I'm going to make a short film on 16mm (not Super16). I'm fine with the "final product" being a DVD, but I also want to hedge my bets and make sure I am 100% ready to have a film print made (quickly if need be).
What should I do?
What Should I Do? (Advice Solicited)
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
What Should I Do? (Advice Solicited)
"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."â€â€George W. Bush, June 4, 2003
Video format: The film will probably be telecined for editing in PAL. The DVD would be done in both NTSC and PAL. (Is that what you're asking?)Nigel wrote:Getting a print made from video will cost just as much or slightlly more than cutting the neg.
What is your budget?? What format video are you going to??
I should have said about budget: The numbers are broken into two budgets: production (which includes editing) and post. I'm currently putting together the production budget at this very moment, and am looking at about $2500-3000 for that. (More if I need it, but I'm trying not to be a pig.)
I'm lucky in that if something like a print (2K scan or otherwise) is not absurdly expensive, I can probably get the extra $$$ in the post budget. If I keep my production numbers down and have a something impressive to present, I'm relatively certain the financers will be happy to do a film print for festivals.
What I don't want is to be sitting there with a great film on DVD and a 3-6 month turnaround time to get a film print ready for screening. I'd rather not work my ass off to have to watch my film digitally projected.
I've got so little knowledge of film post stuff that I could pour it all in a thimble and still have room for my ass. I figured I'd pluck the extensive knowledge and experience contained in this forum rather than take another 3 months to figure it out for myself (which is what I tend to do).
So which would be better: just cutting in digital and then scanning to film, or going back to the negative for printing (which would mean I'd have to keep good time code)?
(Oh yes - and just to help things out: there is NO SYNC SOUND in this short film.)
"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."â€â€George W. Bush, June 4, 2003
-
pheboglobi
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 12:23 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
If you get your negative cut, then it will be easier to put into other formats and of higher quality. You can print and/or transfer to video. Negative cutting isn't cheap, but most things aren't in the post-process whether it'd be telecine or workprint.
If you are going to edit digitally and want to print back to film, you'll need an editing system that can print an accurate EDL for the negative cutter to use. Sometimes the negative cutter will require either a workprint or a tape with Keycode and Timecode burn-in, so you will want to find and talk to them before you start the process. Others will add a charge if you don't have a matching workprint, even if you have a tape with the burn-in. Some charge by the hour, others by the cut. For example, on the last 16mm film I did, I paid $5/cut plus supplies.
There are also several different telecine options, usually of the one light, the best-light, and the timed-light varieties. The timed light is the best of three as the color-timer analyzes each scene and adjusts accordingly to get the best image, and it is also the most expensive. One light is where they do no scene-to-scene correction and just run the film through - if you remembered the gray card at the beginning they might adjust to that, and this is the cheapest. The Best-light is somewhere in-between, they do some correction or average out the best exposure. Some labs charge by the foot for 16mm, whereas others will charge by hour.
A timed-light telecine will look far superior to that of a one-light, but it is very expensive. You could save money by getting a one-light then just using that for editing, and when you get the negative cut, you can get a good transfer from the negative, which you then can use to put to DVD.
Printing from videotape, mini-DV for instance, to film can cost you anywhere from $200-400 per minute depending on where you go and which process they use. Probably some setup fees too.
It won't take 3-6 months for the turnaround on a film print. It might take week or two depending on what lab and when you do it. (if you do it when everyone is getting their prints ready for Cannes or one of the other big fetivals, then it may take longer) Similar time and circumstances for a negative cut too.
Audio is fun as well, since you have to get an optical made to marry to the negative in printing.
hope this helps,
--Garrett
If you are going to edit digitally and want to print back to film, you'll need an editing system that can print an accurate EDL for the negative cutter to use. Sometimes the negative cutter will require either a workprint or a tape with Keycode and Timecode burn-in, so you will want to find and talk to them before you start the process. Others will add a charge if you don't have a matching workprint, even if you have a tape with the burn-in. Some charge by the hour, others by the cut. For example, on the last 16mm film I did, I paid $5/cut plus supplies.
