To clarify, the OP requested advice on a cheapo projector-and-camcorder
There are lots of reasons for people to do this, especially with work in
progress. It might even be considered a video work-print. However, for serious
work shot in film that is going to be distributed in digital form, a proper
scan is the way to go. k.a.r may not be at that point yet, or may have a
different purpose in mind. In no way did I mean to suggest that
telecine-by-projection is a substitute for a proper scan. It's not.
Of course, a lot depends on the aesthetic strategies involved. People go lo-fi
for a reason, with everything from Super-8 to Pixelvision to funky compressed
Quicktimes. A DIY telecine could be fine for certain limited kinds of things -
including the transfer of already 'distressed' archival material to be included
in a doco. But if you see the work in your mind's-eye as lovely rich filmic
imagery, (generally transfers of film you shot yourself) trying to save the
cost of a scan is penny-wise and results-foolish.
Though I have no personal experience with Bito and Miko, or Kinetta transfers,
I trust Jeff's unquestioned expertise in these matters, and were I in need of a
scan, I would be eager to investigate any suggestion he would have.
On Jun 23, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Jeff Kreines wrote:
> Since you are in the Mission, you might consider getting a proper scan of
> your film instead of subjecting it to a projector and camcorder. Note that
> you will be getting a video with combined fields that often blend two frames
> together -- and unlike a conventional telecine with real 3:2 pulldown the
> cadence isn't locked to anything and will drift.
> Buck Bito and Jennifer Miko run the Video Transfer Center on Van Ness -- they
> are relocating in a couple of weeks and will have a new, far better name.
> They do excellent work in any format -- 8mm, S8, 9.5mm, 16mm, S16, 17.5mm,
> 28mm, and 35mm.
> Disclosure: they have a shiny new Kinetta Archival Scanner, which I make.
> Jeff Kreines
FrameWorks mailing list