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


Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Opal

CineTape

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Metropolis Post

CineLab