super 8 -> 16mm (again)

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dogstarman:
[B]...but a WorkPrinter will probably be my next major purchase, as soon as you post some of your footage that you transfer using it!

Sam


Which hopefully won't be too long from now.
I'm still working out the kinks in figuring out which digital still camera is able to be controlled by software.
I think the Nikon D1 can, but it's way out of my budget!
Anybody know lots about this?
I'm all ears!

Matt Pacini

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

[dogstarman]

I know zero about digital still cameras, except that unless you spend mega-bucks, the image quality sucks (compared to 35mm stills, not to mention medium format... my Holga takes better images X a million... isn't that the way it always is with digital...?)

I'm more curious as to Roger's opinion on how a consumer miniDV camera will work in conjunction with the WorkPrinter... I bought a Sharp model (mostly 'cause it has analoge video and audio RCA inputs/ outputs and an independent mic jack) when BestBuy was blowing them out for $500 + $100 mail-in rebate last month. Nice little cameras with a ton of features. I got it to use as a DV deck for having my footage transfered to tape for editing... now I'm hoping I can do the transfers myself...

How about it, Roger? Would it look alright?

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

[crimsonson]

To Roger and Matt P

I have a question regarding the highest/Matt's model of the Workprinter.

What is the advantage of using a still cam instead of going straight to video. I am assuming you will be editing in some form of compressed video. If that is the case, you would be just adding another compression to the image? The still cam compress's the image then your NLE must recompress again to able to work with it. Since video has a fixed luma/chroma bandwidth what will be the benefit in doing it first with a still cam?
Is it the the lens? The CCD?

Again, I ask the question with an assumption that I am missing some technical factor here? Thanx.



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

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
[B] "To Roger and Matt P
I have a question regarding the highest/Matt's model of the Workprinter.
What is the advantage of using a still cam instead of going straight to video. I am assuming you will be editing in some form of compressed video. "

You be assuming incorrectly! I'm digitizing using TIFF files, in high resolution, so there's not a bunch of re-compression going on.
Also, video is NOT just defined by its resolution, although that's one factor here.
First of all NTSC is a horrific monster, being that it has nowhere near the color imaging capabilities as a 24bit Tiff file.
So, I want to capture in higher resolution (2K-3K horizontal) AND to capture without the corruption that NTSC creates.
I will then have a high res version of my footage for a couple of useful reasons:

1. I will do image enhancements and AfterFX work in Hi-Res, which will improve the image.

2. I will have a high-res version of the footage, if I am lucky enough to get a project bankrolled for output to 35mm, in which case, it will look as good as possible for Super 8. I could go to 35mm, without it having gone through either NTSC (Yuk!) or being low-res D1 resolution.


Regardless of step #2 above, I will have captured far more detail from the S8 footage than a standard telecine is capable of, so even if I bump it down to D1 (720x480) for video output, I think the results will be better than standard telecine, and even if I'm wrong, the Workprinter is a fraction of what an average telecine session is, so I'm ahead either way!



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

[mattias]

> First of all NTSC is a horrific monster, being that it has nowhere near the color imaging capabilities as a 24bit Tiff file.

i'm curious why you think so. don't confuse the limits of video cameras and broadcast systems with the video format itself (here we go again). i've never been able so see a very big difference between 4:4:4 rgb and 4:1:1 yuv. even in theory, the s/n ratio is the same, and the colorspaces are pretty much the same, so i don't see how the lower chroma sampling itself could mean so much.

so, here are two versions of the same image. (not anymore. email me if you want to see them) one has gone through a digital conversion to ntsc dv and back. which one is it? it's not quite as good, but to say it's nowhere near is going to far imho. and before you mention it: yes, these have been converted to 4:2:0 jpeg, but i can send you tiff files if you want to see that it doesn't matter.

/matt


[This message has been edited by mattias (edited November 08, 2001).]

[crimsonson]

Matt P:
"I want to capture in higher resolution (2K-3K horizontal)"

WOW- HOLY sHIT!! YOu are editing in 24 bit TIFF 2k-3k res. If 24 bit uncompress 720x 486 video is a little less than 1 MB/f you will increase the data rate to NINE times!! That is 216 MEGABYTES PER SECOND!!! (9MBx24fps)
That is more than HD.
What you got PEntium VI????
After Effects? for composites?
Or am I missing something again!!!???

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


[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited November 04, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
Matt P:
"I want to capture in higher resolution (2K-3K horizontal)"

WOW- HOLY sHIT!! YOu are editing in 24 bit TIFF 2k-3k res. If 24 bit uncompress 720x 486 video is a little less than 1 MB/s you will increase the data rate to NINE times!! That is 216 MEGABYTES PER SECOND!!! (9MBx24fps)
That is more than HD.
What you got PEntium VI????
After Effects? for composites?
Or am I missing something again!!!???

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Matt Pacini resonds):
You guys are missing the point.
First of all, I don't have to argue that NTSC has a more limited color palette. It's not disputable, otherwise there would be no mention of "safe" colors, etc., color fringing, etc.
I'm going to scan at the higher res., then probably downsize after image enhancement, but maybe not.
I'll most likely deal with them as Targa files, and render out low-res AVI files for preview, just like the big boys.

You guys don't seem to be able to pry yourself away from the thought that I MAY NOT BE USING THE FOOTAGE FOR VIDEO OUTPUT ONLY!!!!!
So comparing image A to image B on a using the low res files you posted here, is not anything like a true "A-B" test, and I don't know what the original capture was anyway, so it proves nothing.
And besides, you're making your arguments in "hypothitical-land", where money is no object.
And it's just plain silly to think that a video signal is as good as a quality, high res digital still camera image. I don't have to argue specs, it's just not even debatable among reasonable people, if for the resolution factor alone. Can a well shot 720x486 image look as good as a well shot 3K or 4K image? (All other factors being equal?)
I think not...

As I stated, regardless of whether or not you think I will get superior results, IT IS STILL CHEAPER THAN TELECINE!!!!

So it's certainly worth a try for me to do this, regardless of the outcome (which will certainly not be inferior, as you would agree Im' sure).

Matt Pacini

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

[crimsonson]

MAtt P.

I think you quoted the wrong person. If not my point is to get your stills to playback as series of frames in your PC for editing purposes you will need a NLE that can handle 200 MB/s! Again I jsut want to clarify how you will edit using the Workprinter and a still cam. If you gonna offline then isn't it better just to go straight to video and conform later. And if you do find a way to get theatrical release ( I hope you do) would it not be more reasonable to go from S8 film to 35 film since laser prints are EXTREMELY expensive and are only your used for high end ILM type composites?



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

[mattias]

> I don't have to argue that NTSC has a more limited color palette. It's not disputable...

it sort of pisses me off that you say you don't have to argue when i just posted pictures contradicting your statement, thereby making it disputable by definition. you might not agree with my analysis, but why should i buy your argument if you have none? you obviously don't *have* to argue anything, but i thought it would be interesting to hear what you had to say...

anyway, limited color palette, safe colors and color fringing are issues in analog broadcast ntsc, yes. in "digital ntsc?" no. there's no stopping you from editing in the full colorspace and only remove the illegal colors when mastering your video tape, or leave the full color in there for output to 35 mm or hd.

/matt

[Matt Pacini]

OK, it wasn't my intention to get into a NTSC/no NTSC argument, but you're missing my point.
It doesn't matter, for me anyway, because it's not any more money to get a decent digital still camera, than it is to get a DV camera, neither of which I now own.

And the big issue for me, is the higher resolution, so that's the real reason I'm doing it that way.
Granted, it will take longer, but other than that, there's no down side to what I'm doing, for my purposes, which is the whole point.
Here's my plan:
1. Shoot a short on S8.
2. Digitize it in high-res using the computer and Workprinter.
3. Edit it on the computer, adding FX, etc.,
4. Create a video version AND...
5. Output to 16mm neg (or 35mm neg) and have a print made that I can show in festivals.
I don't want a D1 res print made, I want it to be higher res, otherwise the deficiencies of Super 8 will be even more apparent.
So my point is, I'm really trying to get everything I can out of S8, instead of cutting corners along the way, going "yeah, this will probably be OK," etc., and then when it gets to film, is NOT OK.
Of course, if I were never going to do anything with this footage other than videotape or viewed on the net, or whatever, I wouldn't care, but I'm eyeing the possiblity of making a film print out of it in 16 or 35, so every little bit is going to matter.
And I don't mean to sound insulting by doubting you guys, it's just that I followed lots of advice I heard and read before doing Lost Tribes, and was bit in the ass in the end from lots of it, mostly of the "it's fine, you can't tell the difference" kind of advice. You can't tell the difference on your TV maybe, but you can on a huge freakin theater screen!
Namely, believing people that said Ektachrome S8 was nice looking stuff and not too grainy, when in fact it's horrifying excrement, with grain the size of golf balls, WHEN VIEWED ON A BIG SCREEN, which is where the s__t hits the fan in this scenario...

Matt Pacini



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