Pro8mm 7201/7212 Sample Stills

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:20 am

Ive found it possible to get that kind of grain if you use unsharp mask in post or sharpen filter. Higher end ranks and spirits allow you to do that sharpening in realtime.

The unsharp mask has less digital noise.

The original neg should not be that noisy and it will also not be that sharp. Unless you are after that effect- which as we can see here, is attainable with telecine.

Soft grain is inherent in the quality of super 8. This is especially noticeable when you try to do a blow up from super 8 to 35. Or even when comparing 16mm to 35mm when mixed in a blowup (take for example the film- 28 weeks later).

Thanks for posting!

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:37 am

wado1942 wrote:
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.

Ah! Quite so. For some reason, the way his post was written, I thought he was saying that this was reversal. Didn't notice the lables on the photos. :oops:

Well, then I would say that's pretty odd for negative. You usually don't get that kind of cross-over in color negative. To just look at the photos, I thought they were reversal!

Roger

Post by **wado1942** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:03 pm

They do look rather like reversal. I guess I won't have my transfers done at Spectra. So far the best transfers I've seen are from CinePost.

Post by **T-Scan** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:08 pm

wado1942 wrote:They do look rather like reversal. I guess I won't have my transfers done at Spectra. So far the best transfers I've seen are from CinePost.

I asked them to give me more of a punchy look. I never used Cinepost but from what i've seen has been too flat and washed out looking for my taste. But maybe thats the look somebody else was going for...

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:36 pm

T-Scan wrote:
wado1942 wrote:They do look rather like reversal. I guess I won't have my transfers done at Spectra. So far the best transfers I've seen are from CinePost.
I asked them to give me more of a punchy look. I never used Cinepost but from what i've seen has been too flat and washed out looking for my taste. But maybe thats the look somebody else was going for...

One of the problems with viewing video on the internet is that it rarely looks like it does on a regular television monitor. Also, most of the shooters I know tend to prefer their negative flat and fairly compressed with lots of detail in the shadow and highlights. You can always punch the contrast later in post but it's hard to get back detail that's been lost if the grading is too contrasty. This goes for most still shooters that I know who get their negs scanned. Nice and flat and ugly is preferrable to a "built-in" contrast the you can't get rid of later.

Roger

Post by **npcoombs** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:48 pm

MovieStuff wrote:
T-Scan wrote: I asked them to give me more of a punchy look. I never used Cinepost but from what i've seen has been too flat and washed out looking for my taste.

It's only flat looking if you are used to exploding reversal colours from non-artificially lit shooting.

That 'flat look' from the scan gives you the latitude to create any look you want from the data.

When shooting under low lighting and using subtle keys or strong main lights, the 'flat look' is silky and beautiful.

Post by **T-Scan** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:35 am

I still put more on it to get the look I want. Starting from a flat unsaturated image doesn't work out as well for me. here are a few more that I tweeked a tad myself... it's the look I like.

Post by **mattias** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:42 am

what's up with the severe chromatic aberration? look at the top left window.

/matt

Post by **ekta-clone** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:33 pm

This looks even better to me than first examples.

Is there away chance that you can post a good video clip T-scan?

Post by **wado1942** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:42 pm

Yeah, the images are beautiful but blue pulls towards the center of the lens while red is shifted towards the edges.
Regardless, I think the images are pretty good and 5 years ago, I'd never believe they were super-8.

Post by **T-Scan** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:16 pm

mattias wrote:what's up with the severe chromatic aberration? look at the top left window.

/matt

I'm not sure, but this is custom loaded S8 so it won't be flawless. The top pic is with the wide angle attatchment. Pro8mm is the only option for S8 7201 right now. Mine may not look the way everyone prefers, but people can still get an idea on what they can do with it. It has a lot more daylight potential in S8 than the 7217, if Kodak were to swap it. And I still prefer the 7218 in existing or tungston settings. If we can have 2 negs, it should be the extremes of a low ASA fine grain daylight, and high speed tungston like the 500T. Right now, the 200T would only make sense if we could have one neg stock.