Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

So 16mm is dead...

Hi everyone,

If I'm not in the right thread please redirect me to the correct one...

I'm ahead a feature film and I would like to get a comprehensive overview of the workflow I will be using. A really like the RED workflow. It's desktop filmmaking on a top quality level I think. However I still prefer the film look. 35mm is out of question so I figured out, what if I shoot Super 16 and from that point I want to deal with the material as I would with the RED footage. How would a workflow look like for a project like this? I shoot 16mm, during production I have a video assist to check the scene, the negative goes to the lab for processing and... what happens next? From this point how could I achieve a workflow like the RED one? Should I scan the negative or telecine it? Then comes and HDCAM version, after that its downconverted to what??? What type of file format is used for editing, and what type is for final grade, DI? Is it the same as RED? Could someone descripe me step-by-step what's to be done in order to go to DI? (As I understand DI is the last phase from that point I can make deliverables, film print, blu rays, or a file... So basically: what is the workflow for Super 16 in the digital age of filmmaking? I would like to use a desktop PC or Mac for editing...

If there's a thread for this please tell me where can I look at it...

thanks a lot,
Gabor D.
 
You have a lot of choices these days.

There are a couple of general scenarios without getting into specifics. You can take your developed negative and:

1) telecine transfer to SD (480P or 480i let's say, in the U.S.), either to tape or hard drives, you edit the movie to generate an EDL using time code. Then you get the post house to do a 2K scan (usually to 10-bit Log DPX files) of the selected sections of the S16 camera negative that were used in the final cut, and then you conform those scans to the EDL. All of this would be easier at a D.I. facility that have autoconform systems than doing it yourself. Once you have a conform (edited) 2K master, you'd proceed to create a color-corrected master.

2) telecine transfer to HD (1080P usually), either to tape (usually HDCAM-SR in 4:4:4) or hard drives, and you edit the movie in HD or you make SD downconversions (just to generate the EDL, you'd want to go back to the HD originals at some point). You can still proceed like in (1) above and generate an EDL and then scan selects at 2K RGB, etc. or you can do an online session using your EDL and HD tapes and created an edited HD master for the next step, color-correction. Or you can finish the project in HD yourself.

3) scan all production negative up front to 2K RGB DPX files. This is not as common than transferring everything to HD tape but is starting to be offered at places like FotoKem.

I think most people who wanted to finish a high-quality master themselves on a desktop system would probably opt for option (2), get all the S16 footage delivered at 1080P 4:4:4 after a telecine transfer. But I'm not sure about working with 2K RGB DPX files instead in a desktop system though in theory it shouldn't be much harder than dealing with 1080P.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
You have a lot of choices these days.

There are a couple of general scenarios without getting into specifics. You can take your developed negative and:

1) telecine transfer to SD (480P or 480i let's say, in the U.S.), either to tape or hard drives, you edit the movie to generate an EDL using time code. Then you get the post house to do a 2K scan (usually to 10-bit Log DPX files) of the selected sections of the S16 camera negative that were used in the final cut, and then you conform those scans to the EDL. All of this would be easier at a D.I. facility that have autoconform systems than doing it yourself. Once you have a conform (edited) 2K master, you'd proceed to create a color-corrected master.

2) telecine transfer to HD (1080P usually), either to tape (usually HDCAM-SR in 4:4:4) or hard drives, and you edit the movie in HD or you make SD downconversions (just to generate the EDL, you'd want to go back to the HD originals at some point). You can still proceed like in (1) above and generate an EDL and then scan selects at 2K RGB, etc. or you can do an online session using your EDL and HD tapes and created an edited HD master for the next step, color-correction. Or you can finish the project in HD yourself.

3) scan all production negative up front to 2K RGB DPX files. This is not as common than transferring everything to HD tape but is starting to be offered at places like FotoKem.

I think most people who wanted to finish a high-quality master themselves on a desktop system would probably opt for option (2), get all the S16 footage delivered at 1080P 4:4:4 after a telecine transfer. But I'm not sure about working with 2K RGB DPX files instead in a desktop system though in theory it shouldn't be much harder than dealing with 1080P.
Click to expand...

For film school's those of us still shooting film do an HD transfer and finish in HD ourselves. We don't have the money to do a SD scan and then a 2K scan to make a 2K master.
 
I appreciate your answer! Thank you very much!

Route 2 seems better to my needs as I would have some VFX (CG) shots in the film. So am I right in my belief that in this case I have to have every single feet of Super 16 telecined to HD in order to be able to put the effects in that? Is HD enough for it, or should it be 2K?

Anyway whats the difference between Arriscan and Telecine? As I know Arriscan costs more, so for the optimal quality should I go for it for the final product?

What is the best way to post-production with this film in case of some CG? HD telecine everything, downconvert it to SD for editing, while the HD shots stuff goes to the CG guy? In this case how and when the final grading is done? Before CG, or after the CG is implemented in the shots? It's a little mystery for me what comes after what...

Is it worth to scan, telecine S16 to 3K? As I know with Black Swan they did this...

Thanks again!
gabor

ps.: could you give me a rough figure what would be the ideal shooting ratio for a 90-100 minute feature? I calculated around 15 hours. Is it irrational?
 
Last edited:
I only intend to do the editing (the cut of the movie itself) myself with probably a co-editor, everything else goes to a posthouse. (Of course the effects go to an effects guy).
I need a 35mm filmout, and I think I should get a "digital print" also as the number of cinemas capable of digital projection is increasing (and for a low budget film it really matters how much the theatrical prints costs, and in these terms digital is cheaper as I think (btw can you give me a rough figure for this? 35mm theatrical prints cost around 1800 USD if I'm right...)
 
I would just get an SD transfer then, cut offline, then take the selected shots that need visual efx and get them scanned to 2K DPX files and give those to the efx person, then find a D.I. company to finish everything based on your EDL. They will scan selects from the camera rolls at 2K, conform using the EDL, incorporate efx, color-correct, etc.

D.I.'s aren't cheap however.

Doing an SD transfer just for editing is the cheapest route if all you need is to get an EDL. You could do an HD transfer of course if you feel like splurging. The one advantage of an HD transfer, even if just for offline, is that you can create a decent-enough HD preview for distributor and festival screenings.

Time to start talking to some labs and post houses to figure out a workflow.
 
16mm is still alive and strong.
I'm very grateful for RED and all the advances being made in digital cinematography but I see no reason for any format to pass away. It really depends on what your project entails as far as look and tone. Especially with the advances made in 16mm as well I see no reason to call any competing format "Dead".
I'd honestly be very depressed if in 20 years filmmakers weren't given an option between shooting digitally or on film.
I mean to date one of my favorite film experiences is still when I checked out a Bolex at film school the first time, loaded the film, wound the handle and heard the film running through the camera as I shot.
 
Thanks Mr Mullen! I hope we can figure out something good!

Anyway, what you think, are a blu ray with a really good picture quality can be representative to review, research a certain format? For example S16, RED, F23 etc...

Paul,
I think S16 is alive, but is really unappreciated by filmmakers and by the public. They think of the S16 of previous times, an amateur or independent tool. But today's Super 16 gone really far from yesterdays I think. The problem is that on one side you have all the digital hype and marketing, for example RED, and on the Super 16 film side there is no marketing communication at all (at least compared to the marketing of RED and etc..). I think with today's stock, digital post productions and DI you can get pretty amazing results with Super 16.

Recently I watched Open Water 2: Adrift shot on Super 16. I found the picture quality and the material pretty compeling. It can give you beautiful vistas and the long shots really had scope. I loved the color scheme also.

Hey, but I think you should read this:
"The DI gives us a lot of tools that allow us to do practically anything, and I don't think I could do another movie without one. At the moment the best way is to shoot onto film, to make the post digitally and to go back on film again. This gives the best result, better then the classical film post could ever reach. That's why if I should shoot on HD, I use 16mm and then blow it up to 35mm"

Now, guess who said it? He's a pretty good cinematographer, with "some years" of professional experience. His name is Vilmos Zsigmond. Now I think its pretty amazing to read these lines from a legend like he is, and its pretty embracing for us who consider S16, but affraid of using it because of the current digital hypes...
 
Last edited:
All Film is dead, but not yet buried. Is anyone producing beautiful 8x10 or 4x5 film negatives anymore? There are Artists working in these media, but they are dwindling off ... fast. It's sad but this scenario is not new, it happens everywhere, all the time. The future for recording images is digital, this fact will not be changed. However, someone like Tarantino could be shooting on film for another twenty years. Follow Tarantino, when he goes digital it will mean that film has been dead for quite some time.
 
Of course you can say things like it, that film is dead... Probably its true in the amateur and low budget independent world, but not in the studio system.

Here's a list I found somewhere for the 2010 fall season:
Tron Legacy - Sony CineAlta F35
Rabbit Hole – Red One
The Narnia movie - Sony CineAlta F23
The Tourist – 35mm
Harry Potter – 35mm
Unstoppable – 35mm
Black Swan – 16mm
Burlesque – 35mm
Love and Other Drugs – 35mm
Due Date – 35mm
The Tempest – 35mm
The Fighter – 35mm
The Garden of Eden – 35mm
All Good Things – 35mm
I Love You Phillip Morris – 35mm
Faster – 35mm
The King’s Speech – 35mm
The Next Three Days – 35mm
Morning Glory – 35mm
Hereafter – 35mm
Skyline – Red One
127 Hours – a whole bunch of different HD cameras
Fair Game – Red One
Saw 3D – HD

So how you figure that film is dead? I would say film is pretty much alive, digital tries to get its foot with more or less success...

And if you look seriously at what type of movies use digital in mainstream filmmaking, it can be said for sure, that they are in almost any case a 3D production. And frankly, for 3D there is hardly easier way for acqusition than digital. But you know, Spielberg made, makes Tintin with digital 3D, however his next movie War Horse is still 35mm. Scorsese makes Hugo Cabret in digital 3D with Arri Alexa, but I'm really curious to see what his next project will be shot on.... I'm pretty sure it will be 35mm....

So I understand that it seems that digital overtook and film is dead, because as I already mentioned earlier, on the digital side, especially on the RED side, there is a very serious marketing campaign for this format. On the film side there is very few marketing... But on there side there is 100+ years of history which is in my humble opinion more than enough proof for the future than any digital format offers.

Here's another interesting information I found on the internet in an article reporting from the Kodak "The Renaissance of the Techniscope format" seminar:
"The suggestion was made that our kids are more likely to be able to watch silent films of the 1920s than films produced digitally today"

On the video, digital side there are more than 40 formats came and gone, and most of them ara totally obsolete now. Isn't it funny that when George Lucas made Attack of the Clones in 1080p it was the absolute hightech format in public opinion, the way digital cinema should work, and now its seems terrible outdated. And it was just 4-5 years ago.... And his original 1977 Star Wars from its 35mm anamorphic print can look better and better thanks to the advancements in digital technologies. With the proper restoration, even on the dvd, its pretty terrific.

As a filmmaker I would like to invest in a format that is future proof. And right now I only see this in film stock. As I'm in the planning stage of my feature I have to consider many things, and although digital, and RED offers so much, at so little cost, I try to find the proper ways to shoot on film. Probably for the tech geeks 4K or 5K is far more than what could be gained from an S16 stock, which is rated at 2K, but man... look at those 2Ks... (Actually it seems to me like a very misleading marketing tool like in case of consumer compact cameras where the megapixels just grow and grow.... and people, often professionals as we see it, fall for the marketing and buy the highest megapixel cameras.)

You know, for me: less is more.

A few years from now when 8K and 10K or even more, RED and other cameras come out, the now hyped 4K will be really really outdated and old... And you can't go back to get more information out of the frame... It is what it is. But you can go back to film.

Right now I'm trying to find a solution how my Super 16 footage can look the best. How could I make it look like it was shot on a grainy 35mm, and not on S16. And it seems that with current lenses, post productions, cameras it can be done...
 
Wasn't starwars 70 or 60mm?

Was that only for distribution.

I used to have a frame of the original Norwegian distribution laying around, and it sure wasn't 35mm

Edit:
Ah...

I see it was shot at 35 and distributed as 70mm
Like uprezzed 4k to IMAX.... :-))

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/technical
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Wasn't starwars 70 or 60mm?

Was that only for distribution.

I used to have a frame of the original Norwegian distribution laying around, and it sure wasn't 35mm

Edit:
Ah...

I see it was shot at 35 and distributed as 70mm
Like uprezzed 4k to IMAX.... :-))

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/technical
Click to expand...

There are so many misunderstanding concerning the formats of classic movies. But you are not alone. A little fellow called Peter Jackson says that David Lean's masterpiece Doctor Zhivago was shot on 65mm... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-VeXLZTm24
at 3:50 minutes...

Actually the movie was shot on 35mm anamorphic because Freddy Young felt that with the best quality 35mm footage a blow up to 70mm looks almost identical to an original 65mm film. So it was shot 35mm anamorphic. (You can debate the reason, but it was no less than Freddy Young who said it. Probably due to the quality of the optical technology of those days.)
 
I'm proud to say that our University production dept still teaches Super 16mm cinematography and filmmaking and we are moving into RED Cinema. Once they can grasp and appreciate film, then they can move on to our RED MX. What I am anxious to try is our new RPPs on an Arri S16. While I am a huge proponent of the beauty of film I am also an ardent fan of RED cinema and the possibilities.

William Donaruma
University of Notre Dame
Reducation 001 & 002
 
"Star Wars" was shot in 35mm anamorphic, efx elements in 8-perf 35mm (VistaVision). "Close Encounters" was also shot in 35mm anamorphic but a lot of footage was shot in 5-perf 65mm for efx work.

Later I found out that all the way through "Blade Runner", Trumbull's company did not have an easy way of taking 65mm positive elements and compositing them in an optical printer down to 35mm anamorphic dupe neg to be cut into the production negative, so they composited everything to 65mm and then took the finished shot to another company to optically print this to 35mm. Which is a lot of generations, luckily the 65mm held up. And today, it has the unforeseen advantage of allowing the 4K restoration of "Blade Runner" to be able to scan those finished 65mm efx composites. Later when Richard Edlund took over EEG and renamed it Boss, he had a 65mm-to-35mm optical printer built to do efx composites.

