Transfomania

From Tigwiki

Date:Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:41:22 -0500 To: telecine group <telecine@alegria.com> From: Dave Corbitt <dc@mte.com> Subject: re: Re: Transfomania I

Hooray for Dave Satin opening his place up for the likes of this group. I'm planning to go. I think we should try to come up with some kind of outline of items we all would like to see compared. Right off the bat I can think of a few important areas to watch closely;

1. Image stability for both 16 and 35mm. Servo action / film handling.

2. Consistency of color from scene to scene of a "Timed" IP roll.

3. Noise artifacts--Blue sky in negative comes to mind (don't confuse this with film grain).

4. Visibility of film grain and / or surface texture of the film.

5. Colorimetry accuracy (RGB display of various TAF films)

6. Transfer Characteristic or gamma curve (TAF again, use the grey scale chips)

7. Ringing on sharp edged transitions.

8. Resolution and flatness of focus. Image geometry.

9. Aliasing and how to deal with it.

10. Extraneous artifacts (tube grain, fixed pattern noise, etc.)

11. Overall subjective image impressions that hopefully can be expressed with objective language and quantities.

12. Ease of setup and operation.

Sounds like a fun time. Hope to see at least some of you all there.

Dave Corbitt

  -----------------------------

• Dave Corbitt <dc@mte.com> *
• Director of Telecine Engineering*
• Manhattan Transfer / Edit, Inc. *
• 545 Fifth Ave *
• New York, NY 10017 *

* vox (212) 687-4000            *
 * fax (212) 687-8023          *
  -----------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:50:53 -0600 From: Steven Flippin <sflippin@bitstream.net> To: Dave Corbitt <dc@mte.com> Subject: Re: Transfomania I

Dave Corbitt wrote:

> Hooray for Dave Satin opening his place up for the likes of this group. I'm > planning to go. I think we should try to come up with some kind of outline > of items we all would like to see compared. Right off the bat I can think > of a few important areas to watch closely; > > 1. Image stability for both 16 and 35mm. Servo action / film handling. > ......

Unfortunately, I will not be able to make it out for the big test, although I am looking forward to the findings. One thing that I would be interested to hear back on is the resolution of zooms on both machines. This would obviously be a better test for the Spirit and the C-Reality, but I am curious none the less. Since the Spirit is essentially a DVE zoom, compared to the manipulation of the actual light source on the Ursa, I would be interested to hear about any differences noticed where this is concerned.

-- Steven Flippin Chief Engineer Crash & Sue's Film/Video Post Minneapolis, MN

To: telecine@alegria.com From: Craig Nichols <craign@todd-ao.com> Subject: Re: Transfomania I Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:19:50 -0800

Dave Corbitt wrote: >Hooray for Dave Satin opening his place up for the likes of this group.

I think that Dave has compiled an excellent list of things to check, and I certainly wish I could be there. I applaud the test, but I would also like to see how a HD Rank (like the one Lou uses at the Universal HDTV center) would compare, and how a CReality will compare. Perhaps film transferred during the Transfomania I tests could be recorded to D1 or D5, so that the results could be later compared to transfers from a Turbo III HD, and CReality. Perhaps Transomania II? It would be ideal if transfers could be done by the same colorist on all machines and then an ABCD or X double blind test performed. (i.e. is it A,is it B,...,or which one?). It would be interesting to set up some sort of kiosk at NAB (or elsewhere), and let people switch between feeds (from four tapes) and vote for their preference without knowing which machine was which. Oh well, that's enough fantasy. ;-) No mater which machine might win, or tie, the ultimate decision will be driven by market perception, the client's perception of "bang for the buck", and the salesman's ability to pry the client's wallet open a little wider. This may not be the same for all clients, because commericial clients may demand one machine, while feature clients may prefer something entirely different. Perhaps there will be a nostolgic yearing (like the "GLASS AUDIO" tubeheads) for "GLASS VIDEO" (i.e. CRTs). I would not yet dismiss the potential of the Turbo III HD. I understand that some really good things are about to come. I've also heard the CReality looks quite impressive, also. It's never over until it's over. And then again, it probably won't ever be over, because that fat lady never was much for being able to carry a tune! ;-)