There are also several different telecine options, usually of the one light, the best-light, and the timed-light varieties. The timed light is the best of three as the color-timer analyzes each scene and adjusts accordingly to get the best image, and it is also the most expensive. One light is where they do no scene-to-scene correction and just run the film through - if you remembered the gray card at the beginning they might adjust to that, and this is the cheapest. The Best-light is somewhere in-between, they do some correction or average out the best exposure. Some labs charge by the foot for 16mm, whereas others will charge by hour.
A timed-light telecine will look far superior to that of a one-light, but it is very expensive. You could save money by getting a one-light then just using that for editing, and when you get the negative cut, you can get a good transfer from the negative, which you then can use to put to DVD.
Printing from videotape, mini-DV for instance, to film can cost you anywhere from $200-400 per minute depending on where you go and which process they use. Probably some setup fees too.
It won't take 3-6 months for the turnaround on a film print. It might take week or two depending on what lab and when you do it. (if you do it when everyone is getting their prints ready for Cannes or one of the other big fetivals, then it may take longer) Similar time and circumstances for a negative cut too.
Audio is fun as well, since you have to get an optical made to marry to the negative in printing.
hope this helps,
--Garrett
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
are you blowing up to 35? if so your main concern will be how to frame. will you use the entire 4:3 area and print with black curtains? will you frame for 4:3 and hope it looks good when cropped? will you do the same but "pan and scan" each cut? will you frame for 1.85 and let the 16mm frame have some dead space at the top and bottom? or will you use a common top line so that you crop only at the bottom?
/matt
/matt
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Hmmm. Well, my only contribution is to say that, if you ARE considering getting print made from the original neg (as opposed to scanning back to a print from the video file) then you need to conform your editing decisions to something that can be achieved thru printing. In otherwords, limit your editing to cuts, fades and dissolves, keep the titling limited to simple art that can be shot with a camera with no superimposition required, and be absolutely anal about keeping your exposures accurate throughout.
Here are my reasons:
1) The only sort of transitions available through traditional contact printing are cuts fades and dissolves. If you start doing lots of wipes or bordered effects, then re-creating those optically are going to cost a fortune and the time required will negate your desire to "have a print made quickly".
2) Title art can help you avoid more opticals, as well. If you're not an artist, then having title art made can cost a bit more up front than using CG, however, having an artist create title art will be pennies on the dollar compared to optical titles and your art will look the same whether it's on video or on film. If this were reverasal, you could do simple "burn in" titles but you are working in negative so that is not an option, even during A/B roll printing, so your best bet is to create traditional title art just shoot it with a camera.
3) If your footage were ONLY going to be seen on video, then you could get away with lighting that was a bit, shall we say, "sloppier" because the Rank has MUCH more latitude than print stock, which is designed to be contrasty for sharp projection. Many a green DP that cut their teeth on music videos and commercials are horrified to find that what looks great Ranked doesn't print worth spit. From a budget standpoint, this is very important because, even with great lighting, prints NEVER come out right the first time and you have to pay for each answer print that the lab pulls. The more uneven the lighting, the more test prints you have to pay for. Keeping the lighting even from cut to cut will go a long way toward saving mucho bucks when printing.
I agree with Nigel. Use Keycode, if you can, and that will make things go smoother when the neg is conformed.
Hope this helps!
Roger
Here are my reasons:
1) The only sort of transitions available through traditional contact printing are cuts fades and dissolves. If you start doing lots of wipes or bordered effects, then re-creating those optically are going to cost a fortune and the time required will negate your desire to "have a print made quickly".
2) Title art can help you avoid more opticals, as well. If you're not an artist, then having title art made can cost a bit more up front than using CG, however, having an artist create title art will be pennies on the dollar compared to optical titles and your art will look the same whether it's on video or on film. If this were reverasal, you could do simple "burn in" titles but you are working in negative so that is not an option, even during A/B roll printing, so your best bet is to create traditional title art just shoot it with a camera.
3) If your footage were ONLY going to be seen on video, then you could get away with lighting that was a bit, shall we say, "sloppier" because the Rank has MUCH more latitude than print stock, which is designed to be contrasty for sharp projection. Many a green DP that cut their teeth on music videos and commercials are horrified to find that what looks great Ranked doesn't print worth spit. From a budget standpoint, this is very important because, even with great lighting, prints NEVER come out right the first time and you have to pay for each answer print that the lab pulls. The more uneven the lighting, the more test prints you have to pay for. Keeping the lighting even from cut to cut will go a long way toward saving mucho bucks when printing.
