DV - s8 - DV transfer cycle? Vision 2 500 t in s8?

[Istvan in library]

Hi,
I was wondering, have any of you got experience from transfering DVCam (or anything comparable) to s8? And if so, then back to DV?

Will it be utter crap? Or could it give a nice, dirty look? (the original digital two-minute film in question is low-key (not an euphemism for underexposed in this case), with some of the atmosphere provided from a big fire. 1.33:1 format).

ue to Koachrome´s slowness, I guess most of you haven´t tried to DIY shoot of your video-image, but do you think this might be possible to get done with the new Vision 2 500 T? And, by the way, have any of you ever tried this stock in s8?

I was thionking that if possible to mi DV image to film myself, I coul get the negative developed, telecined, and then have it onto a Digi-Beta, a convenient format for festivals.

Any tips or opinions greatly appreciated.
Istvan

Istvan

[Andreas Wideroe]

And, by the way, have any of you ever tried this stock in s8?

Not yet, but I'm awaiting 10 rolls from Kodak as a test user here in Norway. Hopefully they're just around the corner, but have no dates yet.

Andreas

[jessh]

the best way to do this would be to shoot the DV onto the S8 frame by frame using some sort of automated setup. It has been done before, but I haven't dont it myself. If you set it up right you should be able to do it with K40 or just about any other film.

~Jess

[jumar]

If you want a fast and easy way to do this, capture the video from DVCAM onto a computer with a good LCD screen (a laptop will do). Then set up your camera on a very sturdy tripod, and shoot the screen. You can't use a regular monitor or TV because the refresh rate won't be synched properly to the camera, and the interlacing will show.

I've done this for digitally created titles on 16mm and it worked well. Just make sure the software you're using isn't skimping (like playing 15fps or something), and you're better off shooting it in 100% size as oppose to full screen.

There is still some artifacting, but I'll bet it wouldn't be noticeable in Super8.

[istvan]

good idea with frame-by-frame, makes it possible to do exact exposure-corrections to the edit. This being a *one-minute shot, reversed*, two-minute film, that´s not really necessary for now, but I think I´ll try that later for some other stuff.

Thanks for the advice!

Istvan[/i]

[avortex]

Last month I made a similar test.

I deinterlaced my DV original and exported it as a Bitmap series. I filmed straight of my LCD monitor frame by frame with B/W Tri-X and the results were very good. Of course, Tri-X and its inherent texture dresses the image and gives it the definitive filmlook.

If you want to to this in colour it requires a more difficult process involving a different exposition of the film for each basic colour (3). Impossible to do at home, so you can try to calibrate the colour temperature of your monitor for K40. I still haven't tested this.

Anyway, give a try to B/W...

[ericMartinJarvies]

i've used the 500t stock from pro8mm, not kodak ... but its the same stuff, right? i liked it. i would have to say the footage i shot using prime lenses instead of zoom, came up much nicer, clearer, and softer. whereas the zoom lens tended to make the light to dark areas much more grainy. perhaps this was my fault. but overall, i think the less glass between the film and the area/subject/object you are filming, the better. and i am referring to situations where there is not much light. in most of my tests i used one light source, a 500w shop light either to the left or right of the camera, pointing directly at the area/subject/object. the same shots where i used 200 and 320, the dark areas tended to be almost black, and not containing any subtle details. i also used this 50 and the 800 film out in town at night, filming business signs, both flouresent and neon. when the frame was filled with a lit area, the image was extremely nice. when the frame was wide, and contained dark areas arounf the lit areas, the threshold areas shows lots of grain. when i filmed at night outside at a disco here in town, where the people where dnacing, and there were various types of lighting from signs, disco ligthing, and regular lighting, the overall image was grainy, and this was probably because i never had enough light to satisfy the camera's metering system, and this was lens wide open. however, in these same lighting conditions, zooming in and filling the frame with any nuber of these light sources, the image looked fine without much grain. and the neon lights seems to be the best ones in terms of clarity, whereas the regular house lamp type lighting showed lots of grain. the disco lights and spot/direct hot lights were good, but the drop off in the dark areas of the frame where extremely noisy/grainy. i still have not made heads and tails of all my film tests, namely because when i performed most of them, i had not yet fully understood the on camera asa controls in relation to the actual film, lens iris, and ligthing. my most recent tests have to be processed, and i addressed many of those uncertainties, and should have a more accurate exposure index/benchmark in which to provide some examples here. i will list all the other footage too once i get around to it, ut right now i do not have a moment ot spare.

so, in summary, i like the 500 and 8 stocksfor what they provided compated to using the 100, and 200t stocks in the same conditions. however, i have come to the conclusion that if you have control over the lighting conditions, use no greater then a 20 stock, as those seem to look the cleanest ONLY if the lighting is correct. using correct lighting/controlled lighting for the 2 and 50 stocks, the 200 looks alot better then the 500. so i would only use those stocks when i do not have control over the lighting and when absolutely required. personally speaking.

eric

[Corey Doyle]

What if you used an LCD projector and a mirror and condenser lens? (like the workprinter) You'd be able to use Kodachrome.

Corey

[mattias]

[...]