Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
This very special lightsource is, in my opinion, the most important 'Flashscan' factor. And maybe the used optics, too.Uppsala BildTeknik wrote: And even if you would use the exact same camera there are other things in the design that are different, lightsource, transportation, and so on.
sure it does. instability can cause motion blur and focus problems too. since the flashscan, like the spirits and flying spots, uses continuous movement rather than intermittent there really can't be any jitter. there can be weave though, a common rank problem but i've not seen it on the flashscan, and bad splices can throw the alignment off for several seconds, which i've seen on both. the highest end scanners use intermittent transport with registration pins and sometimes even vacuum pressure plates for the best of both worlds.VideoFred wrote:Transportation and so on makes it very fast and easy to use, but this does not change the picture quality.
I would agree with this 100%. We occasionally get new users on the WorkPrinter or Sniper units that have their timing disks not quite set right or they are trying to capture without a Raid and that can cause problems with the image quality, both in terms of stability and/or image clarity. Things have to be tuned just right or you end up capturing at the wrong time while the film is still in motion. Registration pins would be ideal.mattias wrote:sure it does. instability can cause motion blur and focus problems too. since the flashscan, like the spirits and flying spots, uses continuous movement rather than intermittent there really can't be any jitter. there can be weave though, a common rank problem but i've not seen it on the flashscan, and bad splices can throw the alignment off for several seconds, which i've seen on both. the highest end scanners use intermittent transport with registration pins and sometimes even vacuum pressure plates for the best of both worlds.VideoFred wrote:Transportation and so on makes it very fast and easy to use, but this does not change the picture quality.
you're confusing resolution with pixel count. "people" seem to want the latter, which is what an hd workprinter will give them.cubsfan45 wrote:It is a fact though that people prefer higher resolutions.
no, that's not analogous at all. you're confusing tape formats with data formats, plus "capturing", "outputting", "copying" and "transferring" refer to completely different parts of the chain. there's absolutely no difference between capturing hdv and capturing uncompressed and outputting hdv.cubsfan45 wrote:My company actually captures uncompressed HD and outputs to HDV, which is the same workflow as someone transferring to BetaSP and copying to MiniDV.
You make no sense when you try and knitpick terminology. Maybe it's a translation thing for you.mattias wrote:no, that's not analogous at all. you're confusing tape formats with data formats, plus "capturing", "outputting", "copying" and "transferring" refer to completely different parts of the chain. there's absolutely no difference between capturing hdv and capturing uncompressed and outputting hdv.cubsfan45 wrote:My company actually captures uncompressed HD and outputs to HDV, which is the same workflow as someone transferring to BetaSP and copying to MiniDV.
/matt
Sorry if this comes as a shock to you Eugene. But all your mumbojumbo doesen´t quite give me the picture of a "professional expertise" at work.cubsfan45 wrote:And when I offer my professional expertise....
~Eugene
You strike me as someone that is bitter about spending money on equipment that doesn't offer the features that can be attained using the correct modern components. Sorry to hear that it costs you more to produce the same results that I do.Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:Sorry if this comes as a shock to you Eugene. But all your mumbojumbo doesen´t quite give me the picture of a "professional expertise" at work.cubsfan45 wrote:And when I offer my professional expertise....
~Eugene
More of a "hey, I have an idea, lets try to do this if we can pull it off." kinda thing. ;)
I've noticed a significant reduction in the prices of just about anything electronic. I won't hazard any guess as to the economics of why.Patrick wrote:"MiniDV will not go away soon."
Hmmm...Ive noticed a significant reduction in prices of MiniDv cameras recently.
Yes, they have. But that doesn't mean 35mm still film is going to die anytime soon. I think you will be able to buy 35mm film for quite a few more years. Digital still cameras represent a quantum leap in technology the people will invest in. But once they have put $500 into that camera they are not going to go out and invest another $500 in a newer camera just because someone came up with a better format for storing images. If they do then they are likely to sell the older camera to someone, thus it's still out there in hands of someone who will want to purchase whatever media it uses.Patrick wrote:"consumers simply do not spend the cash to keep up with the latest technology."
Ive noticed that consumers have embraced digital still cameras wholeheartedly.
:lol: It's even rarer to see someout out and about with a super8 camera.Patrick wrote: It's almost an uncommon sight nowadays to see someone out and about with a 35mm still camera.
I rest my case.Patrick wrote:
"You can still purchase new Hi8 and VHS-C camcorders."
I am really amazed when I see VHS-C tapes still being sold at supermarkets.
obviously time is not worth a lot to you. a workprinter does what? 6fps? (and in HD uncompressed probably even less?). now lets say somebody wants you to transfer 5 hours of footage, that means the workprinter is chunking along for 20hours, then you have to load this into an editing sequence and watch it all to appy color corrections, which takes like 6hours if done properly, then you'll have to render and play it all out to tape/export to disk (another 5 hours) so you'll be sitting there two long days longer than a real time transfer with on the fly color correction.cubsfan45 wrote:You strike me as someone that is bitter about spending money on equipment that doesn't offer the features that can be attained using the correct modern components. Sorry to hear that it costs you more to produce the same results that I do.
You make no sense when you try and knitpick terminology. Maybe it's a translation thing for you.[/quote]cubsfan45 wrote:/matt
now be fair on this matt, a canon xlh1 hooked up over hd-sdi on a decently adjusted system will probably give higher resolution than any SD machine can put out. if it makes sense if it ends up on a normal DVD afterwards is a different matter ;)mattias wrote:you're confusing resolution with pixel count. "people" seem to want the latter, which is what an hd workprinter will give them.cubsfan45 wrote:It is a fact though that people prefer higher resolutions.
Patrick wrote:Ive noticed a significant reduction in prices of MiniDv cameras recently.
When I went out my Nikon FM2 recently you do get some weird looks from others as though you are a weirdo or something. It's even worst when you take out something like a Beaulieu and people don't know what it is!?!It's almost an uncommon sight nowadays to see someone out and about with a 35mm still camera.
I am seeing them more and more of these cameras at the flea markets here in Hong Kong, as the previous owners have upgraded to digital. Surprised that they are still available for sale "new" in Australia."You can still purchase new Hi8 and VHS-C camcorders."