I agree with Nigel. Use Keycode, if you can, and that will make things go smoother when the neg is conformed.
Hope this helps!
Roger
Wow. Very helpful information. Did some more online (and offline) reading, realizing the issue is more complex than I thought.
So if I want to make a film print from my negative, then I'm going to obviously need some sort of reference code (timecode) so the editor will know which pieces to use. Since I'm shooting everything MOS wiht a Canon Scoopic, I don't think I can do anything like that.
It sounds to me like the easiest - and so probably the cheapest - thing for me to do is to do a scan from my final digital cut. I mean, this is a ten minute short after all (or two ten minute shorts), so perhaps I would be wisest to set my sights low. (I should be realistic, a voice in my head tells me. I'm not likely to need a film print. Everybody's doing digital projection at festivals these days. I can save $2,000 by not doing a film print and shoot another film...)
So if I want to make a film print from my negative, then I'm going to obviously need some sort of reference code (timecode) so the editor will know which pieces to use. Since I'm shooting everything MOS wiht a Canon Scoopic, I don't think I can do anything like that.
It sounds to me like the easiest - and so probably the cheapest - thing for me to do is to do a scan from my final digital cut. I mean, this is a ten minute short after all (or two ten minute shorts), so perhaps I would be wisest to set my sights low. (I should be realistic, a voice in my head tells me. I'm not likely to need a film print. Everybody's doing digital projection at festivals these days. I can save $2,000 by not doing a film print and shoot another film...)
"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."â€â€George W. Bush, June 4, 2003
-
S8 Booster
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
- Real name: Super Octa Booster
- Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
- Contact:
Just sort of loud thinking here:
If you get the film scanned to a HQ digital format [Digibeta?] and a MiniDV copy you may progress as follows:
1) Use a MAC or a PC equivalent machine to digitally import and edit the film and burn the edited film directly to DVD. iMACs and I think even eMACs does that and will burn DVDs right from your selected editing suite - at least iMovie does so I guess the hot stuff does too.
This far - depending on the editing software you use there are basically no limitation other than yourself.
If you use a professional editing suite it may keep a EDL list that can be transferred the DIGIBETA? version for "auto-edit". Time code equivalent required I guess but should be no problem.
2) Which brings me to the core:
If you later want to make a final film print the DIGIBETA? format may allow you a better print quality than DV based data.
However, depending on the end user purpose or target of your film this option may in fact not be necessary.
16mm to miniDV to DVD should be fab.
I have recently seen feature films shot on S16 ->35mm -> DVD that look just 35mm.
Even 16mm - MiniDV - DVD should be fab proberly done.
I am not sure if you were the one who mentioned you´ve got the Fuji Demo DVD? I have got that one too. If you listen to the comments on that DVD you will see that many of the tests were shot on 16mm - transferred to 35mm before going DVD.
And last but not least: Maybe you should consider to use a 1:1 transfer to PAL 25 fps for editing? keeping it there may preserve the image quality better? May require some attention to the sound sync part while editing but I am not sure about this. You have to be sure you can import and handle the PAL format with your computer though. You will need a deck that can play back PAL format to transfer the file to your computer by Firewire for lossfree digital transfers. I guess all MACs can import all formats 1:1, at least my can. I think this is a worldwide MAC standard.
My 2C ?
R
If you get the film scanned to a HQ digital format [Digibeta?] and a MiniDV copy you may progress as follows:
1) Use a MAC or a PC equivalent machine to digitally import and edit the film and burn the edited film directly to DVD. iMACs and I think even eMACs does that and will burn DVDs right from your selected editing suite - at least iMovie does so I guess the hot stuff does too.
This far - depending on the editing software you use there are basically no limitation other than yourself.
If you use a professional editing suite it may keep a EDL list that can be transferred the DIGIBETA? version for "auto-edit". Time code equivalent required I guess but should be no problem.
2) Which brings me to the core:
If you later want to make a final film print the DIGIBETA? format may allow you a better print quality than DV based data.
However, depending on the end user purpose or target of your film this option may in fact not be necessary.
