Jump to content




Photo

Getting that High quality 16mm


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 12 April 2016 - 07:19 PM

Hi everyone,

If there is a thread bringing this up specifically before I apoligize.

So I have been doing the film school studies now for the second time, and i'm on my first year of film (as well as MFA). We started shooting super 8, to move over to 16mm, to next semester touching that golden standard of 35mm.

Now while I love working with film there is something that I found a bit strange, and I am wondering what it is. So the movie “hurt locker” was shot on the Arri 416, the tv-series “the Walking dead” as well (if I remember correct), both look really good and I like the feeling of it.

But I feel that every time I either get my own footage through the telecine, or look at other peoples test footage online it turns out milky. Like the sharpness is not there and the cripsness of the image just do not pop. Now I know there are of course a lot of things to credit both the masterful DP's, as well as the amazing DI's, but is that the thing that makes a film students footage different than theirs?

What I am saying is, the footage they have, is it a special scan? Is it a special way to treat it in post? What it the best way to maximize the most out of the Super16 format?

//C


  • 0




#2 Jeff L'Heureux

Jeff L'Heureux
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Director
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 April 2016 - 09:08 PM

It's four factors, in general:

 

-shooting super16 over normal 16mm, this is a big jump in resolution, clarity and smaller grain.

 

-the lenses used.  On features that shoot super16 they'll use very high quality, professional lenses that are 10's of thousands of dollars.  These greatly effect the image and it's one of the main tools of a cinematographer to produce a 'look'.

 

-the cinematographer's lighting.  Film loves light.  Light it and expose it properly and you can generate the clarity, sharpness, contrast and grain you're looking for.  Also, how it's chosen to be processed in the lab as well.

 

-the camera.  The higher up the camera, such as the SR3 and Arri 416, the pulldown is very stable and stationary versus an older cheaper camera like a bolex where there might be a lot of gate weave or scratching that makes it begin to look more like 8mm.

 

Then there's factors like the film stock used, and the type of scan done.  But, in simple terms, you could shoot super16 on a modified bolex with an old lens, scan it the same, but it would look markedly different from the same stock shot on an Arri 416 with the Arri/Zeiss Ultra16 lenses.

 

And, on larger budget shows or films they may even take the further step of DNR or sharpening after the fact.


  • 1

#3 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2367 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 April 2016 - 10:58 PM

Jeff is spot on about all of those things.

I'd also include that milky can be a symptom of a poor telecine. Perhaps next time you do a transfer, you can suggest they make it a flatter image to give you more range for coloring in post. This is very easy on the operator as they don't need to sit there and make corrections as the film runs through.

Milky can also be the sign of bad/old/expired film stock.
  • 0

#4 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:12 PM

It's four factors, in general:

 

-shooting super16 over normal 16mm, this is a big jump in resolution, clarity and smaller grain.

 

-the lenses used.  On features that shoot super16 they'll use very high quality, professional lenses that are 10's of thousands of dollars.  These greatly effect the image and it's one of the main tools of a cinematographer to produce a 'look'.

 

-the cinematographer's lighting.  Film loves light.  Light it and expose it properly and you can generate the clarity, sharpness, contrast and grain you're looking for.  Also, how it's chosen to be processed in the lab as well.

 

-the camera.  The higher up the camera, such as the SR3 and Arri 416, the pulldown is very stable and stationary versus an older cheaper camera like a bolex where there might be a lot of gate weave or scratching that makes it begin to look more like 8mm.

 

Then there's factors like the film stock used, and the type of scan done.  But, in simple terms, you could shoot super16 on a modified bolex with an old lens, scan it the same, but it would look markedly different from the same stock shot on an Arri 416 with the Arri/Zeiss Ultra16 lenses.

 

And, on larger budget shows or films they may even take the further step of DNR or sharpening after the fact.

 

Thanks for replying and not being an ass yelling at me :)

Happens waaaay to often at forums.

I will shoot S16 next shoot so I can see the difference truly. Our school does have access to the Zeiss Super Speeds, so I will try that combination as well.

Last footage I shoot was on the SR2, but it shouldn't be too far from the SR3, or am I wrong?

I really want to try to push 16mm to the most I can while I am still in school, because I doubt anyone will allow it when I graduate...

 

Jeff is spot on about all of those things.

I'd also include that milky can be a symptom of a poor telecine. Perhaps next time you do a transfer, you can suggest they make it a flatter image to give you more range for coloring in post. This is very easy on the operator as they don't need to sit there and make corrections as the film runs through.

Milky can also be the sign of bad/old/expired film stock.

 

 

The stock was fresh 7219 so it shouldn't be too bad? I have had better results with “old” Fuji 250D. Also we do Telecine just. Maybe I should try having someone else do a frame by frame scan.


  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2367 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:34 PM

I've shot with old stock, crappy lenses and had a poor telecine, yet still had crisp results.

It is a combination of many things... Usually not so much the camera either, unless there is physically something wrong with it.
  • 0

#6 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 13 April 2016 - 12:08 AM

I've shot with old stock, crappy lenses and had a poor telecine, yet still had crisp results.

It is a combination of many things... Usually not so much the camera either, unless there is physically something wrong with it.

 

When I get my own S16 I will have more time to test, since our school seems to support camera test as much as we like.

But I will definently continue this and figure out the best mix.

C


  • 0

#7 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 13 April 2016 - 05:13 AM

I suspect this is down to the grade. Maybe download resolve and see what you can do with that.

Might also be really bad telecine, especially if you guys are handling that yourselves.

 

Freya


  • 0

#8 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 13 April 2016 - 06:31 AM

I have no experience of telecine but milky blacks in a print is surefire underexposure.


  • 0

#9 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 13 April 2016 - 09:26 AM

I suspect this is down to the grade. Maybe download resolve and see what you can do with that.

Might also be really bad telecine, especially if you guys are handling that yourselves.

 

Freya

Well first, schools telecine suite has 2 technicians there that used to work for FotoKem. And they have a complete DaVinci suite when you are doing the grade so that isn't really the point.

Why I started asking is that I am wondering if bigger productions specifically have that extra sharperning add. Is it post or is it in the transfer...

 

I have no experience of telecine but milky blacks in a print is surefire underexposure.

 

I agree, but this was milky colours.  And I suspect the Telecine being the perp here, the workprint is way sharper.


  • 0

#10 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 13 April 2016 - 09:30 AM

You have a workprint? Miracle of miracles.

And a Steenbeck?


  • 0

#11 Carl Nenzen Loven

Carl Nenzen Loven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Student
  • San Francisco

Posted 13 April 2016 - 03:37 PM

You have a workprint? Miracle of miracles.

And a Steenbeck?

 

We get one per work we hand in...


  • 0


Willys Widgets

Zylight

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Pro 8mm

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

CineTape

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm

Zylight

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine