Semi-final verdict on best option for film-out?

[Miq Munoz]

Stephen, the video explains it perfectly.

So, at 3.51meg x 24 frames per second x 60 seconds x 120 minutes, a two-hour feature will be 606 gig.

I'm going to need a bigger hard drive.

Okay, can somebody confirm confirm that it IS best to let the transfer house handle color correction? If I understand David correctly, this is because I've only got a video monitor for viewing, which is a totally different medium from film.

Am I right?

(I'm on a budget, and I gotta be sure that my sweat and blood won't cut it in this case, so this is one area I can't skimp on)

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Miq Munoz

Stephen, the video explains it perfectly.

So, at 3.51meg x 24 frames per second x 60 seconds x 120 minutes, a two-hour feature will be 606 gig.

I'm going to need a bigger hard drive.

Actually, since the film will be split into reels, two or more smaller hard drives would be fine.

See question 17 here:
http://dvfilm.com/faq.htm

This faq covers some basic questions are is worth reading. I think it's a very good idea to contact the possible transfer houses and get their requirements and info. I'm sure in most cases they have info printed up.

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Miq Munoz

Okay, can somebody confirm confirm that it IS best to let the transfer house handle color correction? If I understand David correctly, this is because I've only got a video monitor for viewing, which is a totally different medium from film.

It all depends on what lab you use. They each have different requirements and workflows. Contact them and work closely with them before making any of your own workflow decisions.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by Miq Munoz

Okay, can somebody confirm confirm that it IS best to let the transfer house handle color correction? If I understand David correctly, this is because I've only got a video monitor for viewing, which is a totally different medium from film.

Am I right?

(I'm on a budget, and I gotta be sure that my sweat and blood won't cut it in this case, so this is one area I can't skimp on)

The production house will probably have experience with the color characteristics of the film stock that you don't have. And with the quirks of the digital printing process. However you should deliver a finished version of your project, color corrected to your needs so the film house can see what visual look you have in mind. If you haven't done anything too extreme they will probably work with it as is and apply what ever adjustment the film stock dictates.

[David Mullen]

Like I said, you probably should just color-correct for a calibrated monitor but on the conservative side, a little low in contrast but balanced correctly for the color and brightness you want. Then take it to a film-out company and tweak the master so that it looks the way you want in the film-out, based on some tests -- usually a clip reel of shots from the movie.

Choice of print stock also matters; printing the output neg onto Kodak Vision Premier 2393, for example, will give you better blacks and higher saturation than the standard Kodak Vision 2383. Also, the new Fuji XD print stock is very good with rich blacks.

[John Vincent]

Great info guys! Thanks for your thoughts on settings Tim and Stephen... Your knowlege helps all of us.

I think David Mullen's advice is the one that I've ended up following - try to shoot the best looking video you can and hopefully the transfer house can take you the rest of the way.

Many/most of us are in the same boat - we hope that there will be a need for a film-out as that means it's been picked up for theatrical release...

However, we are realistic enough to know that, given most of our budgets, video and internet are the likely destination for our work. David's suggestion to shoot for film, then plan for a back-to-video transfer is beyond most of our budgets - but it is an interesting idea - particularly for people doing shorts. Thanks for the tip about a camera's 'log book.'

Any more specific information about log books would be great (ie - does the JVC100 have this capacity? I'm guessing not...).

Thanks again to all those who've shared -

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

[Miq Munoz]

Thanks guys for the info. I now feel armed, loaded, and ready to advance upon the film transfer house tomorrow.

12 months ago I hardly dreamed doing a film-out was possible, but put an HD100 into a guy's hands, and...

Great camera! Great bunch here at DVinfo!

[Andrew Young]

Hi all,

Andy form DuArt here. I’m on the road at the moment – sorry I did not see this thread sooner.

For those interested in this subject, the cover story of this month’s DV Magazine is about shooting the HD100 out to film. The story features an HD100 filmout that DuArt did for John Jackman and includes John’s analysis, a reaction to the print by a group of DPs, as well as our shooting and submission guidelines for HD100 footage. Unfortunately, the story is not posted online, so I can’t give you a link to go to. Try to get a hold of a copy if you can.

In short, our guidelines pretty much state the obvious and echo what Tim said earlier in this thread (be very mindful of exposure and focus, turn detail way down, do not use the filmout setting, don’t crush blacks, etc.). What I don’t have just yet is a recommended recipe that will maximize image information for post-production color correction and/or filmout. We are working on that at this moment, but with many cameras and projects to juggle, it is taking some time, I’m sorry to say. Please stay tuned.

Some specific comments:

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

… what is the best place to go to learn exactly how to prepare the video for a filmout. !

