Pro8mm 7201/7212 Sample Stills

[T-Scan]

Here are some sample grabs from a project. The first is V2100T 7212, the second is V2 50D 7201 from Pro8mm. The processing and transfer was done at Spectra. It turned out pretty good. Id say the 100T is close to the 200T in grain. The 50D is finer and maybe a little more saturated. The 50D is still maybe a tad grainier than the E100D reversal.

100T 85B filter


50D

50D


50D


50D

[steve hyde]

...Thanks for posting Tony. The 7201 looks pretty clean on super 8 from here. I have been looking at a lot of 16mm 01 from my current project and really like the results... Your S8 samples look like 16mm from the 1990s. Nice.

Steve

[Patrick]

Nice work. Very punchy colours and I liked the elegant clothing on the ladies. That 50D looks awesome.

[Daniel]

hello,
how are you?
from what I have seen on my experience with both stocks, we can see in your pictures some "electronic noise" and/or "grain exageration" due from the CRT telecine technology that was used for transfering. (as I assume you have done as workflow).

but if you could retransfer that to HD as on shadow or spirit telecine , you would see the real quality of what you have shot and developed.
A Y-Front CRT telecine might help to get a cleaner image also, but the output of the Ursa upgraded to Y-Front do only have an SDTV resolution.

the third and the second picture shows how well the 50D handles expsosure latitude, in this case very evident on the highlight.

i think the footage is well exposed and developed, also well transfered for that workflow (I just beleive there is some hue shift on skin tones, but may be this is due to a different monitor profile).

you said 7201 on super-8, from Pro-8mm remanufacturer, do that mean based on your knowledge that they are now custom-loading from 16mm instead of 35mm raw stock ?

thanks for posting,
Daniel

[T-Scan]

you said 7201 on super-8, from Pro-8mm remanufacturer, do that mean based on your knowledge that they are now custom-loading from 16mm instead of 35mm raw stock ?

No, I just refer to S8 as 72**. I could have got a Shadow transfer, but that would be an extra $100. But i'm pretty happy with the whole reel. I like the 50D a little more than 100T, finer grain and a little warmer. 100T is a little sharper, used an 85B for daylight.

[freddiesykes]

Hm, I definitely like the 50D but it doesn't seem to render skin tones correctly. Could just be my monitor.

[MovieStuff]

Hm, I definitely like the 50D but it doesn't seem to render skin tones correctly. Could just be my monitor.

Most likely it is the powder used on the actress. Many white powders used to soften shine have a metalic base and give off a blue/magenta cross-over when shot with reversal. This was particularly problematic on Kodachrome which had the worst blue/magenta cross-over ever, made all the worse when telecined to a blue-biased medium like video. You really have to do tests with make up when shooting reversal because it often shows up with different undertones than what the eye sees, particularly in daylight.

Roger

[ekta-clone]

If both films were trasfered in the same fashion, 100T looks like it has more pronounced edge effects.

Those look great. Boy, what I wouldn't give for a motion clip of that 100T stock scene.

[T-Scan]

If both films were trasfered in the same fashion, 100T looks like it has more pronounced edge effects.

Those look great. Boy, what I wouldn't give for a motion clip of that 100T stock scene.

Yeah, a tad more detail than the 50D but noticeably coarser. I think the 50D is a little better suited for S8 than the 100T. 100T looks closer to 200T than 50D. I had some Kodak 200T and 500T in that transfer that also looked very nice. Maybe I'll post some grabs of those stocks later.

[Mitch Perkins]

I could have got a Shadow transfer, but that would be an extra $100.

A full-on HD workflow would cost you a lot more than a hunnert bucks!

Luckily, taking a picture isn't the same thing as shaving your face, so SD works just fine.

Nice pictures. I'd say it turned out very well indeed!

Mitch

[npcoombs]

I don't like the look of how this footage has been transferred. The grain has been really exaggerated and the tones look garish and unlike how the V2 stocks are supposed to look.

[T-Scan]

I don't like the look of how this footage has been transferred. The grain has been really exaggerated and the tones look garish and unlike how the V2 stocks are supposed to look.

I think it's more digital noise than grain. I had them punch the colors for me a bit. I haven't tweaked the images at all but should be able to clean it up a tad. I had them add saturation because these stocks are more neutral looking compared to the saturated reversals I've grown to love. The 50D looks incredible on most of the running shots. It has the most potential for a daylight S8 negative. I would sacrafice the 200T for it, the slower speed and much finer grain is so much nicer to work with. For tungston, I go with 500T over 200T for the speed.

[wado1942]

You really have to do tests with make up when shooting reversal because it often shows up with different undertones than what the eye sees, particularly in daylight.

7201 is a negative stock, not reversal.

As for the grain, it takes a completely different set of amps to transfer negative than reversal. I'll bet Spectra is using the stock print/reversal amps which look great of course on prints and reversal film but get kinda' nasty on negative. That's one of the problems I had on my first neg-video transfer. Most people with Ranks use the stock amps because most super-8 is reversal and when you get up to 16mm or 35mm, the problems aren't as bad.

[npcoombs]

The 7218 footage I had transferred at CinePost looked LESS grainy than this 7201.

And it had that creamy, smooth neg look absent in these stills.

And what's going on in those blues in the sky? Looks like an old VHS dub quality wise.

[wado1942]

Now I KNOW CinePost uses different amps on the negative stock than reversal.