Jump to content


Photo

Bad telecine from negative?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 July 2005 - 11:57 PM

Hi all,

I just had some Kodak 7222 Double-X Negative telecined with scene-to-scene correction and transferred to uncompressed QT and the results were horrible. :o The highlights are blasted out and there's some nasty posterization. The neg looks really sharp on a lightbox viewed with a loup (it's the best I can do without a print). Three rolls of reversal that were transferred on the same order look really good, so I'm wondering if the operator might have set a best light for the reversal and not made an adjustment for the neg. :unsure: Can someone with telecine experience please take a look at these images and tell me what you think the problem might be?

Here are some samples of the bad transfer, full resolution at highest jpeg compression.
http://www.oxygenhab...ecine/bad03.jpg
http://www.oxygenhab...ecine/bad02.jpg
http://www.oxygenhab...ecine/bad01.jpg

And here is one of the good transfer.
http://www.oxygenhab...cine/good01.jpg

Thanks in advance for your help,
Mike
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 02 July 2005 - 04:25 AM

Hi all,


Here are some samples of the bad transfer, full resolution at highest jpeg compression.

Thanks in advance for your help,
Mike

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

What was the telecine?

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 July 2005 - 09:57 AM

Well the reversal looks like Plus-X, that's a big help !

(If it's Tri-X I'd be really impressed actually).

Yes - what Telecine ? Makes a dif in 16mm especially.

The reversal sotcks - PXR and TXR ARE sharper, and that difference really shows up in 16mm.

As for setup, I dunno, the lower gamma of the negative should make it easier. Bad03 is too hot, plus it's clipping hard.

-Sam
  • 0

#4 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 July 2005 - 11:18 AM

Hi Stephen. It was a Cintel, either DAV Turbo or MkIII.

Mike
  • 0

#5 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 July 2005 - 01:00 PM

Well the reversal looks like Plus-X, that's a big help !

(If it's Tri-X I'd be really impressed actually).

Yes - what Telecine ? Makes a dif in 16mm especially.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi Sam,

Yes, the reversal stock was Kodak Plus-X.

Is Cintel a bad choice? If so, which telecine process would you recommend for Double-X Neg? My motivation for switching to neg was to take advantage of the wider exposure latitude, and I plan on telecining my next project straight from neg.

Thanks,
Mike
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 02 July 2005 - 01:39 PM

Is Cintel a bad choice?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


A Cintel Mk 3 with a new tube can look great! Noiser than a Spirit for 16mm. A Mk 3 with a worn out tube or run with low beam current looks very bad. I would ask for your money back for that transfer!

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:25 AM

Well it's always a question of which Cintel - there are so many out there, varianys, age issues.

I rather like C-Reality but those are newer macines - and - you'll get a grainier look with that. I think a Spirit might be the best choice for 7222.

-Sam
  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:44 AM

Well it's always a question of which Cintel - there are so many out there, varianys, age issues.

I rather like C-Reality but those are newer macines - and - you'll get a grainier look with that. I think a Spirit might be the best choice for 7222.

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

I prefer the C- Reality to a Spirit but the local facility sold the C-Reality and bought a Shadow!

Stephen
  • 0

#9 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 03 July 2005 - 07:31 PM

Looks like the telecine wasn't set up for b/w neg properly.

B/W neg is considerably more contrasty than colour neg.

All b/w increases in contrast when printed or transferred with specular (ie higly directional) light. A Cintel would be worse for this than a Spirit for example.
  • 0

#10 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 July 2005 - 07:27 PM

Thanks, Dominic. They sure didn't correct shot-by-shot as promised, so it wouldn't surprise me if the setup was wrong, too.

I guess I'll try a Spirit transfer next. Thanks for the input, everyone.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

CineTape

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine