Mini/Pro35 to film out problems? at DVinfo.net

Dominic Jones · June 1st, 2005, 07:52 AM

Hi all,

We're gearing up to shoot a feature early next year, and having used a hired mini35 rig are about to purchase a micro35 rig as soon as they're available.

However, we have only used them (well, it - the mini35, currently) on a music video, where it's been fantastic. I have heard that they are not useable for film-out, however, and would need to have a film out possibility for our feature (unless digital projection is the only answer).

Does anyone have any experience with this? I presume the issue is a double softening of the image, once from the ground glass and again from the transfer to film. Can the image be shot with additional sharpening to circumvent this? Will the Pro35 solve this problem (in fact what *are* the differences between the Pro and Mini35's)??

Many thanks in advance for any advice...

Rob Lohman · June 2nd, 2005, 03:21 AM

Why would there be a problem? What did you hear? I say it all depends on
the camera you have behind the device and how and (to) what it is recording.

Dominic Jones · June 2nd, 2005, 06:49 AM

I heard (3rd hand) that the image would be "unacceptably soft" after going through the film transfer process and therefore would be "unusable".

I don't believe it does necessarily depend on the camera behind the device, I think (assuming that the statement has some truth to it) that the process of putting the image onto film is the problem, as it (once again) softens the image.

I'm looking for anyone with actual, practical, empirical knowledge to sound off about their experiences, good or bad, if possible. I might well get a Micro35 anyway (at the price it's well worth it for the odd music video and short, imo) and then get some labs to do tests on footage from that, without any adaptor and perhaps with a Pro35 if I can lay my hands on one for a day...

But has anyone actually done this yet?? Any info pro or con?

Chris Hurd · June 2nd, 2005, 07:08 AM

Also, the primary difference between the Mini35 and Pro35 is that the Mini35 is designed for 1/3rd-inch camcorders and the Pro35 is designed for 2/3rd-inch camcorders.

Dominic Jones · June 2nd, 2005, 07:30 AM

Ah, OK - I've been trying to work out the differences for a while now - thanks.

In that case testing the Micro35 vs the Mini35 (which I can easily hire) vs no adaptor at all would be the way to go.

Have you got any experience/heard any info on this Chris?

I suppose James is the other person to ask - any ideas mate?

Rob Lohman · June 3rd, 2005, 02:48 AM

Perhaps this thread is of some help to you?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=44465

Dominic Jones · June 3rd, 2005, 07:54 AM

Thanks - I've asked a few questions regarding his film but it does not appear that they are going to a film out, so no joy...

Apparently, however, the Micro35 guys have an offer of a film print from their footage, so hopefully we'll get a decisive answer shortly - I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.

Aaron Koolen · June 3rd, 2005, 03:26 PM

I'm more interested in what the micro35 footage will look like, full stop. We've only seen compressed stuff so far and that's almost impossible to really judge.

Aaron

Dominic Jones · June 4th, 2005, 06:56 AM

Well, I'm planning on buying one sooner or later - as you day it's be nice to see some uncompressed footage, but unless it gets uploaded I'll have to buy blind, as I doubt anyone round these parts is going to have any first-hand info...

But yeah, fair point...

I guess if the unlikely situation comes up that I'm the first to offer it (I'm sure others in the US will get their adaptors well before myself), then I'll post some uncompressed SD footage for evaluation.

Robert Baker · June 6th, 2005, 09:11 AM

When I looked at doing a film transfer a while back, these guys popped up in a film magazine (Alternative Cinema):

http://www.alphacine.com/

They had done a couple of HDCam to 35mm film transfers for a guy named Jeff Stolhand and he was very happy with them. They may have the expertise to know if what you are doing is possible.

Dominic Jones · June 7th, 2005, 12:48 PM

Thank you Robert - that's very helpful information...

Of course, if we decide to go ahead with the feature on HD/micro35 then we'll have to get a bunch of test transfers done to make sure we're going to be happy with the end result, but some informed input before hand might save us the cost of some tests.

Many thanks!

Rafael Metz · June 11th, 2005, 01:02 PM

In general the adapter is only a minor problem.

It´s just you have a crap signal of 25mbit with artifacts, poor resolution, an adapter which doesn´t make the image better from a technical point of view.
Now imagine that you magnify this image to the big screen...

Even a 50mbit Signal isn´t that much better.

So, a transfer from Video (PAL/NTSC) to Film is in general a process which will not really convince in comparison to HD or 16mm/35mm.

