schralp,
beautiful photography. i shot some snow footage last summer and it was completely overexposed. did you use a polaraizer or neutral density filter at all.
cheers,
nick
Uploaded clips Flying Spot Film Transfer
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Hi All,
Here are some answers to your questions.
Nick, yes did shoot the majority of this with an ND6 filter. Since its so bright out there on the snow, I wanted to make sure that I could stay in the sweet spot of the lens in terms of optic quality, resolution, etc. I don't really like to shoot wide open or closed down all the way if I can help it and the ND6 allowed me to stay in the F8 range of the lens. I didn't use a polarizer, mainly because the sky is so blue already with Kodachrome that I didn't feel the need to stack more glass on the lens.
Yemi, funny you should ask, I am seriously considering going down to Argentina this summer for a month starting in mid august. Part of this movie was to be shot in Montana this last season and I got skunked for conditions. Now that all my stuff has been x-fer'd I'll sit down next week to see if I have what I need to make a good film. To be able to but a more international flavor on this movie is really tempting and some of my riders/skiers from the movie have already purchased plane tickets so its looking more and more like I'll go.
On the question of proper exposure, I'd like to suggest a few theories and see what people think. I agree, I'm as surprised as you that I can actually go 3 full stops over to achieve optimal exposure for snow conditions. After finishing up my Alaska footage last night and can confidently say that this is the case. The shots that I have posted were 1 stop over and like I mentioned, we did have to tweak them to bring up the levels, which added more grain to the shot. The AK footage we did last night at 2 stops over, while still a little underexposed when put on the telecine with no adjustments yet, looked truly stunning as compared to my other footage. I can look at the earlier shots and say, yup thats Super 8 but damn, the footage from last night was REALLY hard to tell some of the time as compared to the 16mm I have shot in the snow. It just goes to show that if you can nail your exposure with K-40 you can really do nice work.
So here is my theory. This is what Eric Rosen and I were discussing last night during the x-fer. You see, these cameras and metering systems really were never designed to have their end product run throught a telecine machine. That wasn't really the deal back in the 60's and 70's. All of this gear and filmstock and metering is based around providing an acceptable image for PROJECTION. Well, that is not what I'm doing with it. Could there be some differences in what the parameters of a telecine machine are and a projection bulb in a S8 projector? I think maybe so. When I started questioning folks on this forum about S8 snow exposure last fall, many people that have shot in these conditions said to me, "just shoot a stop over and you'll be fine, trust me" and that is what I used as a base for starting this. The thing is, these people are achieving good results when doing this and projecting the image/using a projector to hook up to a home telecine unit but they are not taking their camera original and transferring it with a half million dollar Phillips Shadow telecine like I am doing. What I really need to do is shoot a grey scale/color chip chart on auto with the camera and bracket 3 stops under and over and send it to flying spot to see whats up, but I can tell you that even the shots that I did that were not in bright, contrasty conditions for this film were also underexposed by about the same amount when shot on auto. My point here is that everything is CONSISTENTLY underexposed regardless of brightness/contrast in the shot. I wasn't able to get into a transfer before I left for the bulk of my trip so anything that I shot off the snow in good, front lit conditions I shot on auto. I didn't think that I would have to shoot with a stop or two over because these shots were non contrasty non high key shots. I don't have a separate battery powering my light meter and I'm pretty darn confident that its working flawlessly, plus the same thing is apparent with Eric's own Nizo 801 when shooting with auto exposure in these basic "noon day front lit" situations. The good thing here is that now that I see whats going on, and its a consistent thing, its easy for me to compensate for it. So anyway, my theory is this may have some thing to do with shooting for telecine end use and not projection end use. With all that said, I may be wrong.....
Somebody asked what Flying Spot charges and I think that for a one light/best light x-fer, its $25 per roll to x-fer to DV or DVCAM with a 4 roll minimum. For scene to scene with full on color correction like I did, it will cost you more and this is more on a project by project basis cost wise. You'll just have to talk with him about that. They can also x-fer to Beta SP, Digi-Beta, and HD.
Here are some answers to your questions.
