Telecine Super8

[MadDougK]

Would it be possible for me to telecine a super8 negative pro stock, like Kodaks 7218, myself with a workprinter? And then do the inverting in Final Cut?

[super8man]

do a search of this forum...this has beed discussed in depth.

Short answer: No - it will look like crap.

Longer short answer...the problem is due to dust and the fact the dark areas become the important information areas while the light areas become the blacks...and they always show more dust than is even imaginable compared to reversal stocks (where darks are dark and whites are whites).

Good luck.

[sarmoti]

Check out my post in the thread "7217 and 7218: are you using it?". I go over the basics of doing a neg transfer.

And ass with any film you need to manage dust around it, the difference is that with negatives the dust and scratches show up white.

[Justin Lovell]

do you lose contrast or latitude when transfering to video via workprinter or 5 bladed projector?

I'm under the assumption that you would lose some detail in the black blacks and the hot whites because of the nature of the latitude of video being a couple stops less than film.

comments?

jusetan

[sarmoti]

Video has more contrast or a lower dynamic range than film. In video speak "dynamic range" is essentialy the same as films "lattitude".Both describe the size of the range of shades that can be captured between the blackest black to the brightest white. Video also has a different Gamma curve than film pushing alot of the midtones up higher in the curve.

Think of film's lattitude as a 11 inch ruler and the video medium you're transfering it to as a 6" ruler case. 0 on the ruler is pure black and 11 is pure white. You're going to have to choose what 6" range of the ruler is going to end up in the case. It might be the 3"-9" section, then everything below 3" is just going to be flat black and everything above 9" is going to be pure white.

That's all in paper, In the real world, If you plan ahead this isn't as bad as it sounds, Modern broadcast cameras and telecines have what's known as Dynamic Contrast control and Auto Knee that wil give you a greater dynamic range by allowing more highlight detail to make it. They also privide different ways to adjust the gamma curve and also "stretch" the blacks. These features combined allow to capture a greater range (almost all) of film's lattitude.

The effective usable range of film is often claimed to be of about 11 stops. But the real usable area without the defects of the knee and toe of the film curve is really of about 3-4 stops over and 2-2.5 stops under of a correctly exposed gray card. This is still 6-7.5 stops.

In the film for video world there's what's known as low contrast prints, these are contact prints made from the original camera negative and are used for the transfer instead of the camera negative in order to better fit more of the film's lattitude into the telecine. This was common practice a few years ago but I think it's no longer as common because of the quality of the current crop of telecines.

Another technique to reduce contrast is to "flash" the film (preexpose it slightly with a flat color, usually white) which brings the shadows up.

Finally, low contrast, fog, and some diffusion filters on the camera also help lower the contrast of the transfer.

[sarmoti]

Addendum:

1) Only the negative has that very wide lattitude When you see a projected print in a movie theatre you are seeing much less as it is usually a 4th or even a 6th generation film print. Every time you copy a film you make it more contrasty (with the exeption of telecine lo-con prints). Remember in the old films that every time they did a dissolve sharpness would drop and contrast would increase right before the effect (and in color films colors would also shift)? Partly because of the optics in the optical printer and partly because of the extra generation.

2) The single most important element in controling your contrast to fit tightly in to your usable dynamic range is lighting!

[mattias]

Video has more contrast or a lower dynamic range than film.

but the density range of the negative is really tiny, meaning you'll more likely to have the opposite problem.

/matt

[T-Scan]

I have a WP and use it for reversals but have experimented with a few negs. I found the biggest challenge to be color correction skill. inverting the image is only one step in a difficult tweek to have a "correct" image. on the other hand, I did not find the dust to be a problem. when using fresh processed negs with a clean WP, the dust problem was no worse than reversals in the same situation. Latatude is the biggest loss when transferring with miniDV.. severity depentant on your DV cam. K-40 has narrow lattatude when compared to modern negs.. but still a whole lot more than mini DV.

[MovieStuff]

In the film for video world there's what's known as low contrast prints, these are contact prints made from the original camera negative and are used for the transfer instead of the camera negative in order to better fit more of the film's lattitude into the telecine. This was common practice a few years ago but I think it's no longer as common because of the quality of the current crop of telecines.

Actually, low con prints haven't been used in over 25 years and are mainly used today to transfer films that have already had their neg cut into A/B rolls or for 35mm neg where the cement splices are "iffy" and may not feed through the Rank properly. Transferring off the original, uncut neg will yield the best looking image you are going to ever get off a negative, contrast and exposure wise, and will look far superior to any film print in that context. That is why so many newbie DPs that start out shooting music videos, where all the neg is Ranked directly to video, are in for a shock when they shoot their first project destined to be printed. They suddenly find they have to be a lot more careful with their lighting when shooting for print. Sloppy lighting habits that worked okay for the Rank won't make it for a print, where the contrast is higher than transferring to video.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[MovieStuff]

I have a WP and use it for reversals but have experimented with a few negs. I found the biggest challenge to be color correction skill. inverting the image is only one step in a difficult tweek to have a "correct" image.

