[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Eclair Cameras: Film Editing
i have found this to be an issue not very well addressed by the industry
at this point in time. typicaly, most telecine houses go directly to
tape of one format or another, while only one or two claim to record
directly to hard drive/removable media. although i am not certain, i
beleive these few companies that do record directly to hard
drive/removable media(digital file on a physical hard drive, or
removable media like cd rom, dvd, etc., accessable on the desktop using
a player(quicktime, etc.) or an editor(fcp, premier, avid, etc.) or a
file manager(explorer, etc.), record an sRGB based signal/movie onto the
drives/media ... NOT a true RGB type image, raw, compressed or
digital video cameras as we all know, record inferior image quality then
that of a digital SLR camera, for example. this is why a digital SLR
camera, eve the best ones, are not capable of recording 30fps ... at
most perhaps 6-10fps with a limiting burst rate factor. older analoge
video cameras(much cheaper/less expensive) are capable of capturing
higher quality images then the newer digital cameras, providing you do
not record to the on-board tape, but rather, using a computer and
capture utility which basically only utilizes the video camera's optics,
sensor, and signal transport. but not tostray too far, and getting back
to receiving your footage as digital files on a hard drive/removable
media, it will only be as good as the capture device that was used to
image your film. a 3/4" HD video sensor used to telecine your film
footage will not provide as good a quality image if you used a 3/4"
sensor recording raw sequencial images, which are later assembled into
clips on the computer.
most of you probably already know this ... but i only learned it over
the past few months, and for those of you who do not know .. this may
clear things up a bit. and if i am innaccurate, please advise and
editing on your computer(fcp, avid, etc.) in either DV, SD, or HD, is by
all means alot easier if you were to receive the footage stored on a
hard drive. this way, you do not have to own or rent an expensive deck.
however, just remember as mentioned above, just because your footage is
on a hard drive, does not mean it is true raw uncompressed RGB content.
it will most likely be sRGB. if your footage is going to be edited
directly to DVD, then an sRGB imaged/telecined film will provide as good
an image as was the lens and sensor(and lumination/contrast no doubt)
used on the telecine machine itself ... and as we all know, telecine
machines vary greatly amongst manufacturers and the place that owns the
equipment, and if the equipment has been modified with differant sensors
or lenses, and the actual quality and maintaince of the optics and
measuring the light source/color tempurature/balance and contrast all
play a role a significant role in the quality of the digital image of
the frame(s) of film. then you throw the recording device(tape) into
the mix, and the image could potentially suffer additional degregation.
i would assume any telecine house that offers digitized film on hard
drive FIRST records to tape, and then uses a capture card to perform the
digitizing process. correct?
if you want film digitzed for the purposes of COMPOSITING(creating
special effects using your computer and photoshop, shake, combustion,
etc.), you would be must better off having the film imaged directly to
hard drive using a high quality RGB sensor, either single chip, or 3
chip(prism seperates primary colors onto individual sensors), or layered
chips(primary colors are filtered out as they pass thru on a single
chip). this route is MUCH slower then using typical telecine
machines(remember, a telecine machine is fast, like a video camera,
because the sensor is not procesing the image as would a digital SLR for
example, which is processing true RBG), and is typically done one frame
at a time, instead of multiple frames per second, or realtime.
as best as i can tell, regarding a $1m telecine machine and a $20-80k HD
camera, the only differances are the controls and confguration of the
machine itself ... meaning it is setup for the purposes of imaging
frames of film, instead of shooting object or subjects or sceneories. a
sensor in a digital SLR camera, a higher end camera like a kodak 14n,
etc., will provide a SUPERIOR image to that of a $1m telecine machine
... REALLY!! what it can NOT do is provide you with the procesing
speed. however, that seems to all be changing technology wise, but the
irony is, film technologies are only met with a few companies worldwide,
whereas video technologies are being met by thousands of companies.
for those of you who have taken and edited an HD clip on you nle
machine, and inserted a high quality RBG image or sequence, you will
notice your computer's processor is bogged down considerably ...
correct? in other words, if you have a playback card capable of sd or
hd, and you play a telecined film delivered to you on digibeta, for
example, that would play much better and with less problems then would a
clip created from rgb images from your imaging application, like
photoshop. same thing with any of those filters or special effects you
use. this was confusing for me for sometime, because the lines are
exremely blurred in the industry, and most people are not aware of the
realities beyond the formats.
and for those who would challange the image quality comparison of a
telecined HD clip to that of a clip sequenced from a medium format
camera with a digital back on it, conected to the computer capturing one
frame at a time, you would clearly see how futile the argument would be.
the digital era now, is differant then what the digital era has been
... it has been VIDEO, 30fps of it, with what?? frames and fields? new
digital displays and hd footage is doing what? it is displaying frames
... not frames and fields. correct?
so, based on my own observations, what i beleive film related technology
companies should be working on at this point in time, are software
applications that assign timecode to sequencial images, that are LEFT as
sequencial images, and ONLY used to either generate editable(dv, sd, and
for those who have the raids capable or realtime playback) footage for
preparing your final cut, or for compositing, or for printing back to
the system right now, which is to telecine your film, give it timecode
if it does not already have it, edit a low res version on the
computer(or a high res if going out to video tape or dvd), then take
your edl back to the transfer house, and have them cut the original film
accoriding to your edl, and print new film that contains
compositing/special effects, which then are assembled to form a complete
reel of your movie, and then it follows the traditional film replication
process. today, and to me, this system is a pain in the ass. all we
really need to be doing is having a machine assign a value to each frame
of film, digitize it verbatim(today's sensors can digitize film much
more information then could ever be found on a 16mm frame of film, and
even a 65/70mm frame of film!! and no, i am not talking about a digital
video sensor/processor), which means an exact digital duplicate that
cannot be told apart from the original image on the frame of plastic
film itself, and
Paul Williams wrote:
it is certainly possible to digitize directly into
your computer without actually going down to tape. I
have seen some great setups where Final Cut Pro
digitises at 10 bit resolution directly from the
VTRs that are only players certainly can be used to
digitise your dailies. But how do you want to
digitise them? Do you want to get it in at 10 bit or
do you want to work in offline resolution?
Your question is hard to answer as it's very broad.
Give me a more specific guide to how your productions
work in terms of the post path you've been using.
There's just so many ways to skin a cat these days.
--- Bill Wiley <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> I am looking at investing in my own editing system,
> instead of always
> driving two hours and paying a healthy fee to use
> the labs equiptment.
> My question is this, I know that digital Beatacam
> ($30,000 for used
> VTR)is the format these days to telecine to (unless
> you can afford the
> equiptment and telecine cost of HD), but how far out
> is the technology
> for this going to CD with out taking alot of space
> in hard memory and
> raids. And can anyone explain the diffence between
> VTRs that are
> Editing (studio), players, and recorders. "Besides
> the obvious
> explainations". Can just players be used to digitize
> the dailies, or do
> you need the edit version.
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
eric m jarvies
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
This email was sent to: email@example.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACLfirstname.lastname@example.org
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!