View Full Version : FX1 Film Transfer
Maheel Perera January 8th, 2005, 09:19 AM I have transferred several clips from FX1 to 35 mm film. Those clips were as follows.
From HDR-FX1 Sony HDV Info.com Forum
Kerr Cook’s
shottransove.4.m2t - a fast zoom out
car25side.4.m2t - shot from a moving vehicle
From DV info.net forum
Kaku Ito’s
bikepassngby.m2t - zoom out and a pan folloing a moving motorbike
day0dbf6.2.m2t - 2 children running towards the camera
eevgap.m2t - zoom out from a billboard to a wide shot of a street
horses.m2t - (I am not sure who shot this) merry-go-round with horses move up and down on the foreground while the background passes by
all of these shots contained lot of movement. On most of the shots the entire frame contained movement.
I de-interlaced the clips using our proprietary software, which works as a plug in for AE. I did not try any 24p conversion since my aim was to evaluate resolution on the film transfer. (I will be using a PAL camera anyway, since I am in the PAL region). Then I cropped the frame to get Cinemascope aspect ratio and stretched it vertically to fill the full 35 mm frame. Transfer was done using our proprietary film recorder on to FUJI 250D negative.
The print was viewed at the lab’s screening room, which has a 14’ screen. The screening room was designed to view the rushes at short throw, which would clearly show any defect on the print, that would not be noticeable on a long throw projection in a theater.
That was the best film transfer I have done. I have transferred quite a lot of advertisements, done using Sony DXC D35PL and D50P cameras with either Canon or Fujinon lenses, 2 feature films using Sony DSR 570 and D50P, footage from my own good old Sony VX 1000 (I still use that) and Panasonic DVX 100 (not the 100a) and Canon XL1s. But all these were no match for the resolution of FX1. Even after the cropping and stretching for the Cinemascope AR, the resolution was very much above these SD cameras. The technicians at the lab were simply shocked. I did not see any pixelization on these clips. Although little softening is noticed during the zooms, it is well hidden behind the crash zooms. I noticed it because I was looking for it.
I think I owe something to the people who shot these test footages. Please email me your addresses. I will send you sample frames from your footages. (If possible I will try to send you a copy of the entire 30-second film out.)
I am going to purchase the Cam.
Thanks every one.
Heath McKnight January 8th, 2005, 09:38 AM Sounds very cool!
heath
Gary McClurg January 8th, 2005, 10:38 AM Then can those people post the grabs so that the rest of us can see them.
Laszlo Bodo January 8th, 2005, 11:00 AM <<<--I de-interlaced the clips using our proprietary software, which works as a plug in for AE. -->>>
How does your software works? Does it takes only one field and interpolates the picture or does it combine fields into frames with motion estimate and gives motion blur to the movement ..... ?
Maheel Perera January 8th, 2005, 10:15 PM It combines fields into frames with motion estimate and gives motion blur to the movement. It wont do 60i to 24p since we did not need it. We are in a PAL country.
I have tried DV Film Maker with some of these clips, thought it was good. But I did not transfer those 24p clips. You could download the demo version of the software from DV film web site.
Laszlo Bodo January 9th, 2005, 10:18 AM Maheel Perera,
Do you have a demo v. of your software I can download and try? I'm in Pal-land as well.
Maheel Perera January 9th, 2005, 08:32 PM Laszlo Bodo,
Sorry, Lazlo, It was a software specially written for us and is not for sale.
Kyle Edwards January 10th, 2005, 02:47 AM Would you mind sending a frame to someone who did not shoot some of the footage? I would love to check it out and scan it with a Nikon 5000ED. Just very curious.
Laszlo Bodo January 10th, 2005, 06:57 AM ... or just post some frames after deinterlacing.
Maheel Perera January 10th, 2005, 09:57 AM Kyle,
Of course I can send. But I doudt whether any evaluation could be done by scanning it. Those frames were stretched for Cinemascope. I remember someone at the DVInfo was a projectionist as well. Was that Heath.? Hoe about sending a copy to some one who has access to a film projector.?
Maheel Perera January 10th, 2005, 10:01 AM Lazlo,
I could do that also. How do I upload the frames?. They are quite large. Chris will be able to help.
Kyle Edwards January 10th, 2005, 02:50 PM You can use www.imageshack.us to host a picture or even http://s3.yousendit.com .
Eric Gorski February 13th, 2005, 03:32 AM i would like to see a scanned frame.
Douglas Spotted Eagle February 13th, 2005, 10:11 AM We'll host scanned images on our site, if you'd like to send them/it to us with the information of the shooter, and any information about your process.
Maheel Perera February 14th, 2005, 09:53 AM Douglas,
I do not really think that the scanned images will prove any thing. Remember the clips were cropped for Cinemascope aspect raio and stretched to achive the correct Cinemascope projection.
How about sending the film reel to you?. I hope you will be able to view it at a theatre and report your findings.
Daniel Moloko May 14th, 2005, 10:28 AM I need to know how was your setting, export final resolution of 2016 X 864 ?
how you did the strecht vertically?
ciao
Jerry Waters May 15th, 2005, 10:04 PM Maybe I'm dense or something but I read all this stuff about progressive mode, Panasonic and JVC, but doesn't Panasonic use interlace ccd's and do a pulldown in the camera software? The way I see it Sony captures more information in the 1080i in the FX1 and Z1 and then uses Vegas software to putll that down and it is working with higher resolution images. What, if anything (and I don't see anything), makes pulldown in the camera superior to pulldown in the computer?
At NAB I saw beautiful 24p footage played out frame-by-frame with no artifacts. Each frame was clean and clear 24p footage. Now to hear that it can be put to film better than other DV cameras doesn't suprise me at all. I'll be the first person to admit I'm not a techie. Am I missing something?
Barry Green May 15th, 2005, 10:17 PM but doesn't Panasonic use interlace ccd's and do a pulldown in the camera software?
No, they use genuine progressive-scan variable-frame-rate CCDs.
What, if anything (and I don't see anything), makes pulldown in the camera superior to pulldown in the computer?
Because it's captured natively, progressively. It's not some sort of interlace blending thing going on in the camera, it's genuine discretely-captured progressive frames.
Radek Svoboda May 16th, 2005, 02:09 AM How about sending the film reel to you?. I hope you will be able to view it at a theatre and report your findings.
Did anyone projected these film strips to large theater screen, compared them to regular feature films for quality, or digitally produced films by Lucas, Rodriguez, etc.?
Who cares how compares to DV. What is important is how it looks on theater screen.
Radek
Jeff Baker May 16th, 2005, 05:42 PM I understand that shooting with an anamorphic lens would allow one to skip the stretch to aspect ratio step since the lens would be doing that instead.
Would that yield a better quality result since no generation loss would be necessary?
Maheel Perera May 19th, 2005, 09:49 AM I offered to send a copy of that transfer to some one who has access to a film projector. But I receive no request from any one. How ever I posted a copy to Eric Bilodeau a while back. Recently he has informed me that he has not get a chance to view it yet.
Comparing this to films produced by Lucas, Rodrigues..? Usig CineAlta?
Maheel Perera May 19th, 2005, 09:53 AM Jeff,
Using a 16:9 Ana on the FX1 would give you Cinemascope AR. It will defenetely be superior to the cropped and stretched image. But the problem is to find a suitable 16:9 adaptor to handle HDV resolution.
Kevin Walton May 28th, 2005, 12:25 AM I have transferred several clips from FX1 to 35 mm film.
Cool; maybe you could help me then with something that I thought should have been much simpler! :-/
I've got the Sony HDR-FX1E HDV Camera and a very nice and extremely expensive Dual CPU 3.2Ghz Pentium Xeon system running Windows XP and it has a couple of OHCI Compliant IEEE 1394 ports.
Ok, so, I've gone and shot some nice footage in HDV format with my camera; now I want to digitize into my PC in HDV format. This is where the big 5 mile thick, 10,000 foot tall solid titanium wall gets thrown up in my face!
Windows XP will only recognize my camera if I switch the "i-Link Conv" menu option to "HDV -> DV" in which case it will only capture at DV 720x576 resolution. If I have the "i-Link Conv" option set to "Off" so that it will output as HDV, Windows Device Manager lists the camera as "Other Devices - AV/C Subunit" and it can't find any drivers for it anywhere.
I've search the net high and low looking for the existence of any drivers for the camera to connect at HDV, but none seem to exist!
I've even tried using Sony Vegas 6.0a which clearly specifies the FX1/FX1E as a supported product! But NO! It absolutely refuses to work in anything other than DV mode!
Can you possibly help me solve this problem?????????
Douglas Spotted Eagle May 28th, 2005, 01:42 AM Install the drivers by doing one of two things:
1. Download Service Pack 2. (I wouldn't)
2. Right click in AVCSubunit in Control Panel/System/Hardware
Choose Update Driver
Tell Windows you'll find the driver
Browse to Sound, Video, Game Controller drivers
Choose Sony/Sony DVHS device.
You'll be good to go.
Vegas can only rely on the driverset specified by Windows. Once you've done this, Vegas 6 will see the cam and capture. Be sure you are using the INTERNAL capture app for HDV
Maheel Perera May 28th, 2005, 09:45 AM Kewin,
If you have read my post you would see that I did not capture any footage from FX1. I transfered some footage posted on DV Info site and some clips from the Sony HDV Info,com.
Kurth Bousman May 29th, 2005, 06:19 PM Maheel - Having been to Sri Lanka , I'm really impressed you're doing this there. I was just interested if you're doing this for the local ( SL and S. India ) film industry and if that's the case , what are your thoughts about your transfers , in terms of projected quality for professional features ? Most people don't know that most of the films currently made in the world come from your region , so that's got to be a good reason for developing the software but hasn't the digital projection tech begun to overtake the traditional film projection systems , esp. in smaller venues ? thanks Kurth
Maheel Perera May 30th, 2005, 09:51 AM Kurth,
Really glad to know that you have been to Sri Lanka. Yes , we are doing it here because we had to. You would know that the number of prints required to cover the entire island do not exeed 15, and the budget for a major theatrical production rarely exeeds US$ 100,000. So we had to find a system to keep the costs to a minimum.
