Semi-final verdict on best option for film-out?
 

Ok after having read all the problems with selecting 'FILM-OUT' on the camera for an actual film-out I'm confused as to what to do. Here is my situation:

Shooting a feature, with no plans of getting a film-out due to $$, however if film is shown and someone decided to do a film-out, I want that option to be open therefore I want to shoot with the best settings possible for a film-out without sacrificing the look for a straight to DVD or HD transfer. I realise there are lots of variables. But the basics? I mean I should definitley stay away from the 'FILM-OUT' in the camera right?

I'm thinking just shooting with True Color V3 as it provides the best real-world look, and letting post and the actual film if i do a film-out do the rest of the work. Am I right in this sort of thinking?

Thanks.

ps. I just got my 110, so I have a bunch of newbie questions to post after this clearly-way-in-over-my-head post.

I have the identical question: what is the best setting for the camera if there will definitely be a DVD and there may well be a FilmOut?

After reading Steve Mullen's book, it seems that for a filmout, the gamma setting must be different than for a video final. However, can the gamma be adjusted in the NLE, or should the video be shot originally with a gamma setting apropriate for filmout?

Second part of the question: after the video is shot and edited, what is the best place to go to learn exactly how to prepare the video for a filmout.

At this point I am talking about a 7 to 12 minute short that will need to be prepared to go to film festivals.

Thank you!

Now, I haven't ever done a film-out myself, so take this with a grain of salt. But I've experimented a bit, and followed the various posts on the subject (There have been a few).

I would say that if you're not sure you're doing a filmout, don't worry about it. Shoot, edit, and prepare your look for your guaranteed delivery medium. So if you know you'll be delivering on DVD, make it look good on DVD. If, somewhere down the line, you end up needing a film-out, a good lab can tell you what you need to do. Your first priority should be simply getting the best quality images.

Regarding the camera's built-in FILMOUT setting, I seem to recall a discussion a while back about it being effectively useless, unless you're recording off the component outs. Something about the linear gamma putting a bunch of the data into the ends of the "curve", where it's then lost in the MPG compression.

so.....
 

but i've always figured its best to plan a little ahead for something like this and i'm just wondering if there is something i can do about that...

Andrew Young at Duart NY and James Tocher at Digital Film Group Vancouver seem to have the most experience with filmout of HD100 material. They are both members here at dvinfo.net, so hopefully one or both of them will notice this thread and give us their opinion.

I have discussed this topic at great length with Andrew and a little with James. Although there seem to be two schools of thought with regards to latitude, there are some commonalities:

Lens: Use the Fuji 13x3.5 lens if possible, double check back focus on a HD monitor all the time.

Detail level: Don't turn it off, but turn it down to at least -7. Some have suggested MIN for a filmout, but personally I think -7 offers a good balance of natural "filmlike" edges without video enhancement. MIN almost seems to blur the pixels.

Frame rate: Obviously 24P is ideal. 25P is usable (with a 4% speed reduction when projected.) NEVER EVER use 30P unless it is for slightly "overcranked" slo-mo. There is no algorythm to convert 30P to 24fps and maintain true speed.

Gain: always on "0"

H Frequency: Middle
V Frequency: Low (this has something to do with video noise being introduced on HIGH setting.)

Color Matrix: Normal


As for gamma, black stretch and knee settings, opinions differ.
James Tocher helped JVC design the linear FILMOUT curve that is now in the camera, but the limitations of 8-bit HDV seem to hinder the use of a linear curve the way we would normally on a Varicam. The latitude of that curve is also very limiting and a monitor with a gamma box would be required for WYSIWYG monitoring.

I am of the mind that since any filmout is going to go through a D.I. timing stage, you might as well capture as much information as possible. For me this means an 80% knee and possibly Black Stretch as high as 3.
However, I have been told that the trade-off for a filmout might be the introduction of noise. I think I would still use black stretch simply to have the option to crush blacks if needed in D.I.

