S8 to 35 final answers

[Rigo]

Here is the state of the art about super 8 to 35mm.

A) You shoot your film.

B) You send it to Interformat and they blow it up to 35mm.

The end.

Nothing will be cheaper or look better at this stage of the game. The idea that introducing video into the equation will make it cheaper and look better is nonsense.

Roger

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

Still waiting for Avortex to say what he thinks about the "Swiss Effects" look.

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

[Alex]

Rigo, I have used Interformat, I think Michael Hinton does great work (he did for me back in the mid 80's)

But I had already cut my film in that instance.

The act of editing a Super-8mm movie by splicing it can add scratches and "jumps" when you get to splices.

I'm assuming D-1 is good enough quality for a film to tape transfer.

It is expensive, but if you shoot five hours of film, pay $400/hr to transfer to D-2, than find the right NLE system for editing, you could then go right to 35mm negative when done with the editing.

What is the right NLE system...don't know, but NLE is the fastest growing aspect of media right now, so better and better systems are right around the corner.

I agree with Matt and Roger, Digital files that aren't actually video make more sense...

But you are still talking a lot of info stored on how many hard drives and how long to do the initial transfer if you want all of your footage transfered...frame by frame.

All three scenarios have their flaws.

The most logical and direct approach at this point in time is Interformat.

I wonder if Michael Hinton (I assume he still owns the company) has looked into digital file conversion himself.

-Alex



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

[Mikko]

Alex and Roger QUIT IT!

The reason I asked the question is that I might be able to do my final school work in 35mm, and being a super8 fanatic I was thinking that maybe I shoud add some S8 footage to it... maybe not. And if I don't get all the money, I have to shoot it with S8 entirely and edit with Final Cut Pro or cut the originals and stripe the film.
The script is not ready yet so everything is still open...
35mm... I have got 5 rolls of ASA 100 and 5 rolls of ASA 500 35mm color neg. in my fridge for over a year now and really wanna use 'em soon (they are out of date)
If I get to shoot it with 35, I transfer the footage (with "feet numbers"/timecode on screen) to video and edit it on Final Cut Pro AND then take the tape and the orinal negatives to negative cutter in Finnlab.

But all camera rent costs, processing, telecine, negetive cutting and print...huh!
Maybe I just shoot it on S8 and transfer with my own Goko TC-20 telecine player : )

thanks for all! (especially Alex & Roger)
M

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

[Mikko]

Oh, the thing with 35mm is that I have film and I want to use it (I took the rolls 'cos I want to use 'em. They were free to mee) not waste them by keeping them in my fridge for 10 years.

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

[mattias]

rigo and roger, i assume you have tried it both ways and compared the results side by side? i haven't done it either, but i think the burden of proof is yours since you're claiming to know the "truth." it's *certainly* more expensive to use a video intermediate (who ever said something else?), but it could very possibly give better results, considering that it's known to be hard to blow up color reversal film. from some of the stuff i've seen, it looks great, so i think i'll wait for the side by side before making up my mind.

/matt

[This message has been edited by mattias (edited August 20, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Mattias!

In point of fact, I have tried it both ways. I've had two projects blown up by Hinton and he did a great job on both. The two projects were both originated on Kodachrome and blown up to 16mm negative and looked virtually identical to the super 8 original when projected. I have not had anything blown up to 35mm, but I have seen other super 8 Hinton has blown up to 35mm and I have seen stuff originally shot on video blown up to 35mm by a company called "Image Transform" (I think). In addition, I have been involved in other's projects where stuff shot on Digibeta was blown up to 16mm by the same company, I believe (I could be wrong about the name of the company as these were not my projects).

I think anyone considering having their film blown up via video should ask themselves,"Do I prefer to see my super 8 film project directly or do I prefer it to be projected from a video projector?" Because, basically, that is the look you are going to get if you go through the video generation. The 35mm film frame will hold all the detail of either the raw Super 8 frame or all of the raster lines present in the video frame.

Just as they are visible when a video projector is used for large scale projection, the rastor lines will also be visible when projected from a 35mm print. Even without having tests done, I don't think there is anyone that will argue with that point, here. Short of running the image out of focus, you WILL see the rastor lines of the video. In fact, I can not imagine that anyone on this forum has NOT seen at least one commercial in the theaters that was shot on 35mm, edited on video and then blown BACK up to 35m film. It is as obvious as the nose on my ugly face. Why anyone would think that super 8 would look any better is beyone me.

Now, Mattias has brought up the idea that, perhaps, the color is easier to control via the video route rather than directly from Kodachrome. I think we have to define what one means by "easier to control". If the definition means that you can get true color easier, then I would disagree with that based on the fact that video simply is incapable of reproducing true color, no matter how easy it is to turn the knobs. It might be possible to come up with something that is a good compromise, but let's not kid ourselves, you'll be leaving money on the table in terms of color information and dynamic range. So, if "compromised" color is suffecient, then I guess adjusting it via video is oky-dokey.