We have transfered several commercials and two feature films since our inception in 2004. The quality,...... not trying to blow my own trumphet.... We did not get any complains. visit us @ www.dcinemanetworks.com
In SL we do not have any digital projection. In India, it is tatally a different story. But even in India there was a major feature released recently which was shot using a DVX 100. see www.mumbaixpress.com
Daniel Moloko May 30th, 2005, 10:30 AM Michael,
great to know the third world cinema is getting strong.
im from brazil.
i have a short entirely made on HDV. 20minutes. how much it cost to do a transfer to 35mm cinemascope?
ciao
Jerry Waters May 30th, 2005, 01:28 PM For the instruction "Right click in AVCSubunit in Control Panel/System/Hardware" where is this in XP Pro?
Then browse in what directory to find "Sound, Video, Game Controller drivers" and the Sony driver?
Gary McClurg May 30th, 2005, 01:37 PM Maheel,
I'd be interested in what a feature would cost to transfer also.
Thanks
Gary
Steve Crisdale May 30th, 2005, 07:02 PM For the instruction "Right click in AVCSubunit in Control Panel/System/Hardware" where is this in XP Pro?
Then browse in what directory to find "Sound, Video, Game Controller drivers" and the Sony driver?
Despite this being a Windows XP navigation problem, rather than anything about FX-1 HDV to film transfer, and the fact that I'm sure Jerry is going to be a little embarrassed when he finds out the fact that you get to 'Control Panel' by clicking on Windows XP 'START' Button, then select 'Settings', then move across and down to 'System', then select the 'Hardware' tab, then select 'Device Manager', after which he'll see an expandable 'tree' of devices and hardware drivers.
As he is obviously a novice, I'd advise Jerry to stay clear of 'Device Manager', and just install WinXP Service Pack 2 instead.
Jerry Waters May 30th, 2005, 07:45 PM Thasnk you but I bought my first computer in 1979 (a TRS 80 model 1) and have owned one or more continiously since then. And yes, I did get to Device Manager of Hardware and have been there before but looking into all the devices I did not locate the one in question so I asked.
Douglas Spotted Eagle May 30th, 2005, 08:34 PM <<<<As he is obviously a novice, I'd advise Jerry to stay clear of 'Device Manager', and just install WinXP Service Pack 2 instead.>>>
1. Knowing Jerry reasonably well, I'm confident he's not a novice.
2. Moderating a wide number of varied forums around the web, I'd never recommend anyone install Service Pack 2, especially not a novice.
Maheel Perera May 31st, 2005, 09:39 AM Danial/ Gary,
It is around US$ 125/- per minute without sound /includes the negative and a print. excluding postage.
But first you need to see the quality. If you are interested visit our site www.dcinemanetworks.com and email us.
Hope I am not advertising here.
Radek Svoboda May 31st, 2005, 02:39 PM I myself would happy if you'd advertise here. That is super price. Lot of people would be interested. So for 12,500 USD you get negative and distributiono print. That is cheap. I asume you use CRT, not laser, burners, and 2K resolution, am I right? And money would go to Sri Lanka, which would help that country economy. So not only save money but help where it's needed.
Radek
Maheel Perera May 31st, 2005, 07:05 PM Radek,
Thanks for the comments Radek,
Yes it is CRT based. Could handle HDV/ DVC Pro HD resolutions. But you have to see a sample of the transfer to judge the quality.
Radek Svoboda June 1st, 2005, 09:21 AM It's not 2K? Is it burner you guys make yourselves? Will transfer 1280x720p as max. resolution? Will transfer 1440x1080p, or is burner resolution lower? There is Laseroptics, I think, that makes low cost CRT burners/transfers. How your burner compare?
Radek
Maheel Perera June 2nd, 2005, 10:04 AM It handles 2K. But the only 2K files we transfered were either Computer generated Images or Up Resed SD Images. We do not have a film scanner. And our service is geared to Video people. (We do not have HD Cameras in Sri Lanka.)
Radek Svoboda June 2nd, 2005, 03:15 PM Maheel,
Thank you for information. Does it mean that I can't give HDCAM 1080p, HDV 1080i, or D5 tape to transfer to film, although machine is good enough to do transfer? How i handle you master? In hard drive, download over the net, or what?
Is that machine you guys make yourselves? Do you sell it?
Radek
Maheel Perera June 4th, 2005, 11:02 PM Radek,
We do not have HDCAM recorders. Since initially we are providing services to the local industry we did not think about purchasing one. I do not know whether there are any HDV cameras available here. Unless we have an uncompressed image file sequence (tif,tga etc.) we can not do transfers from HD formats.
|
|