Who's transfer is this?

[geffen]

Please, help!
I downloaded it sometimes ago but cannot locate the source website.

http://www.2a.pl/~studio/film.mpg

[Andreas Wideroe]

It was an example of how steady the film could be in Workprinters. The transfer was done my Moviestuff (http://www.moviestuff.tv).

Andreas

[MovieStuff]

It was an example of how steady the film could be in Workprinters. The transfer was done by Moviestuff (http://www.moviestuff.tv).

No, actually, it was created by one of my clients that owned a WorkPrinter-Jr. He used a laptop and a single chip camera, I think. I'm certain it was a WorkPrinter, anyway! I used to have it on the website but replaced it recently with another:

http://www.moviestuff.tv/baby.mpg

This one was done by ForeverOnDVD out of Canada that has one of my WorkPrinter-XP units. Shawn at FoeverOnDVD was kind enough to let me use it. He does very good work and is very considerate about the quality of the product he gives to his customers. (That's him in the mpg. What a cutey, eh?)

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Andreas Wideroe]

Well, I was almost correct... ](*,)

[geffen]

Thanks. That is why I couldn't find it anymore.

Anyway, I found it here:

http://www.2a.pl/~studio/kztf.html (the only link in text).

This is telecine shop in Warsaw. They claim to do transfers with Eumig equipment (whatever it is). But I wonder - do they own a Workprinter or just stole this film? In the text it states, that this is only examle of this kind of transfer. Rodger, could you refer to this and clarify the situation with them?
(I wish they had one of the Workprinters though)

[MovieStuff]

They did not do that transfer. It was done here in the states by a gentleman preserving his films for his own family, not a company. They simply stole the film (grrrrrr). I can not find any record of having sold this company a WorkPrinter. I can't read Polish so I don't know what the rest of the site says but I an assure you they are not being honest about this if they claim this to be one of their own transfers or if they claim to have a WorkPrinter.

Frankly, this is becoming more and more of a problem for me. In the last month, I have found over half a dozen sites claiming to have my equipment or flat out stealing my images. Also there are companies that have bought my equipment and now claim it to be their own invention, as well. I hate to do it but I may have to create a "Hall of Shame" page that notes companies making fraudulent claims like this just to protect my reputation.

I have already had several people write to me and complain that they had a really bad transfer done by a company that was fraudulently claiming to have my units and wanted to know how I could boast about the quality of this equipment when the results they got sucked. I just explain that the company is lying about having my equipment and they should ask for their money back. But it sure gets old and, as I say, is becoming more and more of a problem, especially after annoucing the installation of the Sniper-Pro units for the Academy Film Archives. At a time when I had sold NONE to anyone else other than the Academy, there were no less than three European telecine companies claiming to have my Sniper units! There is still one out there making that claim that will not respond to my emails in any language and my Sniper photo is still up on their site.

Flattering, I suppose, but really tiresome......

Roger
http://www.movietuff.tv

[soundboy]

They did not do that transfer. It was done here in the states by a gentleman preserving his films for his own family, not a company. They simply stole the film (grrrrrr). I can not find any record of having sold this company a WorkPrinter. I can't read Polish so I don't know what the rest of the site says but I an assure you they are not being honest about this if they claim this to be one of their own transfers or if they claim to have a WorkPrinter.

Frankly, this is becoming more and more of a problem for me. In the last month, I have found over half a dozen sites claiming to have my equipment or flat out stealing my images. Also there are companies that have bought my equipment and now claim it to be their own invention, as well. I hate to do it but I may have to create a "Hall of Shame" page that notes companies making fraudulent claims like this just to protect my reputation.

Geez that really stinks Roger, must make your blood boil.

On a side note, have you sold, any gear to DVD infinity in Australia?
They won't say what they use for there telecine and claim its there own invention.

[VideoFred]

http://www.moviestuff.tv/baby.mpg

This one was done by ForeverOnDVD out of Canada that has one of my WorkPrinter-XP units. Shawn at FoeverOnDVD was kind enough to let me use it. He does very good work and is very considerate about the quality of the product he gives to his customers. (That's him in the mpg. What a cutey, eh?)

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

This is perfect! The clip is only 352x240 and it plays perfect on full screen 1024x768! How did he do this? I realy like to know! :?:

Fred.

[Patrick]

Roger, what this world needs more of is honesty. The world would indeed be a much better place.

[Cutty201]

On another note...what was "baby.mpg" shot on? 16mm? If that's Super8, it's the best damn super8 clip I have ever seen.

[mattias]

On another note...what was "baby.mpg" shot on? 16mm? If that's Super8, it's the best damn super8 clip I have ever seen.

and you can judge that from a tiny web version with heavy edge enhancement? i didn't think it looked any better than most clips i've seen. and aside from the transfer quality it's obviously shot through a cheap lens. and finally as for whether it's 16mm, had my 16mm looked like this i'd have thrown out the camera and sued the lab. :-)

(cute kid though)

/matt

[VideoFred]

and you can judge that from a tiny web version with heavy edge enhancement? i didn't think it looked any better than most clips i've seen. and aside from the transfer quality it's obviously shot through a cheap lens. and finally as for whether it's 16mm, had my 16mm looked like this i'd have thrown out the camera and sued the lab.

(cute kid though)

/matt

OK, Matt,

Show us something better....

Fred.

[MovieStuff]

On another note...what was "baby.mpg" shot on? 16mm? If that's Super8, it's the best damn super8 clip I have ever seen.

and you can judge that from a tiny web version with heavy edge enhancement? i didn't think it looked any better than most clips i've seen. and aside from the transfer quality it's obviously shot through a cheap lens. and finally as for whether it's 16mm, had my 16mm looked like this i'd have thrown out the camera and sued the lab.

Wow. Don't mince words, Matt. Tell us what you really think.

I find it interesting that you challenge anyone else's ability to correctly determine attributes from a tiny clip but have no issue reserving that ability for yourself? ;)

So tell me, if the clip really is too small for anyone (but you) to determine attributes, then why needlessly insult someone for asking what format it was shot in or saying how much they liked it? You seem to have no problem accepting compliments when you post clips this size that, frankly, look no different. Your clips may very well be better but, as you have decreed, we can't judge quality at this size. Therefore in the future, when someone says how much they like your clips, we'll just all have to realize how wrong they might be and wait for you to tell us whether your clip is good or not. We mere mortals have no place making such judgments, it would seem.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

OK, Matt, Show us something better....

Why bother? We certainly can't judge quailty from a tiny clip, so what would be the point? :roll:

Roger

[MovieStuff]

On another note...what was "baby.mpg" shot on? 16mm? If that's Super8, it's the best damn super8 clip I have ever seen.

It was shot on Super 8 and transferred on a WorkPrinter-XP with a Sony 3 chip camera. Shawn does good work, which is why I really liked posting this clip on my site. He makes me look good.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv