Re: Varicam to Film workflow

[Dermot Shane <dshane(at)telus.net>]

Hey Ken

I'm another one who has used the 1700 to upcon & remove flagged frames 
successfully

The scaling in it is pretty amazing

It does remove frames accurately in my experience

	Caveats are machine templates are lacking and you will need to futz 
around a bit to get a clean capture

	The other caveat is compression artifacting can be exceptionally 
brutal when you start colortiming the footage if the camera has been 
set up to record the widest dynamic range possible

	I would certainly endorse Graham's workflow, and would use it again if 
i was to ever work with the f27 again... but as the images are such 
unmitigated crap i would rather be the one drinking a cold one at the 
beach than the one fighting through damage control with 1000's of 
rejection notes from a QC house due to compression artifacting......

"Experience is what you get right after you needed it"

Ta

d.


On Aug 2, 2005, at 4:24 PM, kennitris wrote:

> Thanks Graham,
>
> This is just what I needed to hear.  How is the quality coming right 
> out of
> the 1700?  Our client will like this idea much better than a Varicam to
> HDCam via Teranex session.
>
> KEN
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 01:00:34 -0700, gvision wrote
> > HI Ken the way we do it is to take the 720 camera tapes with the
> > flags using the 1700 Deck we play out to 1080 24 into DS. The deck
> > will remove the unwanted frames and play only the 24 flagged frames
> > and convert the timecode to 24 frame.
> >
> > This way you don't have to lay back to 720/24 introducing pulldown. 
> > The
> > Flagged camera tapes have a form of pulldown but the flags make the 
> > removal
> > of the 24 discreet frames more accurate with no artefacts. Master
> > out to D5 preferably or HDCAM SR or HDcam if you must. Finally you
> > could export Tiff TGA or SGI files to disk for the shoot out to film
> > check with your film house what they prefer. Our crowd down here
> > don't like the Cineon files because they introduce a standard cineon
> > LUT which cannot be edit by there system. They prefer doing the
> > linear to log conversion using there own LUT.
> >
> > I hope this makes sense.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> > Gvision S.A.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "kennitris" <kennitris(at)glueedit.com>
> > To: <DS(at)Softimage.COM>; <DS(at)Softimage.COM>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:14 AM
> > Subject: Re: Varicam to Film workflow
> >
> > > I'm more concerned with the 24p vs 59.94 aspect of this.  Varicam 
> > > seems
> to
> > > be very artifacty with pulldown added.
> > >
> > > KEN
> > >
> > > On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:17:26 -0400, Jef Huey wrote
> > > > Remeber,  when you go from 720 to 1080 you are scaling /
> > > > interpolating.  Making up information.  Will doing this actually
> > > > help you  making a film print?  I don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Jef
> > > >
> > > > kennitris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Client has shot with Varicam at 720 24p.  Offline is on MC at 
> > > > > 29.97.
> > > Mostly
> > > > > cuts and dissolves. Final output is Film out and Television.  What 
> > > > > are
> > > the
> > > > > pros and cons of these 2 workflows...
> > > > >
> > > > > A)  Conform Varicam in Nitris at 720 59.94.  Output to tape and
> convert
> > > > > finished tape to D5 (or HDCAM) 1080 24p to remove pulldown for film
> > out.
> > > > > B)  Transfer all footage to HDCAM 1080 24p, and conform in Nitris 
> > > > > in a
> > > 1080
> > > > > 24p project.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously, plan B adds a bit more cost, but does this workflow make
> for
> > a
> > > > > better film print?
> > > > >
> > > > > TIA
> > > > >
> > > > > KEN
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text 
> > > > > in
> > > body: subscribe ds
> > > > > Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following 
> > > > > text in
> > > body: unsubscribe ds
> > > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> > > > body: subscribe ds Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with
> > > > the following text in body: unsubscribe ds
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body:
> > subscribe ds
> > > Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text 
> > > in
> > body: unsubscribe ds
> > >
> >
> > ---
> > Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> > body: subscribe ds Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with
> > the following text in body: unsubscribe ds
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in 
> body: subscribe ds
> Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in 
> body: unsubscribe ds

---
Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body: subscribe ds
Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body: unsubscribe ds