Frame Speed

Rubbish. There is no reason that running the film a few frames per
second, then spending hours slaving over a hot computer, will give a
"sharper, clearer picture." Either way, the film frame is stationary in
the gate while it is being scanned. This is just marketing hype.
 >> Stay informed about: Frame Speed 

Clive Tobin wrote:
> Rubbish. There is no reason that running the film a few frames per
> second, then spending hours slaving over a hot computer, will give a
> "sharper, clearer picture."

sure there is, compared to the interlacing and frame blending you get
from a regular film chain. i don't think roger or anybody else is
suggesting that either transferring at a slower rate or using a computer
will increase the quality, it's the discrete frames that does it. it's
just that doing it slowly and using a computer probably is the most cost
effective way of doing it. what tony means when he says "normal speed"
is wild speed or if you're lucky variable speed, which is what most
projectors run at. to get the same results as a workprinter while
scanning in real time you need a sync projector and a two bladed
shutter. i know perfectly well that you know all this, so please don't
interpret this as if i'm trying to teach you something, i'm just trying
to put the discussion on the right track.

/matt
 >> Stay informed about: Frame Speed 

No frame blending in our equipment. It is a 3-4 pulldown, with one
frame going to 3 fields and the next to 4 fields.

Even if there were frame blending, this is no problem. You don't watch
a movie one frame at a time.

Your remarks about interlacing and 2-bladed shutter make no sense to me
at all. Interlace is inherent in NTSC video. Nobody uses a 2-blade
shutter for telecine except maybe Europeans doing 25 FPS transfers to
PAL.

I still say this is marketing hype trying to put a spin on their
inability to run the correct speed in the first place.
 >> Stay informed about: Frame Speed 

"Clive Tobin" <clive RemoveThis @webband.com> wrote in message
news:1103483422.744628.47430@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Rubbish. There is no reason that running the film a few frames per
> second, then spending hours slaving over a hot computer, will give a
> "sharper, clearer picture." Either way, the film frame is stationary in
> the gate while it is being scanned. This is just marketing hype.
>

Clive, I was referring to the two different options being provided by
Moviestuff. Their single frame (Workprinter) option produces clearer end
results than their Cine-mate.

To quote from their own FAQ:

<quote>
If you look at video frames from a CineMate transfer, you might see pieces
of two film frames on any given video frame. They look fine when playing
back at normal speed, but the lack of frame discretion means the CineMate
transfers won't be as crisp as the WorkPrinter transfers. The CineMates are
faster but not as sharp. The WorkPrinters are slower but offer the better
picture.
<unquote>

I don't mind slower if it produces a better picture.

Tony
 >> Stay informed about: Frame Speed