Digital Film Recorder for DV blow up at DVinfo.net

John Jay · June 12th, 2004, 02:58 PM

just curious, could something like this be used for DV blow up to film for say 10 minute shorts?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...820521007&rd=1

Rob Lohman · June 13th, 2004, 12:51 PM

I have no experience or knowledge with it, but I suspect it is
a matter of what the included software supports. In theory the
device allows to record digital footage to film (as I understand it).

I doubt the software would support DV files natively and they
will probably need to be uprezzed etc. before use.

John Jay · June 14th, 2004, 02:23 PM

Wow, this went for a song !!!

I regret not placing a bid.

Did some research and found that it supports 24 bit 4k resolution from Mac or PC stills, on standard 100ASA 35mm film - so after uprezzing, a short needs to be stored as numbered pix which the device will then print (as a printer so I am led to believe)

In order to get it in movie size I guess you get two pairs rotated into a 35mm SLR frame then you could print two academy frames per pass after working out the math for frame registration?

Richard Alvarez · June 14th, 2004, 03:29 PM

It would have to be a VERY short film! I doubt the magazine holds more than your standard load of 35mm film. SO figure no more than forty of fifty frames.

John Jay · June 14th, 2004, 04:58 PM

splicer?

just for the master of course

Josh Brusin · June 14th, 2004, 06:45 PM

A Celco didn't sell on ebay for $30k? 15K? something like that. (originally $400K...) THAT's what you're looking for. (NOTE It wouldn't do audio you'd take your film output and audio tracks and a lab would master it...

Dean Bull · June 24th, 2004, 01:12 PM

Gee, A-B rolling, color timing, negative conforming... GRAND TOTAL 18 thousand dollars or more depending on the lenth. And don't be rude -- shooting on digital and doing a transfer is nothing special. Although if you'all are intending a film festival circuit many of the festivals are accepting DVD's and Digital Tapes as screeners.

Rob Belics · June 24th, 2004, 04:53 PM

Because his intent is to blow up to film so it doesn't matter what festivals are doing. The cost of the transfer would make the total cost equal to shooting film in the first place.

Cosmin Rotaru · June 25th, 2004, 02:32 AM

"The cost of the transfer would make the total cost equal to shooting film in the first place."
Hmmm... what if he's shooting 10 takes/scene? Or 50? :) And maybe he's doing some digital editing so he'll need to go from film to digital and back to film anyway?
It would look better (if done properly), no question about it. But I don't think it will cost the same as shooting&editing digital, then transfer to film.

Richard Alvarez · June 25th, 2004, 05:13 AM

Apples and oranges are always tough to compare. But lets assume that all other things are equal. That is... cast and crew are paid the same, sets and lighting and grip gear is all the same.

The difference in cost comes down to a few extra personell such as first camera / loader in the case of film or perhaps an engineer/tech in the case of hi-def (not the case in low def).

Camera rental versus camera purchase - hard to know prices locally, but around here, you can rent a good film package for the cost of purchasing a DV cam. Heck, you can buy a 35mm mitchell bncr for ten grand, including telephoto lens, gear head and sticks. (See visual products for more info)

Stock - Film stock versus tape stock. Tape is much cheaper, but here is where the math comes in. You have to be serious about your shooting ratio. I've seen DV setups that go on and on for hours longer because it's so cheap to shoot... but that raises teh overall cost of the scene because of the time spent on it. Not to mention the hours of footage that you slog through in logging and editing. (Which raises your post costs.) SO, again, going back to being disciplined, assume a really tight shooting ration of say... 6 to 1. That's a good "indy" benchmark.

So yes, figure your film to tape transfer costs, and then your neg conforming and "film out"... and balance that against the transfer of your digital film to a color balanced final print.

Bottom line... tape will be a "little' bit cheaper, and a lower quality image.

Is that acceptable? Only you can decide. But do the math all the way to the end product... and do it right. Then make an informed decision.

Rob Belics · June 25th, 2004, 07:13 AM

In addition to the time to make 50 shots/scene you wouldn't/shouldn't "print" all 50 shots.

Cosmin Rotaru · June 28th, 2004, 01:23 PM

:)

Josh Brusin · July 4th, 2004, 10:10 AM

this is more directed to the seat-o-the-pants filmmaker and is not a critique of anyone's projects other than my own sucky first film.

digital has the advantage of realizing that your film sucks and is being rejected by festivals and you better suck it up and make another one with the 18000 you didn't spend on a sucky movie.

...& no I'm not bitter. I'm steeling myself for rejection.

June 12th, 2004, 02:58 PM	#1
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Digital Film Recorder for DV blow up just curious, could something like this be used for DV blow up to film for say 10 minute shorts? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...820521007&rd=1 __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

June 13th, 2004, 12:51 PM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I have no experience or knowledge with it, but I suspect it is a matter of what the included software supports. In theory the device allows to record digital footage to film (as I understand it). I doubt the software would support DV files natively and they will probably need to be uprezzed etc. before use. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

June 14th, 2004, 02:23 PM	#3
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Wow, this went for a song !!! I regret not placing a bid. Did some research and found that it supports 24 bit 4k resolution from Mac or PC stills, on standard 100ASA 35mm film - so after uprezzing, a short needs to be stored as numbered pix which the device will then print (as a printer so I am led to believe) In order to get it in movie size I guess you get two pairs rotated into a 35mm SLR frame then you could print two academy frames per pass after working out the math for frame registration? __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

June 14th, 2004, 04:58 PM	#5
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	splicer? just for the master of course __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

June 25th, 2004, 02:32 AM	#9
Cosmin Rotaru Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Romania, Timisoara Posts: 453	"The cost of the transfer would make the total cost equal to shooting film in the first place." Hmmm... what if he's shooting 10 takes/scene? Or 50? :) And maybe he's doing some digital editing so he'll need to go from film to digital and back to film anyway? It would look better (if done properly), no question about it. But I don't think it will cost the same as shooting&editing digital, then transfer to film. __________________ Cosmin Rotaru

June 14th, 2004, 03:29 PM	#4
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	It would have to be a VERY short film! I doubt the magazine holds more than your standard load of 35mm film. SO figure no more than forty of fifty frames.

June 14th, 2004, 06:45 PM	#6
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	A Celco didn't sell on ebay for $30k? 15K? something like that. (originally $400K...) THAT's what you're looking for. (NOTE It wouldn't do audio you'd take your film output and audio tracks and a lab would master it...

June 24th, 2004, 01:12 PM	#7
Dean Bull Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 106	Gee, A-B rolling, color timing, negative conforming... GRAND TOTAL 18 thousand dollars or more depending on the lenth. And don't be rude -- shooting on digital and doing a transfer is nothing special. Although if you'all are intending a film festival circuit many of the festivals are accepting DVD's and Digital Tapes as screeners.

June 24th, 2004, 04:53 PM	#8
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Because his intent is to blow up to film so it doesn't matter what festivals are doing. The cost of the transfer would make the total cost equal to shooting film in the first place.

June 25th, 2004, 05:13 AM	#10
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Apples and oranges are always tough to compare. But lets assume that all other things are equal. That is... cast and crew are paid the same, sets and lighting and grip gear is all the same. The difference in cost comes down to a few extra personell such as first camera / loader in the case of film or perhaps an engineer/tech in the case of hi-def (not the case in low def). Camera rental versus camera purchase - hard to know prices locally, but around here, you can rent a good film package for the cost of purchasing a DV cam. Heck, you can buy a 35mm mitchell bncr for ten grand, including telephoto lens, gear head and sticks. (See visual products for more info) Stock - Film stock versus tape stock. Tape is much cheaper, but here is where the math comes in. You have to be serious about your shooting ratio. I've seen DV setups that go on and on for hours longer because it's so cheap to shoot... but that raises teh overall cost of the scene because of the time spent on it. Not to mention the hours of footage that you slog through in logging and editing. (Which raises your post costs.) SO, again, going back to being disciplined, assume a really tight shooting ration of say... 6 to 1. That's a good "indy" benchmark. So yes, figure your film to tape transfer costs, and then your neg conforming and "film out"... and balance that against the transfer of your digital film to a color balanced final print. Bottom line... tape will be a "little' bit cheaper, and a lower quality image. Is that acceptable? Only you can decide. But do the math all the way to the end product... and do it right. Then make an informed decision.

June 25th, 2004, 07:13 AM	#11
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	In addition to the time to make 50 shots/scene you wouldn't/shouldn't "print" all 50 shots.

June 28th, 2004, 01:23 PM	#12
Cosmin Rotaru Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Romania, Timisoara Posts: 453	:) __________________ Cosmin Rotaru

July 4th, 2004, 10:10 AM	#13
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	this is more directed to the seat-o-the-pants filmmaker and is not a critique of anyone's projects other than my own sucky first film. digital has the advantage of realizing that your film sucks and is being rejected by festivals and you better suck it up and make another one with the 18000 you didn't spend on a sucky movie. ...& no I'm not bitter. I'm steeling myself for rejection.