The other thing to keep in mind is to avoid the cine curve when shooting for film. The Cine curve emulates a film curve when presented on a TV, but will not help you with video response when colour correcting for a filmout. Stick with standard curve and normal colour matrix.

What Tim said, but more...

1. Knee should be @ 85 for the best possible highlight handling (IMO)
2. Of all the scene files I'd tried on film transfer, Tim's "warm" scene file transfered with the most expected results. Since then I haven't tried the newest scene files in transfer. I am going to shoot a transfered peice this fall using the Panamatch file hoping for similar results with better overall color saturation
3. In post production you must not skimp on your render codec. If on an 8 bit system use 2vuy uncompressed. It is the best match for what actually comes off the camera head. If you're capturing component and you can afford it then Blackmagic's 2vuy 10 bit codec is superb.
4. You can overcome dancing artifacts in background elements (sky or black) in post production so don't sweat it. A couple of filter that will smooth out these elements are Commotion's Smooth Screen or Magic Bullet.
5. If you need slow motion use the HDV50p SD option. The scale up is minimal and the resulting 60% slow down will give you impeccable results if you take the care to scale it properly and then lay "smooth screen" or magic bullett on the file afterwards.
6. I have not tested it but maybe the "filmout" gamma on the HD-110 is different than the HD-100? As for the HD-100, filmout gamma was definately flat on the scope but most elements are lost in the darkness on interiors and if you're sourced from tape then the HDV codec has to handle alot of black. This is not good for the codec and if you attemp to bring the gamma back up in post production then you'll see all of the blocks that go into making MPEG2. There is no smooth screen filter or magic bullet filter that can save the image.
7. The absolute best way to know that your getting is to actually do a transfer and look at the results.

S.Noe

i wish...
 

unfortunatley i can't afford a transfer but everything you have said helps. The 'FILM-OUT' hasn't changed from the 100 to 110, from what JVC says about it, which is nothing. What about True Color scene file? Any tries with that for a film-out?

Also one thing i'm confused and have been for a while, why would you shoot in a different frame rate and overcrank so you can get slow-mo when you can easily do this in post? Sorry if its a dumb question.

Thanks

Mainly because you're dealing with progressive frames shot at 24fps. If you try and slow that down in post you're in for a surprise. Your footage will look very choppy in motion because even if your NLE supports mixed frames, strobe or trails, you still can't overcome choppy looking video. This is where 50fps comes in very handy. 50fps slowed down (or in your case spread out over 24fps) will be ultra smooth without chop. If you're planning on speeding up footage then it doesn't matter really what framerate you choose because your NLE will handle the speed up with cut frame math.

S.Noe

Tim and Stephen,
Thank you for the details about setting the camera for video that will transfer to film. This is very extremely helpful.

If anyone has had good experiences with specific labs that have worked with HD100 video, I would be happy to hear the experiences and know who the labs are.

It appears that DVFilm has a book that covers the whole process (and they do transfers for some major independent films), and I think I will get this book. It is currently not for sale because it is undergoing revision and hopefully this will include info on the JVC camera. The info currently on the website doesn't include the JVC HD100 camera.

By the way, if one is going to do a transfer, should it be planned that the transfer facility also do a color correction? I notice that with DVFilm they have this option, for an additional $50 a minute, using Rembrandt. Is the $450 a minute for an HDV transfer charged by DVFilm typical, low or high? (There is a discount for a feature length transfer.)

We use I³ (I Cubed) for transfer in Chicago.

We use Cinefilm lab in Atlanta.


The process was easy as long as I provided the images in the fasion they needed. I cut the 24p video on Liquid which outputs the exact format they need and without any rez/color robbing transcode to another format.

We have not tried DuArt yet. I'd like to get the next project into Andrew Young's hands for their group to test using our editing and output process.

S.Noe

What is the output/export from Liquid? I believe you said in another file that it is TARGA. Are there special settings?

