Who's transfer is this?

Post by **studiocarter** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:51 pm

I always wondered why it looked so smooth. Is that the result of PC "edge enhancement" or was it the Sony 3ccd camera?

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:07 pm

MovieStuff wrote:
Cutty201 wrote: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

Shawn didn't use his panasonic broadcast camera for this one?

I find it looks every bit as good as Mattias's short does (which was transfered using an ancient Rank) when knocked down to that image size.

Sure, it doesn't look as good as 16mm shot using modern film stocks. However, it looks at least as good as any old shot on 16mm films I've seen from the 60's or 70's. I watched EASY RIDER the other day and took note of the quality of that 16mm footage in the drug sequence. 16mm reversal is not in the same league with current 16mm negative stocks.

The problem with saying "looks like it was shot on 16mm" lies in the fact that film technology has hardly stood still and has advanced rapidly in the past decade to counter and tremendously surpass the threat of HD. What looked like "shot on 16mm" 10 years ago, isn't comparable to what you can do these days at all with 16mm. And of course, any film stock you could use in super 8 is available in 16mm, so there's no doubt that shooting it with a larger frame size is going to look "better". It's unavoidable.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:17 pm

Santo wrote:
MovieStuff wrote:
Cutty201 wrote: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
Shawn didn't use his panasonic broadcast camera for this one?

Actually, it probably was the Panasonic. I was thinking it was a Sony but I forget. It was some sort of 3 chip camera, that's all I remember.

Roger

Post by **mattias** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:15 pm

Santo wrote:I find it looks every bit as good as Mattias's short does (which was transfered using an ancient Rank) when knocked down to that image size.

exactly, and while my short looks pretty cool and i hope right for the theme, it's far from technically great. i've seen many super 8 clips that were better.

/matt

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:42 pm

I donÃ‚Â´t get it, do you enjoy beeing rude Mattias? Why are you always complaining in so hard words?

If this clip looks about as good as your short would at this size

it's obviously shot through a cheap lens.

so your short would be shot through a cheap lens too?

Why donÃ‚Â´t you try being more polite and "nice" to people?
What can possibly be accomplished by being rude?

Kent Kumpula

Post by **mattias** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:55 pm

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:I donÃ‚Â´t get it, do you enjoy beeing rude Mattias? Why are you always complaining in so hard words?

wow, you're reading way too much into things. just let a cigar be a cigar for once.

If this clip looks about as good as your short would at this size
it's obviously shot through a cheap lens.
so your short would be shot through a cheap lens too?

what is this? kindergarten? who gives a rat's ass about my short in this context? somebody said a clip looked great, which it doesn't, so i pointed that out.

Why donÃ‚Â´t you try being more polite and "nice" to people?

but a video clip is not a person?!? if i'm missing something in that regard i'm sorry, and please tell that to mr video clip too if you see him.

/matt

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:00 pm

but a video clip is not a person?!? if i'm missing something in that regard i'm sorry, and please tell that to mr video clip too if you see him.

I thought you were commenting mr. Videofreds judgement, but if you were talking to the Video-clip and not Video-fred I apoligize. My mistake.

By the way what did mr. Video-clip think of you opinion, did you get an answer?

Kent Kumpula

Post by **mattias** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:08 pm

VideoFred wrote:Show us something better....

why? i'm sure you've seen lots already, and if you haven't you're probably not very interested anyway. use the search and try yemi, shralp, cleancut, any other northwesterner, or the fins for example.

/matt

Post by **mattias** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:14 pm

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:I thought you were commenting mr. Videofreds judgement

of course i was, but i was only being rude to the clip, not to fred. people can't comment on each other's judgement here or what? i said i disagreed, and then explained why. if i say i hate bigmacs because the sauce tastes like a dingo's rectum, am i insulting a, the bigmac lovers, b, mcdonals, c, the bigmac itself, d, the dingo, or e, all of the above? (or myself for somehow having found out what a dingo's rectum tastes like?)

/matt

Post by **MovieStuff** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:23 pm

mattias wrote:
Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:I thought you were commenting mr. Videofreds judgement
of course i was, but i was only being rude to the clip, not to fred.

Nah. You were being rude to fred.

Post by **mattias** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:50 pm

nah, i wasn't. either he stands for what he said in which case he shouldn't care much about me acting like a fool, or he doesn't in which case he deserved to be challenged. one would think that it's known by now that i'm a fairly nice guy with a quirky sense of humor who happens to like to start a heated debate once in a while.

/matt

Post by **reflex** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:55 pm

MovieStuff wrote:They did not do that transfer. ... 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.

... 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.

Roger, have you trademarked the Workprinter and Sniper names and logos? That would give you a very solid legal foundation to gently prod the people who are mis-appropriating the name of your technology (my personal experience has shown me that a well worded and polite letter is usually all that's required to keep people from stealing my work).

Just out of interest, did you sell a Workprinter to a company called DigiCan-DVD in Calgary? I was considering getting them to transfer some footage, and they indicated that they have a Workprinter. (Heck - It'd be a great excuse for me to see one up close -- I've been playing with the idea of getting one for myself, anyway).

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:59 pm

....who happens to like to start a heated debate once in a while.

Agreed, you sure have a sharp tongue sometimes.

For someone who doesent "know" you you might seem rude sometimes, and I think you are being a little bit rude sometimes just to start a heated debate. If IÃ‚Â´m not mistaking....

Kent Kumpula

Post by **mattias** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:00 pm

damn, cover blown. :-)

/matt

Post by **Scotness** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:52 pm

A few things from my point of view:

a) Roger I reckon you need to start a shame page or a list of people who have bought your gear with the warning that others not on this list may be shamming or deceiving the public. I think you need to do this to protect your reputation - if you've trademarked the terms so much the better. Of course it gets more difficult when you're dealing with international laws. It could be like Todd AO or other cinematic processes - you not only sell the units but the right to use the name as well - anyone else is unlicensed and therefor illegal.

b) I've hardly seen every clip posted on the net but the one's on VideoFred's site are simply awesome.

c) I've come to love and accept Matt for what he is - a cantankerous old grandma

Scot