diy telecine 16mm colour neg???

Post by **mattias** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:12 pm

christoph, i think it's you who's not listening. wado might be oversimplifying the issue and maybe he's not using the correct terms but his point is correct. of course you can invert in gamma corrected space but when we say invert we mean the whole inversion of a film negative to a positive image. when you say low contrast that's exactly what i mean by low gamma. when the camera converts this to video gamma it effectlively throws away midtone data, i'm sure you agree with that? the double gamma conversion that we used as an example is just a way of ilustrating what happens, not a technically correct example.

/matt

Post by **Chris-B** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:43 pm

I think that the useable image thing is getting a little confused if you shooting old 16mm. With 16mm 20ish years old I woukld be happy with any image I got. I would just over expose by 1 stop anyway as it can't harm it, even if there is no loss in speed.

I would suggest just shooting 100ft and having a go yourself. I think the idea of what is unuseable (unacceptable) to one person may well be useable (acceptable) to someone else.

I would say have a play around and see what you think. I have had a go with a 50ft s8 colour neg and transfer with my set up. I got some OK to good results, some shots looked great, others just ok, and some looked bad (but not too many bad ones).

I've also tried k40 x-processed as b&w neg. That was alot simpler to transfer as I didn't have the colour issue to worry about.

Chris.

Post by **mattias** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:54 pm

Chris-B wrote:I would sugest just shooting 100ft and having a go yourself. I think the idea of what is unuseable (unacceptable) to one person may well be useable (acceptable) to someone else.

absolutely, but image quality is in many ways an objective entity. i don't quite see why you you'd want to shoot 16mm if you don't care much about the results. the question is not whether it won't look quite as good as a professional teecine, it's whether it will look bad.

btw what's your setup? some will definitely create better results than other.

/matt

Post by **Chris-B** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:35 pm

I have made my own workprinter type set up and did the colour neg transfer on that. I put some little squares of gels (from one of those lighting gel sampler books) between the bulb and gate to correct the orange cast and the used to neg function on my hi8 camera, as my dv cam does not have a neg function.

The k40 b&w neg was just 'off the wall' getting the projector close as possible to the wall and projecting a small image so the image was nice and bright as the orange cast on the b&w neg was kind of thick.

Chris.

Post by **Chris-B** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:25 pm

As for 'why you you'd want to shoot 16mm if you don't care much about the results.'

I thought as it was old stock that 'simo8' did not want to spend too much on it. I thought that shooting 100ft and then seeing how it looked would be a good way forward. If the neg looked ok then simo8 might want to shoot the rest and go all the way and get a pro transfer. But could also try a diy telecine of the 100ft tester and if happy with it go that way.

If it's old film stock and/or the funds aren't there to get it all done the pro way then this maybe the way forward. It's better than wasting it.

If a perfect picture (over useable picture) is the main goal then fresh stock would be the way to go.
But if you have got the film already and a little money to get it processed then why not shoot it and have a little fun doing it with what ever means you have.
I like to just have fun shooting with what ever I can afford at the time and this is free film!

Another option, but I'm not sure if a lab will do this for you, is to cross-process as reversal. I have had good results doing this with 35mm c41 film in e6 chemistry, it can have a very slight blue cast but you can adjust this in telecine or post.

Chris.

Post by **mattias** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:28 pm

Chris-B wrote:I thought as it was old stock that 'simo8' did not want to spend too much on it. I thought that shooting 100ft and then seeing how it looked would be a good way forward. If the neg looked ok then simo8 might want to shoot the rest and go all the way and get a pro transfer.

sure, but i still don't quite see the point. :-)

/matt

Post by **mattias** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:30 pm

Chris-B wrote:I have made my own workprinter type set up and did the colour neg transfer on that. I put some little squares of gels (from one of those lighting gel sampler books) between the bulb and gate to correct the orange cast and the used to neg function on my hi8 camera, as my dv cam does not have a neg function.

then you did it the right way. my point is (in another thread, the one wado referred to) that i don't think you will be able to get it right on the computer alone.

/matt

Post by **Chris-B** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:48 pm

I agree, that it will almost impossible get it right on PC alone. And wouldn't be esay my way to get something good all the way through a 100ft reel.

The point is, that results that people find accpetable could be achived on the cheap. Also it's just fun to experiment and you may get some thing you never expected (in an experimental kind of a way!).

Happy shooting!

Chris.

Post by **wado1942** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm

Yes now if your camera has a neg function built into it, then the inversion would be done before the gamma so you'd get much cleaner results. Even if the camera itself is lower resolution.

Post by **christoph** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:28 pm

hey matt,

i thought you know me long enough to guess that if i make such an absolute and rather brief statement that i'm usually pretty sure about it ;)

so let me say this again, a pictorial image *should* to be gamma corrected from linear before it gets inverted (negative or not)! if this happens in the camera the better, as most people will digitize in 8bit only.

what makes me mad is that wado just tells people what they will apparently NEVER able to do (with a lot of technical inaccurate geek talk) instead of helping them to get the best out of their setups.

but anyway, anybody who is interested in that will check out the stills above and draw their own conclusions.

Post by **simo8** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:46 pm

Wow, I'm away for a day and come back to a ton of posts. Things seemed to get a little heated there in the middle, but thanks to all who have taken the time to share their thoughts. BK, great link for me to have a look through thanks. At least now I know it is possible even if the results are a tad un predictable, and I've picked up a few tips to point me in the right direction. Chris-b I think you hit the nail on the head, it's 20 year old stock I am playing around with. I'm not planning on shooting a commercial job or anything like that. I will shoot for the fun of shooting and experiment. All I wanted to establish was that the theories that I had about transfering neg were at the very least possible. To what extent those results are considered acceptable will of course vary from person to person. I will shoot a couple of rolls and see. Mattias, I understand that you dont see the point in shooting if the results are going to be garbage, but the point here is that the film was free to me and I am in search of the most cost effective way of using un predictable stock for fun, so I still have some money left in my pocket to spend on new film.

In due course I will let you know how I get on.

Thanks again

Simon