[tig] Subliminal motion in 16mm film tranfers

Rob Lingelbach rob
Sat Jun 19 22:44:29 BST 2004


On 2004-06-18 at 17:46, Rick Anthony (ranthony at mipost.com) wrote:

> Please hold on while I don my NOMEX suit.

can I borrow that suit Rick?

> Having viewed uncounted registration tests of 16, S16, and 35mm cameras,
> I would argue that the motion is more likely to be telecine introduced,
> than camera induced.  I'm fairly confident that I could find at least a
> handful of DP/camera owners lurking on this list that might agree with
> me. ;-)

In the case of 35mm, there have been times when I've seen camera 
registration tests -- done shooting a grid as dx or multiple passes 
through the camera, offset by like a quarter grid square, where we 
could quantify the camera weave, and then compare it to telecine weave 
(which manifests as an overall change in framing rather than a 
differential change in framing).  Some cameras are better than others 
(the Mitchell movement was the standard for years) and over time I came 
to the conclusion that camera maintenance was the most important 
variable.  But I've seen an occasional Arri III that was as steady as a 
good Mitchell.  

And on telecines, design first and maintenance second were the factors
in reducing weave: gate, capstan (important for vertical weave), pressure 
rollers, guide rollers.  One need find one of those Hermetic engineers we 
were talking about to get the film path of certain vintage telecines to 
exhibit minimal weave.

regards
--Rob
TIG founder admin colorist
-- 
Rob Lingelbach   rob at calarts.edu





More information about the Tig mailing list