DIY Transfer...Issues With Video Contrast

[super8film]

This evening I was experimenting with my homebrew super 8 transfer setup (my Canon GL2 shooting the projected image from a B&H projector). I haven't done too much experimentation yet using my GL2 for DIY telecine, but I did notice that when transfering outdoor scenes with high contrast (both bright sunlight and shadow in the same shot), the video camera just couldn't handle the contrast. I tried experimenting with various apertures on the GL2, as I had it in manual mode, but I wasn't able to get a decent video image from an otherwise well-exposed scene on film...either the bright areas in the scene were totally blown out, or the darker shadow areas were completely crushed and showed no detail. I guess it's just a classic example of video not being able to handle the same degree of contrast as film, but that said, are there any suggestions for transfering films with high contrast scenes?

I guess all of this just makes me have more of an appreciation for a pro telecine transfer. Out of curiosity, why is it that a pro telecine transfer doesn't seem to have much of a problem with contrast, while it's definitely an issue with my home setup? I know that comparing a home setup to an actual telecine is like comparing apples to oranges, but in terms of handling contrast, what makes telecine units much more capable?

Also, for anyone who has a WorkPrinter setup and uses their own camera, do you have issues with high contrast scenes, or does the WorkPrinter provide better results in terms of contrast when compared to a DIY telecine?

[MovieStuff]

Well, forget for an instant that you are dealing with film. Instead, let's pretend that you have a stained glass window that you want to image onto videotape. You could place a point light source behind the stained glass window and create an image on the opposing wall and shoot that with your video camera. Or could turn your camera around and shoot directly off the stained glass by placing a piece of diffusion material behind the stained glass to create an even backlight. In many ways, the dynamics are the same when dealing with film telecine. When you copy a projected image that collects on a screen you are shooting nothing but colored shadows. As such, they will have fall off and chroma loss and a myriad of other problems that will affect contrast and color saturation and fidelity of the image. Now, shooting directly off the film will still mean higher contrast than watching the original projected with the naked eye, simply because the human eye has a much wider latitude than video. But viewing a projection will still be higher contrast than viewing the frames directly with a magnifier. Slides are the same way. Shadow details that don't show up when projected are often visible when viewed on a light box directly with a loop/magnifier. Missing detail is what leads to higher contrast, so the same thing happens when you copy a projected image with a video camera.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[super8film]

Thanks for the analogy, Roger...a very nice explanation. It does, however, bring up another question, and please forgive me if I'm missing something or just over-analyzing your response. In your stained glass example, obviously you would loose a great deal of detail if you were to videotape the projected image as opposed to backlighting the glass and shooting it directly. However, while projecting my film for transfer, the contrast and overall projection looked great through my eyes (whereas with the stained glass example, a human eye would most definitely notice a subpar image), it's just that my GL2 wasn't able to capture the same amount of contrast, so it would seem that in terms of a DIY transfer, the "weakest link" really isn't the projection, but moreso the video camera.

That said, how would my GL2 have better results in terms of contrast if used with a WorkPrinter as opposed to a DIY projection setup? In no way am I intending this to come off as sounding skeptical of your products, as I've seen a number of transfers done with your equipment and they do look very nice....I'm just asking out of curiosity.

[VideoFred]

I think this is a general telecine problem. Remember my clip with the little boy in the sand? Watch the sky... It was not easy to transfer this one... With my system, I captured it with very low contrast and brightness. The original recording was very dark, but with Virtual Dub, using the levels and contrast/brightness filters, I could improve it a lot.

In your case, you could try using a flat grey screen (latex paint), and a dimmer on the projector lamp. Also, a small piece of white glass (opale) between the lamp and the filmgate helps a lot to diffuse the light.

If the bright sky is the problem, you can cover just the sky by holding a piece of transparant dark grey plastic between the lamp and the gate, this can be very effective.

But also dark indoor scenes are sometimes difficult to transfer, especially if there is one white object present. To be honest, this is still a problem for me, I also wonder how the workprinter users are dealing with this.