Yes, one thing that can make negative transfer easier is if your camera has a pos/neg switch built in. This is because improper exposure during transfer can radically affect your color balance, just as it does if printing color negative in the darkroom. Seeing a positive image during the transfer can make a big difference. If your camera doesn't have the inversion switch built in, you can take the analog output of your camera and run it through a crapola Videonics Video Equalizer, which is the cheapest thing out there that will invert the image in real time. The image from the Video Equalizer isn't good enough to capture but it is good enough to tell you if your exposure that you're recording to your hard drive is correct. So while you're seeing a positive image on the video monitor, you are still recording a negative image on the hard drive. However, this way you know that when you invert the negative image later on in post, it will have correct density since you previewed the exposure through the Video Equalizer during transfer.

Here's an ebay link for a Videonics Video Equalizer:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 48477&rd=1

Here's a Videonic MX-1, which also has the inversion effect but is waaay more expensive than the Equalizer. Quality is no better:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 26685&rd=1

(Neither of these are my auctions, BTW)

Hope this helps!

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[sarmoti]

but the density range of the negative is really tiny, meaning you'll more likely to have the opposite problem.

Quite the opposite, the negative has a great lattitude or "dynamic range" if you're having that problem it's probably not exposed properly.

found the biggest challenge to be color correction skill. inverting the image is only one step in a difficult tweek to have a "correct" image.

Correct, I'd have to say the helpful part in CC'ng the neg is getting the light source on the transfer device to do the coarse correction. Then RGB Lift, Gamma and Gain should be ideally at the capture device if possible. Once you're at that point you should have a decent looking image before you start tweaking it.

Actually, low con prints haven't been used in over 25 years

Well, they're not as popular as they used to be in the 80's and early 90's because the transfer devices are so good now. However they are still used often for transfers from motion pictures and a few commercials.

In some cases a transfer off the neg looks better and in others a lo-con wins when you have to tame down a negative to fit into the video signal. Really depends on what images are on film.

Sloppy lighting habits that worked okay for the Rank won't make it for a print, where the contrast is higher than transferring to video.

Yeah, they're totally different ways of exposing. But I'd say this happens because you don't have the color correction capabilities in film post as you do in video, pretty much all you had until recently were 3 lousy knobs for printer lights. The DI process is changing that and lousy DPs will look a little less lousy.

You also tend to light film for video with an eye on taming your key to fill ratio whereas for theatrical releases you can go much further. This is just one reason you use a lo-con print for telecine.

a print, where the contrast is higher than transferring to video.

We're using each other's terms backwards...

To me "higher contrast" means less range between black and white. Similar to "low dynamic range or lower lattitude".

"low contrast" means a greater range of shades between black and white". Similar to "high dynamic range or greater lattitude"

[sarmoti]

Sorry, wrote that in a rush the correct terms are "wide lattitude and narrow lattitude.

[MovieStuff]

You also tend to light film for video with an eye on taming your key to fill ratio whereas for theatrical releases you can go much further. This is just one reason you use a lo-con print for telecine.

If contrast in an original negative is an issue, you are always going to be able to handle the contrast easier transferring off the original neg than working off a second generation image, even if that image is on a low con print. Low con print stock is really only used in telecine where the negative is physically problematic to run through the Rank, such as 16mm A/B rolls or a cut 35mm negative with problematic splices and a steadigate is not available to counter the bounce created by the splice. In general, low con prints are avoided. I have never seen a case where superior results are achieved transferring off a low con print, compared to working off the original negative. The degree of control one has in the telecine suite working off the original negative is fairly extensive, compared to working with any print stock, even low con stock.

Roger

[mattias]

but the density range of the negative is really tiny, meaning you'll more likely to have the opposite problem.

Quite the opposite

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. chances are you're not really stupid but simply misunderstood something, and i will gladly offer you the benefit of the doubt. the facts again: reversal has a much greater density range than negative. whether it captures more or less letitude from the scene is obviously completely irrelevant.

To me "higher contrast" means less range between black and white. Similar to "low dynamic range or lower lattitude".

no, we're not using the terms opposite ways, we're using them in different contexts. exposure latitude is irrelevant. the density range of the film to be telecined is the only thing that matters.

/matt

[ericMartinJarvies]

but the density range of the negative is really tiny, meaning you'll more likely to have the opposite problem.

Quite the opposite

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. chances are you're not really stupid but simply misunderstood something, and i will gladly offer you the benefit of the doubt. the facts again: reversal has a much greater density range than negative. whether it captures more or less letitude from the scene is obviously completely irrelevant.

To me "higher contrast" means less range between black and white. Similar to "low dynamic range or lower lattitude".

no, we're not using the terms opposite ways, we're using them in different contexts. exposure latitude is irrelevant. the density range of the film to be telecined is the only thing that matters.

/matt

mattias ... is it really required to call someone stupid? is that not a 'stupid' statement to make in the first place? comments like yours make this degrade this forum, especially for those who mantain self/mutual respect. reading/hearing such statements/comments truly downgrades one's own integrety, and those subject to such statements quickly lose respect for such people. it goes beyond stating yor opinon, it becomes ridicule and negative and judgemental, but without merit or regard. it's like cursing, or having a nasty mouth supported by a nasty thought maintained by a disguesting soul.

eric