A home made Telecine machine.

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:55 pm

hey paul,

what I meant was I wanted to comapre the irez to my dsr 250 and my dxc 755 to see how the images compare.

I'm in the middle of upgrading to a matrox rtx100 for realtime CC, but am concerned it wouldn't be the right investment if i switch over to a irez setup for higher resolution. (wouldn't give me the real time capability unless i go to DV- from my understanding-)

j

Post by **paulcotto** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:39 pm

The most you could get from the iRez is about 15fps and that is if you have a top of the line PC to drive it. I dont know if it would be the right choice for your situation.

Paul Cotto

jusetan wrote:hey paul,

what I meant was I wanted to comapre the irez to my dsr 250 and my dxc 755 to see how the images compare.

I'm in the middle of upgrading to a matrox rtx100 for realtime CC, but am concerned it wouldn't be the right investment if i switch over to a irez setup for higher resolution. (wouldn't give me the real time capability unless i go to DV- from my understanding-)

j

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:57 pm

well, my system is only running at 6fps, so may not be an issue.

j

Post by **christoph** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:35 pm

paulcotto wrote:I have both the webcam and the iRez i1300C so I can do the test myself. I will try to get you a short clip from both cameras

i'd be interested to see that test anyway, since eventually i want to make a hi-res transfer system too. in theory the webcams should be horrible and in practice they might be very usable.. i'll only do b/w anyway and might look into using the HDR option in photoshop.

paul, could you post a full rez single frame with exposure 2stop under, correct and 2stops over with each camera?
i'd try to make a composite out of it just to see if it's worth it.

++ christoph ++

Post by **paulcotto** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:42 pm

Are you saying 2 stops on the Irez lens or the super-8 camera lens? The lens I use on the iRez is not marked in stops, so I would need to judge it by eye which would not be a controled test.
Paul Cotto

christoph wrote:
paulcotto wrote:I have both the webcam and the iRez i1300C so I can do the test myself. I will try to get you a short clip from both cameras
i'd be interested to see that test anyway, since eventually i want to make a hi-res transfer system too. in theory the webcams should be horrible and in practice they might be very usable.. i'll only do b/w anyway and might look into using the HDR option in photoshop.

paul, could you post a full rez single frame with exposure 2stop under, correct and 2stops over with each camera?
i'd try to make a composite out of it just to see if it's worth it.

++ christoph ++

Post by **christoph** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:01 pm

paulcotto wrote:Are you saying 2 stops on the Irez lens or the super-8 camera lens? The lens I use on the iRez is not marked in stops, so I would need to judge it by eye which would not be a controled test.

sorry, i meant bracketed two stops on the transfer since i'd like to check how to improve the dynamic range. i think fred experimented with this a while ago, but with the new photoshop there's a special HDR option which was designed exactly for that.
it doesnt have to be an exactly two stops, just enough so you dont have clippings in the highlights in one frame and all the shadow detail in the other.

++ christoph ++

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:19 am

that's great that photoshop has that aspect.. but how do you apply that to a video file?

As long as you can check your histogram and see that nothing is being clipped in the blacks or the whites then you should be alllllright.. (unless tackling negs, then the same principal applies, but you have to err more on the dark side (over exposed) or the grain becomes far more apparent

j

Post by **christoph** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:45 am

jusetan wrote:that's great that photoshop has that aspect.. but how do you apply that to a video file?

you would work with an image sequence (most high end film manipulations are done this way) and then use the batch workflows to apply it to a folder full of files. in the end use any decent video software (or quicktime pro) to convert it to your video format of choice.
++ christoph ++

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:38 am

Working with a TIFF sequence...that makes more sense.
Nice solution.

Why not just get some colour correction software and save yourself having to do the conversion? (I know photoshop has some fantastic tools for CC, but i feel it restricts you in that you can't scan through your scene as easily to check your corrections).

jusetan
http://www.justinlovell.com

Post by **christoph** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:24 am

jusetan wrote:Why not just get some colour correction software and save yourself having to do the conversion? (I know photoshop has some fantastic tools for CC, but i feel it restricts you in that you can't scan through your scene as easily to check your corrections).

oh i wouldnt use photoshop for general CC even though i know it better than most film software (and it now has firewire preview), it's way too slow andd you cant keyframe it... but i'm pretty sure that the HDR function in PS will be better than any script in shake that i'm able to work out myself ;)
++ christoph ++