Getting film look on BFF DV video without deinterlacing?

[arminio]

I have BFF DV video in PAL format that I want to look like film (or at least, to play smooth as HD progressive video and not look like "cheap" DV video :) ). I usually do that with deinterlacing and using color corrections. But this time, I have video that can't be deinterlaced fine - it has ton of panning and handheld shots that looks totally messed after deinterlacing.
So I stumble to interresting solution: to leave video interlaced but still to have film look (smoother video and motion), I used flicker filter in Final Cut Pro. It is actually a kind of vertical blur on fields. At PC, simmilar trick can be achieved with AviSynth and blur function (using only vertical blurring) or with VirtualDub and field bob filter. But all that works almost fine - the problem is that final result has annoying ghosting on panning shots visible usually on CRT TV's (but still far better than stuttery of panning shots in deinterlaced video). Second problem that these filters have is that some part of video sometimes stays in "video look" (and that occurs even on moving parts where interlacing is strong...).
So, my question is - does anybody have some 100% working solution that can make motion and picture more "filmic" but without deinterlacing?

[Emulgator]

Readily cooked, and 100%?
Not me. I am happy with 99%. HD progressive? Nah, no deinterlacing. Just bobbing and kidding. Ha. Take That ;-)

DirectShowSource("X:\yourfile.avi")
FinalResizer="133-AVCHD1280"# if you bring in 4:3 footage
#FinalResizer="177-AVCHD1280"# if you bring in 16:9 footage
ConvertToYV12(interlaced=true).TempGaussMC_beta1(EdiMode="NNEDI", tr2=3, sharpness=2.8)#bob up to 50p/59.94p
#[*#_______________________________________Start of Motion Blur__________________________________________
IsYUY2 ? NOP : IsYV12 ? NOP : ConvertToYV12(IsFieldBased) # MVTools need YUY2 or YV12 !
super=MSuper()
bkwvec=MAnalyse(super, isb=true)
fwdvec=MAnalyse(super, isb=false)
MFlowBlur(super, bkwvec, fwdvec, blur=40)# blur west, young man !
#*]#_________________________________________End of Motion Blur___________________________________________
#__________________Start of Resize Bobbed PAL-SD 704x576x50p 4:3 auf BD HDLite 1280x720x50p 16:9_____________________
FinalResizer=="133-AVCHD1280" ? Lanczos4Resize(960, 720, 0, 0, -0, -0).AddBorders(160, 0, 160, 0, color=$000000) : NOP
#___________________End of Resize Bobbed PAL-SD 704x576x50p 4:3 auf BD HDLite 1280x720x50p 16:9_____________________
#__________________Start of Resize Bobbed PAL-SD 704x576x50p 4:3 auf BD HDLite 1280x720x50p 16:9_____________________
FinalResizer=="177-AVCHD1280" ? Lanczos4Resize(1280, 720, 0, 0, -0, -0).AddBorders(0, 0, 0, 0, color=$000000) : NOP
#___________________End of Resize Bobbed PAL-SD 704x576x50p 4:3 auf BD HDLite 1280x720x50p 16:9_____________________
return(last)


Be happy, it is slow !

[Friday007]

Sounds like, the 50P is the best solution to do the deinterlance...
but I saw many 720/25P movies are quite smooth, hwo they can achieve it.

[arminio]

Be happy, it is slow !

It is ubelieveable slow and I have 108 minute video to process :(
Anyway, thanks for the script!


Sounds like, the 50P is the best solution to do the deinterlance...
but I saw many 720/25P movies are quite smooth, hwo they can achieve it.

50p is the best solution but I can't make PAL DVD out of it :(
And you are right - there are ton of SD PAL movies that has smooth playback and film look. I have some DVDs with documentaries shot on consumer DV cameras like mine that shoot interlaced. But they post-processed video somehow so on DVD it looks like film and have film-like motion and it is smooth in panning and other shots. I simply can't figure out how to get that :(

[2Bdecided]

You only pan slowly and you use a slow (1/50th or slower) shutter speed.

I'm confused why deinterlacing doesn't give the effect you want - maybe you're using a lousy deinterlacer.

Most broadcasters often don't even bother to deinterlace properly - they just drop one field and resize the other. It introduces aliasing. They don't seem to care.

I hate the film look FWIW, but there was an entire thread devoted to it the other year - search the AVIsynth forum.