Nick, yes did shoot the majority of this with an ND6 filter. Since its so bright out there on the snow, I wanted to make sure that I could stay in the sweet spot of the lens in terms of optic quality, resolution, etc. I don't really like to shoot wide open or closed down all the way if I can help it and the ND6 allowed me to stay in the F8 range of the lens. I didn't use a polarizer, mainly because the sky is so blue already with Kodachrome that I didn't feel the need to stack more glass on the lens.
Yemi, funny you should ask, I am seriously considering going down to Argentina this summer for a month starting in mid august. Part of this movie was to be shot in Montana this last season and I got skunked for conditions. Now that all my stuff has been x-fer'd I'll sit down next week to see if I have what I need to make a good film. To be able to but a more international flavor on this movie is really tempting and some of my riders/skiers from the movie have already purchased plane tickets so its looking more and more like I'll go.
On the question of proper exposure, I'd like to suggest a few theories and see what people think. I agree, I'm as surprised as you that I can actually go 3 full stops over to achieve optimal exposure for snow conditions. After finishing up my Alaska footage last night and can confidently say that this is the case. The shots that I have posted were 1 stop over and like I mentioned, we did have to tweak them to bring up the levels, which added more grain to the shot. The AK footage we did last night at 2 stops over, while still a little underexposed when put on the telecine with no adjustments yet, looked truly stunning as compared to my other footage. I can look at the earlier shots and say, yup thats Super 8 but damn, the footage from last night was REALLY hard to tell some of the time as compared to the 16mm I have shot in the snow. It just goes to show that if you can nail your exposure with K-40 you can really do nice work.
So here is my theory. This is what Eric Rosen and I were discussing last night during the x-fer. You see, these cameras and metering systems really were never designed to have their end product run throught a telecine machine. That wasn't really the deal back in the 60's and 70's. All of this gear and filmstock and metering is based around providing an acceptable image for PROJECTION. Well, that is not what I'm doing with it. Could there be some differences in what the parameters of a telecine machine are and a projection bulb in a S8 projector? I think maybe so. When I started questioning folks on this forum about S8 snow exposure last fall, many people that have shot in these conditions said to me, "just shoot a stop over and you'll be fine, trust me" and that is what I used as a base for starting this. The thing is, these people are achieving good results when doing this and projecting the image/using a projector to hook up to a home telecine unit but they are not taking their camera original and transferring it with a half million dollar Phillips Shadow telecine like I am doing. What I really need to do is shoot a grey scale/color chip chart on auto with the camera and bracket 3 stops under and over and send it to flying spot to see whats up, but I can tell you that even the shots that I did that were not in bright, contrasty conditions for this film were also underexposed by about the same amount when shot on auto. My point here is that everything is CONSISTENTLY underexposed regardless of brightness/contrast in the shot. I wasn't able to get into a transfer before I left for the bulk of my trip so anything that I shot off the snow in good, front lit conditions I shot on auto. I didn't think that I would have to shoot with a stop or two over because these shots were non contrasty non high key shots. I don't have a separate battery powering my light meter and I'm pretty darn confident that its working flawlessly, plus the same thing is apparent with Eric's own Nizo 801 when shooting with auto exposure in these basic "noon day front lit" situations. The good thing here is that now that I see whats going on, and its a consistent thing, its easy for me to compensate for it. So anyway, my theory is this may have some thing to do with shooting for telecine end use and not projection end use. With all that said, I may be wrong.....
Somebody asked what Flying Spot charges and I think that for a one light/best light x-fer, its $25 per roll to x-fer to DV or DVCAM with a 4 roll minimum. For scene to scene with full on color correction like I did, it will cost you more and this is more on a project by project basis cost wise. You'll just have to talk with him about that. They can also x-fer to Beta SP, Digi-Beta, and HD.
-
Corey Doyle
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 2:47 am
- Location: New Braunfels, Texas
- Contact:
Do they have a website?Somebody asked what Flying Spot charges and I think that for a one light/best light x-fer, its $25 per roll to x-fer to DV or DVCAM with a 4 roll minimum. For scene to scene with full on color correction like I did, it will cost you more and this is more on a project by project basis cost wise. You'll just have to talk with him about that. They can also x-fer to Beta SP, Digi-Beta, and HD.
