Transfer to film?

[Graeme Nattress]

From the FX1 1080i footage I've downloaded, thanks Kaku, it converts to 24p great with my Film Effects and Standards converter, and is looking a lot better than the built in 24p mode which seems rather juddery.

Graeme

[Karel Bata]

I don't know who posted that thread at the top above the one I started (the administrator?) whoever it was, thanks - a useful overview.

Or did they just delete mine and paste it at the end of an existing one?

Anyway, I'm glad i found this forum, but I can see I'm going to have to do a lot reading to get up to speed.

Can anyone point me to a decent glossary? (I bet there's one here)

And anyone know of any articles on the shooting of Collatoral? The other films mentioned above don't seem to have got a release here.

[Heath McKnight]

Karel,

I simply merged it with this one.

heath

[Chris Chung]

DVfilm maker($145) supports HDV.
Easily transfer 60i to ture 24P.

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, no software has the capability of making true 24p from 60i, but some can do a very, very good simulation!!!

Graeme

[Scott Ellifritt]

Hey Jack, try purchasing a 16mm short end from a lab, say 50 ft. Then go out and do a test. Seeing it for yourself may do the trick.

[Chris Chung]

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Well, no software has the capability of making true 24p from 60i, but some can do a very, very good simulation!!!

Graeme -->>>


I didn't know that,
DV film ( http://dvfilm.com/maker/index.htm ) claims that it can convert any source of NTSC video to true 24P.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Chung :
I didn't know that,
DV film ( http://dvfilm.com/maker/index.htm ) claims that it can convert any source of NTSC video to true 24P. -->>>


Of course they will claim that! It's their business!

But that doesn't mean they can achieve a completely transparent transfer like you can get from PAL or real 24p.

From what I could find out from quality demanding sources, these two are the better ways to do video for film. Converting PAL to 25p seems to be easy, cheap and transparent too.


Carlos

[Joshua Litle]

<<<-- Originally posted by Daniel von Euw : Here my thougths to transfer to film:

"No i think i can't throw the two fields together to become 25 frames with a vertical resolution of 1080 lines and transfer this frames to film. I think in need to interpolate one of the fields"

This is something I have been thinking about - even though the Euro FX1E shoots 1080/50i, each field is only 540 lines (half of 1080).

Am I right in believing (as Daniel seems to) that it is necessary to de-interlace before transferring to film, thereby reducing the 'true' vertical res to 540?

[John Jay]

Came across this recently, a demo is available

Framerate Converter HQ
version 2.01 for Windows 9x/Me/NT 4.0/2000/XP

Framerate Converter HQ (FRCHQ) is the video processing tool that can accurately change video framerate, speed and frame aspect.

FRCHQ can:

convert NTSC video to PAL and otherwise
make video with any frame rate (e.g. 23.976 fps) from NTSC or PAL source and otherwise
make non-interlaced video from any interlaced source (e.g. full-speed 59.94 fps from interlaced NTSC) and otherwise
make letterbox video from 16:9 or 2.35:1 squeezed source and otherwise
slow down or speed up any video keeping all movements relatively smooth

FRCHQ offers 8 frame interpolation methods (plus 2 median filters) with definable interpolation range and 5 deinterlacing methods. This program can be used for making high-quality videos without a special equipment as well as for professional video editing.

http://converter.stratopoint.com/


haven't tried it - maybe someone can and report here

[Carlos E. Martinez]

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : Came across this recently, a demo is available

Framerate Converter HQ
version 2.01 for Windows 9x/Me/NT 4.0/2000/XP

-->>>

In any case that is still a program to stay within video, not to go out to film. To go to film you still have to use some sort of video screen and shoot it frame by frame with a film camera. How you do that, interpolating or not, is what will determine how good it will look.

There is a problem when you go from 60i/30 video frames onto 24 film frames, because you will have to lose 6 frames, and when you lose them certain shots may look strange.

Interpolating software analyzes the image to see how the video looks and it picks the fields so that problems are diminished. The better the software (algorithm they call it), the more transparent the results.

For transferring from 50i/25 frames video you can go two ways:

1) Film frame by frame, and you end up with a film that will run 4% slower when projecting it. This will need a sound pitch correction on some situations.

2) Do a pre-transfer from 25 video frames onto 24 video frames. The rest of the process is the same as above, but you will not need any pitch correction.

Basically these are the existing video to film options we have for "regular" video, that is not 24p or 25p video. These were explained to me on chats I had with several labs, and I could see on the film screen how different options turn up.

As with simpler film or video projects, the quality of your source will very much affect your final results. So the quality of a lens will certainly provide a certain look.

When you have to amplify that image several times to be shown on a large screen, it's obvious that all the lens distortions or aberrations will be there.

That's why I always say that video in general should be considered very much like 16mm or super 16mm, except for very expensive cameras like the top Sony or the Viper, which are probably more film looking than others and very similar to 35mm.

Until recently, video lenses were quite mediocre, as were 16mm lenses until serious filmmakers started doing serious films with it.

We are going through a very similar path with DV and HDV lenses, which probably "distort" very much like the Angenieux 12/120 zoom that was used ad infinitum in a myriad of documentary and low budget films since the late '60s until the early '80s. Films many of us enjoyed.

It's quite likely the look we can get today from HDV, whether coming from an FX1 or a Z1 will be a bit soft, perhaps very much alike shooting using the last analog Betacam cameras we could get in the early '90s. But that's a gigantic step for people on a low budget! You can still get a very good looking product!

Equipment cost is low, media cost is low, and process will hopefully be lower soon too.

What we may have to do is know the weak points in the HDV process and disguise them, exactly like we had to do in 16 and super 16.

So who cares if the lens is not a 20K or 50K type? What we should care for is what we will be shooting with it and how we will shoot it.

Learn to know your lens.

Learn to know your camera.

Learn to know your media.

Those should be the mottos to work on to get a quality product.

Let's go out and shoot!



Carlos

[Vlad Manning]

Carlos, If Only a blow-up from the FX1E or Z1 would look anywhere Near that from a quality 16 or S16 original! And I don't mean from a shaky Bolex or CP16 w/$50 zoom lens, either... S16 done right can make 35 prints practically indistinguishable from 35 original when not viewed side by side, except for the generation-induced losses in dynamic range.

But DR will probably be the lowest quality aspect of the HDV film-out, and that's the one some of these threads should be focusing on, how limited it's really going to be w/these cameras.

We know HDV can produce a lot more detail on the big screen than DV (which isn't saying much!), and I believe the Sony's lens will be more or less up to the task (expecting some obvious corner softness and fall off, but probably nothing life-threatening if you aren't a corner-to-corner fanatic), and I'm sure improved methods will arrive - if they aren't completely acceptible already - for decent looking motion from Sony HDV, blown up. So lack of DR sounds like the wild card. But I suspect the newer Sony HAD chips will deliver at least some improvement over their DV models, and even if it's awful, everyone w/designs on a cinema release but limited funds will be shooting with it.

[Vlad Manning]

Like on late night TV airings of films from the 70s, from some bad telecine transfer that the small independent stations seemed to get. The long shots are fuzzy, the low-key lighting turns to mud. I remember seeing Dog Day Afternoon on TV like that. Maybe HDV will transfer better, but I expect a little of those qualities to characterize its look on the big screen.

Still, I was completely into watching Dog Day Afternoon, regardless of the transfers look.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

<<<-- Originally posted by Vlad Manning : Carlos, If Only a blow-up from the FX1E or Z1 would look anywhere Near that from a quality 16 or S16 original! And I don't mean from a shaky Bolex or CP16 w/$50 zoom lens, either... S16 done right can make 35 prints practically indistinguishable from 35 original when not viewed side by side, except for the generation-induced losses in dynamic range.

But DR will probably be the lowest quality aspect of the HDV film-out, and that's the one some of these threads should be focusing on, how limited it's really going to be w/these cameras.

We know HDV can produce a lot more detail on the big screen than DV (which isn't saying much!), and I believe the Sony's lens will be more or less up to the task (expecting some obvious corner softness and fall off, but probably nothing life-threatening if you aren't a corner-to-corner fanatic), and I'm sure improved methods will arrive - if they aren't completely acceptible already - for decent looking motion from Sony HDV, blown up. So lack of DR sounds like the wild card. But I suspect the newer Sony HAD chips will deliver at least some improvement over their DV models, and even if it's awful, everyone w/designs on a cinema release but limited funds will be shooting with it. -->>>

If you read my mail again, you will see that what I am trying to say is that we have to find out the weak points in HDV and work around them. That's why I compare HDV to what 16mm was in the early '80s, though perhaps with less grain and more speed that the emulsions we had back then.

We can a do a lot with these cameras, if we use them wisely. No one looks at films side by side with anything to compare it with, and realistically speaking very few projects shot in HDV will make it to the big screen. But not because they are HDV but because they do not deserve being there. As many 16, S16, 35 and HD don't. The market will say that.

The gap that is being filled now, in my opinion, is that more people will be able to shoot their dream movies and have a shot at looking for someone to put the rest of the money to finish it. Or show it straight from his DVD-HD on a digital projection theatre.

It's our task, as pals on these threads, to talk about what we do, how we did it and discuss or have a word on what others do or say to improve on this media.

We will necessarily need to put limits to what we can do with HDV. We don't want people to get distracted because something was not done as it should have been.

In the end what really matters is the drama, the emotion of what is being shot with the HDV camera.


Carlos

[Heath McKnight]

I've seen stuff shot on the DVX100A and a PAL XL-1 that looked like it originated on film, even BEFORE it was blown up to 35mm. It's all about the DP, lighting and the crew.

heath