16mm to miniDV to DVD should be fab.
I have recently seen feature films shot on S16 ->35mm -> DVD that look just 35mm.
Even 16mm - MiniDV - DVD should be fab proberly done.
I am not sure if you were the one who mentioned you´ve got the Fuji Demo DVD? I have got that one too. If you listen to the comments on that DVD you will see that many of the tests were shot on 16mm - transferred to 35mm before going DVD.
And last but not least: Maybe you should consider to use a 1:1 transfer to PAL 25 fps for editing? keeping it there may preserve the image quality better? May require some attention to the sound sync part while editing but I am not sure about this. You have to be sure you can import and handle the PAL format with your computer though. You will need a deck that can play back PAL format to transfer the file to your computer by Firewire for lossfree digital transfers. I guess all MACs can import all formats 1:1, at least my can. I think this is a worldwide MAC standard.
My 2C ?
R
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
the keycode and/or foot bumbers are already exposed on the film by the manufacturer. you don't need to do anything to get it. having them on an aux tc track or burned in helps, but it's also enough to just record one reference point between tc and keycode during telecine and create your cut list from the tc of your video edit. your lab will help you with that if you just tell them what you're trying to do.calgodot wrote:Since I'm shooting everything MOS wiht a Canon Scoopic, I don't think I can do anything like that.
hardly the easiest and *certainly* not the cheapest. and if you're at all concerned about quality, certainly not the best.It sounds to me like the easiest - and so probably the cheapest - thing for me to do is to do a scan from my final digital cut.
/matt
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
-
Nigel
- Senior member
- Posts: 2775
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:14 am
- Real name: Adam
- Location: Lost
- Contact:
Who is doing the Telecine for you?? What format have you decided on?? You should also look at what you are going to spend on an Online for DVD authoring. You may want to make the DVD off the Neg after it has been cut--Or even off the Print.
Good Luck
PS--Pay now or pay later either way you will pay in the end--So make sure you are wise when it comes to what you are buying.
Good Luck
PS--Pay now or pay later either way you will pay in the end--So make sure you are wise when it comes to what you are buying.
-
S8 Booster
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
- Real name: Super Octa Booster
- Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
- Contact:
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
-
ericMartinJarvies
- Senior member
- Posts: 1274
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:26 am
- Location: cabo san lucas, bcs, mexico
- Contact:
perhaps on a related note regarding editing 16mm footage in fcp, and taking advange of the 30fps(29.97) to 24fps for real 24fps editing from the original telecined hd digital master ... what sould one use as it relates to ntsc viewing of the uncompressed hd footage during color correction/editing sessions as it relates to video out from the apple to video in on the monitor? the reason i ask is because i am shopping a ntsc monitor, and as many of you know they range from 400 to 900 lines of resolution. and the inputs range from regular line in/out, s-video in/out, rgb a in, and rgb b in. the rgb a in is the computer pin, and the rgb b in is the three seperate r, g, b connectors with a hd sync and vd input. so of these 4 options, or namely out of the latter two, which will provide the best picture quality from the apple running hd quality footage? obviously s-vide and regullar video in/out does not provide enough picture quality ... correct? but using the pin connector, what does one have to use to connect it to the apple ... or connect the apple to it? or is the rgb b option the better of the two?
additionally, what is cheaper ... taking an hd final cut out to a new film print? or taking a digial edl to a physical film edit on the original film and from their make the print? and what are we dealing with in terms of quality differances?
and one final mention ...does anyone know of any software that could take scanned frames of film and read the code on the film edge upon saving as tga files(or whatever), and upon assembly of these individual files into a sequence/movie, take and create a edl of these codes so fcp/cinematools can read them just as it does those 24fps films that are professionally telecined?
additionally, what is cheaper ... taking an hd final cut out to a new film print? or taking a digial edl to a physical film edit on the original film and from their make the print? and what are we dealing with in terms of quality differances?
and one final mention ...does anyone know of any software that could take scanned frames of film and read the code on the film edge upon saving as tga files(or whatever), and upon assembly of these individual files into a sequence/movie, take and create a edl of these codes so fcp/cinematools can read them just as it does those 24fps films that are professionally telecined?
eric martin jarvies
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661