Thanks
Corey
http://www.flyingspot.com
THey are part of a big post house and the majority of the site is catered to that so you may not find as much info as you might expect. Just email questions to Eric Rosen ericr@flyingspot.com
THey are part of a big post house and the majority of the site is catered to that so you may not find as much info as you might expect. Just email questions to Eric Rosen ericr@flyingspot.com
-
Dave Hardy
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 7:08 am
- Contact:
Just so everyone doesn't bug Eric with the same question, here is the reply I had from Eric a few days back.
The ericr link didn't work. I had to contact him via info@flyingspot.com.
I'm also trying to get some prices from niagara lab in Toronto regarding their Super 8 negative processing.
Here is the break down for Super 8
This is our definition of a one-light:
Color balancing the first shot and then starting the recording and making
adjustments as the film is recorded to tape.
For this type of transfer the rates are:
Xfer to DVCAM, Beta SP, 3/4",VHS @ $25.00 dollars per 50ft roll with a
$100.00 dollar minimum.
DBeta @ $50.00 dollars per 50ft roll with a $200.00 dollar minimum.
HDCAM @ $75.00 dollars per 50ft roll with a $300.00 dollar minimum.
Otherwise if you want scene to scene color correction our hourly rate is
$600 dollars per hour. A rough ratio for xfer time is 3:1 but that depends
upon the shooting style. If the hourly rate does not work with your project
then we would need to discuss the project and the budget requirements and
let you know if we can do the job.
Prices do not include tape stock or any possible lab prep that might be
needed.
For prep the reels need to be no smaller than 400ft..
20ft leader head and tail.
We prefer cement splice for leader and each roll.
We can run tape splices but the the last few feet of each roll before the
splice will not be steady and you will end up seeing the frame line.
Head and tail punch is up to you we have no requirement for that.
The ericr link didn't work. I had to contact him via info@flyingspot.com.
I'm also trying to get some prices from niagara lab in Toronto regarding their Super 8 negative processing.
Here is the break down for Super 8
This is our definition of a one-light:
Color balancing the first shot and then starting the recording and making
adjustments as the film is recorded to tape.
For this type of transfer the rates are:
Xfer to DVCAM, Beta SP, 3/4",VHS @ $25.00 dollars per 50ft roll with a
$100.00 dollar minimum.
DBeta @ $50.00 dollars per 50ft roll with a $200.00 dollar minimum.
HDCAM @ $75.00 dollars per 50ft roll with a $300.00 dollar minimum.
Otherwise if you want scene to scene color correction our hourly rate is
$600 dollars per hour. A rough ratio for xfer time is 3:1 but that depends
upon the shooting style. If the hourly rate does not work with your project
then we would need to discuss the project and the budget requirements and
let you know if we can do the job.
Prices do not include tape stock or any possible lab prep that might be
needed.
For prep the reels need to be no smaller than 400ft..
20ft leader head and tail.
We prefer cement splice for leader and each roll.
We can run tape splices but the the last few feet of each roll before the
splice will not be steady and you will end up seeing the frame line.
Head and tail punch is up to you we have no requirement for that.
Thanks mikey, yeah that was a HUGE concern of mine seeing that the majority of my shots were going to be on the snow so any dirt gunk would stick out like a sore thumb. Flying Spot does not use wetgate and really, wetgate is really more designed for filling in scratches in your camera oringinal so I doesn't really do much for dirt and debris. Its hard to find a lab that does ultrasonic cleaning for S8, so I started sending my stuff to Pac Lab in New York to be prepped to 400' reels and cleaned for telecine. Its probably done by hand but I always put in big bold letters CLEAN THOROUGHLY on my order so they get the picture. They have done a nice job so far. Apparently, Forde Labs has started doing ultra sonic cleaning for S8 but I haven't called to see what the price is.
jupp- this was impressive
sure was some nice clips that you had here.
some beautilfull timelapses, and transfering.
guess this is more of a question to eric in flying spot- do you charge additional for having several different formats f´recorded during the transfer(eccept for material costs)?
and are these kinds of results achievable on any flying spot with this excelent cleaning and preparation( with an as good operator)?
some beautilfull timelapses, and transfering.
guess this is more of a question to eric in flying spot- do you charge additional for having several different formats f´recorded during the transfer(eccept for material costs)?
and are these kinds of results achievable on any flying spot with this excelent cleaning and preparation( with an as good operator)?