Craig Nichols Todd-AO Video Services craign@todd-ao.com

From: rob@alegria.com (Rob Lingelbach) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:19:19 -0800 To: telecine internet group <telecine@alegria.com> Subject: Re: Transformania 1 report (non-technical)

--- Forwarded mail from ranthony@duart.com

Rob,

I will attempt to give you my perspective, as a "film guy", on this past Saturday's shoot-out and you may post it if you feel it is of any benefit to the TIG.

First of all, thanks to Dave Satin and all the crew at SMA for opening up and providing the rest of us this opportunity. The afternoon started with the beer Dave had promised as well as the chips that Domenic provided. After about an 90 minutes of sipping and dipping and munching on the pizza that SMA also provided, we were broken into 2 groups. Group 1 started in the Ursa suite and group 2 naturally began with the Spirit. I was in group 2. As we settled into the room our colorist, Billy {(Gabor?)-I'm sorry if that is wrong} introduced himself and the Spirit to the group. Being a "film guy" I can't begin to report the technical aspects of the machine or of the setup of the room. I will leave that to those more inclined (unfortunately Chris Bacon was unable to attend). I can tell you that in an effort to make the comparison valid, no noise reduction or secondary color correction was used on either machine. Billy started the demonstration with a piece of film that included a variety of vivid colors as well as a variety of skin tones. I was quite impressed with the resolution of the picture. After showing us what he could do with the images on this piece film, he put up a couple of the rolls brought by the TIGers. The first was some footage of a woman and child sitting on a pink wicker sofa. Again the resolution was great and I was very surprised at the lack of Moir_ in the wicker. After looking at and making 1 lite transfers of the submitted footage, we moved as a group to the Ursa Diamond suite. Once again to make the playing field level the colorist moved with the group. Billy put up the same footage and matched via split screen to some of the stills stored from the Spirit. Here, my impression was that it took a little more effort, on the Ursa, to get to the same correction. The resolution was not quite as sharp as the Spirit, but this was ONLY noticeable (to my eyes) in the split screen. The image was a very close match when some level of masking was applied in the Ursa. At this point I had to leave, due to an attachment to parts of my anatomy, which my wife would have cut off if I'd stayed any longer(it was Saturday night).

The bottom line in my "film guy" eyes is that both machines are capable of making very good pictures. The Spirit may do a better job on certain types of footage than the Ursa. I'm sure there are jobs for which the Ursa would be better suited. One thing that I think a large number of people in this industry forget, when you look at the transfer in the telecine suite, that is probably the last time that footage will ever be seen on a 7-10,000 dollar monitor. My feeling is that, were I paying for the transfer, the deciding factor would probably be the colorist. This is not said to (further?) inflate the egos of a large portion of the TIG. Just as I would give certain types of print jobs, within the lab, to specific timers, I think specific colorists would be better prepared to make the most of certain negatives.

That is my take on the shoot-out. Again my thanks to all at SMA for this opportunity.

Please let it be known that all opinions are those of the writer, who is in NO way compensated by either Cintel or Philips.

    Rick Anthony
    Duart Film and Video

--- End of forwarded message from ranthony@duart.com

Date:Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:31:53 -0500 To: telecine group <telecine@alegria.com> From: Dave Corbitt <dc@mte.com> Subject: Report on Transfomania I

I was one of around 40 people attending the Transfomania I meeting this past Saturday afternoon at SMA Productions in lower Manhattan, NYC. The event started out as an informal get together with beer and pizza and everyone mingling around getting acquainted. Most of the attendees were local from the NY area but there were exceptions, a few from Chicago, one from San Francisco. There was a rep from Shoot magazine and Dick Hobbs from the UK.

After we had all had a chance to loosen up a bit the actual comparative sessions began. The large number of people attending required breaking us up in to 2 groups. Group #1 started out in the URSA room then moved on to the Spirit. Group #2 did the opposite. Attendees brought film for doing comparisons. Only 35mm film was looked at.

Here's my observations of how things went;

1. The URSA Gold at SMA was somewhat noisey, I would say it was considerably noisier and softer than most URSAs I'm familiar with. This machine does not have SCAN'dAL but it does have an early version of TWiGi. The CRT is reported to be 19 months old and therefore is an older Brimar type with the lower light output from it's neutral density faceplate. I think the CRT's age must have also played a part in even further loss of light output contributing to poor signal to noise performance and poor focus. There was also evidence of a burn on the crt visible during Run mode. The machine is interfaced to a DaVinci 888 with DUI.

2. The Spirit gave good images, sharp, clean, with a definite smoothness to the images that was noticeable on good material. On an example of Green Screen film (OCN) the Spirit made most of the scratches disappear. These same scratches were very noticeable on the URSA. The Spirit's optics tend to make surface imperfections invisible, like scratches or film surface texture. URSA will bring these imperfections out due to the collimated light beam of the scanning process.

3. There was mention by one of the participants that jagged edges (interlace artifacts on moving objects) are noticeably less on the Spirit. I saw no evidence of this and cannot think of any mechanism that would cause this. Both machines scan the film progressively and then convert the frames to interlaced fields in a store. The artifacts of interlace are a given annoying problem but not an artifact of a particular machine, they are built into our television systems whether they are 525 or 625. Aperture correction may enhance this problem if it has a fine vertical component or decrease it if it has a coarse vertical component. Maybe this is what is being referred to? How about a reply to this, Steve Russell, as your name was referred to for describing this phenomena?

4. It was noted that both machines had similar trouble grading improperly exposed film. The colorist had to take about the same amount of time in both rooms to get a reasonably good image out of overexposed film shot outdoors of some guys driving an old Chevrolet convertible. The URSA gave a noisier image but then that particular machine was noiser than most URSAs on everything. The Spirit did not fall in to place as if by magic as has been claimed by some. It was difficult but not impossible to get a good image from this particular film on both machines.

I'd like to see another side by side test but with an URSA that is in better shape.

More if I can remember it.

Dave Corbitt

  -----------------------------

• Dave Corbitt <dc@mte.com> *
• Director of Telecine Engineering*
• Manhattan Transfer / Edit, Inc. *
• 545 Fifth Ave *
• New York, NY 10017 *

* vox (212) 687-4000		 *
 * fax (212) 687-8023		*
  -----------------------------

To: telecine@xyzoom.alegria.com Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:32:44 -0800 Subject: Re: SMA test awaited.. From: cb-gaines@juno.com (C B Gaines)

Let me tell you what a great time I had at SMA. I wish I could have stayed longer. Quite a large turnout. I'd guess 30-40, but I didn't count. Quite an experience for me because in the whole S. F. Bay Area I think there are less than 10 colorists. Pizza was a surprise, I expected only beer and chips. Dave and Alan were gracious hosts. But enough about the ambience. You really want to know about the shootout. Because of the size of the group, we split up into two and each went into either the Spirit or Diamond suite. I was in Group #1 where Ira from SMA put up a couple of rolls, then we looked at some from the group. John Dowdell from The Tape House had some IP. We laid it off to tape (digibeta or D2 I think) and looked at the same stuff on the Spirit with split screen of the tape running. Before we switched rooms, I saw how late it was getting and knowing that I would have to leave soon, I ran into the Spirit room to see how the other group was doing. Everyone was very high on it. Better detail and tone were some of the comments. The SMA colorist said that things fell into place much easier with the Spirit and concluded that the company that makes the machine which is easier for the operator to use would win. Personally, I disagree because I think that the client will want to use what he perceives to be the better picture and doesn't care how easy it is for the colorist, and also the facility owners will want to buy the cheapest one. Then when my group came into the Spirit room, everyone seemed to prefer the picture better. More details, better tone, more neutral grays, but I thought it was kind of unfair because now we were comparing it to theDiamond on tape. Naturally, I feel, the off-film pic will be better. Anyway, then I had to run to catch my flight back. I was very glad I went. It was incredible to be in a room with so many colorists making the same jibes about client comments ("Just show me how the film looks." "Is this down time?" "It looks too warm."}. I expected to see more comments Monday when people got back to work, but I'll go ahead and post my little 2c worth.

