do on a desktop machine. If you want to work with DPX directly, you need a RAID capable of moving about 500MB/second, a fairly substantial GPU, lots of RAM, and an edit/grading system that can work with the files directly.

 

For most people, working with proxies makes more sense and is more convenient. And with modest hardware, you can do this at 2k, in a format like ProRes, without needing a high end RAID.

 

-perry


  • 0

#17 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 16 February 2014 - 10:11 PM

 

The 2K scan scans each film frame as an individual DPX file which forms an image sequence. Each frame (for 2K) is around 12 MB, so it adds up... The amount of information captured and stored in a 2K scan vs. an HD telecine is massive. It's not just the resolution that's to be considered, but the bit depth and video compression (or lack thereof in the the 2K scan). 

 

I'm actually in a similar boat for a feature film. I just sent tests out to a couple of labs on the east coast and had the film both scanned and telecined. The difference between the 2K scan and the telecine is certainly apparent, even after the 2K image sequence is compressed to the same format as the HD (in this case, ProRes)

 

Ok so it is an image sequence, which does make a lot more sense than just a subtle increase in resolution.


  • 0

#18 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 February 2014 - 10:41 PM

Ok so it is an image sequence, which does make a lot more sense than just a subtle increase in resolution.

 

Although 2K does start off as an image sequence, it can be directly output to Prores or other video file formats.

 

Similarly, systems like the ScanStation or 2K Spirit Datacine can output HD (1920x1080) to DPX/image sequences.  This is not as common however.

 

In either case (Scantation or Spirit 2K), they are functioning as a scanner which scans each frame and then outputs it to a format.  That format can be an image sequence or a video file.

 

Telecine is different.  Telecine is a live video feed of a certain format.  For example, a Spirit HD Telecine will output in a video stream which would then need to be converted to DPX, not the other way around.  They were designed and intended for output to a video file, not an image sequence.  

 

So, again, although 2K is normally done as image sequences, it can be done output directly to a video file if you want... just generally not directly to tape like a telecine can do.

 

But, HD CAN me the same way.  Again, it just usually isn't.


  • 0

#19 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 17 February 2014 - 02:04 PM

Yeah I've only recently started hearing mumbling about the newer scanners doing 2K and image sequence files but wasn't sure if they were related. I've been working with image sequence but on a smaller scale (JPEG) a lot this past year. They work great in my NLE (Sony Vegas 10) for frame by frame editing and run smooth. Except with Sony Vegas I have to manually disable the auto frame blending default with each import to avoid defeating the purpose of true frame by frame editing. I wonder if FCP has the same issue with image sequence files?


  • 0

#20 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 17 February 2014 - 02:15 PM

FCP - at least version 7, can't speak to X, since I've never used it - doesn't really play well with DPX sequences. But again, make a proxy format like ProRes or Avid DNxHD and work with that, then conform later in Resolve  or some other application that handles DPX natively. GlueTools lets you open DPX in FCP 7, but we had mixed results with that in testing and found that it was just easier to work in ProRes proxies for editing.

 

Most scanners can also transfer to TIFF sequences as well, which is a bit more generic than DPX and may work better in your NLE. You'll likely still have the system performance issues you'd have with DPX, though - lots of overhead with any HD or higher resolution image sequence.

 

-perry


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 35mm, 5219, telecine, 2k scan, grading, music, video, film, push, processing

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Opal

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Glidecam