Home Movies on 8mm film to DV

Question

Level 2

350 points

Home Movies on 8mm film to DV

hello all:

i'm working with a guy who offers telecine services to scan some old 8mm home movies that are on film ( not 8mm video tapes). at my request, he's going to return to me a drive full of image sequences of each frame on a given reel. i can easily use the QuickTime player to create 18fps .mov files. however, i want to be able to edit these and eventually author them to DVD, so the 18fps needs to be converted to 29.97fps video for editing in FCP.

so, what is the best tool to use for this job? i've been hunting around inside the CinemaTools user manual and it seems like its conversions are tailored toward mostly 24fps film and the associated pull-down methods of converting that to DV or HDV footage. so, i'm thinking CinemaTools is not the right application here. especially since there's no need for me to go back to the original film masters for cutting.

so my question is should i be using Compressor to convert from an 18fps .mov to a 29.97fps. will compressor produce a video that's both editable in FCP and something that looks good on a DVD?

thanks,
scott

PowerMac G5 2.5GHz Mac OS X (10.4.5)

Posted on Jul 28, 2006 8:04 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Jim Cookman

Level 7

23,447 points

Jul 28, 2006 8:28 AM in response to scott nichol

Good heavens, why are you going that route? Do you want to retouch every frame or something? Why not just telecine to dv tape and be done with it? That would solve all your issues.

A bigger worry is the condition of the film itself. Kodak makes a wonderful conditoner/lubricant that is really a must for old film that has been sitting. Also be sure to get them up on a rewind bench and check for torn or damaged sprocket holes and repair them. And if he's got a liquid gate telecine all the better. The liquid fills in scratches on the base layer so they are invisible. But won't do anything for emulsion scratches.

Reply

Answer 2

Jul 28, 2006 8:37 AM in response to Jim Cookman

Yeh most people I know ho want to use old film like that set up a projecter in a dark room and place there camera next to it and record the projected film onto tape.

Reply

Answer 3

Jim Cookman

Level 7

23,447 points

Jul 28, 2006 9:01 AM in response to Zackary Baker

Are you kidding? You'd rather do that than a liquid gate? What planet is Salt Lake City on?

Uncle Grump

Reply

Answer 4

Jul 28, 2006 9:05 AM in response to Jim Cookman

First of all Jim Cookman stop being rude to people in your posts.

all I said is that Most people I know used that as a solution

Its Inexpencive

If you cant post anything nice dont post anything at all

Reply

Answer 5

Jim Cookman

Level 7

23,447 points

Jul 28, 2006 9:48 AM in response to Zackary Baker

Well, I guess you feel better now. I'm grumpy. It's part of my dubious charm.

No client of mine would accept a projection shot off a wall. Keystoning and projector flicker would be the primary show stoppers.

Reply

Answer 6

LuckyMan

Level 2

370 points

Jul 28, 2006 10:34 AM in response to Zackary Baker

Zackary Baker,

I urge you to be polite. If you can't say anything nice about Jim, don't say anything at all.

Jim Cookman's candor and authenticity have been very good for me. He tends to tell it like it is, in terms of FCP, you and him. He is not your mother; accept him as he is and be glad he contributes to the needy on this forum.

And don't ruin this forum for those of us who really want to learn something and are willing to pay the modest price, mostly just in terms of reining back our overweening ego.

LM

Reply

Answer 7

Maxplanar

Level 4

3,098 points

Jul 28, 2006 10:44 AM in response to scott nichol

There may be a very good reason to do this - if the scans of each frame are highrez, it may well be an excellent plan.

So - what rez are these scanned images?

Reply

Answer 8

Jim Cookman

Level 7

23,447 points

Jul 28, 2006 10:47 AM in response to Maxplanar

Well, yes; you're right. But unless it's the Zapruder film or something like it, it seems a tremendous waste of effort.

Reply

Answer 9

Jim Cookman

Level 7

23,447 points

Jul 29, 2006 6:02 AM in response to scott nichol

Hey Scott- rethinking this:

You have image sequence files. open in QT, assemble at 18 fps. What codec will they be? Render and save.
You MIGHT be able to open the resulting .mov and re-export it into a codec that FCP understands at 29.97. QT might just extrapolate those missing frames.

If you open the 18 fps clips in fcp and put them on a 29.97 timeline, you'll also force the render; but unless you export them and reimport them, you'll have to re-render everytime you so much as look at them.

Where's Patrick? This might well be better done in Motion, or even AfterEffects.

Reply

Answer 10

scott nichol Author

Level 2

350 points

Jul 29, 2006 12:48 PM in response to Jim Cookman

well, i'm disappointed that this turned into a session of personal bickering since none of this is very helpful to me. if i can be the grumpy one for a moment, knock it off and stay on topic!

the film is in fine shape. we don't need to worry too much about that. it looks like its been stored well over the past years.

the scans of each frame will be 1600x1200 pixels. the reason that i like this process is that at least for the foreseeable future the scanned frames are more or less future proof. i can down size them to any of the current standard formats: 480, 720, 1080 interlaced or progressive, it doesn't matter. beyond that, discussing the whys of this are immaterial unless you've got a better idea than interlaced DV.

if i telecine directly to DV, i'm locked into a 480 line resolution. this to me is foolish, especially since there's no additional cost to get the frames at the higher resolution. i'll provide the storage, i don't care about that. this cost is miniscule compared to the emotional value.

so that being said, can we get back to how cinema tools is used and how it could help or not help. and whether compressor does anything tricky or disadvantageous with respect to pull-down rates.

thanks again,
scott

PowerMac G5 2.5GHz Mac OS X (10.4.5)

Reply

Answer 11

LuckyMan

Level 2

370 points

Jul 29, 2006 1:07 PM in response to scott nichol

scott,

It is disappointing to find someone complaining about complaining: "well, i'm disappointed that this turned into a session of personal bickering since none of this is very helpful to me. if i can be the grumpy one for a moment, knock it off and stay on topic!"

Would you prefer to pay cash for the free consulting you are receiving?

It does not behoove the welfare recipient to bemoan any lack of alacrity on the part of the welfare dispensers.

The only payment required here is the reining in of an overweening ego.

LM

Reply

Answer 12

Jul 29, 2006 5:00 PM in response to scott nichol

i'm working with a guy who offers telecine services to scan some old 8mm home movies that are on film (not 8mm video tapes). at my request, he's going to return to me a drive full of image sequences of each frame on a given reel. i can easily use the QuickTime player to create 18fps .mov files. however, i want to be able to edit these and eventually author them to DVD, so the 18fps needs to be converted to 29.97fps video for editing in FCP.< </div>

This is a tough call, for sure. I think Compressor would be the better route. Have you seen Patrick Sheffiled's posts on the topic of chaning frame rates in Compressor? His method is mostly about changing speed, though. Might not work, either.

This scanning system you are using, I think I know it, comes from an outfit in Texas, My father has one. Remarkable machine. Parks each frame, scans it to a jpeg, and moves to the next frame. My dad brings the image sequence folders into Premiere on a PC, which, apparently, has a routine that does the conversion.

I've never used Cinema Tools but it seems to me, way back when it was a separate $1,000 application, that the conversion routines had user-setable options for input speed, output frame rate and pulldown options.

Hope you figure it out and, puh-leeze, post back if you do so the future generations can benefit from our bickering and grumpiness.

bogiesan

Reply

Answer 13

LuckyMan

Level 2

370 points

Jul 29, 2006 5:34 PM in response to LuckyMan

scott,

This is the bad cop again. Before quitting this thread, you should award the "solved" points to the most helpful person, even if you don't think they truly solved it, and award the "helpful" points to two other persons whom you choose. ( I do not expect to get any points). These will be acts of politeness on your part and will strengthen the health of the forum. Finally, on your way out the door, you should mark the thread as answered as an indication of its official closure.

LM

Reply

Answer 14

DFvideo

Level 2

150 points

Jul 29, 2006 8:47 PM in response to scott nichol

I did something like this once. I shot an animation on a digital camera frame by frame.

I imported the photos into FCP and just dragged them into the timeline. I set my still/freeze duration to one frame in my user prefs. Since all of my photos were named in a list (photo1, photo2, photo3, etc.), they came into the timeline in the same order. I exported as a quicktime movie and it all worked out.

Reply

Answer 15

Jul 29, 2006 9:21 PM in response to DFvideo

Good idea, only I would number frames differently: photo001, photo002, etc. Otherwise, FCP may place photo10 right after photo1 and in front of photo100, then photo2.

Reply