June 1st, 2005, 07:52 AM	#1
Dominic Jones Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 225	Mini/Pro35 to film out problems? Hi all, We're gearing up to shoot a feature early next year, and having used a hired mini35 rig are about to purchase a micro35 rig as soon as they're available. However, we have only used them (well, it - the mini35, currently) on a music video, where it's been fantastic. I have heard that they are not useable for film-out, however, and would need to have a film out possibility for our feature (unless digital projection is the only answer). Does anyone have any experience with this? I presume the issue is a double softening of the image, once from the ground glass and again from the transfer to film. Can the image be shot with additional sharpening to circumvent this? Will the Pro35 solve this problem (in fact what are the differences between the Pro and Mini35's)?? Many thanks in advance for any advice...

June 2nd, 2005, 03:21 AM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Why would there be a problem? What did you hear? I say it all depends on the camera you have behind the device and how and (to) what it is recording. __________________ 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 2nd, 2005, 07:08 AM	#4
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Also, the primary difference between the Mini35 and Pro35 is that the Mini35 is designed for 1/3rd-inch camcorders and the Pro35 is designed for 2/3rd-inch camcorders. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

June 3rd, 2005, 02:48 AM	#6
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Perhaps this thread is of some help to you? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=44465 __________________ 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 3rd, 2005, 03:26 PM	#8
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	I'm more interested in what the micro35 footage will look like, full stop. We've only seen compressed stuff so far and that's almost impossible to really judge. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

June 2nd, 2005, 06:49 AM	#3
Dominic Jones Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 225	I heard (3rd hand) that the image would be "unacceptably soft" after going through the film transfer process and therefore would be "unusable". I don't believe it does necessarily depend on the camera behind the device, I think (assuming that the statement has some truth to it) that the process of putting the image onto film is the problem, as it (once again) softens the image. I'm looking for anyone with actual, practical, empirical knowledge to sound off about their experiences, good or bad, if possible. I might well get a Micro35 anyway (at the price it's well worth it for the odd music video and short, imo) and then get some labs to do tests on footage from that, without any adaptor and perhaps with a Pro35 if I can lay my hands on one for a day... But has anyone actually done this yet?? Any info pro or con?

June 2nd, 2005, 07:30 AM	#5
Dominic Jones Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 225	Ah, OK - I've been trying to work out the differences for a while now - thanks. In that case testing the Micro35 vs the Mini35 (which I can easily hire) vs no adaptor at all would be the way to go. Have you got any experience/heard any info on this Chris? I suppose James is the other person to ask - any ideas mate?

June 3rd, 2005, 07:54 AM	#7
Dominic Jones Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 225	Thanks - I've asked a few questions regarding his film but it does not appear that they are going to a film out, so no joy... Apparently, however, the Micro35 guys have an offer of a film print from their footage, so hopefully we'll get a decisive answer shortly - I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.

June 4th, 2005, 06:56 AM	#9
Dominic Jones Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 225	Well, I'm planning on buying one sooner or later - as you day it's be nice to see some uncompressed footage, but unless it gets uploaded I'll have to buy blind, as I doubt anyone round these parts is going to have any first-hand info... But yeah, fair point... I guess if the unlikely situation comes up that I'm the first to offer it (I'm sure others in the US will get their adaptors well before myself), then I'll post some uncompressed SD footage for evaluation.

June 6th, 2005, 09:11 AM	#10
Robert Baker New Boot Join Date: May 2005 Location: Henderson, NV Posts: 6	Talk to these guys When I looked at doing a film transfer a while back, these guys popped up in a film magazine (Alternative Cinema): http://www.alphacine.com/ They had done a couple of HDCam to 35mm film transfers for a guy named Jeff Stolhand and he was very happy with them. They may have the expertise to know if what you are doing is possible.

June 7th, 2005, 12:48 PM	#11
Dominic Jones Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 225	Thank you Robert - that's very helpful information... Of course, if we decide to go ahead with the feature on HD/micro35 then we'll have to get a bunch of test transfers done to make sure we're going to be happy with the end result, but some informed input before hand might save us the cost of some tests. Many thanks!

June 11th, 2005, 01:02 PM	#12
Rafael Metz New Boot Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 24	In general the adapter is only a minor problem. It´s just you have a crap signal of 25mbit with artifacts, poor resolution, an adapter which doesn´t make the image better from a technical point of view. Now imagine that you magnify this image to the big screen... Even a 50mbit Signal isn´t that much better. So, a transfer from Video (PAL/NTSC) to Film is in general a process which will not really convince in comparison to HD or 16mm/35mm.