Thanks, I will have to look for a telecine I guess, What I am doing, and I should have clarified earlier, is trying to make some digital copies from my 16mm "found" footage collection, certain films from my collection that I use in the Electric Mural Project.
I have over 500 films, so paying anyone for any kind of professional transfer is extremely impossible. There are some films that I want to share with other people, and also I have realized that I will probably never make art with an actual film optical printer again, ( heartbreaking thought ) so I wanted to make some digital copies to work with on the computer, to see if I could make some moving visuals art again. That's it. thanks every one for the advice. Kristie Kristie Reinders, B.F.A. Director of Cinematography, Electric Visions Curator and Head Projectionist, Electric Mural Project The Mission, San Francisco, CA 'A first class technician should work best under pressure.' - - - Issac Asimov > From: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:21:03 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] homemade video copies of 16mm > > To clarify, the OP requested advice on a cheapo projector-and-camcorder > transfer. > > 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 > > Kinetta > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