Not sure where the best place is, but I am certainly happy to talk to you about it. We have done several HD100 filmouts to date and are happy to answer any questions people may have about workflow, settings, etc. My direct dial is 917-522-5668, but please be patient as I am traveling a lot on my own projects :)

Originally Posted by Ben Brainerd

I would say that if you're not sure you're doing a filmout, don't worry about it. Shoot, edit, and prepare your look for your guaranteed delivery medium. So if you know you'll be delivering on DVD, make it look good on DVD. If, somewhere down the line, you end up needing a film-out, a good lab can tell you what you need to do. Your first priority should be simply getting the best quality images.

True enough, but it’s better not achieve your ‘look’ in camera, because that look will be ‘baked in.’ Also, if you color correct yourself and do so on un-calibrated equipment, you run the risk of baking in suboptimal corrections and noise that you may regret if you later go to film. A do it yourself correction is fine if your on a tight budget, just keep in mind that if you want to do a filmout later on you will get best results by going back to your uncorrected original footage and having it properly corrected for filmout.

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

The other thing to keep in mind is to avoid the cine curve when shooting for film. The Cine curve emulates a film curve when presented on a TV, but will not help you with video response when colour correcting for a filmout. Stick with standard curve and normal colour matrix.

I would tend to agree with Tim about this. “Cinelike” gamma appears to reduce that latitude of the camera a bit – fine if your going direct to DVD, but not so good if you want to create a color corrected “DI” or fimout.

Originally Posted by Stephen Noe

I have not tested it but maybe the "filmout" gamma on the HD-110 is different than the HD-100?

The HD110 is the same as the 100 gamma-wise, however , JVC has created a new filmout gamma for the 250. We are evaluating it now.

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

By the way, if one is going to do a transfer, should it be planned that the transfer facility also do a color correction?

A supervised transfer by the filmout facility is by far the best scenario. Filmouts are expensive. It would be a shame to spend all that money and be unhappy with the results.

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

Is the $450 a minute for an HDV transfer charged by DVFilm typical, low or high?

In the DV Magazine article we quoted a price of $360/minute to output an already color-corrected master to a second (corrected) answer print with sound, but to be fair, this price could vary depending on the specifics of the job. Best to call and discuss it.

Originally Posted by Miq Munoz

I live in New York, and am going to Duart this Thursday to see a demo of what different DV and HDV cameras look like on 35 mm film.

Hi Miq. I’m on the road right now – sorry I won’t be there. Pease call ahead to be sure that the demo will roll (ask for Norberto Valle).

Originally Posted by Miq Munoz

So far, I've found out Duart prefers projects done on Avid or FC (I have Vegas), but I think plain old uncompressed Quicktime files will also work. They recommend cuts-only (dissolves, composites, etc. don't work well with .m2t).

This is only true if your submission format is an HDV tape output because we do not want any of your material to be recompressed in HDV. Dissolves and composites are fine if you submit your consolidated project on a firewire drive, as we will rerender it as uncompressed before we send it out to D5 tape (as uncompressed 720p).

Originally Posted by David Mullen

Probably some sort of middle-ground approach works best for the smaller HDV cameras, etc. which is to make a good-looking image for video monitor viewing but on the low-contrast side, avoiding using much detail, etc. and then use that for the film-out, and then make a separate master for video release where you go back and goose up the contrast and lower the blacks a little to look snappier, something that wouldn't take much time to color-correct, more of an overall adjustment.

Agreed. Curves that may work well on a Viper don’t necessarily work on this highly compressed format.

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

…you should deliver a finished version of your project, color corrected to your needs so the film house can see what visual look you have in mind. If you haven't done anything too extreme they will probably work with it as is and apply what ever adjustment the film stock dictates.

Having a reference that you have already corrected is great, but unless it was done by an experienced colorist on calibrated equipment, it would be better to start with an uncorrected version to be sure that nothing unpleasant was corrected into your material (we have seen examples of this). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for do it yourself, but most people who are going to invest in a filmout want a good color correction to go with it (regardless of who does it). Remember that most people do not go down this road until they have been picked up by a distributor, and then the resources are usually there to do it right.

So while we're waiting for a better recepe to come along, try the settings offered on this forum, or use the camera default - just keep detail down, mind your exposure and don't compress your blacks. If you are fortunate enough to need a filmout the post facility will indeed deal with it!

[Hayk Paul]

So when everyone says turn the detail down is that because it will have that 'sharp video' look or because of something else, because for my project the sharper the better, or does detail do something else?

[Andrew Young]

Originally Posted by Hayk Paul

So when everyone says turn the detail down is that because it will have that 'sharp video' look or because of something else, because for my project the sharper the better, or does detail do something else?

It's basically edge enhancement, or artificial sharpening of your edges. It will increase apparent sharpness to a point, but it also creates artifacts that are visible on the big screen. Overall, it contributes to an artificial electronic look - very un-film-like. Skin starts to look like plastic. To me the default detail setting is the most unflattering aspect the camera. If you're shooting 24p because you want a film look, high detail will take you further away from that. There may be certain situations that warrant it, but it should be treated with caution because it's hard to see it's ugliness until your on a big screen. Also, it's important to remember that this effect can always be added in post, however it cannot be taken away.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Here is something I've been wanting to mention for quite a while. When capturing out of the component out's of the camera or deck the edge enhancement is very apparent, however, when capturing through firewire (same footage) from tape, the edge enhancement disappears from the exact same footage. I find this unusual that the edge enhancement is so apparent out the analog out's but conversely the edge enhancement is non apparent on the data coming through the 1394. Must be the encoding, right? Not so! Try playing a tape out analog to HDTV and then try playing the same footage off your NLE timeline to the same HDTV. Where did the edge enhancement go?

[Andrew Young]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Here is something I've been wanting to mention for quite a while. When capturing out of the component out's of the camera or deck the edge enhancement is very apparent, however, when capturing through firewire (same footage) from tape, the edge enhancement disappears from the exact same footage. I find this unusual that the edge enhancement is so apparent out the analog out's but conversely the edge enhancement is non apparent on the data coming through the 1394. Must be the encoding, right? Not so! Try playing a tape out analog to HDTV and then try playing the same footage off your NLE timeline to the same HDTV. Where did the edge enhancement go?

Hi Stephen,
Your saying that footage that was recorded to tape shows enhancement when played out analogue, but captured via firewire and then played out it doesn't? That's really bizarre. Unfortunately, I've got tons of footage, all captured over firewire, that exhibits plenty of ugly default enhancement no matter how it's played out.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Andrew Young

Hi Stephen,
Your saying that footage that was recorded to tape shows enhancement when played out analogue, but captured via firewire and then played out it doesn't? That's really bizarre. Unfortunately, I've got tons of footage, all captured over firewire, that exhibits plenty of ugly default enhancement no matter how it's played out.

Yes, quite bizarre. So much so that I think it is a bug in the analog outs. I shot some footage of a subject in a herringbone jacket and the edge enhancement through the analog was very apparent but the same footage to the same HDTV from the timeline does not show any enhancement (or at least it's not nearly as apparent).

Both camera and NLE are connected to the same HDTV. The camera is connected via component and the NLE is connected via DVI. On the HDTV, I just switch between sources and its absolutely obvious the analog out is over enhanced while the timeline footage is not enhanced. This is true when I play footage through 1394 and then pass through the camera to it's analog out's and then out to HDTV.

I really think it's a bug with the analog outs to show that much enhancement and yet the captured footage show not nearly the enhancement.

[Keith Gruchala]

Originally Posted by David Mullen

Like I said, you probably should just color-correct for a calibrated monitor but on the conservative side, a little low in contrast but balanced correctly for the color and brightness you want. Then take it to a film-out company and tweak the master so that it looks the way you want in the film-out, based on some tests -- usually a clip reel of shots from the movie.

Choice of print stock also matters; printing the output neg onto Kodak Vision Premier 2393, for example, will give you better blacks and higher saturation than the standard Kodak Vision 2383. Also, the new Fuji XD print stock is very good with rich blacks.

I have done some tests using the panasonic 8" on board monitor and their 17" flat screen, both of which have the Varicam calibrated "Cine Gamma" setting. I've found it to be quite close as far as gamma curve needs also in using it with the JVC set to Film out. I have an interesting tech paper written by a Panasonic tech explaining in detail in layman's terms what the expanded cine gamma is doing and how it relates to standard NTSC broadcast curves- it's hopefully attached below but you can e-mail me for it too. What I can definitely confirm is that when you switch the JVC into "filmout" and watch a waveform, you will see both the top and bottom of the wave expand to cover a 0.0% to 110% scaled signal. NTSC broadcast is 7.5% to 100%. By stretching this range and expanding the blackstretch, you will definitely get a broader range in which to work final color correction. The danger is the m-peg splotchiness in the low end (for the JVC) as you will need to raise up the midpoint of the gamma and add more black to the blacks to redefine contrast in the shadows. Having shot several features on the Varicam, I quickly discovered how important the monitoring was in cine gamma, but also how important it was to provide the director and producer with something they could look at on set and not be worried about, because the fact is that any properly exposed film out set HD camera footage viewed on a CRT NTSC monitor is going to look flat, low con, and desaturated, which is exactly where you want to be for a great lab print, but not what a nervous producer wants to see. I have found it absolutly neccessary to educate production all the way through post so that nobody freaks out over dark looking footage. If you've ever seen the raw output from the Panavision Genesis, it looks exactly the same- in fact it's locked into the camera's programming. The beauty of the Panasonic monitors is that you can do this at the flick of a switch so everyone can be happy viewing a mid-tone gamma corrected image, but you can sneak over and look at the raw output to check white and black levels and actual perfect exposure. And by the way, this is how you get the most out of your camera for ANY application of the footage, including finishing back to NTSC broadcast, because you are basically dealing with more information spread out over a larger contrast curve- it's just that not a lot of Dp's or producers understand exactly how this works. And that includes even the big guys as a friend of mine who is shooting a huge union TV series used the Panavision Genesis for the pilot and couldn 't convince the producers that the flatness was due to PROPER EXPOSURE FOR HD- and to save his ass and reputation then insisted on 35mm to be safe, though he wanted to try the show in HD.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Keith Gruchala

I have done some tests using the panasonic 8" on board monitor and their 17" flat screen, both of which have the Varicam calibrated "Cine Gamma" setting. I've found it to be quite close as far as gamma curve needs also in using it with the JVC set to Film out. I have an interesting tech paper written by a Panasonic tech explaining in detail in layman's terms what the expanded cine gamma is doing and how it relates to standard NTSC broadcast curves- it's hopefully attached below but you can e-mail me for it too. What I can definitely confirm is that when you switch the JVC into "filmout" and watch a waveform, you will see both the top and bottom of the wave expand to cover a 0.0% to 110% scaled signal. NTSC broadcast is 7.5% to 100%. By stretching this range and expanding the blackstretch, you will definitely get a broader range in which to work final color correction. The danger is the m-peg splotchiness in the low end (for the JVC) as you will need to raise up the midpoint of the gamma and add more black to the blacks to redefine contrast in the shadows. Having shot several features on the Varicam, I quickly discovered how important the monitoring was in cine gamma, but also how important it was to provide the director and producer with something they could look at on set and not be worried about, because the fact is that any properly exposed film out set HD camera footage viewed on a CRT NTSC monitor is going to look flat, low con, and desaturated, which is exactly where you want to be for a great lab print, but not what a nervous producer wants to see. I have found it absolutly neccessary to educate production all the way through post so that nobody freaks out over dark looking footage. If you've ever seen the raw output from the Panavision Genesis, it looks exactly the same- in fact it's locked into the camera's programming. The beauty of the Panasonic monitors is that you can do this at the flick of a switch so everyone can be happy viewing a mid-tone gamma corrected image, but you can sneak over and look at the raw output to check white and black levels and actual perfect exposure. And by the way, this is how you get the most out of your camera for ANY application of the footage, including finishing back to NTSC broadcast, because you are basically dealing with more information spread out over a larger contrast curve- it's just that not a lot of Dp's or producers understand exactly how this works. And that includes even the big guys as a friend of mine who is shooting a huge union TV series used the Panavision Genesis for the pilot and couldn 't convince the producers that the flatness was due to PROPER EXPOSURE FOR HD- and to save his ass and reputation then insisted on 35mm to be safe, though he wanted to try the show in HD.

Good commentary. I linked the same PDF some time ago as well. The problem (as you site) is with the MPEG, however, I'm convinced the filmout was inteneded for live capture via YPbPr only since mpeg will not handle the filmout curve (or lack of curve). Filmout Post houses are willing to handle footage that is not standardized on a linear gamma so maybe the point is moot for independent film makers. When Andy (Young) and I spoke last year he asked me the same about the filmout curve and whether we used it and what our results were. We never considered using the fimout setting merely because it was so dark on interiors and we were sourcing from tape (not live). This made our footage fall apart when we corrected for DVD so our confidence was lost in the fimout setting and we hadn't experimented with it any further since most all of the footage shot is sourced from the tape.

Now you have my wheels turning again about capturing using the filmout setting via YPbPr directly to uncompressed 10bit 2vuy. Since I'm not sure the detail in the blacks can be brought up (even by the post house's experienced staff) I'm not really game to shoot in filmout gamma and spend the $$$$$ for a failed trasfer merely because of the (my) misunderstanding about the transfer technology. So, I can see why the DP you referred to lost confidence and went into C.Y.A. mode. Think about it. Nobody wants to look at daily footage that's drab. I'm sure the producer would have a heart attack looking at dull footage.

S.Noe