I've been approached to be involved as a producer in a low budget feature and I'm pushing using my HD-100 with simultaneous Wafian record from analog component outs/HD-SDI and HDV tape for backup.

The director is looking at hire a local DP who is pushingn a different workflow and Baby HD camera solution (I'm not going to say what it is because I'm not looking for a debate on cameras/workflow).

Does anyone know some good film labs that process M2T, QT, or DPX files to 35mm film for a test??

I'm a little familiar with dvfilm but looking for more options.

Thanks David Parks

David,

DuArt did the film transfers on the HD100 JVC events: http://www.duart.com/site_main.html

Pactitle: http://www.pactitle.com/services/index.php

Duart is a great resource. There is also I³ (I cubed) here in Chicago. Lab services are available through Cinefilm Laboratory in Atlanta. They price per foot.

Thanks Tim for the info... I saw (and kept)a WMV film of that film out (shot by a Chicago company I believe)in early Feb and that helped clinch my decision in buying the HD 100. I've already showed that clip to the director and he was impressed. DuArt has been around a very long time.

Thanks again

Thanks Stephen, I appreciate the info, Did you or Tim attend any of the events where the showed the 35mm prints from that JVC demo?? I'm curious if you have any opinions and recommendations (things to watch out for)when using the film out settings on the HD 100.

Thanks Stephen, I appreciate the info, Did you or Tim attend any of the events where the showed the 35mm prints from that JVC demo?? I'm curious if you have any opinions and recommendations (things to watch out for)when using the film out settings on the HD 100.
I happen to be one of the guys that created a filmout at the Chicago event. I think you should not use the "filmout" preset at all. Instead use any of the supplied scene files at the top of this site in order to get your desired effect in camera that will transfer over to film nicely. Andrew Young is the resident guru on film transfer because his company (DuArt) does the process end to end.

In my experience with I (Cubed) the process was easy as long as I provided the images in the fasion they needed. I cut the 24p video on Liquid which outputs the exact format they need and without any rez/color robbing transcode to another format. In fact I was so impressed with how easy the process was (for me with my "editor" hat on) that I feel confident in the technical aspect of ProHD to film.

More projects seem to be on the horizon (for my group) that require the same film transfer techniques I've become familiar with. I can say that for a budget film maker, it is extremely hard to beat the HD-100 and ProHD as an off the shelf solution to low budget dramatics.

Interesting. I've looked at the settings from Tim Dashwood and Paulo Ciccone and they're great. But , (speaking as a producer who's not a DP) wouldn't you use the film out setting if you plan on a great deal of post color correction/enhancement or is there something else about that setting that isn't the best for film out? And what does the film out do other than replicate film gammas (as I understand the term)? I'm sure I'll have more questions as we go through this process.

Anyway, the info is great and I need to budget a decent amount for film out tests.

Interesting. I've looked at the settings from Tim Dashwood and Paulo Ciccone and they're great. But , (speaking as a producer who's not a DP) wouldn't you use the film out setting if you plan on a great deal of post color correction/enhancement or is there something else about that setting that isn't the best for film out? And what does the film out do other than replicate film gammas (as I understand the term)? I'm sure I'll have more questions as we go through this process.

Anyway, the info is great and I need to budget a decent amount for film out tests.
My understanding about the 'filmout' setting is that it was put in by request and the idea was to create a linear color curve in order to get the max lattitude for correction via the colorist or post in NLE, however, the filmout settings kills the black and grays and make it un-useable.

Paolo's DSC scene file is the opposite end of the spectrum from the filmout setting, however the "DSC" scene file is not too good for skin tones and oversaturates suttle features when dealing with dramatics (IMO). I think the "DSC" scene file is ideal for TV commercial work or comping the video. Tim's "Warm" scene file is very good for transfer to Vision 2. I'd say it was the closest to what I saw on my timeline. Since then I've derrived the "Panamatch" scene file which I think handles the skin tones very well and there also is the "Any Scenario" scene file which is a decent starting point as well. Any one you choose is better than the 'filmout' setting for literally transferring to film. Concensus is that the "filmout" setting is un-useable.

S.Noe

Hi Stephen.

Agree about the filmout. It puzzled me, I could not figure out why it was included. About my config, I shot several skin tone clips and the results have been very close to real life (IMHO). Kinda puzzled about your comment here.
It is a configuration that is meant to be the basis of post-work, not the end point to achieve a given look. I'm interested about the "oversaturates suttle features when dealing with dramatics (IMO)" comment. Can you give me more details about it?

Thanks!

Hi Paolo, I think the DSC scene file is great. For my taste though I like skin to to be much more suttle and not necessarily pop off the screen. I'm more of a fan of the color treatment in movies like "Midnight Cowboy" or "Rocky" which are not overpowering in color.

