Multimedia
Blogs
Forum
Affordable HD
Whitepapers
Newsletters
Events
Advertisers
Blogcast
Millimeter2-Perf Option
Sep 9, 2009 12:00 PM, By Michael Goldman
Chressanthis’ test involved simultaneously shooting daylight and night imagery of a young couple outside on 3-perf and 2-perf Kodak Vision3 (5207 and 5219) stock, processing both negatives at Laser Pacific, Hollywood, and transferring both on a DFT Spirit DataCine to HDCAM SR tape in 4:2:2 RGB color space at 23.976fps. Both were edited as ProRes 422 HQ files in Apple Final Cut Pro and onlined at LaserPacific back to HDCAM SR tape for tape-to-tape color correction on a Da Vinci Systems 4K system to create the master that was screened around Hollywood.
The resulting quality of the imagery, he says, is more than acceptable for broadcast television and, in his view, surpasses similar digitally acquired material. He also insists it’s cost-effective.
“We ran lots of numbers, and 2-perf is definitely equivalent or cheaper than shooting on the digital systems we have now,” he says. “Sure, if you shoot a music video with no DIT and a small crew, that might be cheaper. But for quality dramatic television, this compares just fine.”
Chressanthis also lobbies for a re-evaluation of Super 16, insisting the format has “a bad rap” because the basis of the concern about Super 16 are older tests and poorly shot programs. Today, he says, more sophisticated cameras, optics, and the availability of the Spirit DataCine and HDCAM SR tape for transfers of Super 16 material makes the format more viable.
“The problem isn’t Super 16—the problem is what you telecine it to,” he says. “Super 16 is a tiny negative, and some networks made a decision based on what was delivered [many years ago] when Super 16 was delivered on [early HDCAM] tape. That’s a bad format to view it, because it inherently has a lot of compression and noise associated with it. Super 16’s grain, especially before Vision3 stocks, was exaggerated by the HDCAM tape format, because of the compression. That same film on D5 or HDCAM SR tape does not have the same problems.”
Chressanthis insists that digital acquisition, whether to tape or hard drive, requires tape or data tape backup anyway, and heavy manpower and time spent on data management and archival work. Thus, he questions how much cheaper it would really be on a grueling TV production schedule when options such as 2-perf and Super 16 might compete.
“HBO shoots some digital but still prefers film,” he says. “They are concerned about the whole soup-to-nuts process. The big problem with [TV shows shot on tape or hard drives] is that the people archiving the material are not the people making the decisions on the front end. So cheap decisions are sometimes made up front, and sometimes, that is the wrong decision and the studio pays for it later. Poor decisions are often made under the pressure of budget in the short term, which have long-term consequences. And that leaves aside the issue of aesthetics.”
Author Michael Goldman can be reached at mgoldman1959@gmail.com.
Continue the discussion on Crosstalk the Millimeter Forum.