Telecine to digibeta and transfer to minidv a good option?

[MovieStuff]

obviously time is not worth a lot to you. a workprinter does what? 6fps? (and in HD uncompressed probably even less?). now lets say somebody wants you to transfer 5 hours of footage, that means the workprinter is chunking along for 20hours, then you have to load this into an editing sequence and watch it all to appy color corrections, which takes like 6hours if done properly, then you'll have to render and play it all out to tape/export to disk (another 5 hours) so you'll be sitting there two long days longer than a real time transfer with on the fly color correction.

Sorry but your numbers are more than a bit off.

First the WorkPrinter and Sniper units transfer at almost 9fps (we list them at 6fps to be conservative) but they run at about 8.5+ fps. That means a 4.5 minute roll of regular 8 will take about 8.5 minutes to transfer, which is about half speed. The HD transfers that Eugene is doing uses 12 hard drives in a Raid so he is also operating at top speed of the WorkPrinter.

Second, not all home movie film is shot at the same speed, so if you are concerned about giving the client correct framerate on playback and you use a real time transfer unit, then you have to man the entire transfer looking for speed changes or you have to guess what speed their footage is because it is a cinch they will not know since these are grampa's films, usually. But with something like the Sniper-Pro or WorkPrinter you are not concerned about the frame rate during the transfer because it is simply capturing frame by frame and can do so unattended, which means that the operator can do other things during that time for maximum productivity. Speed changes are handled via CineCap in a batch process which, again, does not take up any employee time; only computer time and that employee can be doing other things that are productive while the speed change is rendering out, which is fast, compared to the length of the actual film.

Third, only a goof is going to run a video business on a deadline basis and have to render out their color corrections. The Matrox RTX system, available in both SD and HD, offers real time color correction with no rendering of any kind and is only one of several real time systems for working with DV files that are very affordable, especially for a business.

Finally, your term "on the fly color correction" is a bit misleading. If you have an hour of film to color correct on a Rank or any other real time programable system, you certainly aren't going to color correct that in less than an hour unless it is an hour's worth of the same shot. You are going to program it in, shot by shot, and then rewind the film, have it cleaned, find the synch point and THEN let it run in real time which, of course, is going to be an hour as well. So, at a minimum, an hours worth of film is probably going to take about 3 hours, which is why Rank houses charge X3 when they quote you a price.

Color correction on a computer that has real time CC without rendering is very time efficient, compared to color correcting in real time on a system that can not be programmed where you have to stop, make you color correction, rewind, start, run to tape for a bit, then stop, rewind, make another color correction, start tape again, etc.

I have used this analogy before but it is the most accurate way to look at this: Before Ford came up with the assembly line, cars were built by hand, one at at time. It took a team of 20 guys about a week to build one, if they really worked at it. Ford's factory also took about a week for a car to come out the other end but the difference was that a minute or two later, another car was coming out and another after that in a continual stream of output where volume increased because of efficiency.

Likewise, the only real delay in scanning at a slower speed if it is automated is the initial time getting the first job through the system. After that, there is a constant stream of output that comes out faster than you can color correct and burn off to DVD or tape. It's all about how you structure your workflow. For instance, if I had something like the FlashScan, I would run everything at 30fps (for NTSC) while I did something more productive, and then let CineCap do the speed changes on a cheap computer while I, again, did something else more productive, and then color correct on the computer where I don't have to sit through a 30 minute scene in real time to know that it has been color corrected properly. I can drag my cursor through it rapidly and make quick cuts and color corrections in real time without rendering and then it's ready. In short, an hour's worth of color correction on the computer can be done in far less than an hour because it isn't linear time.

I've been in the transfer business for years and, believe me, the issue isn't speed. The issue is the number of paid manhours per job. There is nothing wrong with scanning at a slower rate as long as your employee can stay productive doing other tasks. He can't do that if he has to man the entire transfer looking for speed and color changes. People have figured this out on their own which is why we sell the frame by frame scanning units 20:1 over our real time units, which are actually cheaper than the frame by frame units.

Roger

[christoph]

roger,

point taken, but:

if you say you'll have to watch for speed changes anyway (which i assume might be common in home movies, but anybody looking for a pro transfer will label the roll and tell you how he wants it transfered).. then i ask you:
why not transfer the full roll at 25fps (or even 30fps in ntsc land) where one frame of film is one frame on video, ie frame by frame, and then let cinecap or whatever programm do the speed change? this is what i do with all my footage, since you usually pay by the hour in professional transfers (there, i did it again ;). so it's cheaper and i dont get any blurred frames ever.

++ christoph ++

ps: i feel a bit grumpy about you saying my numbers are "are more than a bit off". 8.5+ frames are not 9fps, and you said yourself often enough that timing is an issue for many people, but lets say a well adjusted unit is 8fps, fair enough. means that a 3600 frame roll of super8 will be transfered in 7.5 mins, while it will take 2.5 mins on a realtime machine, and 2mins on a 30fps transfer (if as you say, you'll want to batch speed changes anyway). of course you can alway put numbers in a way that it looks favorable to one side (which i just did ;)

pss: i seriously hope that 12 disk raid is not raid0.. but anyway, a workprinter, a canon HDV a HD-SDI card, all that storage and a beefy computer iss nearly as much money in gear as a flashscan. it might be worthwhile for him doing this, but nobody should think it's a cheapo home setup.