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
cool. looks great with very nice colors and contrast. i'd like to see some high res clips or stills though. i've found great differences between different setups when it comes to image sharpness. since you have to zoom in the scanner quite a bit to get the tiny super 8 frame to fill the screen this seems to be where the great setups with high quality gates that are well maintained separate themselves from the crowd...
/matt
feet? is he talking 35 mm here or what? a few feet is like half a minute in super 8. :-) i'm doing an assembly of my short (sisten i är en skit) right now in order to get a high quality scan for television done, and i'm using 12 frame handles which i thought would be more than enough. bad idea or what?Dave Hardy wrote:We can run tape splices but the the last few feet of each roll before the splice will not be steady
/matt
Hi guys,
Just a comment on your question Mattias. Its not really feet, its more like last few frames actually. Basically, the tolerances on their telecine are pretty darn tight, (one reason why it looks so good), so you will see a slight jump in the image when the tape splice is run through the gate. This was apparent on, lets say, 10 frames or so on either side of the splice. Cement splices apparently won't do this in their machine if done properly. For me its a non issue because I edit on an NLE so I'm tranferring raw footage and I always make sure I'm not going to roll out in the middle of a good shot that will be spliced together with another roll on a 400' reel. For those of you who are actually doing the edit by splicing your camera original and then sending your cut piece to be x-fer'd, cement spices are definitely mandatory. You just can't make a tape splice clean enough to run it through that well I guess....
Just a comment on your question Mattias. Its not really feet, its more like last few frames actually. Basically, the tolerances on their telecine are pretty darn tight, (one reason why it looks so good), so you will see a slight jump in the image when the tape splice is run through the gate. This was apparent on, lets say, 10 frames or so on either side of the splice. Cement splices apparently won't do this in their machine if done properly. For me its a non issue because I edit on an NLE so I'm tranferring raw footage and I always make sure I'm not going to roll out in the middle of a good shot that will be spliced together with another roll on a 400' reel. For those of you who are actually doing the edit by splicing your camera original and then sending your cut piece to be x-fer'd, cement spices are definitely mandatory. You just can't make a tape splice clean enough to run it through that well I guess....
Hi Shralp!
Just amazing looking stuff!
One question:
I put the links of your files yesterday at Finnish small gauge forum (http://www.digivideo.org/forum/read.php ... 253&t=5242) and immediately guys there claimed that you have used combustion or AE to get clips look like they look now (especially that first time lapse one).
So, could you honestly tell us, are they raw material (without post editing) or not?
Thanks!
Just amazing looking stuff!
One question:
I put the links of your files yesterday at Finnish small gauge forum (http://www.digivideo.org/forum/read.php ... 253&t=5242) and immediately guys there claimed that you have used combustion or AE to get clips look like they look now (especially that first time lapse one).
So, could you honestly tell us, are they raw material (without post editing) or not?
Thanks!
Best Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
Jukka Sillanpaa
These guys (= video shooters) just explained "of course it looks nice, cause it has been rended with AE" etc. etc. same bullshit. One guy even claimed AE makes better looking slow motion from video file than this 54 fps real slow motion is (shot with Nizo professional)!mattias wrote:or a proprietary digital color corrector in the telecine bay, which i'm 100% sure it went through. what's your point?jukkasil wrote:guys there claimed that you have used combustion or AE
/matt
We have had couple very bloody fights against video shooters at this forum, some of them just say it's waste of time to shoot film etc. But we don't care about these thoughts! 8)
Best Regards
Jukka Sillanpaa
Jukka Sillanpaa
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
ok, that makes sense, not. and why would that be cheating even if it was the case? film to video isn't a way of reproducing the film exactly as the film looks, which is impossible anyway, but an art form in itself. in fact film has always been considered a better medium for digital work than video because of the better contrast ratio and absense of aliasing. not allowing digital manipulation in film to video transfers is like not allowing filters. "of course it looks nice, they used a polarizer"? ;-)jukkasil wrote:These guys (= video shooters) just explained "of course it looks nice, cause it has been rended with AE"
/matt