super 8 blow up

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:

Compare and Contrast, is it easier to do an overall adjustment on the original, or the copy, being that the copy is now on 16mm negative?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in terms of sharpness, it's always best to Rank off the original if that's an option. However, your question has nothing to do with your claim about saving money on Ranking by building timings into a negative during a blow up. Here's why:

If the original is in an optical printer and you make a color or density "adjustment", how will you know that "adjustment" is correct? You won't, unless you schedule Rank time or pull an answer print, both of which cost more money than just dealing with these issues in real time on the Rank. After all, it has to go on the Rank at SOME point. The difference between transferring a timed negative and an untimed negative are doodly, compared to the difference in Rank time and optical bench time.

In short, if dealing with scene to scene timing corrections is too expensive on the Rank, then doing it in an optical printer won't be any cheaper. Plus, if you don't like the results of the optical timings, you will not only have to pay for the additional Rank time to find out, you'll have to pay for more optical bench time. This could get real expensive real fast, which is why optical houses blowing up from reversal (to negative) don't do it unless there is something unusally wrong with the original reversal density or color and it needed an "assist".

Assuming the original reversal was shot correctly, it makes more sense to just blow it up one time using a "best light" and then deal with the timing issues on the Rank, where it can be done ONCE in real time and the settings can be saved on disk and are transferrable to future Rank sessions, if necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:

Plus, there is always the danger of splices coming apart the more you re-transfer the original film. Of course, you could argue that the optical may have "jumps" in it at splice points. Although I think the Wurker 2 frame Splices were ideal for preventing jumps at splice points. The other cool thing with the 16mm optical is if for any reason you were to ship it for transfer purposes, it is not your actual original, so the peace of mind is great.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I never said that blowing up to 16mm was a bad thing. On the contrary, I recommend it for a variety of reasons, some of which you've stated. I just feel that building timings into a negative to save on Rank costs is counter productive, though doing so for making multiple release prints might be worthwhile, depending on the number.

For the record, however, Interformat told us to replace our Ciro splices with Werkur splices and they sucked (the splices, not Interformat). The Werkur splices jumped everytime an edit came up. I hated it. To be fair, I don't know how the Ciro splices would have worked; maybe not any better.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 30, 2001).]

[Alex]

I'm surprised to hear the Wurker splices were no good. they made a two frame and a four frame...I think the two-frame splice was supposed to be ideal.

I think you can save either way.

If you do corrections scene by scene, I trust the blow-up place to do a good job...

If you do not do a correction during blow-up, but just do an overall, I think you can still save by doing the adjusting off of the 16mm on the Rank.

A spliceless version of the orginal film on a bigger guage seems to be an overall win situation.

Especially if you need to do a transfer to other video standards.

Just curious, was your super-8 film in your hands the entire time...I can't imagine you ever shipping it somewhere.

But a 16mm neg, I would consider shipping if I can get a better deal on a transfer, or to make additional film prints, Because I have the Super-8mm original as back-up.




------------------
Alex

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
I think you can save either way. If you do corrections scene by scene, I trust the blow-up place to do a good job...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, again, they aren't going to include these timings for free. And the only way they'll know if they're correct is to spend more of your money for Rank sessions or answer prints. I don't see how you can save a dime by building timings into your negative UNLESS you intend to do a LOT of release prints. Then, in that case, the cost of building the timings into the negative would definately save some money, but not for a single or even a couple of release prints nor for a couple of Rank sessions since it would take a couple of Rank sessions to tell if the timings were correct!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:

If you do not do a correction during blow-up, but just do an overall, I think you can still save by doing the adjusting off of the 16mm on the Rank.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you film is on 16mm (how ever it got there) then you can pick and choose the Rank house that gives you the best price. However, any savings you gain from the competition has to be weighed against the staggering cost of having the super 8 film blown up to 16mm in the first place. No matter how you slice it, the optical is going to add cost that would not be there if you Ranked off the original.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:

A spliceless version of the orginal film on a bigger guage seems to be an overall win situation. Especially if you need to do a transfer to other video standards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose, but this is assuming that all your titles and effects are built into the original super 8 film. I did on Jet Benny but that was in 1985 and there really wasn't much choice. Also, digital conversions for NTSC to PAL are a LOT better now than they were back then. Actually, it seems to me that a PAL to NTSC works better than NTSC to PAL. Perhaps the thing to do is transfer once to PAL then do the conversions to SECAM and NTSC from that master? Hmmmm.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:

Just curious, was your super-8 film in your hands the entire time...I can't imagine you ever shipping it somewhere. But a 16mm neg, I would consider shipping if I can get a better deal on a transfer, or to make additional film prints, Because I have the Super-8mm original as back-up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's always a nervous time when your original is out of your hands, but that's unavoidable.

Roger

[Alex]

Compare and Contrast, is it easier to do an overall adjustment on the original, or the copy, being that the copy is now on 16mm negative?

Plus, there is always the danger of splices coming apart the more you re-transfer the original film.

Of course, you could argue that the optical may have "jumps" in it at splice points.

Although I think the Wurker 2 frame Splices were ideal for preventing jumps at splice points.

The other cool thing with the 16mm optical is if for any reason you were to ship it for transfer purposes, it is not your actual original, so the peace of mind is great.

------------------
Alex

[mattias]

> Actually, it seems to me that a PAL to NTSC works better than NTSC to PAL.

if you do it digitally in after effects the way i've been doing it, it doesn't really matter, except for the higher resolution of pal that you can't match with an ntsc master. it obviously only works for film originated material, or pal stuff shot in progressive mode.

pal to ntsc: create an ntsc canvas, select interpret footage and slow down from 25 fps to 23.976, drop it on the canvas and adjust the size to fit. render with pulldown. done.

ntsc to pal: create a pal canvas, use interpret footage to remove the pulldown and speed up from 23.976 to 25, drop it on the canvas and adjust the size to fit. render. done.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
Sheesh. Can you imagine Fed-Ex reimbursing you for film stock cost in an equal amount to your final edited movie!

When I did the blow-up of my four minute super-8 film, I went in person, there was no way I was going to ship a final edited film anywhere!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at some point, you have to let go. I mean, you don't hand carry every roll of film to the lab do you? Here in Houston, where there are no labs or Rank facilities, daily treks to the freight counter at Southwest Airlines is a ritual. When ya got no choice, ya got no choice!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:

I have a feeling the additional cost of the 16mm blow-up pays for itself in a myriad of ways. If you spend $10,000 - $20,000 making a feature, and a 16mm blow-up costs $2,500...(I am just guessing, I don't know the exact cost)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah! Well, hold on to something cause in 1986 I believe I paid a total of $6500 for the blow up of Jet Benny and the transfer of the super 8 fullcoat to 16mm mag track. And that was just a "best light" transfer with no scene to scene timing.

It hasn't gotten any cheaper. According to the Interformat website at:
http://www.interformat.com/Super8Blowup.html

They charge $2.72 per 16mm foot for a best light blow up to 16mm from super 8. And these are not even updated prices. The website lists these as 1995 prices!

According to these rates, my 76 minute Jet Benny film would (in 1995) cost a whopping $7441.92 to blow up plus an additional $820.80 for a one light answer print. That's $8262.72 for the blow up and answer print, both of which are only "best light" and are not timed as you are suggesting to do.

And even though these are 1995 prices, it would NOT cost $8262.72 to Rank all your selected footage in super 8. Even at $350 an hour with no "day rate break", that would only come to $2800; less than a third the cost of the blow up and you would STILL have to have the film Ranked on top of that!

Again, if you were having a lot of release prints made, then I think having a timed blow up makes sense. But otherwise I think it's just too expensive to screw with since the negative can handle the contrast and the corrections can be dialed in on the Rank in real time. Plus, if you wanted to transfer off the original twice, the corrections can be kept on disk for future transfers.

Roger


[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited October 01, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited October 01, 2001).]

[Alex]

What is weird is if you make a DV feature, then decide to have a film print made, I've heard the price for the print can be between 30 grand to 50 grand.

And I also had heard that was for a print!, not a negative.

Although I can't believe people would go that level of expense for one print, that seems crazy.

Any body know someone who had a film print made from a DV master?

Sony Studios in Culver City (I think) has done free exhibition demos of their film print from a DV Master.

I wonder if Interformat would consider a flat price of like $5,000 - $6,000 for a feature shot on Super-8mm, especially if it is under 90 minutes in length.

It's noteworthy that if you start on film, you can make a final negative significantly cheaper than if you started with video.

Video may be cheaper on the front end, but you pay for it on the back end.

Anybody used Interformat lately for a film blow-up?

------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 02, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 02, 2001).]

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Well, it's always a nervous time when your original is out of your hands, but that's unavoidable.

Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheesh. Can you imagine Fed-Ex reimbursing you for film stock cost in an equal amount to your final edited movie!

When I did the blow-up of my four minute super-8 film, I went in person, there was no way I was going to ship a final edited film anywhere!

I have a feeling the additional cost of the 16mm blow-up pays for itself in a myriad of ways.

also, whatever the cost of a blow-up, it should be related back to the total cost for making the film.

If you spend $10,000 - $20,000 making a feature, and a 16mm blow-up costs $2,500...(I am just guessing, I don't know the exact cost)

That is probably a wise investment... especially if you like your movie.




------------------
Alex

[Matt Pacini]

That doesn't sound right.
I know that the Blair Witch guys got a neg & print from 4MC I think it was, for about $32,000 from their Hi-8 master.
It depends on running length too, but I think 30K-ish for a feature is about the norm...

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
That doesn't sound right.
I know that the Blair Witch guys got a neg & print from 4MC I think it was, for about $32,000 from their Hi-8 master.
It depends on running length too, but I think 30K-ish for a feature is about the norm...

Matt Pacini
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What doesn't sound right? I said between 30-50 thousand, you said 30K-ish.

------------------
Alex