Is this right?
1. Capture/import m2t native files.
2. Edit the m2t files with rendering set to uncompressed--is there a special setting for the uncompressed
3. Export a Targa sequence. (settings?_
4. Deliver for transfer on what medium? Hard drive? or other?

Thank you!

I live in New York, and am going to Duart this Thursday to see a demo of what different DV and HDV cameras look like on 35 mm film.

I'm planning on doing a filmout with HD100 footage, but I'm a total novice at this. Andrew Young at Duart explained the workflow to me the other day.

I'm coming up with a list of questions for Thursday, and if anybody can help me out with some good questions, I'll post what they tell us.

So far, I've found out Duart prefers projects done on Avid or FC (I have Vegas), but I think plain old uncompressed Quicktime files will also work.
They recommend cuts-only (disssolves, composites, etc. don't work well with .m2t). They transfer the files to D5(?) tape (uncompressed HD) in order to import it onto a machine that up-rezes the 720 lines to 1080(?). After this(?), they do color correction, and add in titles.

As you can see, I'm still pretty much in the dark on this. Filmout seems to be the goal/dream for a lot of us, so this is a pretty important thread.

Thanks guys for the info so far.

-Miq

Download this video. I can't possibly make the workflow any more clear than what is displayed. I can add that the post house expects a TGA sequence on a USB2 drive. We bought a 200Gig USB2 drive just for this purpose. Each frame will be 3.51 MB so you can do the math on how much space it will take to deliver the project on USB HDD.

PS Don't forget that you must create 2 things to be successfull

1. Create the 24fps TGA preset and use that to export your frames
2. Create a 24fps AVI export in order to get your audio out for the post house.

Piece of cake

Regarding potential film-outs, there are basically two conceptual choices: one is that you shoot and create a timed master optimized for a film-out and then from that make a second master adjusted for release on video; the second is that you make the best-timed master for release on video and let the people doing the film-out adjust their LUT for that.

There are also general issues like avoiding doing anything that will be aggregious on the big screen, like use too much detail or over-diffuse or use too much gain, etc.

But what I was talking about before has more to do with gamma & color.

Now many of us don't have the budget to time the movie twice, so we make the best master for video release that we can and let the people doing the film-out make adjustments. The main problem with that may be a loss of shadow detail and a certain video-ish quality to the color and contrast, but you will probably be fine.

The real problem with the other approach, shooting exclusively for a film-out, is that ideally you be shooting to create a flatish 10-bit Cineon Log look (the look of film negative scanned for D.I. work) and then applying a LUT for monitor viewing on set and in post, and then later making a separate video master for video release with this LUT applied. But if you aren't shooting with a camera that can create a Log look, then you'd have to do some testing to simulate one using the right combination of knee, black gamma, etc. and live with a rather low-con image that needs some sort of LUT applied just to look correct on a monitor.

Probably some sort of middle-ground approach works best for the smaller HDV cameras, etc. which is to make a good-looking image for video monitor viewing but on the low-contrast side, avoiding using much detail, etc. and then use that for the film-out, and then make a separate master for video release where you go back and goose up the contrast and lower the blacks a little to look snappier, something that wouldn't take much time to color-correct, more of an overall adjustment.

Ultimately if you shoot good-looking video, a film-out company can figure out how to transfer it to film and retain most of that look.

Thank you for this further addition to the discussion. It is very helpful. The middle-ground approach you explain seems to make sense, and it can be used with the settings given by Stephen and Tim.

As in the print world, where the printer is the ultimate counselor, so must the transfer house be such in the DV/HDV to film world. When a project is in the serious planning stage and will be shot, it seems that contacting the a probable or possible transfer house for guidelines would be in order.

Stephen, the video explains it perfectly.

So, at 3.51meg x 24 frames per second x 60 seconds x 120 minutes, a two-hour feature will be 606 gig.

I'm going to need a bigger hard drive.

Okay, can somebody confirm confirm that it IS best to let the transfer house handle color correction? If I understand David correctly, this is because I've only got a video monitor for viewing, which is a totally different medium from film.

Am I right?

(I'm on a budget, and I gotta be sure that my sweat and blood won't cut it in this case, so this is one area I can't skimp on)

Actually, since the film will be split into reels, two or more smaller hard drives would be fine.

See question 17 here:
http://dvfilm.com/faq.htm

This faq covers some basic questions are is worth reading. I think it's a very good idea to contact the possible transfer houses and get their requirements and info. I'm sure in most cases they have info printed up.

It all depends on what lab you use. They each have different requirements and workflows. Contact them and work closely with them before making any of your own workflow decisions.

The production house will probably have experience with the color characteristics of the film stock that you don't have. And with the quirks of the digital printing process. However you should deliver a finished version of your project, color corrected to your needs so the film house can see what visual look you have in mind. If you haven't done anything too extreme they will probably work with it as is and apply what ever adjustment the film stock dictates.

Like I said, you probably should just color-correct for a calibrated monitor but on the conservative side, a little low in contrast but balanced correctly for the color and brightness you want. Then take it to a film-out company and tweak the master so that it looks the way you want in the film-out, based on some tests -- usually a clip reel of shots from the movie.

Choice of print stock also matters; printing the output neg onto Kodak Vision Premier 2393, for example, will give you better blacks and higher saturation than the standard Kodak Vision 2383. Also, the new Fuji XD print stock is very good with rich blacks.

Good stuff
 

Great info guys! Thanks for your thoughts on settings Tim and Stephen... Your knowlege helps all of us.

I think David Mullen's advice is the one that I've ended up following - try to shoot the best looking video you can and hopefully the transfer house can take you the rest of the way.

Many/most of us are in the same boat - we hope that there will be a need for a film-out as that means it's been picked up for theatrical release...

However, we are realistic enough to know that, given most of our budgets, video and internet are the likely destination for our work. David's suggestion to shoot for film, then plan for a back-to-video transfer is beyond most of our budgets - but it is an interesting idea - particularly for people doing shorts. Thanks for the tip about a camera's 'log book.'

Any more specific information about log books would be great (ie - does the JVC100 have this capacity? I'm guessing not...).

Thanks again to all those who've shared -

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

Thanks guys for the info. I now feel armed, loaded, and ready to advance upon the film transfer house tomorrow.

12 months ago I hardly dreamed doing a film-out was possible, but put an HD100 into a guy's hands, and...

Great camera! Great bunch here at DVinfo!

Filmouts from the HD100
 

Hi all,

Andy form DuArt here. I’m on the road at the moment – sorry I did not see this thread sooner.

For those interested in this subject, the cover story of this month’s DV Magazine is about shooting the HD100 out to film. The story features an HD100 filmout that DuArt did for John Jackman and includes John’s analysis, a reaction to the print by a group of DPs, as well as our shooting and submission guidelines for HD100 footage. Unfortunately, the story is not posted online, so I can’t give you a link to go to. Try to get a hold of a copy if you can.

In short, our guidelines pretty much state the obvious and echo what Tim said earlier in this thread (be very mindful of exposure and focus, turn detail way down, do not use the filmout setting, don’t crush blacks, etc.). What I don’t have just yet is a recommended recipe that will maximize image information for post-production color correction and/or filmout. We are working on that at this moment, but with many cameras and projects to juggle, it is taking some time, I’m sorry to say. Please stay tuned.

