Preston Herrick

Wish they did have a kit. My 50 leaks and an overhaul is $1200+ last time I checked.

Try www.bulbdirect.com Good prices and service.

The muslin drop I got from a photog supplier years ago is indeed much like a dyed bed sheet.

I've also dealt with both. Whitehouse, initially, and have have no complaints either - except for some pricing. I have nothing but praise for Paul who did an S16 conversion with videotap.

Check out www.DVfilm.com and their product DVFilmMaker.

Right on, Richard! By their fruits ye shall know them.

I've always used Forde -- Nice personalized service. I know a couple of people at Alpha too so I'm sure everything will be fine. For some reason though, Bruno doesn't like to return emails.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the lab either. Telecine and the colorist behind the knobs can have a dramatic affect on the output.

Agreed. This will require numerous questions and answers. I have an idea or two as to what might be going on. However, I suggest you visit the Premiere forum at DVXuser.com

If you went to film school and desire a film look to your projects then, of the two cameras, the DVX is the ticket.

I originally had Whitehouse overhaul my CP. Paul Hillman at Visual did my conversion. Whitehouse does not do S16 conversions. They're both good companies to deal with. Paul knows his stuff on the conversions (and overhauls for that matter).

Can't think of a significant downside other than considering the potential return on your investment for the upgrade. It will work and work great - IMO (like putting a race engine in a VW :)). A lot of people turn up their nose at the CP. It's not as sexy as an Aaton or prestigious as an Arri. You can't slap a magazine on and fire. But you know what? In the end, with good glass on the front, no one's gonna be able to tell the difference. I like my CP. I figure I've gotten more bang for my buck considering I didn't have to lay out more cash up front for one of the other makes. Other's will say, "Rent, don't buy." That wasn't practical for me and may not be for you. And when you weigh the cost of the camera (and even the upgrade) against ever changing video technology, it seems like a bargain. But I digress. People hotrod old (less "desireable")cars all the time. To each his own.

Full wide you can get right on top of things.

I've had no smearing either before or after my S16 conversion by Paul Hillman, with butterfly shutter. Opinions will vary whether it's a worthwhile conversion. The only benefit will be your ability to create widescreen content.

And guess what else? The price on the website for subs and renewals is wrong. It's actually $34.95/yr. I mailed in a renewal last fall. They said they never got the check so after investigating I renewed over the phone. I pointed out the web site price of $29.95 and was told, "Sorry, it's $34.95". Obviously they didn't take my suggestion to update the site. You'd think after being a faithful subscriber for years there would be a break on renewals. It's an overpriced magazine anyway. I wonder how many "comp" subscriptions they give out.

Going direct to HD (I do it now somewhat indirectly via DVRack) will not circumvent compression. HD systems like Quickstream create a DV file ready for use in your NLE - which would have DV compression already applied. The data that goes to tape and what comes out of the firewire connection are the same.

I used a pair of them once with a power inverter (24fps, 60Hz) to light a car interior. There was no flicker and the film was telecined with any green corrected out - and there wasn't a lot to begin with.

A skilled colorist (timer or grader in your neck of the woods) could work miracles with this footage but it would involve scene to scene correction - not a one light. Depending on how a negative is exposed, the telecine can induce a certain amount of noise which will only compound grain issues. A slight overexposure will help reduce grain in the negative and you should be able to do this without sacrificing highlight detail. The operator can also employ noise reduction which will kill a lot of the grain. If they go too far though, the image will go soft. Ask for a supervised transfer - that way you can sit in on the session and have them dial an image in to your liking and satisfaction. You might be surprised.

Call Paul Hillman at Visual Products a call. He may very well suggest an overhaul but it could be something simple. http://www.visualproducts.com/

I've done it by running power through a momentary switch box ("finger powered") with hardare store conventional iron-ballast fluorescents. Had a surprising amount of control with a convincing randomness. The lights are now hanging in my shop.

White rip-stop nylon by the yard at a fabric store.

Hi Peter. Thanks, we do live in beautiful country - at least most of the time. Right now it's very cold and white so I wouldn't mind being in El Cerrito. You made some very good points and I have to agree with what you said. I guess my thoughts stem from my own experience. I live in a small market where renting equipment most often isn't even practical. I too tend to keep equipment for long periods. Some is 13 years old - alive and well and still in use. I've also made some high end purchases in which I was never able to recoup my investment - so I guess that's where I was kinda coming from. Just suggesting to NBC that he consider his return on investment, regardless of what he buys. Although I've owned and still own some Sony gear I'm a Panasonic fan at heart. Love to own a Varicam or SDX900 and feel I could put it to good use - but alas, there's no way I couldn't justify the expenditure or long term committment. At least not where I'm located. Currently my clients are more than happy with the end product. Down the road, those demands may change. Happy Holidays!

There's no doubt that in this business, generally speaking, you get what you pay for when it comes to equipment. However, when you take into consideration the rate that video technology is evolving and the fact that you are not servicing clients other than yourself, I'd rather pay off a piece of hardware like this sooner than later - not to mention all the ancillary gear and/or post cost associated with a particular cam or format. If you're impressed with the HVX or feel it is comparable to the Sony in image quality, I think long term cost is worth consideration.

Use Goo-Gone. Good stuff for a variety of goo removal. Goof-off is a much stronger petroleum based solvent. I used it to remove undercoating on my project car.

I agree, it was very well done. I was particularly impressed by what they were able to pull off on their budget - inspiring really.