-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
> Correcting 10 minutes of film shouldn't take more than a half hour or less.
log: 20 minutes
capture: 15 minutes
scene by scene color correction: 30 minutes
render: 100 minutes
back to tape: 15 minutes
restarting your computer, having coffee and so on: 30 minutes
total: 3.5 hours.
:-)
/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi, Mattias!
Logging, capture, computer restart, render, coffee and layback to tape I don't consider part of the essential "color correction process". Why not include putting your shoes on in the morning, unless you leave them off to save time on scene to scene color and density corrections? Just joking. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
On many systems such as the Velocity NLE systems, correction is done in real time with no rendering. On my system, I can apply corrections during the transfer stage in real time. Even if I do have to render a correction, I don't consider that part of the "correction process" and it certainly doesn't take "dozens of hours". I simply pull freeze frames, which takes a second, to varify key frame corrections before rendering. As far as I'm concerned, rendering the final footage means that you've finished your corrections. As I indicated, I take about half an hour to go through 10 minutes of footage and make the adjustments and, apparently, so do you!.
At any rate, 3.5 hours is still a long way from "dozens of hours" for 10 minutes of footage.
Roger
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
According to a S.M.P.T.E. magazine article, BW video has fifty more lines of video resolution than color video resolution...so BW film has more video latitude than color film.
(footnote: I probably should not have used the word "so" up above)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I would tend to agree with that statement. The use of the word "so" certainly implied a correlation between film and video that doesn't exist. Thanks for that clarification.
I also agree that a one light transfer from black and white would probably be more successful that a one light off of color. However, the same reason that it would favor success is also the same reason that correcting after the fact wouldn't take "dozens of hours", regardless of the level of experience of the editor. If the video is that forgiving on a one light, then certainly the amount of correction necessary would be minimal, yes?
Also, it doesn't matter what NLE system you're using. All you have to do is pull freeze frames of key sections where you've made the corrections. That takes literally seconds and avoids having to render out the entire clip to see the results. In fact, you could render out freeze frames of dozens and dozens of clips in a matter of minutes, even if the footage they come from might take an hour to render out the corrections on.
In all, you'd have to admit that the idea of "dozens of hours" for NLE color and density corrections is a bit much for 10 minutes of footage, don't you think?
Roger
-
Regardless of the details here, I think the whole subject is moot, because it STILL doesn't make any sense to pay for a Rank Transfer for only 200 feet of film.
Get the Workprinter.
(and it's NOT a separate issue! It's quite relevant, I'd say).
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Well, again, the WorkPrinter wasn't designed for final transfers. However, it does a much better job than it has any right to and certainly makes up in cost effectiveness what it lacks in overall resolution.
I think for Mad's purposes, the WorkPrinter would probably be a better deal than paying money for a Rank if all he needs is something that looks decent and has true "Rank Speed" for sound purposes. If you have a video camera and NLE system, then the WorkPrinter would be a good investment for the money.
Or, hell, send your stuff to me and I'll use my WorkPrinter prototype to transfer your film at half the price of the Rank house! In the amount of time that we've been discussing this collectively, you could have already transferred your footage! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
Roger
-
Roger:
Every year all of the NLE systems get better.
But some of the systems compromise certain parameters.
Some systems such as "Casablanca" and an earlier version of Screen Play had somewhat backward color correcting capabilities. (although Screen Play did have "auto-white" feature was very cool)
I'm sure they probably have revved up their color correcting systems now, but the demos I was shown about two years ago were not impressive at all from a correcting capability.
I was strictly focusing on the idea that the first time or two, everything takes really long..especially color and picture level correcting.
There are numerous procedures you go through that you don't think twice about that a newbie to Non-Linear Editing would be clueless about.
------------------
Alex
-
Roger,
So, your "Work Printer", gets flicker free playback, as a result of capturing frame by frame?
I do like the sound of it. I was hoping someone would invent such a device with component outputs...
This one here is going to have S-Video, but when I e-mailed them they said it was uncertain when it would be in production.
http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/page95.html
I am deffinately not rich. I don't, also, have a video camera.
Question, though: I know some still digital cameras have the ability to output a video signal. Aren't some of these a better resolution than more expensive 3 chip video cameras? Say, 3 mega-pixel or something?
Also, how do you project onto the paper and then film it? Doesn't this skew the image based on the angle of projection vs. video camera? I don't really understand how this works.
It really might be enough quality for me, vs. cost of Rank. I'd really like to see some 720x480 stills done at the best possible transfer with your device, vs. the same captured from a Rank to Beta SP. I don't have a Beta SP deck, but a friend of mine does- and my capture card has component inputs which I'd really like to use to get the best color I can for my footage.