Some specific comments:

Not sure where the best place is, but I am certainly happy to talk to you about it. We have done several HD100 filmouts to date and are happy to answer any questions people may have about workflow, settings, etc. My direct dial is 917-522-5668, but please be patient as I am traveling a lot on my own projects :)
True enough, but it’s better not achieve your ‘look’ in camera, because that look will be ‘baked in.’ Also, if you color correct yourself and do so on un-calibrated equipment, you run the risk of baking in suboptimal corrections and noise that you may regret if you later go to film. A do it yourself correction is fine if your on a tight budget, just keep in mind that if you want to do a filmout later on you will get best results by going back to your uncorrected original footage and having it properly corrected for filmout.
I would tend to agree with Tim about this. “Cinelike” gamma appears to reduce that latitude of the camera a bit – fine if your going direct to DVD, but not so good if you want to create a color corrected “DI” or fimout.
The HD110 is the same as the 100 gamma-wise, however , JVC has created a new filmout gamma for the 250. We are evaluating it now.
A supervised transfer by the filmout facility is by far the best scenario. Filmouts are expensive. It would be a shame to spend all that money and be unhappy with the results.
In the DV Magazine article we quoted a price of $360/minute to output an already color-corrected master to a second (corrected) answer print with sound, but to be fair, this price could vary depending on the specifics of the job. Best to call and discuss it.
Hi Miq. I’m on the road right now – sorry I won’t be there. Pease call ahead to be sure that the demo will roll (ask for Norberto Valle).
This is only true if your submission format is an HDV tape output because we do not want any of your material to be recompressed in HDV. Dissolves and composites are fine if you submit your consolidated project on a firewire drive, as we will rerender it as uncompressed before we send it out to D5 tape (as uncompressed 720p).
Agreed. Curves that may work well on a Viper don’t necessarily work on this highly compressed format.
Having a reference that you have already corrected is great, but unless it was done by an experienced colorist on calibrated equipment, it would be better to start with an uncorrected version to be sure that nothing unpleasant was corrected into your material (we have seen examples of this). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for do it yourself, but most people who are going to invest in a filmout want a good color correction to go with it (regardless of who does it). Remember that most people do not go down this road until they have been picked up by a distributor, and then the resources are usually there to do it right.

So while we're waiting for a better recepe to come along, try the settings offered on this forum, or use the camera default - just keep detail down, mind your exposure and don't compress your blacks. If you are fortunate enough to need a filmout the post facility will indeed deal with it!

Detail Question...
 

So when everyone says turn the detail down is that because it will have that 'sharp video' look or because of something else, because for my project the sharper the better, or does detail do something else?

It's basically edge enhancement, or artificial sharpening of your edges. It will increase apparent sharpness to a point, but it also creates artifacts that are visible on the big screen. Overall, it contributes to an artificial electronic look - very un-film-like. Skin starts to look like plastic. To me the default detail setting is the most unflattering aspect the camera. If you're shooting 24p because you want a film look, high detail will take you further away from that. There may be certain situations that warrant it, but it should be treated with caution because it's hard to see it's ugliness until your on a big screen. Also, it's important to remember that this effect can always be added in post, however it cannot be taken away.

Here is something I've been wanting to mention for quite a while. When capturing out of the component out's of the camera or deck the edge enhancement is very apparent, however, when capturing through firewire (same footage) from tape, the edge enhancement disappears from the exact same footage. I find this unusual that the edge enhancement is so apparent out the analog out's but conversely the edge enhancement is non apparent on the data coming through the 1394. Must be the encoding, right? Not so! Try playing a tape out analog to HDTV and then try playing the same footage off your NLE timeline to the same HDTV. Where did the edge enhancement go?

Hi Stephen,
Your saying that footage that was recorded to tape shows enhancement when played out analogue, but captured via firewire and then played out it doesn't? That's really bizarre. Unfortunately, I've got tons of footage, all captured over firewire, that exhibits plenty of ugly default enhancement no matter how it's played out.

Yes, quite bizarre. So much so that I think it is a bug in the analog outs. I shot some footage of a subject in a herringbone jacket and the edge enhancement through the analog was very apparent but the same footage to the same HDTV from the timeline does not show any enhancement (or at least it's not nearly as apparent).

Both camera and NLE are connected to the same HDTV. The camera is connected via component and the NLE is connected via DVI. On the HDTV, I just switch between sources and its absolutely obvious the analog out is over enhanced while the timeline footage is not enhanced. This is true when I play footage through 1394 and then pass through the camera to it's analog out's and then out to HDTV.

