Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

HD To 35mm

>I have project that I will be shooting on f900 23.98p, it may go to negative after what can you do before hand in setting up the camera in a way that may help in getting good a negative. (is there such thing or fix it in post) can you use slight diffusion like black pro mist/soft fx or will it get too soft for negative? I know testing would be the best way due to budget and time it won't be possible. any help would be great

>G.MANN

>D.O.P, TORONTO


>One thing for sure turn off all detail. If you don't go to film it can be added in post.

>Steve DP/International Cinematographers' Guild

>Cindy & Steve Golden

>Golden Pictures, Ltd.


>There are long answers and a short answers, but don't take any one answer as definitive when making a decision like that. Including mine.

>The very short answer is to extend the histogram a bit, turn off all detail, go for a slightly flat look (as opposed to crispy) and print to film on a Celco type printer using a camera stock to pick up the nuance of film ( if in fact, that is what you're looking for). If better color rendition and a look that more closely matches what you see on a very good monitor is your goal, again, try stretching out the histogram a bit, turning off all detail and printing to an intermediate stock on a laser printer. In either case, use filtration sparingly.

>If you have a penchant for post production tweaks in the digital world, try the Magic Bullet. I'm rather skeptical of affecting an image in post to get a look, (VFX is generally not about getting a look but rather integrating a gag into the existing look) but the Bullet is the best solution I've seen. I've been using the MagicBullet Adobe AfterEffects plug-in and the results when printed to film are quite simply astounding.

>Scott Billups - LA

>DP / VFX


>and print to film on a Celco type printer using a camera stock

>I understand the reasons for camera stock, but would be very interested in why you prefer a Celco over, say, an Arri Laser Recorder. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here, haven't seen much recent-generation Celco output -- but I'd love to hear your reasons.)

>Jeff "the new Celco and the Arri Laser seem to cost the same, roughly"

>Kreines


>G.MANN writes :

> I have project that I will be shooting on f900 23.98p, it may go to negative [...]

>This could be a very long answer, but here's the short of it: I suggest you choose your transfer method and facility in pre-production, not in post-production. Since the HD medium is not "locked in the medium" like film, Getting to "know your stock" involves the entire pre-pro-post-proj chain. What processing in post you can (or can't) count on should be an important consideration. Since HD is slightly less "sharp" than film, assume you're already starting off with a tiny bit of "diffusion" built into the medium.

>I suggest keeping the detail setting on zero and phasers on stun. In terms of other camera adjustments, be wary of color matrix adjustments but adjusting for a "kinder and gentler" response curve as opposed to the default setting might be a good idea, but be careful to avoid drastic manipulation you will not be able to reverse in post. Make an experienced '900 engineer your best friend quickly (the rental house should have one on staff or on retainer, otherwise, be suspicious).

David Tames

http://www.kino-eye.com


>Jeff writes:

> [...] camera stocks [...] why you prefer a Celco over, say, an Arri Laser Recorder [...]

>At this time (at least according to Arri) the ArriLaser's capability of recording on camera negative is limited to 5245 and originally it could not do camera negative at all (therefore some people's preference for CRT recording of SD and HD materials). Based on a series of tests I did a while go, I concluded video to film looks better when recorded on the higher speed camera stocks because of the grain, color, and contrast characteristics, in particular 5298 (which is what I used for my tests in comparison to 5245), and 5242 intermediate is grainless compared to 5245. But that's just an aesthetic preference, I'm sure others will prefer the clean, grain-free look of 5242.

>/* david tames


G.MANN wrote :

>I know testing would be the best way due to budget and time it won't be possible. >any help would be great

>In the recent past, most of the major tape to film transfer facilities would do a free one minute transfer (without sound) for free. I don't know if that

>remains so, it's been a few years since I did it, but it was pretty standard practice.

>Steven Bradford DP

>Seattle


> I suggest keeping the detail setting on zero and phasers on stun.

>Remember 0 is half way between -99 and +99 and with detail Too much IMHO.

>If less is what you want you had better go deep in the negative. I like -69

>B. Sean Fairburn SOC

>Castaic Ca


>Cindy & Steve et al:

>With all due respect, since we do not know each other personally, turning off all detail is a practice spawned by users of Sony and Ike cameras, the detail processing of which create some pretty ugly edging artifacts. For years, BTS/Philips/Thomson camera users have enjoyed some of the prettiest Contouring detailing, the product of listening to telecine processing designers.

>One thing for sure turn off all detail. If you don't go to film it can be added in post.

>George C. Palmer

>HDPIX, Inc.

>An Imaging Services Company

>hdpix.com


> If less is what you want you had better go deep in the negative. I like -69

>What could one expect to see as the difference between -69 or -99? Especially after transfer?

>Dale Launer

>writer/filmmaker

>Santa Monica


>why you prefer a Celco over, say, an Arri Laser Recorder.