Freddie Young was happy with shooting 35mm anamorphic Panavision, but Lean wasn't and insisted on shooting "Ryan's Daughter" in 65mm. He also originally planned on shooting "Doctor Zhivago" in 65mm b&w (as did Kubrick for "Full Metal Jacket" -- Kubrick apparently shot for one week on that format before switching to regular 35mm color.)
 
Film is so dead.
Being Nostalgic once a while is great but wont be appreciated if it was every day's routine.
LP was amazing,analog tapes was appreciated,DAT was great, CD is even more great,CF is astonishing!!
Black and white film was an invention,color film is a great discovery and who wont want a virtual reality cinema in our generation.8mm is nice,16mm is wow, 35 mm is how real, imax is out of the world !!
But i will not miss any of it though I've loved every bit of the technologies.Please ask your sons and daughters whether they love black and white film or the colours ?
16mm is dead and will be in museum in coming few countable years and so will be 35mm and imax films too. Tarantinos or even late Sir Akiro will be shooting in digital medium not because they want to but they have to. Why would Fuji,kodak etc will produce stock film in coming years for some finger counting numbers when the rest of the millions are shooting in digital?
The transitional stage is so great and really hard to digest because we are so stuck with our nostalgic feelings but at some point we have to pinch our self out of this dream and start enjoying the reality.
Isn't it so nice to shoot,edit and project in digital platform! If i was shooting in film i would buy stocks(50d,100d,t,k god knows so many), shoot, process,telecine,digitize,edit,reverse telecine,print and project phew thats a nice long process. I love film but that does not mean i hate digital,sometime we have to let go of the one we love.
Film is an expensive affair which has stopped many talents because of its costly expenses, some may disagree with me for mere reason that "art is that counts not the technology". But what will an artist do when the canvas are so expensive and limited in numbers. Terrence Malick will shoot in film/digital yet will still give an amazing results but what about the rest of the talents who are yet untapped but does not have an affordable platform to launch them self? There are lots of people around the world of cinema waiting for that moment. And the moment has arrive and thanks to the digital cinema world.
I started my career with film and now adapting to digital and will never regret for this change over. If you know what you are looking for, you will end up attaining the look;be it on 35mm or digital.
The film era (including 16mm 35mm 70mm imax) is OVER and digital era has taken over and it will continue to grow without limitation. Digital cameras has given so many more opportunity than film cameras (amm,indie,pro) and i will stand for it because it will unleash many younger talents which some of the older folks may not welcome them but what the heck life is a blank page waiting to be written in happier notes and experiences.
Regards
Veda

ps Pardon me for my poor english , films have to rediscover themself if they have to survive and nobody has a clue as to How.
 
I actually just watched "Gold Rush" twice last week with my kids.

It was (a bit to my surprice, even though I love it) the biggest in-house hit we've had in a while.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
You have a lot of choices these days.

There are a couple of general scenarios without getting into specifics. You can take your developed negative and:

1) telecine transfer to SD (480P or 480i let's say, in the U.S.), either to tape or hard drives, you edit the movie to generate an EDL using time code. Then you get the post house to do a 2K scan (usually to 10-bit Log DPX files) of the selected sections of the S16 camera negative that were used in the final cut, and then you conform those scans to the EDL. All of this would be easier at a D.I. facility that have autoconform systems than doing it yourself. Once you have a conform (edited) 2K master, you'd proceed to create a color-corrected master.

2) telecine transfer to HD (1080P usually), either to tape (usually HDCAM-SR in 4:4:4) or hard drives, and you edit the movie in HD or you make SD downconversions (just to generate the EDL, you'd want to go back to the HD originals at some point). You can still proceed like in (1) above and generate an EDL and then scan selects at 2K RGB, etc. or you can do an online session using your EDL and HD tapes and created an edited HD master for the next step, color-correction. Or you can finish the project in HD yourself.

3) scan all production negative up front to 2K RGB DPX files. This is not as common than transferring everything to HD tape but is starting to be offered at places like FotoKem.

I think most people who wanted to finish a high-quality master themselves on a desktop system would probably opt for option (2), get all the S16 footage delivered at 1080P 4:4:4 after a telecine transfer. But I'm not sure about working with 2K RGB DPX files instead in a desktop system though in theory it shouldn't be much harder than dealing with 1080P.
Click to expand...

Are the HD files from telecine film transfers ususally 24.000 fps or 23.976 fps? I would think it would always be true 24P, since that's the rate the camera shoots at. But I believe I've heard of both frame rates being used.

Thanks ;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top