I really think it's a bug with the analog outs to show that much enhancement and yet the captured footage show not nearly the enhancement.

Monitoring "film-out" settings on JVC HD-100
 

I have done some tests using the panasonic 8" on board monitor and their 17" flat screen, both of which have the Varicam calibrated "Cine Gamma" setting. I've found it to be quite close as far as gamma curve needs also in using it with the JVC set to Film out. I have an interesting tech paper written by a Panasonic tech explaining in detail in layman's terms what the expanded cine gamma is doing and how it relates to standard NTSC broadcast curves- it's hopefully attached below but you can e-mail me for it too. What I can definitely confirm is that when you switch the JVC into "filmout" and watch a waveform, you will see both the top and bottom of the wave expand to cover a 0.0% to 110% scaled signal. NTSC broadcast is 7.5% to 100%. By stretching this range and expanding the blackstretch, you will definitely get a broader range in which to work final color correction. The danger is the m-peg splotchiness in the low end (for the JVC) as you will need to raise up the midpoint of the gamma and add more black to the blacks to redefine contrast in the shadows. Having shot several features on the Varicam, I quickly discovered how important the monitoring was in cine gamma, but also how important it was to provide the director and producer with something they could look at on set and not be worried about, because the fact is that any properly exposed film out set HD camera footage viewed on a CRT NTSC monitor is going to look flat, low con, and desaturated, which is exactly where you want to be for a great lab print, but not what a nervous producer wants to see. I have found it absolutly neccessary to educate production all the way through post so that nobody freaks out over dark looking footage. If you've ever seen the raw output from the Panavision Genesis, it looks exactly the same- in fact it's locked into the camera's programming. The beauty of the Panasonic monitors is that you can do this at the flick of a switch so everyone can be happy viewing a mid-tone gamma corrected image, but you can sneak over and look at the raw output to check white and black levels and actual perfect exposure. And by the way, this is how you get the most out of your camera for ANY application of the footage, including finishing back to NTSC broadcast, because you are basically dealing with more information spread out over a larger contrast curve- it's just that not a lot of Dp's or producers understand exactly how this works. And that includes even the big guys as a friend of mine who is shooting a huge union TV series used the Panavision Genesis for the pilot and couldn 't convince the producers that the flatness was due to PROPER EXPOSURE FOR HD- and to save his ass and reputation then insisted on 35mm to be safe, though he wanted to try the show in HD.

Good commentary. I linked the same PDF some time ago as well. The problem (as you site) is with the MPEG, however, I'm convinced the filmout was inteneded for live capture via YPbPr only since mpeg will not handle the filmout curve (or lack of curve). Filmout Post houses are willing to handle footage that is not standardized on a linear gamma so maybe the point is moot for independent film makers. When Andy (Young) and I spoke last year he asked me the same about the filmout curve and whether we used it and what our results were. We never considered using the fimout setting merely because it was so dark on interiors and we were sourcing from tape (not live). This made our footage fall apart when we corrected for DVD so our confidence was lost in the fimout setting and we hadn't experimented with it any further since most all of the footage shot is sourced from the tape.

Now you have my wheels turning again about capturing using the filmout setting via YPbPr directly to uncompressed 10bit 2vuy. Since I'm not sure the detail in the blacks can be brought up (even by the post house's experienced staff) I'm not really game to shoot in filmout gamma and spend the $$$$$ for a failed trasfer merely because of the (my) misunderstanding about the transfer technology. So, I can see why the DP you referred to lost confidence and went into C.Y.A. mode. Think about it. Nobody wants to look at daily footage that's drab. I'm sure the producer would have a heart attack looking at dull footage.

S.Noe

what is YPbPr?

Hi Keith,
A lot of good comments in your post. As you rightfully note, it’s the high compression of this format that undermines the camera’s filmout gamma setting. Although I have not yet tested this setting with uncompressed output (and I should), I have tested it in HDV in both filmout and transfer to uncompressed HD and I can confirm that the results for both are unusable.
I also find the Panasonic monitors very useful. The problem is that they will only tell you the truth if you are recording and uncompressed signal like the monitors are seeing. When you record that filmout gamma to the HDV format the reality is very different. Unlike raw images on the Genesis which have the underlying data to build a pleasing image once curves are applied, images with this type of gamma recorded in HDV do not. All you end up with is noise and lots of it.

film out noise
 

I'd love to see the results of that test- it would be interesting to find a possible solution- I wonder if JVC has thought about adding the noise reduction features that the Canon XL H1 has- it has two differednt types of NR and they are adjustable in steps- could be a great feature to improve the film out in their new product line.....

Hi Keith,

Noise reduction is not going to do it, I'm afraid. The filmout gamma setting (which is really no gamma) leaves a distribution of picture information that is heavily skewed towards the shadows. Once you compress such an image, too much of the information is lost in the mids and lows for it to be corrected back into a pleasing image. When you are working with such a limited bandwidth as HDV, it makes more sense to apply a curve that allows you to maintain the most important picture information through the compression process. Unfortunately, high compression is not conducive to wide latitude.

There are two "Cinegamma" setting in the HD100 menu. One is listed on it's own and the other is sub-menued under "Gamma". Would it be a good assumption that they should not be used for a film-out?

What setting is ideal?

I have a question about a film out test.

Could somebody, in theory of course, take a still image and print it out or better yet get it printed to a 35mm slide and then use a slide projector to see how check what modes worked well for you for a film out test?

I would think it wouldn't be exactly the same as a true 35mm film output but by using a slide it should work very well. This would allow you to pick a few good images from some camera tests to see what setups would look good when projected on a screen and it wouldn't cost very much.

Also how would a test work out by printing the images to a 35mm negative and getting those developed as photos? You could also just print to a certain size on photo paper to the test very cheap.

Anyways just a goofy thought I had when I was talking to a photographer friend of mine who recently made some slides from digital photos. I thought the same could be done with still images from HDV and the results should be pretty good. I mean if a slide on a 10' screen is going to look like garbage I would think a high quality 35mm print would look even worse.

Hi Thomas,

In order to learn anything valuable about your settings in a filmout test you need to know not just whether or not it looks like garbage, but more important, what kind of garbage it looks like.

Sure, there are technical issues that can be measured within the digital and photographic realms, but to know if you are actually going to like your image there is no substitute for taking some footage through the exact same process it would go though for your final filmout. Slide film and printed photographs both have very different characteristics from the negative and positive stocks used for filmouts, so your results may have no more baring on reality than simply looking at your footage on a poorly calibrated monitor. Believe it or not, motion also has a huge impact on how things look. It you're simply trying to see how your footage holds up big, find a video projector to hook it up to (we do it for free). But if your trying to judge settings, a filmout test is the only reliable way. You'd be surprised how many setups you can squeeze into a minute.

If you're really sold on the economy of still frames that's fine, but do them on an ArriLaser using the same filmout stocks and workflow. Then you can cut them, mount them and project them to your heart's content. Just make sure the footlamberts and color temperature of your slide projector are within SMPTE spec.

Another no cost way to get a feel for the look is to screen filmout tests from different cameras. We screen them every week, if you're ever in New York.

You might be mistaking the one of the cinegammas for CINELIKE: ON/OFF. This is a single setting that changes both the color matrix and the gamma to the CINE setting. Until I see definitive test results to the contrary, I recommend leaving this off, the reason being that the cinelike gamma setting seems to compress things a bit. The cinelike color matrix, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have implications for post on way or the other - use it if you life the look.

Yup, I got the name confused. Thanks for the advice.

One day there will be a setting called "Videolike".

Based on the above info, can the scene files posted on this site be used for a successful film out? ....True Color, panamatch?