[MovieStuff]

roger,

point taken, but:

if you say you'll have to watch for speed changes anyway (which i assume might be common in home movies, but anybody looking for a pro transfer will label the roll and tell you how he wants it transfered).. then i ask you:
why not transfer the full roll at 25fps (or even 30fps in ntsc land) where one frame of film is one frame on video, ie frame by frame, and then let cinecap or whatever programm do the speed change? this is what i do with all my footage, since you usually pay by the hour in professional transfers (there, i did it again ;). so it's cheaper and i dont get any blurred frames ever.

Well, that's exactly what I said I would do if I had a FlashScan. (see above). Our original units ran at about 1fps, then 3fps then 6fps and now about 9fps. We keep increasing the speed but, right now, that's where it's currently at.

ps: i feel a bit grumpy about you saying my numbers are "are more than a bit off".

Sorry. No offense intended but your comparison was not taking into account multiple units, which is how most people using WorkPrinter and Sniper units operate. Output comparisons need to be made dollar for invested dollar. You can buy a whole lot of WorkPrinters for the price of one FlashScan and hundreds of WorkPrinters for the price of a Rank. More units means greater volume output and built in redundancy.

8.5+ frames are not 9fps,

Well, 8.5 is closer to 9fps than it is 6fps. Also, we have some people capturing to RAM disks at 12fps or more. But on average, the units would be running at about 8.5fps.

and you said yourself often enough that timing is an issue for many people,

Not many people but some. If they follow the directions and have their computer set up properly, I have never had anyone that could not set their timing but some people do get intimidated with the entire telecine process, in general. There is nothing intuitive about setting up any quality telecine unit unless you work in the industry. Most people transferring films now have never shot 8mm film in their life. Pretty sobering but I get your point.

but lets say a well adjusted unit is 8fps, fair enough. means that a 3600 frame roll of super8 will be transfered in 7.5 mins, while it will take 2.5 mins on a realtime machine, and 2mins on a 30fps transfer (if as you say, you'll want to batch speed changes anyway). of course you can alway put numbers in a way that it looks favorable to one side (which i just did ;)

Well, obviously we would like our units to transfer at a higher speed but making them do so would increase the price of the units exponentially, which defeats the purpose of their simplicity. Computers are cheap and so are the WorkPrinters, which is why many customers have several running at the same time. Having that kind of automation spread across more units means built-in redundancy which is always better than trying to squeeze everthing through a single, very expensive unit which, if it breaks down, stops production completely. A FlashScan is about, what, $40,000 USD? If you can set up a dozen WorkPrinter units with computers for the same price, then you have redundancy and the ability to handle volume. it is also something that can grow as the business grows instead of writing one big check and hoping for the best. Again, it's all about effeciency, not horsepower.

pss: i seriously hope that 12 disk raid is not raid0.. but anyway, a workprinter, a canon HDV a HD-SDI card, all that storage and a beefy computer iss nearly as much money in gear as a flashscan.

Academic since the FlashScan can't transfer to HD. ;)

it might be worthwhile for him doing this, but nobody should think it's a cheapo home setup.

Of course not. You have no idea how many people a week call and ask me if they can now do HD with their WorkPrinters. I tell them "no" and that we are working on an HD solution for the future but, not now.

Roger

[christoph]

hmm,

the odd thing is that now suddenly i feel like i said the workprinter is not good value for the money, which i never did. it's probably the best bang for the buck, both as a client and as a small service house.

*however* what started all this argument is that there *are* machines which gives (noticably) superiour results, at much higher cost.
i still stand byy that and track down anybody who claims otherwise :P

geez, have to finish this insane compositing scene, so i'm off list for a bit (hopefully)
++ christoph ++

[MovieStuff]

hmm,

the odd thing is that now suddenly i feel like i said the workprinter is not good value for the money, which i never did. it's probably the best bang for the buck, both as a client and as a small service house.

I like to think so!

*however* what started all this argument is that there *are* machines which gives (noticably) superiour results, at much higher cost.

Agreed.

Roger

[VideoFred]

Transportation and so on makes it very fast and easy to use, but this does not change the picture quality.

sure it does. instability can cause motion blur and focus problems too. since the flashscan, like the spirits and flying spots, uses continuous movement rather than intermittent there really can't be any jitter. there can be weave though, a common rank problem but i've not seen it on the flashscan, and bad splices can throw the alignment off for several seconds, which i've seen on both. the highest end scanners use intermittent transport with registration pins and sometimes even vacuum pressure plates for the best of both worlds.

/matt

Yes, of cource.
Motion blur and focus problems caused by instability.
But this is another mather.

But I meant the typical Flashscan look, caused by the reflected led light source. Sometimes it gives a little '3D' effect.

Fred.