>As David mentioned in his post, the ArriLaser is limited to a number of tight grain intermediate stocks like 5245 which offer truly great pallets and detail but lack the nuance of camera stock for the match back. So ... digital images that need to match back to 35mm camera stock need to be rather extensively manipulated while still in the digital environment. All digital manipulation causes degradation with respect to the original.

>The CRT/CELCO type printer, in particular the CelcoHD Extreme does a wonderful job of printing HD out to camera type stock and thereby adding all of the nuance and artifact of that emulsion without any extra (and degretory) steps in the process. I've personally had great success in matching visual effects done in HD that were printed back out to the scene's camera stock using a compatible printer. (Mulholland Drive is a good example)

>In situations where a sequence has been scanned or telecine'd from the original camera stock, and there hasn't been any major grain reduction applied to the image, or there has been an element comp'd in that has had grain added to it, then the best method of output would be to a laser recorder because the image already has the nuance and artfacting of the original acquisition medium and all you really want to do is reproduce that as faithfully as possible.

>Scott Billups - LA

>DP/VFX


>The latest version of the Arri Laser (shown at NAB) can now output on 5245 an original camera stock. Look for more information in a snapshot of the industry report that I wrote for the June Issue of Digital Cinema magazine.

>Robert Goodman

>director/photographer/author

>HD, post, and distribution consultant


>Scott Billups wrote:

>[...] the ArriLaser is limited to a number of tight grain intermediate stocks like 5245 >which offer truly great pallets and detail but lack the nuance of camera stock for the >match back [...]

>Which has a minor typo,

>'45 is a camera stock, I'm sure Scott intended to refer to the '44 or '42 intermediate stocks.

/* David Tames

http://www.kino-eye.com


>George C. Palmer wrote:

>Sony and Ike cameras, the detail processing of which create some pretty ugly >edging artifacts. BTS/Philips/Thomson camera users have enjoyed some of the >prettiest Contouring detailing...

>Also with respect, I agree, but G. Mann said he was using a F900.

>Steve Golden, DP/International Cinematographersâ Guild

>Chicago, IL 60607


>David Tames wrote:

>'45 is a camera stock, I'm sure Scott intended to refer to the '44 or '42 intermediate >stocks.

>The Arri Laser will run 42, 44, and 45 now, and also B&W separation stocks.

>But it won't run anything faster -- I see many virtues with using fast stocks to add real grain to video footage (as Scott was discussing).

>Jeff "good grain is a fine thing" Kreines


>What could one expect to see as the difference between -69 or -99? Especially after >transfer?

>Dale,

>It really depends on what you shoot and the amount of Texture and detail in the surface of the object. Personally I use Detail at -69 as a starting place to tune my diffusion.

>Take 2 subjects for instance:

>The radiator surface (thin metal wavey lines) on your Air conditioner at your home take a mirror and reflect the sun into the surface from an angle so that just the edges of the Radiator are lit and past the edges it stays Very dark. Now take the detail and run it from +99 to -99 and watch what happens. This also works with Black Velvet hard raking side lit.

>The other is a common Crosscut hand saw or a New Circular saw blade now light it so that you see the texture and the edge of a reflection of the light source. Now run the numbers up and down what do you see on the surface ?? the edges?? (Also great way to see what DCC ON/Auto Knee is doing for you as well) "Wow look at all that additional information in the highlights" Also look at Frequency and Black at +99 and -99 white at +40

>+99 is the highest wave length (small waves, not visible) no visible artificial edge. -99 is the lowest wave length (big waves, very visible) big artificial edge.

>The simple Fact is that if you turn Detail ON and set the Black to +99 and the freq +99 and white to +40, That which is most objectionable about Detail can't be seen anymore and goes away. The master then becomes a scalable softener -low softer overall +high sharper overall. Dale you have a camera take a look for yourself.

>But the real reason I like -69 is its easy to remember

>Myth : If you turn detail on it will look like Video.

>Myth : If you turn detail on you will have a 2 ft black edge around everything when you go to Film.

>Myth : turning detail off helps hide chromatic aberrations in bad lenses. (which may be why some suggest it)

>Myth : turning detail off problem goes away. Not true the HD deck will add it unless you set it not to.

>Myth : my downconvert will not have detail if I turn it off in camera. Not True, EVERY downconvter adds it.

>Reality: if you set it properly you cant tell the difference other than the Detail OFF is more mushy and to soft

>Looks out of focus and when filtered with bad back Focus starts to look like a "Mitchell D" filter.

>If any of you have ever seen anything I have ever shot out to Film from HD and seen edge artifacts caused by detail please speak up...

>Look at the Article in American Cinematographer I explain how I dial in more or less diffusion using Detail to customize my diffusion as needed. This working with DOF and what you play sharp

>all give you wonderful control over the look of your images.

>B. Sean Fairburn SOC

>Image Craftsman

>Castaic Ca