Okay another whacky idea from my over active imagination - suppose you set up a video split off your camera then run it into a miniDV camera and record that (making sure that the 2 are running at the same frame rate) - would that be any use as a cheap telecine? - you then edit that and use that to cut the negative (I am thinking 16mm here - but it could apply to Super 8)
So how would that be?
Scot M
http://www.mango-a-gogo.com/inmyimage/image.htm
Video split as cheap telecine
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Video split as cheap telecine
Put your troubles out with the cat.....no don't do that it will kill everything
-
supa_ate_sixteen
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 11:09 pm
- Location: Santa Cruz, CA
- Contact:
Hi there,
From what I'm getting from your post you are saying to use the video tap footage running off your camera and use it as an edit reference instead of a cheap telecine dub. I think this could be useful for editing, but only if you could get a crystal sync film camera (running @ 30fps unless you have a new 24fps video cam to sync with), and a clear slate at the beginning of each take. I don't think this would serve as anything near a good telecine since you never encounter the film image in the first place (i.e. your video tap involves no film image, obviously). You could however take that footage from the video tap and use it as a way to start editing while your in production, before you even finish shooting! Maybe you could even avoid developing rolls of film if you identify really bad takes early on. This method could work to also save in what you would choose to get telecined or ranked if you did decide to ever finish on video. If you aren't using the most sophisticated sound equipment you could maybe even record all your sound on the video camera since digital video is 48khz audio, pretty close to a DAT if I'm making any sense here. If I used this method (which I considered but never followed through with) on my last project, I would of saved a lot of money in processing and transfer. My shooting ratio was a terrible 10:1 for some "limited-experience" actors and most of this footage was cut from my final edit in the first five minutes of watching it. If I had known the feel of the takes from the video tap I might of saved on processing and transfer which was a considerable cost on my budget. However, the only downfall that is clearly evident is you really won't know what your film looks like untill you get this material processed, transferred, etc. I'd be curious to how it would work out.
From what I'm getting from your post you are saying to use the video tap footage running off your camera and use it as an edit reference instead of a cheap telecine dub. I think this could be useful for editing, but only if you could get a crystal sync film camera (running @ 30fps unless you have a new 24fps video cam to sync with), and a clear slate at the beginning of each take. I don't think this would serve as anything near a good telecine since you never encounter the film image in the first place (i.e. your video tap involves no film image, obviously). You could however take that footage from the video tap and use it as a way to start editing while your in production, before you even finish shooting! Maybe you could even avoid developing rolls of film if you identify really bad takes early on. This method could work to also save in what you would choose to get telecined or ranked if you did decide to ever finish on video. If you aren't using the most sophisticated sound equipment you could maybe even record all your sound on the video camera since digital video is 48khz audio, pretty close to a DAT if I'm making any sense here. If I used this method (which I considered but never followed through with) on my last project, I would of saved a lot of money in processing and transfer. My shooting ratio was a terrible 10:1 for some "limited-experience" actors and most of this footage was cut from my final edit in the first five minutes of watching it. If I had known the feel of the takes from the video tap I might of saved on processing and transfer which was a considerable cost on my budget. However, the only downfall that is clearly evident is you really won't know what your film looks like untill you get this material processed, transferred, etc. I'd be curious to how it would work out.