Either way David, the 'filmout' setting was a good idea but poor execution. I wish JVC would have done an actual filmout to 35mm with the setting. They would have reworked it's parameters immediately.

Hi Paolo, I think the DSC scene file is great. For my taste though I like skin to to be much more suttle and not necessarily pop off the screen. I'm more of a fan of the color treatment in movies like "Midnight Cowboy" or "Rocky" which are not overpowering in color.


Thanks, point taken. I'll ponder on it :)

Either way David, the 'filmout' setting was a good idea but poor execution. I wish JVC would have done an actual filmout to 35mm with the setting. They would have reworked it's parameters immediately.

Given the difficulty in getting a company to add something to a product--I've always wondered how it came about. Did someone in the USA have the clout? If so, why is it so bad? Or, do we just not know what the thinking behind it was?

Or, did it come from a video engineer in Japan who guessed at what it should be. And, why hasn't it been altered in the A firmware? In fact, has anyone ever read anything from JVC about it?

Seems like we all should ask the question at NAB because right now it is going to waste.

Paolo,

I used your set up as a base line on my recent camera test. Unfortunately, I didn't have a vectorscope etc while I had the camera, but using my cinematography Gamma & Density chart it looked a good match by eye on the monitor.

I also tried a few of Tim's set ups which also looked good.

Reading your comments, your idea is to carry as much colour information into post rather than creating the final look in the camera. For film out I think you really need to run a test with the lab that you're working with to find out the best setup for your production. There are so many variables and workflows that what works with one lab may not work so well with another.

Filmrec on the Varicam looks extremely flat to the eye, you need the LUT to make it look good on video.

Given the difficulty in getting a company to add something to a product--I've always wondered how it came about. Did someone in the USA have the clout? If so, why is it so bad? Or, do we just not know what the thinking behind it was?

Or, did it come from a video engineer in Japan who guessed at what it should be. And, why hasn't it been altered in the A firmware? In fact, has anyone ever read anything from JVC about it?

Seems like we all should ask the question at NAB because right now it is going to waste.

I think it came by request from Digital Film Group (http://www.digitalfilmgroup.com/) in Vancouver.
The filmout curve in itself is fairly linear and works as expected if you are familiar with using FILM REC and a proper gamma box on the Varicam.
A linear curve does not extend the latitude in the highlight range, but instead shifts the response down, resulting in apparently dark images (when viewed with traditional gamma monitors.)
The idea is to capture linearly and NOT do a digital intermediate, but instead print to film, let the film stock's native response curve lend itself to the 'film-look' and then use traditional color timing lab processes to finish your film.
However, I've had a conversation or two with Andrew Young at DuArt about this who also found that the HDV codec does not really maintain the video information in the bottom half of the curve the way you would hope, and the results could potentially be disastrous. The information falls to pieces and you get alot of banding and stepping.
I have not tested direct 4:2:2 uncompressed capture, but it seems to me that this would be the only viable way to use the filmout curve successfully.

BTW, we have had this discussion many times before.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=59912&highlight=filmout
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=59598&highlight=filmout
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52501&highlight=filmout
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54171&highlight=filmout


I think it is worth reading this article by Michael Bergeron. http://www.24pdigitalcinema.com/cinegamma.pdf

It refers to the Panasonic Varicam, but the concepts are exactly the same.


FWIW, I'm shooting my feature right now using my wide latitude settings with some slight modifications (only 85% knee.) The plan is to do a D.I. before the filmout, so the more information the better.

Given the difficulty in getting a company to add something to a product--I've always wondered how it came about. Did someone in the USA have the clout? If so, why is it so bad? Or, do we just not know what the thinking behind it was?

Or, did it come from a video engineer in Japan who guessed at what it should be. And, why hasn't it been altered in the A firmware? In fact, has anyone ever read anything from JVC about it?

Seems like we all should ask the question at NAB because right now it is going to waste.
Steve, Tim is exactly right. The filmout setting was put in by a film maker in Vancouver who assisted in making parameters for the original camera. I'm sure the idea was derrived from the Varicam. Tim might be right. Maybe it is useable when capturing component. When I delivered the sequence to I (cubed) we asked them not to color correct the footage and just leave it "as is". This way we could try to figure out what settings in camera would give the best direct to film rendition of the digital equivalent. In that case, as I said then, Tim's "Warm" scene file looked almost identicle to what I saw on my timeline.

My apologies to Tim Dashwood for not searching the older posts for film out. The question just popped into my head as I was asking about film processing.

I plan on shooting a test in the next 2 weeks (using an unbiased local DP named Gary Watson who has been shooting everything from film to HD CAM to 3/4 Umatic since the mid 70's) Great guy. I'll ask him to do a detailed write up of his thoughts and I'll share our findings.

Thanks for the detailed info guys,

However, I've had a conversation or two with Andrew Young at DuArt about this who also found that the HDV codec does not really maintain the video information in the bottom half of the curve the way you would hope, and the results could potentially be disastrous. The information falls to pieces and you get alot of banding and stepping.

I've covered the monitor LUT and conversion issues in my HD100 Handbook, so that is not new to me. For example, Stephen's comment "... as I said then, Tim's "Warm" scene file looked almost identicle to what I saw on my timeline" may reflect that with FILMOUT the video should NOT look correct in the Timeline. It can only look correct on a monitor that supports such a curve. In other words, if the recommendation against FILMOUT is because it doesn't look right, then that recommendation is incorrect.

I am most interested in it's origin and the lack of follow-up by JVC after the HD100 was released. JVC could have published a White Paper on it, for example.

When you say "... Andrew Young ... ALSO found that the HDV codec does not really maintain the video information in the bottom half of the curve ..." are you saying you have run your own conversion to film tests?

I'm not saying the HDV codec may not yield "... information [that] falls to pieces ..." but I'd like a lot more data than `Andrew says' before I totally rejected FILMOUT. Your phrase "the results COULD POTENTIALLY be disastrous" doesn't help much either.

Can you publish, as you have in the past, evidence that would allow filmmakers to reject FILMOUT with confidence.

I'd also to hear from someone who has used the setting used with the Panasonic monitor that has what MAY be the correct LUT.

When you say "... Andrew Young ... ALSO found that the HDV codec does not really maintain the video information in the bottom half of the curve ..." are you saying you have run your own conversion to film tests?

I'm not saying the HDV codec may not yield "... information [that] falls to pieces ..." but I'd like a lot more data than `Andrew says' before I totally rejected FILMOUT. Your phrase "the results COULD POTENTIALLY be disastrous" doesn't help much either.


Hi Steve,

I have done some testing on this and my apologies for not getting the results written up and posted. I've been traveling a lot lately. Anyway, my recommendation against Filmout is based on an actual test out to film. The results were unusable, either for post color correction or when shot straight out to film. This is not simply an issue of monitoring. The distribution of tonal information is very skewed and it appears that a lot of information gets lost in the 8 bit environment. This is not to say that Filmout might not have some utility for uncompressed analogue capture, but that still needs to be tested. Anyway, I'll try to do a formal posting on this after NAB. What sort of data would you like to see to be convinced?

Does anyone know some good film labs that process M2T, QT, or DPX files to 35mm film for a test??


Hi David,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. We can work with all of those formats at DuArt, and we have done a few HD100 filmouts. Shoot me a email if you like (ayoung@duart.com). I'd be happy to talk to you about your upcoming test, regardless of where you decide to send it.

Hi David,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. We can work with all of those formats at DuArt, and we have done a few HD100 filmouts. Shoot me a email if you like (ayoung@duart.com). I'd be happy to talk to you about your upcoming test, regardless of where you decide to send it.

Andrew,

I've been shooting some camera tests that we'll be running a 35mm test film out on in the near future. From your experience, could you say which camera settings seem to work best for a film out?

Brian

Andrew,

I've been shooting some camera tests that we'll be running a 35mm test film out on in the near future. From your experience, could you say which camera settings seem to work best for a film out?

Brian

Hi Brian,

I'm in the process of trying to evaluate different menu settings for filmout. Unfortunately, I've got a lot of other things going on, so it's been a slow process. But with the help of others on the forum, we can surly get it figured out. The only basic recommendations I can make at this point are:

1) turn the detail setting down low, I recommend MIN or OFF. This is very important. The default detail setting is way too high for the big screen; 2) do not use the camera's Filmout gamma setting if you are shooting in a compressed format (tape or firewire). It is not useful in an 8-bit environment. 3) Do not use black compress. If you want a crushed black look, do it in post. 4) turn motion smoothing off and be sure white clip is set to 108%. Feel free to experiment with black stretch and knee. If you like the look of Cinelike, use it in the color matrix only, not in the gamma.

A lot of stuff I shot and filmed out was done at the camera defaults and it looked pretty good, except for the detail. The question is, how much better can it get? That’s what needs to be tested.

If DuArt does a test for you we'll deduct the cost from your final filmout. Advice is always free - that is if I have any. Good luck.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the info, interesting that you currently recommend standard gamma.

I shot with the tests with the detail on MIN, since I normally do switch the detail off on HD.


Brian

1) turn the detail setting down low, I recommend MIN or OFF. This is very important. The default detail setting is way too high for the big screen; 2) do not use the camera's Filmout gamma setting if you are shooting in a compressed format (tape or firewire). It is not useful in an 8-bit environment. 3) Do not use black compress. If you want a crushed black look, do it in post. 4) turn motion smoothing off and be sure white clip is set to 108%. Feel free to experiment with black stretch and knee. If you like the look of Cinelike, use it in the color matrix only, not in the gamma.

Based on everyone's combined experiences, I think we'll do a few shots with these settings in various scene file, the Stephen NOE's Panamatch and Tim Dashwoods "warm".

We'll try a couple of shots using the film out setting since we're bypassing HDV and going out analog component to Cineform.

Cheers

Anyway, I'll try to do a formal posting on this after NAB. What sort of data would you like to see to be convinced?

Since I used to live on 54th st. I've been to several of your filmout showings.

Film labs seem to fall into two classes: those that will take a tape or disk and simply burn it to film. This is the cheapest path. My assumption was FILMOUT was designed for use in these situations.

In talking with DuArt folks, I got the strong sense that while you could do you this -- the approach you favor is to go back to the original elements and process each, and then recombine them into a source to go film. In this case, I assumed -- perhaps wrongly -- that FILMOUT was less of a need.

But, you just told me you tried both -- and FILMOUT doesn't work for either case.

Which suggests that the curve designers didn't take into account either the JVC MPEG-2 encoder or the properties of any MPEG-2 encoder.

Thankfully, I guess, the need for a special monitor has kept many from trying this approach.

Curious, if many folks use the Panasonic setting with DVCPRO HD?

Also curious why you say "8-bit" since I think ALL recording formats use 8-bits. Why does it work with a Varicam, but not an HD100?

Thanks for the info, interesting that you currently recommend standard gamma.
Brian
Hi Brian,
The only reason for this is that in my preliminary tests Cine gamma seemed to be pushing things together a bit. The colorist I showed it to felt she had a little more range with standard. However, I did not vary the level setting, as Tim and Paolo have done, which likely changes things. So please don't take it as a firm recommendation, just a comparison of those two out of the box settings. Tim and Paolo have really put much more analysis into this question of how to preserve the most information for post. What I hope to do is test how their settings hold up in the color correction suite and output to film. I'll keep you posted...

Film labs seem to fall into two classes: those that will take a tape or disk and simply burn it to film. This is the cheapest path. My assumption was FILMOUT was designed for use in these situations.

In talking with DuArt folks, I got the strong sense that while you could do you this -- the approach you favor is to go back to the original elements and process each, and then recombine them into a source to go film. In this case, I assumed -- perhaps wrongly -- that FILMOUT was less of a need.

Hi Steve,

Given the substantial cost of doing a filmout, it's hard to imagine the economic viability of shooting straight out to film with no color correction in the digital stage. This would leave all color correction to the film domain, not to mention the fact that you would have to telecine your negative (and possibly re-color correct) in order to have a color corrected video master. That hardly seems cheaper. In my mind, for a camera recipe to be viable it has to work well in the DI process - where you preserve as much information as possible for your DI color correct and then make your film and video masters from there. So even if Filmout did work directly out to film, I'm not sure it would make sense for most users. Are you supposed to make a print before you can send a tape to Sundance? I'm not sure that's practical.


Curious, if many folks use the Panasonic setting with DVCPRO HD?

Also curious why you say "8-bit" since I think ALL recording formats use 8-bits. Why does it work with a Varicam, but not an HD100?

The two are very different animals, even though they may appear to have some similar qualities when viewed uncorrected.

I have done some shooting with Film Rec mode on the Varicam and I think it is a good system for improving dynamic range and maximizing options in post. However, it is not the same thing as JVC's FILMOUT setting. The latter, according to JVC, has no gamma correction applied at all, which I believe is a problem at shallow bit depths because there are not enough bits dedicated to sampling the darker half of the tonal scale, which is where most of the picture information ends up with this setting. The Varicam, on the other hand, does apply a gamma correction to the data, which distributes it more efficiently for sampling. At least, this is what I believe is going on. Back in the days when I shot only film, I didn't think about gamma at all. So it's a brave new world for me and I do not want to pretend to be an expert. All I can say with certainty is that I could not make the FILMOUT setting look usable either way.

The HDV image looks great when it is well exposed, but you do not have the ability to pull things out of underexposed areas as you do with some other formats. When I tried try to build a pleasing gamma into material shot with the FILMOUT setting I got tons of noise, because the information just wasn't there anymore.

Hi Brian,
The only reason for this is that in my preliminary tests Cine gamma seemed to be pushing things together a bit. The colorist I showed it to felt she had a little more range with standard. However, I did not vary the level setting, as Tim and Paolo have done, which likely changes things. So please don't take it as a firm recommendation, just a comparison of those two out of the box settings. Tim and Paolo have really put much more analysis into this question of how to preserve the most information for post. What I hope to do is test how their settings hold up in the color correction suite and output to film. I'll keep you posted...

Andrew,

I'm hoping to be looking at our tests in an editing suite this week, so I'll be able to see the effects of their different setups in more detail.

Brian