CB Gaines, colorist Monaco Video, San Francisco

_____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:55:45 -0500 To: telecine@alegria.com From: "Bruce W. Goldstein" <metsfan14@earthlink.net> Subject: Transfomania I

First, I would like to thank Dave Satin and Alan Rosenfeld for their hospitality. This was a great learning experience. The amount of talent present at SMA, was like being in the Baseball Hall of Fame, with all the plaques on the wall coming to life. Colorists Eli Friedman(Group 1) and Billy Gabor(Group 2) did a tremendous job. It's not an easy thing making colors for a group of colorists and telecine engineers. But we made them comfortable by acting like clients. <g> I was in Group 1. We ran some pretty good 35mm. But frankly, for the price that these telecines are going for, I expected to be "floored" by the pictures. I was not. Maybe I expected too much, considering all the "hoopla" being thrown on the TIG. I sat where the clients would sit, in both rooms. The URSA noise was evident to me more when it was split-screened in the Spirit room. The contrast appeared better on the URSA. Eli was able to get a real good correction off his base mem in about 15 seconds, in both rooms. When it came to matching the URSA x-fer in the Spirit room, it took a little longer, which is understandable. Both of these telecines are excellent machines. When you have a choice, there will be "camps" for and against. There will be the client and colorist preferences (duh, no kidding). I felt that Eli and Billy like working in the Spirit room alot. I believe each has it's place and that each does a better job on some elements than the other. Name your poison. Again, thank you very much Dave and Al, for a great afternoon and evening. You made us all feel right at home. You have a terrific facility!!! Great views of the skyline, too!!

Regards, Bruce W. Goldstein Sr. Colorist A+V

From: Veenotph@aol.com Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:17:24 EST To: telecine@alegria.com Subject: Transformania

Hello.

This past saturday there was a comparison between the Ursa Diamond, and the Spirit. It was hosted by Dave Satin of SMA, and got its start on the TIG. I shot some footage, and went to see for myself. I shoot the images that get transferred, so I know very little about the nuts and bolts of Telecine, so it was a great experience. Thanks go to SMA, Dave Satin, and his Crew, and Colorists. Also I would like to thank Dominic Rom and Rick Anthony of Du-art for rushing my film through the processing. Also thanks to Ricky Ricamonte (Manhattan Transfer), and Craig Leffel (OPTIMUS) for answering my beginer questions about the Telecine Process. If I forgot anyone, I am sorry.

The comparison was to be made between the Machines only, So no secondary corrections were used, No DaVinci, no Scandal, No twiggi, no noise reducers. RGB (Telecine Only ) corrections. Compared footage included Some stuff from SMA which had no flesh tones, and no real blacks, An I.P., Some Over exposed footage ( very overexposed), Some Sunset ( shot on 5247 - mine) and then Dusk on 5246, and 5277. Some under exposed and scratched Green screen tests, and a couple of scenes with Film Noirish type lighting ( in color)

The scenes were timed on the Diamond, to a pleasing result, and captured to D-1. then we took the same footage to the Spirit. There the scenes were matched, as best as possible, and comparisons of the two images were observed. This was really a day for the colorists, so that they could dispell some of the myths about the machines, see for them selves, etc., etc. etc.

Personally I would have liked to have made the best image possible on each machine, and compared, however that is a different test. The test we did was very informative.

The first thing I noticed, was that the "GEOMETRY" was different between the two machines. One of the Machines had a decided thinning effect on the image compared to the other. This leads me to wonder, is there a grid like leader I can have the lab splice on for me, to check that?

Other results. It appears that the Spirit was less noisy, Although some people felt that their own Diamonds were quieter. Something I only noticed by split screening. Remember the noise reducers were not used. I actually felt in one shot with a flat background that the noise gave the background more texture, and I preffered it there. The Spirit seemed to have more resolution, and less Aliasing, problems. The diffused Light source made a huge difference in the Scratched Green Screen, most of the scratches were un noticable on the Spirit.

Many of the rolls had the Taf film, that seemed to help, but adjusting to the TAF didn't automatically make a good or even usable image ( In the case of the Way verexposed stock). So the colorist is still integral to the process. When the Sunset on the '47 came up, I really enjoyed the double take Eli the Colorist did "What the?????". In my humble opinion, both are wonderful machines, and I would be happy to have footage I shot transfered on either one. The Spirit seemed to be able to draw out detail in the blacks a little better without going Milky, while keeping the highlights the same. However it was a subjective feeling, not an actual comparison. Also it did seem that the spirit image was Flatter, until the colorist really decided, or was requested to make it more: contrasty, Glowy, Ballsy ( pick one). These are just my musings, and not a final word in any way. Really, I had to split see a split screen to notice differences in the two images from the two machines.

It was interesting invading the colorists world for the day, and hearing them talk about what they are looking for from a Telecine. Discussing, the Gamma curve, and Color Bending, Blue highlights on this side of the face, Hair going Green. Part of the day re-inforced the need for a good colorist to work with in the transfer. Okay, these are just my musings, hope that someone finds them interesting. I'd write more, but this has already dissapeared once into Cyber space.

Steven Gladstone ( D.P. not a colorist, at large)

From: Veenotph@aol.com Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:11:15 EST To: telecine@alegria.com Subject: Re: Transformania clarification

In a message dated 02/04/1998 01:25:41, you wrote:

<>

What I meant by this was I'm a D.P. not a colorist. Not that I shoot or shot all of the images that were used at the comparison.

Sorry if I offended. I'm not Barry Manilow, I don't write the songs. Oops.

Steven Gladstone

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:32:36 -0500 From: Alan McIlwaine <100036.557@compuserve.com> Subject: Transfomania To: "\"INTERNET:telecine@sun.a" <TELECINE@SUN.ALEGRIA.COM>

Can someone please clarify for those of us who did not attend, which model of Ursa was used at SMA?

Steven Gladstone and GB Gaines refer to the Ursa Diamond whilst Dave Corbitt refers to the Ursa Gold.

Obviously there is a considerable difference between the two types of Ursa telecines and so I feel it would be useful to know both the type and age of both telecines used in the test.

Perhaps someone at SMA could assist.

Regards Alan McIlwaine Quinto Communications

From: ranthony@duart.com Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 2:24:24 -0500 To: TELECINE@SUN.ALEGRIA.COM, 100036.557@compuserve.com Subject: Re: Transfomania

    Alan McIlwaine asked:
    
    >Can someone please clarify for those of us who did not attend, which 
    >model of Ursa was used at SMA?
    
    It was an Ursa Gold.  I erroneously referred to it as a Diamond in my 
    post as well.
    
    
    Rick Anthony
    Duart Film and Video

 First I would like to thank Dave,Mike,Alan,Eli&Billy for

 On to some observations:

Apparently that did not happen here.

  -----------------------------

* vox (212) 687-4000		 *
 * fax (212) 687-8023		*
  -----------------------------

Steven (ugggh, can I be more long winded) Gladstone