[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Eclair Cameras: R16 v S16 to DVD


I shot a music video on R16 using Kodak 7245 (daylight ISO 50) and 7248
(tungsten ISO 100) mostly to see what could be got out of this.  I needed a
lot of light indoors to use the 7248 and shot wide open, overexposing maybe
a stop at some times.  Outdoors, there was plenty of light in the broad
daylight and the setting sun.  Film was processed by Fotokem and the
producer in LA supervised the transfer at Fotokem.

I wonder, if people would defray the cost, I could send VHS, DVD (not ready
yet) or other format copies of this video to them.  Maybe other list
members could show their work or a compilation tape could be made,
commenting on formats, filmstocks, lenses, techniques, etc.  Other lists
have compilation tapes of editing or weddings or whatever, depending on the
list topic.

I would be happy to crop the images of this music video for letterbox on
videotape or DVD release.  If I knew this was the destination, I'd have
framed the images for it; instead, it was 4:3 for common MTV type show.

As you go down on your image size, like cropping the negative for
widescreen projection (blowup to 35mm), and go up on your film speed, like
ISO 500+, the importance of a bigger negative starts to show.  But for
video, it is not as critical because the magnification is less and the
display contrast range is less.  You can also do more in telecine going to
video than what some people would do making a film print.

You could look at other peoples' projects to see how they turned out.  A
friend of mine shot the feature That Darn Punk on R16 (Arri SR II with
Ziess 10-100 zoom, not sure of the T); processing and supervised transfer
was done at Fotokem.  Some content might be disgusting to you, just so you
know in advance.  It is available on DVD.  His comment about the picture
was that if they had spent more time in telecine, the picture would look
better.  The picture is good, sometimes great.  The information is on the
negative but if you don't tell the telecine operator what you want then the
pictures could look like one hour photo.  A betaSP master was made and a
DVCAM working copy was made off of that.  The feature was edited on final
cut pro and I think it was finished in Apple's DVD pro.

Other friends of mine have shot R16 and underwent the false economy of a
cheap transfer because they got a deal on processing costs or transfer cost
per hour.  Their transfer sessions were unsupervised and although the
pictures look okay, it seems like the total effort was a very expensive way
of making okay pictures.

C.J. Scheppers

Hello all

I'm in a conundrum re a film I'm making and I'd appreciate some input.

I refer to the comparitive quality between R16 and S16, especially if a
R16 image is going to be cropped top and bottom for a widescreen aspect
ratio for TV/DVD use only.

Talking at length with the folks at my local lab (I'm in Los Angeles),
they tell me that the difference in telecine transfer to Digital Beta
is, of course, not as marked between R16 and S16 as between either 16
format and 35.

So - if I'm aiming for a DVD finish (i.e. with little chance of a
theatrical blowup or even D5 HD), and my subject matter is dreamlike and
involves fast film, fog effects, and a lot of magic-hour shooting (i.e.
little in the way of anything slower than 200T Vision), then am I going
crazy or is there not a lot to choose between R16 and S16 in this case?

Your comments appreciated!


This email was sent to: elroro@propagandaindustries.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACL-unsubscribe@topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!