However, to be fair, 35mm film doesn't really produce "true color" either. No film does. But, what 35mm negative does have is a much greater latitude than video in tems of dynamic range and contrast. As in shooting negative on location, your initial exposure doesn't HAVE to be dead nuts on target. It certainly helps, but the image can be corrected during printing with no significant loss in the final product. That's the beauty of negative as compared to reversal OR video where information lost on the initial transfer is gone forever.

Now, assuming we are talking about getting the best image we can from our Kodachrome, that means that we have picked Kodachrome cuts that have only correct density and color to begin with. And, of course, this is easy since, unlike negative, we can actually see the image with the naked eye. This means that, during editing, we are actually an active part of the "timing" process since we have culled our selection down to cuts that are virtually identical in terms of density and color.

Therefore, when the supe 8 film is blown up to 35mm negative (which has a lot more latitude that video or reversal) there is no way that the negative will NOT be able to handle the contrast and dynamic range presented.

And this is not supposition. When I had my stuff blown up to 16mm (which has even less dynamic range than 35mm) I had no problems what so ever. Was there an increase in contrast? Of course, just as there is anytime a positive image is copied to another generation. The same happens on film or video.

However, and this is the BIG however, even super 8 clips that are very similar in terms of density and color can come out vastly different from each other on a video transfer as compared to a negative blow up since the video has less dynamic range than the original super 8 frame.

And THAT is the big difference. Video has less dynamic range than the frame is it copying. 35mm negative has more dynamic range than the frame is it copying. Combined with the loss of resolution, I just don't see video as a practical alternative in the journey to a 35mm blow up. Because, as some point, the guy printing the 35mm negative is going to have to handle the issues of contrast and color present in whatever the the 35mm negative was copied from. It is apparent that the issues will be greater coming from video than directly from the super 8 frame.

A true "side by side" comparison of the exact same footage transferred both ways? No. But I don't think it takes too much imagination to see that video has less resolution and dynamic range, therefore, the same footage blown up directly from super 8 is going to be sharper than one that has gone through a video generation.

Roger Evans

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Here is the state of the art about super 8 to 35mm.

A) You shoot your film.

B) You send it to Interformat and they blow it up to 35mm.

The end."


(Matt responds):
Best quality, yes, but there's something you're leaving out:
When you do this to your unedited S8 footage, you end up paying exactly the same for 35mm stock, as if you had shot the entire project in 35mm to begin with.
If it's a feature, this would be an insane thing to do...
If you cut down your Super 8 footage, you end up with hairs, scratches & dirt.
We need an inexpensive device to digitally scan our Super 8 film in hi-res (2K+), edit it in the computer, then record out to 35mm neg.

Matt Pacini

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he said.

-Alex

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

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Matt, Alex...

Well, sure it would cost as much. But I never suggested sending up all or your unedited footage. Likewise, I don't think anyone on this forum would Rank all their super 8 footage prior to editing a feature, either. To a degree we all cul our footage to save money. Why handle 35mm differently?

But, realistically, we're talking about getting the best image quality. I think Matt's idea of using a digital camera to process each frame is a good idea. But, until that time comes, I believe that what I wrote is, in fact, the "state of the art" in terms of getting the best image from super 8. Economic factors can't be compared yet as a resonable alternative hasn't presented itself, although I'm still waiting for Alex's answer as to who can do a super 8 to video blow up at a "higher resolution" that will withstand the 35mm projection process.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff/html

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MovieStuff:
[B]Here is the state of the art about super 8 to 35mm.

A) You shoot your film.

B) You send it to Interformat and they blow it up to 35mm.

The end."


(Matt responds):
Best quality, yes, but there's something you're leaving out:
When you do this to your unedited S8 footage, you end up paying exactly the same for 35mm stock, as if you had shot the entire project in 35mm to begin with.
If it's a feature, this would be an insane thing to do...
If you cut down your Super 8 footage, you end up with hairs, scratches & dirt.
We need an inexpensive device to digitally scan our Super 8 film in hi-res (2K+), edit it in the computer, then record out to 35mm neg.

Matt Pacini


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

[mattias]

so, nobody has done a side by side yet? i think the arguments presented by "both sides" here are valid, so i'd really like to see somebody running a test.

one thing though: video doesn't necessarily have much less latitude than film, and especially reversal film. video at video gamma shown on a video monitor sure does, but the s/n ratio of a video signal (about 48db for digital) is enough to cover a much much larger contrast range than video normally contains. with a bit of dithering to hide the quantation aliasing i'd say the entire range of film could probably be represented by a dv signal. it would look extremely flat on a monitor, but should transfer nicely back to film.

/matt