[studiocarter]

ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/m1v/wp01.m1v

This clip defeated the contrast problem. It was made so that all detail was retained in the light portions; that is, it was copied very dark. When it is played on a television set, the TV is adjusted to increase contrast and brightness and WALAA, it looks like Kodachrome :!: Detail in the dark areas comes up and we can see it again. It was recorded but it could not be seen at a normal setting. If the light portions were blown out, nothing was recorded. They got lost.

There is also a preset on my video camera called stage or spotlight. It allows the recording of images seen through a dark area like a hole in the wall, a brightly lit exterior seen from a dark interior. Darks stay dark and lights can be read correctly all automatically. I've had good results with that auto setting.

If the projector is moved farther away from the wall the image will become darker. Most people say to video a very small projected image; however, images are very bright that small. Perhaps a larger darker image will allow your camera to make a better exposure.

[VideoFred]

hi Regular,

Nice clip! Workprinter transfer? Regular 8... I like it! I have some regular 8 footage here (1958, BW and color), ready to transfer.

As I mentioned above, you can change contrast etc with software tools, too. (Virtual Dub, here I am again :lol:) Then you can play it on TV without changing the TV settings.

Fred.

[mattias]

I guess it's just a classic example of video not being able to handle the same degree of contrast as film

no, that's another issue. it's the projection contrast of the film that's your problem, not how much contrast the film originally registered.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

In your stained glass example, obviously you would loose a great deal of detail if you were to videotape the projected image as opposed to backlighting the glass and shooting it directly. However, while projecting my film for transfer, the contrast and overall projection looked great through my eyes (whereas with the stained glass example, a human eye would most definitely notice a subpar image), it's just that my GL2 wasn't able to capture the same amount of contrast, so it would seem that in terms of a DIY transfer, the "weakest link" really isn't the projection, but moreso the video camera.

Actually, everything you have said is exactly correct. As I pointed out, the human eye will see much more detail in the highlights and shadow areas than any video camera will so, yes, the quality of the video camera does play an important part of the telecine equation.

That said, how would my GL2 have better results in terms of contrast if used with a WorkPrinter as opposed to a DIY projection setup?

A projected image of the stained glass will have higher contrast than shooting the stained glass directly. The same holds true with transparencies and movie film. If your GL2 has a macro function that will let you focus on a slide directly, do this test: Put the slide in a projector and shine it on a screen and copy it. Then take that same slide and copy it directly by shining a light on a white wall about a meter away and letting that be the diffused backlight for copying the slide via your macro setting. The difference will be quite noticable. Will the macro version on video be higher contrast than looking at the original slide projected with your naked eye? Of course. But the macro version will be lower contrast than the version copied off the screen. Everything is relative.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[studiocarter]

Workprinter transfer? Regular 8...
As I mentioned above, you can change contrast etc with software tools, too. (Virtual Dub, here I am again :lol:) Then you can play it on TV without changing the TV settings.

Fred.

hmmm. SURE it's WP transfer, see the holes? Not on TV however. All that black and holes around the image gets covered up by the TV cutoff. Only the image plays on my TV when the file is made onto a VCD CD.

Now, if I did change the capture file with Virtual Dub, you say I'd get an image similar to what the TV would show after making adjustments to color and brightness. I'd still have to copy the film darkly. Then I'd need to apply the filters and made an adjusted copy. Finally, I'd make the mpg of the adjusted copy? Right?

Would Virtual Dub 'see' the information in the darks too?

Michael

[VideoFred]

hmmm. SURE it's WP transfer, see the holes?

Yes, but you could have enlarged the gate yourself, as I did. :mrgreen:

Now, if I did change the capture file with Virtual Dub, you say I'd get an image similar to what the TV would show after making adjustments to color and brightness. I'd still have to copy the film darkly. Then I'd need to apply the filters and made an adjusted copy. Finally, I'd make the mpg of the adjusted copy? Right?

Would Virtual Dub 'see' the information in the darks too?

Michael

Michael, please judge it yourself: below here is a 'before/after' picture.
I did the change with Virtual Dub Mod, because it's Mpeg.
I used the levels, contrast and RGB filters.
I think your method is very good, I'm gonna give it a try myself.

