From: Serge Levchin (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jun 14 2010 - 04:42:48 PDT
thanks for the feedback re:cinelab. will try and report back -
s
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:51 PM, rebecca meyers <email suppressed> wrote:
> Cinelab just did a best-lite HD transfer of my 16mm workprint. I've only
> ever had SD transfers before and have never seen my film translate to video
> so well. The job was well-done and affordable. It was my first time
> working with Cinelab and based on my experience I would recommend them.
>
> Rebecca Meyers
> Cambridge MA
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Dave Andrae <email suppressed>wrote:
>
>> It's not my intention to beat a dead horse, but while doing a standard
>> definition transfer CineLab scratched my footage - not all of it, mind you,
>> but enough that at least two or three crucial takes were marred.
>>
>> I didn't notice the damage until a few months after the fact, while I was
>> inspecting the film on my Goko moviola (in preparation for getting portions
>> of it scanned by Pro8mm).
>>
>> The scratch ran between two rolls, so I know it was CineLab's doing and
>> not caused by my SU-60-E (up to that point no one but CineLab had handled
>> the footage).
>>
>> Thankfully, I ended up being able to work around the damage, and the film
>> I was working on turned out to be pretty good ( you can read about it here:
>> http://daveandrae.wordpress.com ), but it was definitely a kick in the
>> balls at the time.
>>
>> As for getting your film scanned in HD, I think it's worth the money--you
>> get what you pay for.
>>
>> A lot of money can be saved though if you know ahead of time what you're
>> going to use and go through the trouble of splicing together exactly what
>> you need and nothing more.
>>
>> The nice thing about Pro8mm's machine is that it doesn't touch the film's
>> emulsion at any point in the scanning process, and a progressive scan at
>> 1080 looks quite nice.
>>
>> As for getting 4:3 footage scanned in 16:9, you could always blow it up,
>> but personally I don't mind the look of pillar boxes, and most viewers won't
>> notice them once your film is underway.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -DA
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Serge Levchin <email suppressed>wrote:
>>
>>> hello list,
>>> i know this question comes up every so often - and there was a discussion
>>> here not too long ago about some of the better options for transferring
>>> super8 to video.
>>> places like pro8mm have been recommended. pro8mm's rates for SD transfer
>>> are fairly reasonable, but HD is 4 times the price. ($825 for 500ft. of
>>> film).
>>> CineLab appears to offer 1080p HD transfers at .37/ft (scene to scene
>>> color corr.) - i.e. $185 for 500ft. of film.
>>>
>>> - has anyone tried CineLab for HD or SD telecine?
>>> - is the image quality of a Millennium2 or Ursa Diamond Y-front telecine
>>> (Pro8mm) that much greater than a Rank Cintel transfer (CineLab)?
>>> - does HD telecine make sense for super8 (especially considering there is
>>> an aspect ratio mismatch)?
>>>
>>> thanks and best regards,
>>> serge
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>> email suppressed
>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.dave-andrae.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks