ATRsea Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I'm wondering about the quality of doing a DV production , then playing the results on a HD or hi-quality video monitor (2K?) and filming that with my Arri 16Bl with 29.97 or 23.976 fps setting. Monitor resolution including 1" tape and cameras in the 1950's is cave man technology compared to today? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Luke Prendergast Posted July 6, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 6, 2005 What for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATRsea Posted July 6, 2005 Author Share Posted July 6, 2005 What for? Because video-to-film transfers are hundreds of dollars per minute. $35,000 for a 90 min. film. I think I could do it for $3,000 kinescoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 6, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 6, 2005 Using an Arri 16BL, you'll end up with a 16mm negative and only be able to project a 4x3 16mm print when most festivals either screen 35mm or digitally these days, with few screening 16mm. Plus you get crappy mono-optical sound on 16mm prints. This comes under the category of "if it were such a good idea, everyone would already be doing it." In other words, you get what you pay for -- you won't be getting the quality of a $35,000 transfer for only $3,000. In fact, CRT recorders are based on a similar idea, just not using a camera running at normal speed when pointing at a hi-res monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATRsea Posted July 6, 2005 Author Share Posted July 6, 2005 Ahhhh..... my doing this is only to get a "film-look" better than any video-only film manipulation. The final product would be on DVD. My question is would it look BETTER - MUCH BETTER than the classic kinescope work done in the past? Like this : 1)Film miniDV black and white 2)import/edit on computer 3)export back to miniDV 4)play back on a high-resolution LCD monitor 5)film this with a Arri loaded with plus-x @ 29.97 6)devolpe film and rank to miniDV 7)edit on computer adding sound 8)burn 1,000 DVD's at home and then sell them online for $10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 6, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 6, 2005 I suspect it would be a rather bad and expensive way of achieving a film look compared to using film-look software. Sure, it would have to look better than a 1950's kinescope. You'd be better off just shooting with a good 24P camera or just shooting b&w 16mm to begin with (or b&w Super-8 reversal). Transferring DV to 16mm using a jury-rigged kinescope and then transferring it back to DV again seems to me would just get you really bad-quality DV -- fuzzy, grainy -- in the most expensive and complicated method possible. You have to ask yourself what you are really trying to achieve, look-wise. It seems like this plan only makes sense for a really experimental look where you plan on making the image look funky. For example, I once transferred 24P SD to 35mm color reversal and cross-processed it for a unique look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Luke Prendergast Posted July 6, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 6, 2005 I think you misunderstand the reason for video-film transfers. It isn't for a 'film look'. It's so you can print and project the thing. Why on earth don't you shoot on film in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 (edited) You might be better off buying an old Kinescop and swapping out the video screen. You can find them in several post houses, for the price of hauling them away. Again, it might be a useful idea for cross-format long term archives, but as an effect it sounds like going around 5 sides of a triangle to get from points A to B. Edited July 6, 2005 by Robert Hughes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATRsea Posted July 7, 2005 Author Share Posted July 7, 2005 I think you're all wrong. I don't think any of you know what'll look like. I'm gonna go experiment. Up yours respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 7, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 7, 2005 I think you're all wrong. I don't think any of you know what'll look like. I'm gonna go experiment. Up yours respectively. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jeez, you ASKED for our opinion. You just didn't get an answer you wanted to hear. Of course we don't know what the results would be of something that you haven't built yet!!! We can only make educated guesses based on past experiences with various methods of transferring video to film, or film to video, and with film-look processes, and with 24P video, with 16mm b&w, etc. It sounds like you've already made up your mind that this is a good idea -- so just do it. Just stop asking people for their opinions if you don't want an honest response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Luke Prendergast Posted July 7, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 7, 2005 Zeppelins are the future of air travel. You'll see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 7, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 7, 2005 Hi, If I were going to do this, I'd probably try and get one of those hi-res monochrome medical monitors, some RGB dichroic filters and a stop-motion camera with very good registration. That way I might expect to get half-decent results, after say six months of fiddling around with it... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Zeppelins are the future of air travel. You'll see... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For example: Oversized blimp to move multi-ton cargo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 "I think you're all wrong. I don't think any of you know what'll look like. I'm gonna go experiment. Up yours respectively." These men do know what they are talking about and are obviously more experienced than you.But if you want to waste money and time...go ahead.I'm sure it will look fantastic. You just told a handful of pros and an award winning member of the ASC "Up yours" and that they don't know what they are talking about. Thats pretty smart buddy.Don't come crying for help here after your half baked mini-dv to film project goes sour. I'm suprised people kept responding. Nobody help this ignorant Jackass...let him learn his lesson the hard way. If people try to help you ,you show respect for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 7, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 7, 2005 To set the record straight, I've been nominated twice for an IFP Spirit Award for cinematography but have never won, nor any other significant award, except for dinky amatuer awards for some Super-8 stuff in college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATRsea Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 Oh such big egos here.. Doesn't DuArt still do kinescoping for $7,000 for a 90 min. feature. That's what I read awhile ago. If my project stays on tv it'll look just fine! Yeah and that's for the great help. Tards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATRsea Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 ps-I hate cinematographers, you're the reason western civilization is going straight to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 (edited) Chill, buddy, we were just tying to give you some advice - that you requested. There's no need to get huffy. Want a sophisticated kinescope for a fair price? Call Dennis O'Rourke here: Cinesound, Inc. He's got 2; one with a mechanical advance, another with an air-jet advance. If you don't come and get it he may throw it away, so hurry. Edited July 8, 2005 by Robert Hughes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 8, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 8, 2005 You see why it's important that people sign their posts with their real names? People who use pseudonyms often feel empowered to be rude because there's no consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Achterberg Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 You see why it's important that people sign their posts with their real names? People who use pseudonyms often feel empowered to be rude because there's no consequences. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Consequences? You going to hunt him down and beat his ass? Can I shoot it? ahh, I can see it now, I'd get a techno crane for this. It would be awesome. Yes, I do see the significance of what you speak of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danish Puthan Valiyandi Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 For example: Oversized blimp to move multi-ton cargo <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually this company "Cargolifter" went down, now they turned the building site into a tropical park with pools, restaurants etc., it´s very near to my place ( Berlin, Germany ) - unsure if that´s the future - ok, maybe the amusement park, but unfortunately there won´t be any airships in the next time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Tyler Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 ...often feel empowered to be rude because there's no consequences. I'm disabling his account now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts