Film out at 2k questions

[Troy Smith]

We are working on a 2k film out from red footage.

I'm wondering from others in the know or that have done 2k film outs, we are told that the actual print width is 1828 to allow room for the sound, so my question is, our project is 2048 wide, how to get it to 1828 the best possible way, anyone that's done this pls chime in on how you did it, just hand the 2048 footage to the company doing the film out and let them deal with it, or did you scale yourself, trying to make sure we do it the best possible way.

Any info on this greatly appreciated.

Regards
Stricko

 

[M Most]

We are working on a 2k film out from red footage.

I'm wondering from others in the know or that have done 2k film outs, we are told that the actual print width is 1828 to allow room for the sound, so my question is, our project is 2048 wide, how to get it to 1828 the best possible way, anyone that's done this pls chime in on how you did it, just hand the 2048 footage to the company doing the film out and let them deal with it, or did you scale yourself, trying to make sure we do it the best possible way.

It sounds like someone is giving you some numbers from the Arrilaser literature. However, the fact is that the Arri software expects to see common film formats as its input. This would mean, for instance, 2048x1556 for 2K at 1.33:1, and 2048x1167 for 3 perf scans. There are a number of additional sizes that can be run at a higher speed, and one of them is 1828x988, which is called a "2k_1.85" profile in ArriLaser parlance. However, these are all set by the operator on the recorder. What you deliver should be in standard file sizes, with instructions (and, if possible a framing chart) to the recording lab as to how to size them on the negative. For instance, if you're giving them files that are 2048x1108 (a common frame size for 1.85:1), you simply tell them to fit by width and they will set the parameters properly. I would suggest that you have a talk with whomever is doing your film recording and ask them what they want rather than get hung up on numbers which may or may not be particularly important.

 

[Troy Smith]

It sounds like someone is giving you some numbers from the Arrilaser literature. However, the fact is that the Arri software expects to see common film formats as its input. This would mean, for instance, 2048x1556 for 2K at 1.33:1, and 2048x1167 for 3 perf scans. There are a number of additional sizes that can be run at a higher speed, and one of them is 1828x988, which is called a "2k_1.85" profile in ArriLaser parlance. However, these are all set by the operator on the recorder. What you deliver should be in standard file sizes, with instructions (and, if possible a framing chart) to the recording lab as to how to size them on the negative. For instance, if you're giving them files that are 2048x1108 (a common frame size for 1.85:1), you simply tell them to fit by width and they will set the parameters properly. I would suggest that you have a talk with whomever is doing your film recording and ask them what they want rather than get hung up on numbers which may or may not be particularly important.

Thanks for the response,
Yea we did talk to them (efilm), and they said they need 1828 988 if we want to fit sound, or they could upres to 3656 being twice the size of 1828, but they can't down res. But if they record 2048 wide then the sound will not fit, I really don't want to have to resize to 1828 that's why I'm asking here to see what others do, I'd much rather supply 2048x1108, I'll mention fitting by width and see
if they understand what I'm talking about.

Anyone here worked w efilm before that can chime in on what size they supplied.

Thanks

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You should talk to them again because that doesn't sound correct -- EFILM transfers footage all the time to the 35mm sound aperture format from sources that are 1920 across (like HD) or 2048 across (like a 2K scan of Super-35), whatever.

I've never heard of them demanding that you have to deliver something 1828 across if you want to be able to put a soundtrack on the print -- that's ridiculous, the main reason people transfer to 35mm is in order to make contact release prints.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Resize time

Resize time

I've never heard of them demanding that you have to deliver something 1828 across if you want to be able to put a soundtrack on the print -- that's ridiculous, the main reason people transfer to 35mm is in order to make contact release prints.

The resize (resample) time to change 2048 to 1828 is substantial, maybe 20 seconds per frame if done in file prep, that can take weeks of labor and raise the cost of the job, if the filmmaker sends the files the right size for the film recorder (read with offset) then the time to filmout prep might be less. There is also the TB disk space required to store the resized files if that is required.

We just screened a filmout made from REDONE shots doen using my DANCINEL.EXE (tm) program using a 1600x1200 LCD monitor to 35mm 2302 print stock. 1600 is not much less than 1828 so the look is close, if you want to do a filmout yourself sometime.

At any rate, I also setup my programs to have the filmrecorder frames preped to be the right size, it lets you prep the frames on the render farm computers, then run the filmrecorder as fast as it can run since no resize/letterbox/grade etc. is required at exposure time.

I also wonder what kind of resample is used for the resize in film recorders that do the resize themselves, high quality down-sizing takes quite a bit of time using real numbers, if the recorder does a quick resample or resize it may add noise and aliasing to the image, outputting 1:1 pixels from filmmaker files to filmrecorder light points keeps the image integrity for 48bpp uncompressed frames.

 

[Troy Smith]

You should talk to them again because that doesn't sound correct -- EFILM transfers footage all the time to the 35mm sound aperture format from sources that are 1920 across (like HD) or 2048 across (like a 2K scan of Super-35), whatever.

I've never heard of them demanding that you have to deliver something 1828 across if you want to be able to put a soundtrack on the print -- that's ridiculous, the main reason people transfer to 35mm is in order to make contact release prints.

Thanks for chiming in david, all this info helps when I talk to them next.

Regards

 

[stephan orlandic]

1. Arrilaser, Imagica, and other film recorders use by standard/default 1828 pixels width when printing 2k academy neg/intermed, from 2k sources.
So the lab is absolutely correct when they tell You that You should provide them
1828x988 if You are working with 1:1.85 material, ...

2. Some film recorders have additional parts/software, which enable them to record
2048 over academy window. So those who say that You should provide 2048,
are also correct but only if the lab has these upgrades.
If You use ARRILASER, ask if they have D2.11530.1 Native Academy Module.
If thats the case, You can give them 2048 with no worries.

3. Also most of these recorders, and especially ARRILASER have on-the-fly real time conversion of size-aspect-lut ...,
so You can provide them also 2048 pixel width,
and the recorder will do all the magic of resize.

But there is a penalty that those conversion-resize filters are not the best,
and You could get better results if You resize in Your grading software, shake, ...

I strongly recomend to stay away from CRT based film recorders with RED materials.

 

[Troy Smith]

Wow, I wonder if someone has done a comparison with the real time resizing in the recorder with a software based resize then print.

Will be talking to efilm next week, I'll report back what comes of it for anyone interested.

 

[Chris Swinbanks]

Assuming your going for a 1.85:1 release, not a 2:35:1 C/scope release?
Either way, the pixel values are important for the Arrilaser operator to get your correct screening ratio.
Projection (35mm) only uses the academy width of a frame (in 2k pixels thats usually 1828 px wide at 12 micron pixel width laser), allowing 220px width for the sound track on release print. The actual image that gets to screen is even less than this, expect to lose about 4% for projection masking in the theatre.....
I say usually because Arrilasers are fixed micron sizes, whereas if you use a CRT based recorder they can remap the full 2048 px into the academy width.
So you either have to crop or resize down to 1828 from 2048 ( I'm pretty sure the resize down can be done on the Arrilaser software if the operators care to think it through, crop and resize up certainly can), or as I prefer, resize up to 3656 px width to record with the 4k mode (6 micron px width laser).
If you have any fine titles, 4k mode is best for retaining clarity of the titles.
Offset to that is that the output service will likely charge a higher per frame rate for 4k than they will for 2k as it takes a little longer per frame for filmout (about twice as long).
The Arrilaser does do a very nice resize though and I have no hesitation using its internal algorithms (usually bicubic) for resizing from say 2048 width to the 1828 px width when transferring for C'scope release.
I expect it will also do an acceptable job of 2048 to 1828 for 1.85.
The big thing to note is... it does this ON THE FLY..... so its only setup change they have to implement, but you should run tests to make sure you are happy with the results.
They can also add some sharpening on the fly, but I prefer to sharpen outside of the Arrilaser unless you can test and compare thoroughly to know what your results will be and avoid any unexpected artefacts once committed to film... expensive to redo!
As an aside, there is an optional HD mode on some Arrilasers that will pack the 1920 pixels into 1828 px width and they do this by slightly overlapping the 12 micron pixels and squashing them into the available space.....

cheers
Chris (ex Arrilaser - operator)


edit: much as orlando said... must have been typing about the same time...

 

[stephan orlandic]

I have done those comparision tests a few times.
I will try to find the 2k scans of those 2k negs if they are not lost,
and post them here.

Cheers

 

[stephan orlandic]

As an aside, there is an optional HD mode on some Arrilasers that will pack the 1920 pixels into 1828 px width and they do this by slightly overlapping the 6 micron pixels and squashing them into the available space.....
[/I]

I was always thinking how can You spend 15k us$ on Yourself instead of
buying this

"D2.11510.1 HD Module
software plug-in that allows recording of native 1920 pixel per line (HD files) for full aperture and academy formats"

Cheers

 

[Troy Smith]

Wow, Thanks alot for all this info, a great help, we are going to do tests for sure, and work with efilm to get the best result we can, but all this info helps me communicate alot better with efilm.

I'd luv to see your comparisons if they become handy orlando, much appreciated.

 

[Chris Swinbanks]

If you really want to talk turkey... here's the link to the Arrilaser manual... not too hard to understand.
www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/arri.co...ntermediate_Systems/ARRILASER/laser_man_e.pdf

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Scans

Scans

I will try to find the 2k scans of those 2k negs if they are not lost,
and post them here.

It would be great if you can post links to the full 2k etc. scan files, I would like to look at them in detail.

 

[Chris Swinbanks]

I was always thinking how can You spend 15k us$ on Yourself instead of
buying this

"D2.11510.1 HD Module
software plug-in that allows recording of native 1920 pixel per line (HD files) for full aperture and academy formats"

Cheers

Yep, ridiculously expensive for what essentially is a "key" to unlock the function thats in the underlying software.... but isn't that how many companies make their systems (and loose change)?
It's a very handy feature for doing TVC conversions (particularly when tied in with the CMS) or lower budget HD feature work.
I had a test license tied to a date range which tied to the PC's date..... if you didn't happen to finish testing within that timeframe, well..... it was possible to just change the date....

 

[stephan orlandic]

I had a test license tied to a date range which tied to the PC's date..... if you didn't happen to finish testing within that timeframe, well..... it was possible to just change the date....

like many others
I was even told by one arri guy to do that if the job/testing is not finished
until license ends.

 

[Michael.B]

1828 x 1556 is the 2k standard for academy aperature. This allows the 220 pixels for soundtrack area, typically blanked out during the printing process.

Since your 2048 width image is centered, this is the area that would be shot out onto film in the academy portion.

We've mapped several resolutions to film out that way, including 1920x1080, it's pretty common. So in other words, it's no big deal, you won't have to do any resizing if you send it to a place that has all the correct geometry mapped in the recorders.

Your only concern will be if you shot 2:1. You will need to decide if you want to crop left/right to fill the 1:85/1:78 or if you want a top and bottom hard matte (letterbox).

Mike