Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Thanks. Just to clarify how the WorkPrinter images, you can look at it from two different points of view: You are viewing back through the optical path directly at the film surface -or- you are projecting an image directly onto the CCD of the camera. The same thing, either way. The bottom line is that the WorkPrinter will offer up a higher resolution image than any broadcast camera can resolve so you are really limited only by the quality of the camera that you use with the WorkPrinter.adamgarner wrote:Yes, Bahia, Patrick makes a good point. If you didn't notice already, the moviestuff setup points the camera at the projector through a condenser lens and a mirror. So, technically it is not "off the wall." Roger can probably detail the workings of the lens, but the overall effect is that you get more accurate light through the film.
For reversal film the moviestuff line is a proven asset to smaller shops as it makes an amazing scan.
The problem is really not that simple to attenuate. Negative and reversal, in my opinion, both scratch just as easily. I do not share the widely held opinion that negative is more fragile. I think that, simply because it has less density throughout, that specs and abrasions show up easier on negative than reversal, which is mostly dense unless you are shooting sky, snow or desert. That density helps to hide such specs and abrasions on reversal whereas on negative the same defects will show up more readily.adamgarner wrote:I'm still interested in seeing what the negatives look like. Roger, have you ever experimented with some sort of non-contact cleaning solution for negatives? Seems like it would be a pretty easy thing to make. In my mind a flow of air across the film as it goes into the gate would alleviate the dust problem at least 80%. Not sure if there's any truth in that though.
I agree completely. I think that part of enabling the purchaser of equipment to get the best results is vendor-supplied training, whether the equipment is fairly simple, or sophisticated.MovieStuff wrote: (snip)
I have seen incredible off the wall transfers that were far superior to what one of our Sniper Pros produced simply because the Sniper Pro user didn't know what the hell they were doing and/or just figured that since they spent $7000+ dollars, then the machine should be magical and they could just coast. It just doesn't work that way. Assuming that you are having your footage transferred on a decent machine, like a FlashScan, Rank, Sniper, Tobin, etc, operator input is -hands down- the make or break of the deal in terms of final quality.
Roger