Fred.

[studiocarter]

Hi,

That looks very good. Thank you , good work. Customers of film transfers wouldn't be too keen on setting TV levels just to see one film properly. We are the ones to do such work. In the past I have corrected other film clip color, contrast, and value problems in transferrs with good results. This application never occured to me. It makes a lot of sence though.

The rule out of this experience could be stated thusly: :?:

Expose for the highlights during capture and adjust for darks in Post.

[VideoFred]

The rule out of this experience could be stated thusly: :?:

Expose for the highlights during capture and adjust for darks in Post.

Yep, this is the rule for difficult scenes. I tried it yesterday evening on some very difficult scenes, the result was amazing. I always tried to capture as bright as possible, this was wrong! Never tought there was so mutch info in the dark parts, ready to be discovered. :lol:

Thank you very mutch for the hint.

Fred.

[StopMoWorks]

This evening I was experimenting with my homebrew super 8 transfer setup (my Canon GL2 shooting the projected image from a B&H projector).... I tried experimenting with various apertures on the GL2, as I had it in manual mode, but I wasn't able to get a decent video image from an otherwise well-exposed scene on film...either the bright areas in the scene were totally blown out, or the darker shadow areas were completely crushed and showed no detail.... I guess it's just a classic example of video not being able to handle the same degree of contrast as film, but that said, are there any suggestions for transfering films with high contrast scenes?

Years ago, when I fooled around with DIY transfering of some Super8 stuff to video, someone told me or I think, I read this rephotography trick. Project the image onto a gray colored surface. I could not find any smooth gray paper, so I got me some medium gray flat auto primer and sprayed onto a small retangular piece of 1/8" hardboard. Camcorder was the old ones that takes VHS tapes. Nothing fancy and without bellls & whistles. Corder did have have manual option control of exposure. My Super8 projector had variable speed. After lots of tweaking, adjusting, and lining up. The results were pretty good. The gray surface upon which image was projected somehow balanced the contrast extremes. Bright areas were not blown out. Ever slight adjustment of projector speed before rephotography/transferring eliminated all video flicker.

This Also, for anyone who has a WorkPrinter setup and uses their own camera, do you have issues with high contrast scenes, or does the WorkPrinter provide better results in terms of contrast when compared to a DIY telecine?

Well this is not applicable to Workprinter, but there are methods one can use to lower contrast when you shoot your film. I am sure many of you know about flashing film which slightly washes out your original print, but when rephotographed, the contrast extremes become reasonably balanced. Then there is a way to flash film while you shoot but involves use of a DIY beamspliter setup in front of lens. Maybe not practical setup with live action outdoor shoots but more for in-studio more controllable shooting. These kind of methods (and still effective ways for DIY-selfers) done much in the ol' days of film special effects work (before all the available current post production digital tweaking tools).

[Leviathan]

The rule out of this experience could be stated thusly:

Expose for the highlights during capture and adjust for darks in Post.

Yep, there's a piece of little known (or much ignored) wisdom. When I took my course on broadcast video shooting that was one of the cardinal rules. Always expose for the highlights! If you don't have enough light, then you don't have enough light....but don't blow out the highlights trying to get the shot. (The only possible exception to that would be ENG [electronic news gathering] were the main thing is to get the information on tape). Plus on the pro cams I saw the 'exposure' wasn't like on a consumer cam....on the pro cam you also have a 'gain' option....which brings up the dark areas of your video. On any consumer cam I've seen the gain only kicks in after the exposure is wide open....which doesn't give you anywhere near the benefits.

The other thing that seems endlessly stupid is how the auto exposure on consumer cams tends to expose for the shadows, hence most of the video ends up overexposed. Anyway that's enough of me ranting.

Leviathan

[T-Scan]

Sony Levels plugin is real handy for this. it can get tedious the way i shoot sometimes. sometimes i like to frame 10 or 20 shots that i click off 3 frames each. if i'm exposing for the highlights (as opposed to auto expose capture) it's tedious to pluck out a 3 frame shot to correct, but since film is spare time i guess it's ok :roll: