Remarkable HQ Full Size DV Clip Posted - AWAND/BOSCH

[S8 Booster]

Only one clip posted this far due to its size. Quicktime format.
ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... _1_NEG.mov
88 mb, full size DV HQ - 11 secs shot at 18 fps - pulled "up" to 25 fps.

When I first got my films back my first thought was; Why do folks bother shooting 16mm at all?
The transfers way exeeded my expectations and the sharpness/grain came out MUCH better than my previous films transferred by PRO8mm

The sample posted here was shot with a Canon 310 XL on V1 200T stock.
I was stunned by the sharpness of these images using the el-cheapo cam. Originally thought the lens was so-so but it can´t be.

Lighting condititions was difficult; x-mas time late afternoon & night partially x-mas art lit street.


UPDATE: K40 clip.
Added a 10 sec K40 clip scanned on the same machine.
82mb 10 sek. 18 fps pulled *up* to 25 fps PAL Quicktime full size DV
ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/mov/NSF_K40.mov
Shot in 2004 on 1994 dated k40 sound film / Canon 1014 XLS. Slight exposure variation is cam due service not transfer.
Indoor shot is in XL mode 220° shutter in the "taxfree" shop on the Rødby - Puttgarten ferry (DEN-GER)

R

[Yemi]

Hey,

That's really nice looking clip! SHARP. Was it transferred on a Workprinter? Looks like you've made progress with DIY negative tranfsers. I may even take the plunge in '05. Dust is still an issue though...how about getting the lab to clean/prep for transfer?

------
Yemi

[S8 Booster]

Hi Yemi. Thanks for your comments.

This transfer was made with Andreas´ (forum moderator) new Bosch scanner - not the WorkPrinter since this was a negative film V1 200T.

As the dirt & scratches is concerned I am not sure if I ordered it cleaned and prepped for telecine by the lab because this was only thought to be a testfilm.

R

[S8 Booster]

Updated the first post with a K40 sample:

UPDATE: K40 clip.
Added a 10 sec K40 clip scanned on the same machine.
82mb 10 sek. 18 fps pulled *up* to 25 fps PAL Quicktime full size DV
ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/mov/NSF_K40.mov
Shot on 1994 dated k40 sound film / Canon 1014 XLS. Slight exposure variation is cam due service not transfer.
Indoor shot is in XL mode 220° shutter in the "taxfree" shop on the Rødby - Puttgarten ferry (DEN-GER)

R

[jussi68]

Seriously, have you ever even seen well shot 16 mm stuff? The clip looked like the negative had been berried under ground for ages. Do you really think that this stuff was low grain and sharp? And don't get me started on the registration... With all respect you guys sometimes sound like hifi-enthusiast who just want to believe that it sounds good because it's "high end". Cum'on...

[looneyfarm]

I have to agree with Jussi, the negative transfer was just plain horrible. Earlier I was thinking about starting to use Andreas' telecine services exclusively, but if I see another clip like this, I'm gonna take my business elsewhere.

Please, if you're going to post some samples (especially HQ ones), execute them by highest standards possible, instead of excusing crappy clips ("cheap camera," "bad light conditions," etc). Sorry if I seem arrogant, but this just bugs me.

[S8 Booster]

Well, you guys got it all wrong as usual and do not read what I write.

The 16mm reference was the K40 clip.
Yes I have had the opportunity to compare lots of 16mm reversals in my club over thepast 25 years.
And: The K40 was dated 1994. Ring a bell? No. Find youself another hobby or buzz - whatever.

Registration: Hand held 310 XL? Come on :!:
This was not posted to verify registration.
I have others from the same transfer aimed at at such which are excellent but found no reason to waste space for it this time.
Posted for sharpness and LL performance only.

Transfer quality: Much better quality than PRO8mm ever did for me on identical filmstock.
As is much lower grain.
As is much sharper images.

Dirt: No issue. It is from the processing - not transfer.

Please do not try to act as pros when you are not. Way off. If you can not read the facts from the samples - back off. You haven´t a faintest idea what you are messing with.

R

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

S8 booster, sometimes you feel very confused, how can anybody read the following as anything else than about the V1 200T stock:

Only one clip posted this far due to its size. Quicktime format.
ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... 10XLxy.mov
88 mb, full size DV HQ - 11 secs shot at 18 fps - pulled "up" to 25 fps.

When I first got my films back my first thought was; Why do folks bother shooting 16mm at all?
The transfers way exeeded my expectations and the sharpness/grain came out MUCH better than my previous films transferred by PRO8mm

The sample posted here was shot with a Canon 310 XL on V1 200T stock.
I was stunned by the sharpness of these images using the el-cheapo cam. Originally thought the lens was so-so but it can´t be.

Anyone read this as a K40 clip?

[S8 Booster]

And, my samples were never intended as "reference material". Just a feedback from very satisfied customer seeing that my original film material - being far from optimal - cam/220° shutter/18fps, low natural light, outdated film etc can come out with results like this, is exceptional. The sharpness with the 310 XL V200T under those conditions - the daylight takes with such low contrast light can come out this sharp and detailed is nothing less than outstanding. The x-mas street lights were only added to show film light sensitivity/cam-lens light performance, and yes I could have filtered the exposure to a perfect fit even with this cam.

The reference I made to 16mm was for K40, and I did not claim it to be better than or as good as - just good enough to drop 16mm in many cases. Not allways needed to waste time and money on 16mm if S8 comes out this good knowing the room for S8 optimisation.

As to registration - I may post some samples later but I have seen professional 16mm films recently worse off than my tests. Guaranteed.
Even compared with my PRO8mm perfed custom made Fuji F500T films.


If Andreas wanted to post promo "reference material" shot under optimal circumstances he is perfectly capable of producing this himself.

R

[jussi68]

Watched the K40-klip. Better, or should I say not as awfull as the first one, but still pretty lame... Mr S8booster doubted my professionalism and yes, I'm not a professional d.o.p. But I do work in post production where I see both on 16mm and 35mm shot stuff every day. And I think that I can tell the difference between pro-stuff and crappy homemovies. I just want to make it clear that I'm not here to bash the small gauge formats, but you know, there's an old saying over here that "even in paris, shit is still shit".

Don't post your stuff if you can't take any critique.

[mattias]

I think that I can tell the difference between pro-stuff and crappy homemovies.

so? these clips were obviously posted to show the sharpness of andreas' scanner, not the quality of the cinematography. but you're right, i would be more careful when doing tests for a bigger audience myself. it's obviously very hard for many people to see beyond any imperfections, even if they are irrelevant and outside the scope of the test.

(the vision clip aborts at 15 megs every time i try do download it. strange)

/matt

[nasq]

The K40 was sharp, but grainy compared to 16mm, of course ;)

[S8 Booster]

Updated film link for the neg in post 1

R

[jussi68]

these clips were obviously posted to show the sharpness of andreas' scanner, not the quality of the cinematography. /matt

Sharpnes? In reference to what? 8O

[mattias]

Sharpnes? In reference to what?

in reference to nothing. why? sharpness is an entity and you can even talk about the (very low) sharpness of a complete blur.

/matt