[VideoFred]

I've been in the transfer business for years and, believe me, the issue isn't speed. The issue is the number of paid manhours per job. There is nothing wrong with scanning at a slower rate as long as your employee can stay productive doing other tasks. He can't do that if he has to man the entire transfer looking for speed and color changes. People have figured this out on their own which is why we sell the frame by frame scanning units 20:1 over our real time units, which are actually cheaper than the frame by frame units.

Roger

As you know, my unit works very similar to the Workprinter.
But even slower :oops:

My problem is indeed not the speed, but the fact I have to stay close to the unit to do light control. I could set the cam to automatic, but then I will have to cut many frames, and a huge AVI file is difficult to work with afterwards.

For now I transfer a scene, while a previous scene is rendered on the background with Avisynth/VirtualDub. Because Avisynth/Virtualdub does not ask to many sources from the computer, this works fine and has no effect on the transfer speed. Avisynth just waits when computer sources are available.

Anyhow, good transfering of films is very time consuming.
No matter the used system....


Fred.

[mattias]

But I meant the typical Flashscan look, caused by the reflected led light source. Sometimes it gives a little '3D' effect.

interesting observation. i tend to agree. this is not unlike how many people describe the flying spot look by the way. the spirit creates a much more dead image, for better and worse, as does the workprinter.

/matt

[Andreas Wideroe]

Well, 8.5 is closer to 9fps than it is 6fps. Also, we have some people capturing to RAM disks at 12fps or more. But on average, the units would be running at about 8.5fps.

Just tested my Sniper and it runs 5.88 fps here in Norway (PAL).

/Andreas

[MovieStuff]

Well, 8.5 is closer to 9fps than it is 6fps. Also, we have some people capturing to RAM disks at 12fps or more. But on average, the units would be running at about 8.5fps.

Just tested my Sniper and it runs 5.88 fps here in Norway (PAL).

That's why we list them at about 6fps because the speed will change, depending on whether it is running on 50 or 60 cycles. As you can imagine, the majority of our units are sold here in the US, where the unit runs faster on 60 cycles. We are looking at going to DC motors on future units , which will allow users to speed up or slow down the units to meet their needs. That should allow people in other countries the ability to transfer at faster speeds than 6fps.

Roger

[christoph]

That's why we list them at about 6fps because the speed will change, depending on whether it is running on 50 or 60 cycles.

unless i miss something obvious 5.88 fps at 50hz would result in 7.06fps on 60hz. the funny bit is even though you're saying that speed is not important you're trying to squeeze every little bit out of it... ;)

my unit runs at 7fps at 1376px 16bit, but since i do multi captures it takes three times longer, ie 2.3fps. speed definitely is an issue for me.
++ christoph ++

[Andreas Wideroe]

For private home transfers I don't think speed is that important, but when you run a business speed is crucial.

That is why I'm currently designing and will soon build and test out a new custom made regular 8mm gate for the FDL and Quadra telecine machines. If my theory works, then we'll have killer transfers in real time for regular 8mm with full colour correction and with some more exciting features. I'll even offer 10bit uncompressed transfers in SD through component signals - allthough only 4.1.1.

Andreas

[christoph]

I'll even offer 10bit uncompressed transfers in SD through component signals - allthough only 4.1.1.

andreas,
is thatt a typo and you actually meant 4:2:2? or do you have some component in the chain that only handles 4:1:1 color sampling (something usually only found in NTSC DV and DVCPRO codecs). would be a pitty :/
++ c.

[MovieStuff]

That's why we list them at about 6fps because the speed will change, depending on whether it is running on 50 or 60 cycles.

unless i miss something obvious 5.88 fps at 50hz would result in 7.06fps on 60hz.

That's the way the math works out but the reality is different. On 60 cycles here they clock in at a maximum of 8.5fps, though the actual RPM of each motor is a bit different, we have found. Some may run slower and some faster. We have even found odd motors that end up running at over 9fps! But, on average, the speed on 60 cycles is about 8.5fps.

the funny bit is even though you're saying that speed is not important you're trying to squeeze every little bit out of it... ;)

Of course! But, to be clear, I didn't say that speed was not important. I said that speed was not the issue, meaning that having a slower unit is okay as long as you can find a balance regarding productivity. As long as the operator can do something else productive and stay busy during transfer time, then the speed becomes a transparent consideration. The same holds true for any speed rendering, which can be achieve totally unattended. But if the transfer speed gets too slow, then the operator runs out of things to do and ends up waiting for the transfer to finish. That defeats the efficiency of scanning frame by frame automatically.

Roger

[Andreas Wideroe]

is thatt a typo and you actually meant 4:2:2? or do you have some component in the chain that only handles 4:1:1 color sampling (something usually only found in NTSC DV and DVCPRO codecs). would be a pitty :/

Actually it's not a typo. The FDL-60 outputs 4.1.1. The reason why I won't install this new gate on my FDL-90 (upgraded to a Quadra) which can output both 4.2.2 and 4.4.4 SDI is that it needs modifications to the machine itself including disabling magnetic and optical audio on 16 and 35mm films. That's not an option for me now.

I will therefore put the trusty old FDL-60 into Regular 8 and homemovie Super8 transfer service.

/Andreas