Cheers,
David.

[arminio]

You only pan slowly and you use a slow (1/50th or slower) shutter speed.


I Know that but this film has handheld camera that pans in every directions on auto setings (it is raw documentary where we didn't have time to set shutter because we were filming :) )

I'm confused why deinterlacing doesn't give the effect you want - maybe you're using a lousy deinterlacer.


I tried tons of them - from simple blendings to motion compensations but everything simply stutters in some panning shots while horizontal scrolling text is also unreadable during scroll. :(



Most broadcasters often don't even bother to deinterlace properly - they just drop one field and resize the other. It introduces aliasing. They don't seem to care.

I hate the film look FWIW, but there was an entire thread devoted to it the other year - search the AVIsynth forum.

Cheers,
David.

Already checked tons of thread there but without luck. Most of them uses the same plugins which does not give me correct result :(
For this movie, I don't want film look in a sense of grain, saturation etc. I just don't want my video to look like it is shot interlaced but to look like progressive one (like it is shot on HD or simmilar progressive video). And deinterlacing that should do that, doesnt work good. :(

[Emulgator]

For DVD comment the resizers out.
Then Selecteven() or Selectodd() or Merge. Merge will blend the frames coming from restored fields.
Use what you prefer.

DirectShowSource("E:\yourfile.avi")
#FinalResizer="133-AVCHD1280"# if you bring in 4:3 footage
#FinalResizer="177-AVCHD1280"# if you bring in 16:9 footage
Finalresizer="0"# no resizer
TGMCDec=1 # 0: Bob 1: SelectEven, 2: SelectOdd, 3: Merge
ConvertToYV12(interlaced=true).TempGaussMC_beta1(EdiMode="NNEDI", tr2=3, sharpness=2.8)#bob up o 50p
#[*#_______________________________________Start of Motion Blur__________________________________________
IsYUY2 ? NOP : IsYV12 ? NOP : ConvertToYV12(IsFieldBased) # MVTools need YUY2 or YV12 !
super=MSuper()
bkwvec=MAnalyse(super, isb=true)
fwdvec=MAnalyse(super, isb=false)
MFlowBlur(super, bkwvec, fwdvec, blur=40)
#*]#_________________________________________End of Motion Blur___________________________________________
TGMCDec==1 ? SelectOdd : TGMCDec==2 ? SelectEven : TGMCDec==3 ? Merge(SelectEven(), SelectOdd()) : NOP
#__________________Start of Resize Bobbed PAL-SD 704x576x50p 4:3 auf BD HDLite 1280x720x50p 16:9_____________________
FinalResizer=="133-AVCHD1280" ? Lanczos4Resize(960, 720, 12, 8, -2, -2).AddBorders(160, 0, 160, 0, color=$000000) : NOP
#___________________End of Resize Bobbed PAL-SD 704x576x50p 4:3 auf BD HDLite 1280x720x50p 16:9_____________________
#__________________Start of Resize Bobbed PAL-SD 704x576x50p 4:3 auf BD HDLite 1280x720x50p 16:9_____________________
FinalResizer=="177-AVCHD1280" ? Lanczos4Resize(1280, 720, 0, 0, -0, -0).AddBorders(0, 0, 0, 0, color=$000000) : NOP
#___________________End of Resize Bobbed PAL-SD 704x576x50p 4:3 auf BD HDLite 1280x720x50p 16:9_____________________
return(last)

[Friday007]

It is ubelieveable slow and I have 108 minute video to process :(
Anyway, thanks for the script!

50p is the best solution but I can't make PAL DVD out of it :(
And you are right - there are ton of SD PAL movies that has smooth playback and film look. I have some DVDs with documentaries shot on consumer DV cameras like mine that shoot interlaced. But they post-processed video somehow so on DVD it looks like film and have film-like motion and it is smooth in panning and other shots. I simply can't figure out how to get that :(

If your consumer DV is interlance and keep the interlance to DVD, it will be great smooth, because DVD is also an interlance system, the key is keep DVD's TFF or BFF same with original video clip...

My problem is that my DV is AVCHD, the video it made is 1080i, I would like to downgrade to 720/25P but never success, 720/50P is fine......

