Jump to content


Photo

Spirit vs. Ursa comparison screengrabs


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3070 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 July 2005 - 06:23 PM

There have been some discussions recently regarding the relative merits of different Telecine machines. For anyone that's interested, I have uploaded some side by side comparisons from a recent promo shoot. First set are from an Ursa suite, second set from Spirit, identical grades.

I have more stills should anyone want to see them.

www.stuartbrereton.com/TK test.html

Edited by Stuart Brereton, 01 July 2005 - 06:30 PM.

  • 0

#2 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3070 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 July 2005 - 07:01 PM

sorry, to clarify URSA stills are on the left, SPIRIT on the right

my apologies for the large files, but I thought it was important to see them full size.

Edited by Stuart Brereton, 01 July 2005 - 07:02 PM.

  • 0

#3 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 July 2005 - 07:57 PM

sorry, to clarify URSA stills are on the left, SPIRIT on the right

my apologies for the large files, but I thought it was important to see them full size.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well, yes, the Ursa (which, BTW, is a standard def device only) has more detail in the blacks (even when you crush the s**t out of them, as in music videos, commercials, and Jerry Bruckheimer television programs), and the Spirit has less noise. I thought this was fairly common knowledge, but thanks for putting up the stills that illustrate it pretty clearly. The difference in noise, BTW, is one of the primary reasons that Spirit transfers are generally preferred for 16mm, particularly when one wants it to look more like 35mm. The noise is more pronounced on smaller formats on flying spot scanners because the scan patch is smaller and the noise floor is higher. This noise is often mistaken for film grain, but it is the combination of both that yields a distinctly "16mm" look - and the noise is largely absent on a Spirit. This, combined with the use of a broader light source (as opposed to the spectral light on a flying spot machine, which tends to accentuate grain edges) makes for a "cleaner" picture, which is very evident when working with 16mm.
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 02 July 2005 - 04:29 AM

sorry, to clarify URSA stills are on the left, SPIRIT on the right

my apologies for the large files, but I thought it was important to see them full size.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

Was it an Ursa Gold or Diamond ?

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3070 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2005 - 07:12 PM

Stephen,

It was an Ursa Diamond, through a Da Vinci 8:8:8 colour corrector, TK to digibeta. The stills are uncompressed screengrabs.
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 04 July 2005 - 02:10 AM

Stephen,

It was an Ursa Diamond, through a Da Vinci 8:8:8 colour corrector, TK to digibeta. The stills are uncompressed screengrabs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

I guessed it was a Diamond, I am a big fan of a C-Reality as well!

Stephen
  • 0

#7 oscar jimenez

oscar jimenez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF PANAMA

Posted 04 July 2005 - 09:33 AM

And for comparison, having both Ursa Diamond and Spirit Vs Sony Vialta, Which should work out the best quality? or what would be the point of reference to have a best choice beetween them?
Thank you
Oscar
  • 0

#8 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 July 2005 - 06:01 PM

And for comparison, having both Ursa Diamond and Spirit Vs Sony Vialta, Which should work out the best quality?


The one being run by the best colorist.
  • 0

#9 oscar jimenez

oscar jimenez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF PANAMA

Posted 08 July 2005 - 10:08 AM

I have most times due the telecine of several proyects with Ursa sistems, I have always gone mad with that sometimes "noisy" imagery, even though I know film was properly exposed and checking film code to be shure it is not from sold kind of "old batch " left from supplier. That's why, recently been using more Vialta, and have tasted better quality overall, not necessary that 16 power windows, but the colorist I have used in previous Ursa proy's is a very experiencied and talented senior colorist, still, there is a lot of noise. So for budget reasons, I have either to choose for some proys Ursa Diamond, or Vialta, being the later one $200.00/ hour more expensive than the first one.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Technodolly

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Abel Cine

The Slider

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Opal

Glidecam

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Tai Audio

CineTape

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery