-
I have 200' of footage I want transfered with a Rank transfer. Noting that most of it is b&w, and that the primary reason for getting the footage Rank transfered is to have it flicker free, the best image quality, and syncable to the sound stuff I recorded... Do I really need scene to scene color corrections? Wouldn't a one light Rank transfer be enough?
This is something I don't really understand. What's the real advantage of having scene to scene corrections if you can adjust it later when its captured to your computer? Seems like having it done *one light* would save a great deal of money.
Thanks,
Madrone
------------------
-
Excellent analysis, it would take me half and hour to come up with a short concise answer to your statement.
If I have time this weekend, I'll try.
------------------
Alex
-
Well, just like the original shoot, if you lose information, you CAN NOT just make it up in the computer.
There is a limit to what you can fix, and if you transfer a dark scene, for instance, and they don't do what they can to pull out all the detail in the shadows during the transfer, it will be lost forever. You will not get it back in the computer.
All big budget feature films that are transferred to video, have not only scene to scene, but shot to shot correction.
It's just not a process that is automatic.
They have so much control in a telecine bay, but that also means they HAVE to make decisions as to how to transfer.
Generally, the better (and flatter) your original footages is, the less you need correction. Unless you're going for a certain look, or you made mistakes, etc., you will be OK for a basic transfer with a one light (depending on how picky you are).
For only 200 feet of film, you're spending a hell of a lot of money for a Rank, especially if you do scene to scene transfers.
You're going to have to pay for gate rental, no matter if you're transferring 50 feet, or 5,000 feet, unless you go to Super 8 Sound for your transfer (which I don't recommend).
For less money than a single Rank transfer, you can get one of Roger Evan's Workprinters.
It's frame accurate, and then you can do your own transfers for nothing from now on!
That's what I'm doing.
(Look up the Workprinter post from a couple weeks ago for more info, & check out his website).
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Hey, Mad!
Matt is correct. Even if your film were exposed perfectly, video has less latitude for handling highlights and shadow areas than your film original. Therefore, in an ideal situation, you would adjust the brightness and color of each cut as it comes up on the monitor for the best look WHILE you are transferring the film; not after the fact. As Matt stated, if you don't, and detail gets lost in the shadows or highlights, then that detail is gone forever and no amount of adjusting in Premier or other NLE systems will ever get it back.
Here's the link for the WorkPrinter:
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/workprinter.html
Feel free to ask any questions! You are EXACTLY the kind of user that the WorkPrinter was designed for! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
Roger
-
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)
It is possible to do a "one light" and "perhaps" not lose anything to either clipped white levels or crushed blacks.
You may find however that the extra 1/2 to 1 hour of time it takes to transfer your BW footage on the rank and properly correct most of the levels could save you dozens of hours in video correction time on the computer.
If you want to learn how to do correcting, and will be using scopes and such, then you could try the "one-light" rank transfer.
But you must analyze the footage before editing to make sure no video bright levels are clipped, an that no dark levels have been crushed to zero ire.
If your levels are somewhere between 7.5-100 on the Video IRE scale, you can probably make further adjustments to optimize the look.
So, you may save $ 75.00 - $ 200.00 on the transfer, but spend a dozen or more hours making corrections...but hey, if you have the time, what the heck!
You will learn about the intricacies of video level correction and save money.
One compromise solution might be to one-light the BW and take a little longer for the color footage, of which you have less of.
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 29, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 30, 2001).]
-
Unless you're a rich boy, I just can't see going in and spending $500-$800 on 200 feet of film!
That's 10 minutes, and then what's it going to be after you edit?
Two minutes? Three?
This is a no brainer.
Get The Workprinter.
It's less money than this transfer seesion is going to cost you, and like I said, you can then transfer for free from now on.
Don't think about it, just do it!
You're not REALLY entertaining the idea of Ranking that 200 feet for that much money, are you?
If so, I have some swamp land I want to sell you...
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
That would be a separate issue.
200 feet of film, if transferred in 30 minutes, would cost between $75.00 - $ 150.00 plus stock depending on where you go...
If the Transfer session took one hour, it would cost between $150.00-$300.00 plus stock.
------------------
Alex
-
<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. So it is possible to do a "one light" and "perhaps" not lose anything to either clipped white levels or crushed blacks.
You may find however that the extra 1/2 to 1 hour of time it takes to transfer your BW footage on the rank and properly correct most of the levels could save you dozens of hours in video correction time on the computer.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Dozens of hours" to correct 10 minutes of film? Man, I'm glad I'm not paying you by the hour to do my editing! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
Correcting 10 minutes of film shouldn't take more than a half hour or less. I can NOT imagine what would take dozens of hours, especially for black and white video. I do color and density corrections all the time during editing and never have I spent "dozens of hours" per 10 minutes of film. I'd starve to death!
Beyond that, your observations about film resolution and associated latitude are incorrect. If more resolution within a format resulted in more latitude, then K40 would be the best all around for all shooting, all the time! You'd get fine grain AND terrific latitude. But the fact is that you only gain latitude when you increase resolution by going to a larger format using the same emmulsion. In other words, the same scene shot on the same film stock in both Super 8 and 35mm will show more latitude in the 35mm frame than in the super 8 frame. That is why still photographers (like myself) that are requested by agencies to provide transparencies of a product do so on 4x5 even though the image won't be reproduced any bigger than a magazine layout, for which 35mm resolution would be fine. By going to a larger format, one gains latitude and lower contrast but can still shoot on the same film stock; in this case, reversal, as per the client's wishes.
Therefore, higher resolution does not increase latitude for the same size film image. K40 has more resolution than Ektachrome 160 and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out which is more contrasty. In fact, regarding film, the opposite of what you are saying is actually the truth - Within the confines of the same format, slower film means finer grain which results in more resolution but higher contrast (less latitude). Faster film means more grain which results in less resolution but lower contrast (more latitude). That is why Plus-X has less latitude than Tri-X and also why Plus-X has less grain than Tri-X.
Beyond that, you can't really transpose video resolution characteristics onto film at any point.
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 30, 2001).]
-
> 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
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Correcting 10 minutes of film shouldn't take more than a half hour or less. I can NOT imagine what would take dozens of hours, especially for black and white video. I do color and density corrections all the time during editing and never have I spent "dozens of hours" per 10 minutes of film. I'd starve to death! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It depends on the Non Linear Editing system you are using.
Some systems don't allow you to see a "before and after", you render what you want, then either you like it or you don't. A very cumbersome procedure.
For somebody starting out, which was my point, it can be a very time-consuming procedure...especially if you have built a time-line and done rendering and then decide you need to change video levels in the middle of a built sequence.
Why compare your level of competence to the posters level, who is just starting out?
It is an unfair compairison to make.
You probably work with someone over your shoulder, as a result, you know exactly what you need to get the job done as efficiently as possible...don't assume someone starting out will automatically be at the level you are at after many years of doing what you do.
Plus, comparing the corrected result to a wavefrom/vectorscope makes it take longer because not all systems have the waveform vectorscope easily accessible.
Many of the NLE systems have poor graphical representations of the Waveform, Vector Scope, which makes it even more difficult to evaluate what you are doing, especially a beginner.
Also, are you doing double monitor work? Many new NLE users think they only need one monitor, and that adds an extra layer of time accessing different programs and procedures, finding clips...
I bet you have a two monitor system, which significantly reduces the time it takes to do virtually any task because it makes mult-tasking that much easier.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Beyond that, your observations about film resolution and associated latitude are incorrect. If more resolution within a format resulted in more latitude, then K40 would be the best all around for all shooting, all the time! You'd get fine grain AND terrific latitude. But the fact is that you only gain latitude when you increase resolution by going to a larger format using the same emulsion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Apples and oranges...I'm comparing Color to BW in the same format.
The additional BW resolution of 50 lines over color allows for greater latitude in "correcting" the signal after the fact.
So, the rank transfer can be farther off for the BW transfer and still be "saved" versus the color film.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
In other words, the same scene shot on the same film stock in both Super 8 and 35mm will show more latitude in the 35mm frame than in the super 8 frame. That is why still photographers (like myself) that are requested by agencies to provide transparencies of a product do so on 4x5 even though the image won't be reproduced any bigger than a magazine layout, for which 35mm resolution would be fine. By going to a larger format, one gains latitude and lower contrast but can still shoot on the same film stock; in this case, reversal, as per the client's wishes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think this relates to the difference in correcting BW and Color in the same format.
My point was that a BW transfer is more forgiving in the transfer process. It can be "off" way more than color and still be "fixable".
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Therefore, higher resolution does not increase latitude for the same size film image. K40 has more resolution than Ektachrome 160 and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out which is more contrasty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, the issue is not one color stock versus another, it is BW versus Color.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
In fact, regarding film, the opposite of what you are saying is actually the truth - Within the confines of the same format, slower film means finer grain which results in more resolution but higher contrast (less latitude). Faster film means more grain which results in less resolution but lower contrast (more latitude). That is why Plus-X has less latitude than Tri-X and also why Plus-X has less grain than Tri-X.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The point I was making is all of these BW stocks should probably survive a one light transfer rank transfer and be correctable when doing Non Linear Editing.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Beyond that, you can't really transpose video resolution characteristics onto film at any point.
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 30, 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure you can, BW film transfered onto video has more resolution than Color Film transferred onto video.
you can play with contrast, set-up/brightness without worrying as much about color and hue issues.
If you were choosing which aspect of a transfer to fully correct, I would choose the color over the BW, as I said in my previous post.
The BW has a greater chance of being within a range that can be properly adjusted at a later time.
The Devils Advocate position to what I just said is the Telecine person may be able to do overall BW adjustments faster during a film transfer session than Color.
------------------
Alex
-
<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
-
Matt,
Very snappy images from your film..I have to admit.You are the king of K-40..and Roger..your workprinter is unbelievable..any thought of making a 16mm one also?..are you worried that Cintel will sent a hit squad after you http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
Neil
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jocko:
Matt,
Very snappy images from your film..I have to admit.You are the king of K-40..and Roger..your workprinter is unbelievable..any thought of making a 16mm one also?..are you worried that Cintel will sent a hit squad after you http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
Neil
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ha, ha!
It would work fine in 16mm also, though I haven't researched out the specific details. The thing that costs money is buying the Bell and Howell 16mm projectors used. Some go cheap, some don't. The GAF super 8's always go cheap!
Roger
-
O.k., so Matt has really got me thinking about the possibility of hooking a digital still camera up to capture from Roger's "Work Printer".
All of the digital still cameras that I have seen only have NTSC output. Wouldn't capturing to your computer with such a camera, via such a cable, defeat the purpose by loosing the 3.3... whatever mega-pixel that the camera takes if its in un-compressed .tiff mode?
Might there be another way to do it? Note: A high quality digital still camera is much less expensive than a high quality digital video camera... So, more bang for the buck, right?
Thanks,
Madrone
------------------
-
Also,
Roger, you said, "If you used a multiplexor with the WorkPrinter, then you could shoot right off the film with no keystoning at all".
I don't understand this. What is a multiplexor?
Thanks,
Madrone
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
O.k., so Matt has really got me thinking about the possibility of hooking a digital still camera up to capture from Roger's "Work Printer". A high quality digital still camera is much less expensive than a high quality digital video camera... So, more bang for the buck, right?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no such thing as a "digital" camera. All modern cameras use a CCD imaging chip for the lens to focus the image on. This image can either be recorded analog, like to a BetacamSP deck or it can be recorded digitally, like to a DV deck. But there is nothing "magical" about a "digital" camera. The camera portion of a Panasonic home DV camcorder is identical to the camera portion of a Panasonic home SVHS camcorder. No difference; just the name "digital".
If you are trying to capture for video, you could buy a used 3 chip broadcast grade camera like the one I have for about $600-$1000 on ebay. For video applications, a single chip still camera isn't going to compete if it has to grab frames at 6 frames per second. And the really good digital still cameras with removable lenses are not only over $2,000 but STILL won't keep up with a 6 frame per second capture rate.
In answer to your other question, a multiplexor has a condenser lens in it that allows a video camera to look right at the film frame. The projector projects the image onto the condensor lens from one side and the camera looks into the condensor lens from the other side.
All a condenser lens is is a fancy magnifying glass. If you have a large magnifying glass, hold it in front of your movie projector at a distance of about 2 feet (after focusing on a piece of paper at that distance) and take a peek into the glass. NOTE: Put some ND material on the lens or wear sunglasses. The image is VERY bright and you usually have to use a diffusion insert to kill the hot spot of the bulb.
Roger
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
There is no such thing as a "digital" camera. All modern cameras use a CCD imaging chip for the lens to focus the image on. This image can either be recorded analog, like to a BetacamSP deck or it can be recorded digitally, like to a DV deck. But there is nothing "magical" about a "digital" camera. The camera portion of a Panasonic home DV camcorder is identical to the camera portion of a Panasonic home SVHS camcorder. No difference; just the name "digital".
Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
wait a minute, the purpose of a digital still camera is to immediately convert or interpolate the signal to digital, before the signal has been converted to a video format.
The digital camera allows for the image to be converted to digital directly from the CCD imaging chip.
Any other scenario involves converting an analog signal to digital two times instead of just at the CCD imaging chip point.
------------------
Alex
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
The digital camera allows for the image to be converted to digital directly from the CCD imaging chip.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The 'digital' camera deals with the signal coming from the CCD differently than an analog camera, but the CCD signal isn't "ready made" to be recorded right off the imaging chip. As you noted, it still has to be converted to a recordable format of some kind in either camera. Broadcast analog cameras deal with this conversion pretty effeciently, though I understand the distinction you were making about the CCD signal as it relates to home video cameras. I would guess all things being equal (single chip home video), then the superior data transfer of the "digital" camera is going to be better than the analog coversion.
My point about there being no such thing as a "digital camera" was simply that both analog and digital use the same type of CCDs to form the image; not something magical or "digital" in the actual imaging of one over the other. I guess if the use of a single CCD constitutes 'digital', then a 3 chip analog camera is "super digital" as the analog signal path is so effecient in broadcast cameras that it isn't an issue, even when compared to home DV cameras. Because of that, the 3 chip analog will look better on video over a single chip of any kind, digital or otherwise.
At any rate, I think that many people get "digital crazy" and forget that there are super sharp 7 year old used ANALOG broadcast 3 chip cameras out there (for pennies on the dollar) that will blow doors off their home single chip mini DV cams.
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited October 01, 2001).]
-
Sad but true. There are amazing deals on 3-chip video cameras these days.
I think my 3-chip camera blows the socks off of a Canon XL-1.
I think the digital love is generated by newbies who spend $3,500 bucks to buy a darn good camera.
But it really isn't as good as a $10,000 - $ 20,000 dollar camera.
But if you say that, then you are accused of being bitter because your camera is older and isn't as good and you paid a lot more for it.
The idiocy of that argument is if I already spent 10,000 - $20,000 on a camera, and I've easily recouped my investment over the last 5 years, spending 3 or 4 grand on a digital camera is not going to kill me if it really is a better camera.
Time to put a "Digital" sticker on the side of my video camera.
Heck, lets put it on our Super-8 Cameras.
(footnote-I'm watching "Becker", and the guest star is Rhea Perlman, the "digital" sound cut out at least 3 or four times...for more than two seconds each time!)
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 02, 2001).]
-
Roger,
O.k., so, it sounds like the best quality possible with your Work Printer, would be to use it with a 3CCD video camera, multiplexor lens, and a diffuse insert.
So, my next question- what's the cheapest way to set up such a rig? Since I really don't want to buy an expensive video camera, "I'm not interested in using it for anything other than this purpose", might a simple 3CCD type camera work? Such as below?
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1279886920
How much do multiplexor lens's usually cost? What types do they come in? C-mount?
I understand that VHS really degrades the image. So, if I were to send you my footage and have you put it on VHS- it might give me an idea, but it would be very different from setting it as mentioned above, and and capturing directly to my computer via component inputs. Note: At that stage of the game I'm "Digitizing" right? So, I want to digitize the best possible quality image. How much different would it be then? Do you see what I'm getting at? I may be interested in purchasing one of your Work Printers, but I wouldn't want to spend the money without a good idea what kind of quality to expect.
Thanks,
Madrone
------------------
-
Roger,
Actually, I was concerned before when I was thinking about having it Rank transfered as well... Having it Rank transfered to BetaSP would be the best quality I could work with, borrowing a friends playback deck.
I was concerned because that sounds like a generation of quality needlessly lost, having to then re-capture the footage from the BetaSP tape to my computer.
So, in a way, it sounds like your setup might even have a slight advantage? Or do I not understand how BetaSP tapes hold information?
Note: The highest quality tape I've captured from so far is S-Video, and though it was better than VHS, I wasn't pleased with it.
Thanks,
M
------------------
-
There are a few advantages to mastering on Beta Cam SP and then loading into the computer.
The most important is you have a original video element that won't change.
Should you load directly into the computer, and then though some error lose the footage and have to redigitize, even though you have the film original, the "look" the second time through will assuredly be somewhat different than the first time.
Your time code numbers may not match, So Edit decisions lists and any saved time-line info may prove worthless should you have to recapture directly from the film.
However, if you recapture from the video transfer of the film, you always can go back to that and it will match every time.
The final solution may be to do a simultaneous transfer onto the Betacam SP and into your computer...and keep the BetaCam SP as a back-up.
Your fear of going to BetaCam SP is not necessary....if you take that copy and go into the computer, you should be fine.
------------------
Alex
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:
I was concerned because that sounds like a generation of quality needlessly lost, having to then re-capture the footage from the BetaSP tape to my computer. So, in a way, it sounds like your setup might even have a slight advantage?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, again, the WorkPrinter wasn't intended for competition with the Rank. That said, however, it does do a pretty decent job, depending on the camera and lensing system used. Even with a multiplexor, it isn't going to be as sharp as a Rank. However, the fact that the transfer free and that you can jack with the color, contrast and sharpness as much as you want does help to offset the difference in resolution. Also, by necessity, you would be copying directly into the computer, so you would save a generation. Then, once the footage was rendered out with the corrections and the 3:2 pulldown (not necessary in PAL) you could back the transfer up on miniDV and pretty much lose nothing. Hell, back it up on a couple of miniDVs, they're so cheap. That's what I do now on all my projects.
Roger
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Even with a multiplexor, it isn't going to be as sharp as a Rank. However, the fact that the transfer free and that you can jack with the color, contrast and sharpness as much as you want does help to offset the difference in resolution. Also, by necessity, you would be copying directly into the computer, so you would save a generation. Then, once the footage was rendered out with the corrections and the 3:2 pulldown (not necessary in PAL) you could back the transfer up on miniDV and pretty much lose nothing.
Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As well, I'm thinking, since my capture card has component inputs to capture from a 3CCD video camera. Supposedly that will make a difference in the color as well...? But how much?
As for the pull-down in NTSC. Can't you just adjust the audio track? Or does the film actually appear to be playing sped up at 30fps?
-M
------------------
-
Also,
On the sample images from your Work Printer, they get darker at the corners... That's because of the projectors hot-spot? Will a multi-plexor with a diffuse insert fix that?
Thanks,
Madrone
------------------
-
The film will play back at 30fps if on NTSC. You must adjust the timeline speed to 80% on Premier to get the 3:2 pulldown accurately. PAL will play back correctly with no speed adjustment.
Yes the hot spot is from copying a projected image. It is worse on some shots than others. If using a multiplexor and the diffusion insert, you should get zero hot spot.
As far as component inputs, that would be better, though by how much is impossible to quantify here in writing. But better is better. No matter what you do, it will not be as good as a Rank. It might damn fine and pleny good enough to satisfy your needs, but it is not a flying spot scanner nor will it ever be close to that kind of resolution. However, I think it would be darn good and very convenient.
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited October 02, 2001).]
-
When it comes to resolution. Perhaps Roger can share whether resolution differences are noticed more on wide angle shots or close-ups.
It may turn out that close-up shots look terrific, but wide shots fall off more in resolution in comparison to a rank.
If this is true, then the type of shooting you did matters as to what film to video transfer system you choose.
------------------
Alex
-
Well, it goes without saying that the wider shots lose detail faster. That is true whether you are Ranking or projecting. The WorkPrinter is just a projector. It is not a Rank and is totally dependent on the quality of the imaging system one uses. With a multiplexor, it should provide adequate detail and that detail is going to be more evident in the close ups than the wide shots.
As such, I wouldn't second guess how I shot. I would second guess how I transfered the film. If you need the Rank, then you need the Rank! If the image quality of the WorkPrinter is good enough it is a cinch that the Rank will still be better, so everything is relative to the needs and the budget.
Roger
-
Alex, I'm surprised that you haven't pushed the Transfer Station. They do Rank transfers of Super-8 for affordable rates(I think somewhere around $175 per hour.) The Transfer Station is located in Northridge, CA. Phone: 800-350-6502 or 818-885-6501. A friend of mine just used them and was thrilled with the results, which I saw and very good.
Scott
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Well, it goes without saying that the wider shots lose detail faster. That is true whether you are Ranking or projecting. The WorkPrinter is just a projector. It is not a Rank and is totally dependent on the quality of the imaging system one uses. With a multiplexor, it should provide adequate detail and that detail is going to be more evident in the close ups than the wide shots.
As such, I wouldn't second guess how I shot. I would second guess how I transfered the film. If you need the Rank, then you need the Rank! If the image quality of the WorkPrinter is good enough it is a cinch that the Rank will still be better, so everything is relative to the needs and the budget.
Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Off point slightly. I simply asked if one would notice more of a drop off in quality in either a wide shot or close shot when comparing the workprinter to a rank.
I would guess that if the shoot was more close-up based than wide shot based, than the differences may be minimized between the two transfer systems.
Also, the fact that most of the footage is BW may further minimize the difference in quality.
------------------
Alex
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Spears:
Alex, I'm surprised that you haven't pushed the Transfer Station. They do Rank transfers of Super-8 for affordable rates(I think somewhere around $175 per hour.) The Transfer Station is located in Northridge, CA. Phone: 800-350-6502 or 818-885-6501. A friend of mine just used them and was thrilled with the results, which I saw and was very good.
Scott
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Conflict of Interest. I know both Super-8 Sound and Film and Video Transfers (aka the Transfer Station)
I don't want to pit one over the other since I know them both and respect what both have contributed to Super-8.
------------------
Alex