[Didée]

Emulgator's suggestion could be sped up quite a bit: use beta2 instead of beta1 (or at least, tell it explicitely to use blocksize 16 or even 32. Default 8 is way too slow, and way too small for full-HD), find and activate the "slow motion" feature that's hidden in the beta2 script, and finalize with Merge(selecteven,selectodd) (incase of 2*SloMo) or Merge(selecteven,selectodd) /n Merge(selecteven,selectodd) (incase of 4*SloMo).
It won't become a "sprinter" this way. But chances are it finishes this decade, instead of next century. ;)

[Emulgator]

Many thanks ! Yes, I would like it faster too. Just tried your suggestions:
Where TGMC is called, signal is still SD.
beta2 is ok, blocksize 16 is quite ok (but not as convincing as 8), 32 introduces artifacts.
At least with my testsignal (fast zooming out titles), blocksize 8 looks most convincing to me.
Then I moved the decimation line (Select...) immediately after TGMC to have bigger steps to feed to motion blur.
But then the Motion Blur generated artifacts as well.
It looks like I should leave it as is, at least for my purposes.
To use the TGMC-internal Merger sounds good, this shall be my next try.

[arminio]

If your consumer DV is interlance and keep the interlance to DVD, it will be great smooth, because DVD is also an interlance system, the key is keep DVD's TFF or BFF same with original video clip...

There is no problem in the wrong fields order. And interlace picture is excelent. But I want it to look more "progressive" like, for example, HD or film transferred to DVD (like BBC, National Geographic docs etc.). The way to get this is to make progressive out of interlaced video (I used bob filter for that) but then I get 50fps which can't be authored on DVD. Alternative is to deinterlace and then I get jittering in some panning shots. Acceptable results I can get using Flicker filter in Final Cut Pro or, using blur(0,0.9) in Avisynth or field bob filter in VirtualDub set to 1/4 up for both fields. Then panning shots and all moving shots in general looks smooth with sharpnes and feeling of progressive video while it is still interlaced and jitter in pans is almost completely gone except then some ghtosting occurs as I said...

[2Bdecided]

You're not stating a "problem" - you're stating the inevitable result of what you're doing.

The flicker filter and vertical blur are just doing blend deinterlacing - i.e. it's just both fields blended together.

If that's not good enough, and you want 25p without stutter, you'll have to deinterlace to 50p, interpolate to some integer multiple of that (100, 300, 600 etc), and merge chunks of frames together (using temporalsoften or something else) before decimating to 25p. Luckily, there's already a function to do this: mflowblur. At 50p, use it with a 100% shutter, then just do a selectevery(2,0) to get 25fps.

http://avisynth.org.ru/mvtools/mvtools2.html

That will give you true motion blur, but beware - motion compensation goes wrong sometimes - there may be artefacts in complex movement (though hopefully hidden by the blur).


The BBC, National Geographic, etc shoot in 24p or 25p with a 1/48th, 1/50th, or sometimes even 1/25th shutter speed. They also use very nice cameras, manual exposure and use custom gamma curves to avoid crushing blacks and overexposing whites. There's only so much you can do in post.

Cheers,
David.

[arminio]

You're not stating a "problem" - you're stating the inevitable result of what you're doing.
The flicker filter and vertical blur are just doing blend deinterlacing - i.e. it's just both fields blended together.


That's not 100% true - Flicker filter from Final Cut Pro and Vertical Blur from AviSynth does not completely blend frames. I checked result in VirtualDub and video is still interlaced ("mice teeth" are present, fileds can be divided, video can be deinterlaced...) but effect that these filter do to fields is a kind of blurring betwen fields with retaining interlaced picture that result in crisp picture and more cinematic playback but with ghosting :(


If that's not good enough, and you want 25p without stutter, you'll have to deinterlace to 50p, interpolate to some integer multiple of that (100, 300, 600 etc), and merge chunks of frames together (using temporalsoften or something else) before decimating to 25p. Luckily, there's already a function to do this: mflowblur. At 50p, use it with a 100% shutter, then just do a selectevery(2,0) to get 25fps.

http://avisynth.org.ru/mvtools/mvtools2.html

That will give you true motion blur, but beware - motion compensation goes wrong sometimes - there may be artefacts in complex movement (though hopefully hidden by the blur).


I already tried MVTOOLS with some settings that convert to 400fps and results are fascinating good - but it is unusable for anything than experimenting because these functions are so slow that it could take a weeks to process my 108 minute video in great quality :(
I'm thinking to try ReelSmart motion blur plugin for AE. It is fast but I need to see is it good as MVTOOLS.


The BBC, National Geographic, etc shoot in 24p or 25p with a 1/48th, 1/50th, or sometimes even 1/25th shutter speed. They also use very nice cameras, manual exposure and use custom gamma curves to avoid crushing blacks and overexposing whites. There's only so much you can do in post.
Cheers,
David.

I know that NG and BBC uses progressive cameras... I didn't get good exaples... Better example would be, for instance, some Troma documentaries shot on miniDV and transferred to DVD with non-video look and in the same time completelly "stutter free" in pans (OK - these videos mostly have low quality picture but panning shots are clear and smooth on DVD which I can't get! :( )... Now, I assume that with their 30fps video they can do pulldown and use 23.9 as a DVD source and that will do the work and with PAL I use, there is no easy solution... :(

[2Bdecided]

Now, I assume that with their 30fps video they can do pulldown and use 23.9 as a DVD source and that will do the work and with PAL I use, there is no easy solution... :(?! They can do 60i > 30p giving slightly less stuttery pans than 24p. But for a 24p/25p target "PAL" is obviously a better source, because 50i>25p>24p is near-trivial, while 60i>24p is horrible.

You're right about the slow processing with mvtools.

You either take the time for the processing to create "real" motion blur, shoot with an appropriate shutter speed, or buy a camera that supports 24p or 25p. Or put up with what you've got!


Partly blurring interlaced fields like you're discussing is an abomination IMO, but if it's the look you want, it's certainly quick. It would be interesting to see how different displays handled it.

Cheers,
David.

[Mug Funky]

for video to look even slightly like film, you need to understand just how different they are.

btw, current film stocks set a damn high benchmark. a consumer level camcorder has no chance.

1. dynamic range. film and video can see more or less equally well into the dark. film can see a lot more into the light, however. the new vision3 250D for instance can keep a meaningful image up to 8 stops overexposed. thinking of stops as being like the richter scale, your video could take a 5.0 quake, where film could take an 8.0. you can fix this with lots of soft fill-lighting when you shoot.

2. sharpness. there's a thing called "modulation transfer function". it's basically the frequency response of the medium. film rolls off, video cuts off sharply. so video appears sharper than film. mixing a blurred version in 50/50 can help this a lot.

also, film has different MTF's for each colour channel. blue is sharpest (and grainiest), green is middle, red is blurriest (which may explain why 16mm is so forgiving to skin tones).

3. depth of field. consumer cameras have a sensor that's about 1/8 inches. pro cameras are 2/3 inch. film is either 16mm or 35mm. excuse the mixing of units, but 2/3 inch is similar to 16mm. because of this, lenses are different, and depth of field is far deeper in consumer video than film or pro video. meaning everything is in focus, and you can't do pretty closeups with strong defocus in the background - it'll just look ordinary on video. you can get around this with a 35mm adaptor, but you'll lose up to 1.5 stops of light, and will need to hire a decent lens and be able to pull focus on it. and it'll still not look quite right, though a skillful shooter will make that irrelevant.

those are the main issues. all of them have expensive solutions. it's simply not possible to make camcorder look like film after it's already been shot.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Indeed. Even with perfect lighting and some rigorous postprocessing, you can't really shrink the depth of field in my experience. One technique that CAN work (but requires a lot of skill) is manually focusing during the scene, so your subject is at the extreme rear end of the focus plane. This is easier said than done though :)

Derek

[arminio]

?! They can do 60i > 30p giving slightly less stuttery pans than 24p. But for a 24p/25p target "PAL" is obviously a better source, because 50i>25p>24p is near-trivial, while 60i>24p is horrible.


I always thought it was easier to get 24p from 60i.
Can you explain how to get 24p from 50i without deinterlacing? Is it possible? I can try that if it is possible... maybe it will give better results?

You're right about the slow processing with mvtools.
You either take the time for the processing to create "real" motion blur, shoot with an appropriate shutter speed, or buy a camera that supports 24p or 25p. Or put up with what you've got!


Yes. Looks like there is no fast and good solution (and cheap :) )

Partly blurring interlaced fields like you're discussing is an abomination IMO, but if it's the look you want, it's certainly quick. It would be interesting to see how different displays handled it.


Method is pretty bizzare but (almost) works. I tried on several CRTs and LCDs and everywhere looks just like I want although some pan shots (mostly where text pans) has ghosting. In general, picture and motion has a fine touch of "progressive cinematic" look.


for video to look even slightly like film, you need to understand just how different they are.
1. dynamic range. film and video can see more or less equally well into the dark. film can see a lot more into the light, however. the new vision3 250D for instance can keep a meaningful image up to 8 stops overexposed. thinking of stops as being like the richter scale, your video could take a 5.0 quake, where film could take an 8.0. you can fix this with lots of soft fill-lighting when you shoot.

2. sharpness. there's a thing called "modulation transfer function". it's basically the frequency response of the medium. film rolls off, video cuts off sharply. so video appears sharper than film. mixing a blurred version in 50/50 can help this a lot.

also, film has different MTF's for each colour channel. blue is sharpest (and grainiest), green is middle, red is blurriest (which may explain why 16mm is so forgiving to skin tones).

3. depth of field. consumer cameras have a sensor that's about 1/8 inches. pro cameras are 2/3 inch. film is either 16mm or 35mm. excuse the mixing of units, but 2/3 inch is similar to 16mm. because of this, lenses are different, and depth of field is far deeper in consumer video than film or pro video. meaning everything is in focus, and you can't do pretty closeups with strong defocus in the background - it'll just look ordinary on video. you can get around this with a 35mm adaptor, but you'll lose up to 1.5 stops of light, and will need to hire a decent lens and be able to pull focus on it. and it'll still not look quite right, though a skillful shooter will make that irrelevant.

those are the main issues. all of them have expensive solutions. it's simply not possible to make camcorder look like film after it's already been shot.

All you said is true - these are characteristic of film look. But, that is only one small part of the problem.
See, one thing is the fact: DOF and various color corrections are not all you need to have cinematic look. See, you can have DOF, various lenses, lighting set etc.... and even in that conditions if you shot with interlaced video camera, you will still get so called "soap opera" video look no matter how you set lights, lenses and use depth of field.

One of the most important part of cinematic look is progressive shooting. And that is the primary problem I have. DOF can be simulated in various vays (even digitally produced in post) and you can use color correction to have totally film look - but if video is interlaced, there is NO film look!

So, first and main problem is to get progressive look of video. And then you can do colorisation etc. to get close to film look (much easier that the first part of the problem).

[Mug Funky]

IMO prog/interlace is a tiny part of the problem. any half-decent single-field deinterlacer can handle it. of course, shutter-speed and camera movement are still issues. people pan too fast in hand-held, and that's a big part of the video look too. deinterlacing a fast pan at a high shutter speed will give you staccato, which is quite "un-film like". cinematographers are trained to not pan too fast to avoid the limitations of 24 on a 48hz projector shutter (many choose to ignore this for the "Bourne" effect).

colour corrected video cannot give a film look. it just gives a colour-corrected video look. believe me, i've been asked to match video that's cut with film. they are more different than you can imagine until you've got them side-by-side.

as i stated, film is capturing more dynamic information than video. you can't fudge what isn't there. if the camera gives you solid white, you cannot pull clouds out of it by turning the brightness down - you just end up with grey.

i've seen a film camera pointed at the sun, and when i turned the PEC right down to zero, there was a defined disc around the sun, barely visible behind the telecine's own noise (after all, the neg was almost totally black and thus hard to see through). no imaging sensor yet built can do this without burying everything else in black or noise.

[2Bdecided]

I know there are ten things more important to "film look" than 25p vs 50i/50p - but lots of the fake film look on TV is 90% due to 25p.

Sometimes I thought there were lots of other things going on with filmised video, but using mvtools to bump such 25p content back up to 50i made it look like absolutely normal video - no other adjustments necessary. Which made me realise: all the other changes I assumed had been made, I was imagining them - just because it was 25p.

To my eyes, watching filmised video at 25p, I thought the gamma was different, the highlights were different, the sharpness was different etc etc etc - but none of this was true at all - it was just what my brain was falsely telling me when I saw the stuttery 25p motion! When I changed it to 50i (no other change at all) it looked perfectly normal - the "different" gamma, the "different" highlights, the "different" sharpness had all vanished - as if by magic - because they were never real in the first place.


It's almost impossible to make video look like real film. But it's easy enough to make it look like filmised video, and that seems to be what 99% of people are "happy" with. Even here, there are different levels of success and sophistication, for which you should read Mug Funky's advice carefully!


I always thought it was easier to get 24p from 60i.
Can you explain how to get 24p from 50i without deinterlacing? Is it possible? I can try that if it is possible... maybe it will give better results?No, I just meant with deinterlacing.
50i > 50p > drop frames > 25p > slow down 4% > 24p
or
50i > deinterlace or drop fields > 25p > slow down 4% > 24p

Cheers,
David.

[communist]

Just as a follow-up to your post David - anyone seen Public Enemies? It is not a 24p production either and for a lot of people the general look of the movie was just 'cheap' / 'amateurish' etc.
This only because it looks way too smooth.

So yeah 24/25p with good framing/lighting will be good enough for most people (considering the available equipment etc.).

[2Bdecided]

I haven't seen that film, but I'd be surprised if it was distributed at anything other than 24p, even though it was shot on HDCAM-SR (according to IMDB).

1/24th shutter on 24p can look a little strange. That's mostly because almost* no film camera can physically do this - the shutter is never closed, which in a real film camera it must be to allow the film to move! Hence an "always open" shutter is a "video only" look - common at 50i or 60i - but very strange at 24p! I'm just guessing this might be what happened here.

Shooting with a 1/50th shutter at 50i or 50p and then blending it to 25p (or 24p) looks basically the same (24p like film, but with an amount of blur that almost* no real film camera could ever capture).

Blending 60i or 60p to 24p can look similar to the above, but panning shots will visibly judder in this case.

Cheers,
David.

* - actually, you can have an "always open" shutter by using prisms or mirrors to "project" the image onto constantly moving film negative. AFAIK no one does this, though some older telecine units used this technology to show films on TV without the standard stop-start movement of the film in the gate that's needed on all normal projectors.

[Friday007]

I do not quite understand why so many people love 24P and always call 24P as film look. I think film look does not only cause 24P but too many difference between film camera and DV ( or even AVCHD ), to have a smooth video, the higher frame rate the better, 50i looks more smooth than 25P because 50i captured 50 pictures in 1 second and 25P only captured 25 pictures in 1 second, the 24P even less... in fact, the cinematograph presents 2 times for each picture, so it looks like 48P on screen......if the bandwidth available, I believe the 50P/60P will be the TV system standard in future because it can provide really smooth video and looks really comfortable...

[arminio]

Let me put this way: check a piece from some soap opera shot on interlaced video and compare it to progressive "more film than cheap TV" look of, for instance, National Geographic documentary. Which one looks better, more serious, more proffesional and "more cool"?
:)

[2Bdecided]

I was watching some 4k and 8k 60fps video sources the other week. That looked cool. Dropping it to 24p would have been horrendous. If anything, higher frame rate are needed ideally (though I doubt it'll happen).

But when you don't have such exceptional quality, 24p is a toy that people use to try to subconsciously trigger all the pre-conceptions of "high quality" that viewers associate with big budget features films. The trick kind of works, even when the technical and content quality is mediocre.

Be careful though - when the basic quality is dire to start with, dropping the frame rate to 24p will just make something that looks stuttery, faulty, and still dire!

Cheers,
David.

[Mug Funky]

* - actually, you can have an "always open" shutter by using prisms or mirrors to "project" the image onto constantly moving film negative. AFAIK no one does this, though some older telecine units used this technology to show films on TV without the standard stop-start movement of the film in the gate that's needed on all normal projectors.

i believe the rotating prism was a means of decoupling the film speed from the video speed, so films could be run at equal speed on 60i or 50i, at 24fps.

typically most telecines operate at constant speed rather than pin-registered stop-start (one exception is the sony vialta, which is so noisy it needs it's own room, far away from the client so they don't have to hear that happening to their film). non-realtime scanners are different of course, and some popular telecines have been retrofitted with pin registered gates, but on the whole the film runs at a constant speed over a scanning beam - the film's movement provides the vertical component to the scanned frames. this means any bumps or rough splices on the film will cause a "wobble" in the output. you can often see these on older DVDs near scene cuts or at the end of reels.

the precision engineering that goes into these machines astounds me - especially considering how long they can run without a service (just don't even ask... i'm glad i don't work there anymore) and still deliver good pictures.