Thanks for all the help, I'm still investigating the possibilites.
-Madrone
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
Roger,
So, your "Work Printer", gets flicker free playback, as a result of capturing frame by frame?
I do like the sound of it. I was hoping someone would invent such a device with component outputs... I am deffinately not rich. I don't, also, have a video camera.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the projector doesn't "put out" any kind of signal, component or otherwise. It is just a projector. The quality of your final transfer will be totally dependent on the camera and lensing system you use. I just posted some more recent images using a broadcast Ikegami 3 chip. Please see:
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/printer_images2.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
Question, though: I know some still digital cameras have the ability to output a video signal. Aren't some of these a better resolution than more expensive 3 chip video cameras? Say, 3 mega-pixel or something?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes and many people have thought about doing that very thing. However, some guys I know that have tried using them for stop motion animation have found the image to be unsteady on playback for some reason. Don't know why and I'm sure it is not the same for all digital still cameras. Beyond that, the WorkPrinter clips along at 6 frames per second. Even at half that speed the digital camera would not be able to keep up. Any slower and you'll burn a hole in the film!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
Also, how do you project onto the paper and then film it? Doesn't this skew the image based on the angle of projection vs. video camera? I don't really understand how this works.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, keystoning is something you have to work around if you project on a piece of paper. However using the zoom on your camera helps quite a bit. It also doens't really show except on geometric shapes where level is important. Again, the purpose of the WorkPrinter was for temporary transfers that are frame accurate to the Rank. If you used a multiplexor with the WorkPrinter, then you could shoot right off the film with no keystoning at all. Basically, the image is as good as you can afford to make it. The WorkPrinter's job is to keep it flicker free and frame accurate.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
It really might be enough quality for me, vs. cost of Rank. I'd really like to see some 720x480 stills done at the best possible transfer with your device, vs. the same captured from a Rank to Beta SP. I don't have a Beta SP deck, but a friend of mine does- and my capture card has component inputs which I'd really like to use to get the best color I can for my footage.
Thanks for all the help, I'm still investigating the possibilites.
-Madrone
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No problem. I am hesitant to post full resolution stills since I do not want image quality to be an issue. I post the small ones to show the clarity of the transfer which, even then, is totally dependent on what camera you would use. Posting full frame images will show what MY camera can do when shooting off a piece of paper but what good does that do you if you don't own a camera like mine or intend to use a multiplexor?
I think for your intended purpose, as described when you started this thread, the WorkPrinter will work fine, even with a home video camera. If you need better quality, the WorkPrinter won't be the weak link in the imaging chain as you would still need a better camera and a multiplexor to max out the image. I use the small pictures as an indicator of what's possible using a simple transfer technique. Anything better than that is up to the user and his or her budget.
Hope this helps! Again, I can transfer your footage for you if you want. Email me if you are interested.
Roger
-
Roger,
I may have you transfer my footage. I'm still waiting for one roll from the lab.
Question: What about those editor/viewer things? I take it you've already determined that the best quality possible is capturing from a projector? Why? Also, what about those little boxes that mirror the image from a projector to a little screen?
I love the idea of a cheaper way to get the footage into the computer, just hesitant about the quality of it.
Also, what is this??????? http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1279877410
Anyone?
Thanks,
M
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
Roger,
I may have you transfer my footage. I'm still waiting for one roll from the lab.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No problem, just email me and let me know.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
Question: What about those editor/viewer things? I take it you've already determined that the best quality possible is capturing from a projector? Why? Also, what about those little boxes that mirror the image from a projector to a little screen?
I love the idea of a cheaper way to get the footage into the computer, just hesitant about the quality of it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Editors are the worst way since they use a revolving prism and the image is not very sharp. Also, they would share a problem that those "little boxes" have, notably visible screen grain and a hot spot. I don recommened either. Copying off of Epson Ink Jet paper works just great and is butt simple.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
Also, what is this??????? http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1279877410
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's for transferring slides or negatives to video, I believe. We are only seeing part of the unit, I think. There are carriers for the film that are used with this unit. Kind of old technology and the funky color adjuster at the bottom is as out of date as flared jeans and white socks. I wouldn't bother with it.
Roger
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Regardless of the details here, I think the whole subject is moot, because it STILL doesn't make any sense to pay for a Rank Transfer for only 200 feet of film.
Get the Workprinter.
(and it's NOT a separate issue! It's quite relevant, I'd say).
Matt Pacini
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes and No.
If they are charging you a gate fee (usually between ($150-$250 per day), it would make the rank transfer of 200 feet not cost-effective.
If there is no rank transfer gate fee, and the hourly rate is low, it could be cost effective.
------------------
Alex
