analog or digital transfer?

**jefury** · June 30th, 2003, 06:19 PM

Okay, so I found a few transfering houses in my city and I'm not sure on which ones to choose.

There's one that offers a digital transfer using like a high tech CCD camera of some sort and it's about $75 for 3 roles of film and it takes about a week for the whole proess. I don't know if that's a good price honestly. I asked what sort of transfering device they use and they wouldn't give me the name cause of some contract reason or something. So... I'm not sure.

The other option is an analog transfering thing. The guy on the other line was glad to explain how the technique of transfer is. He uses a telecine box and projects it onto some window and then he uses a minidv camera to shoot it (or something like that). The cost for 3 roles of film is about $15 and the whole process is about 3 days. So there's a significant difference in time and money.

They both however said that it's good quality and there's barely no flicker.

Which option do you think I should use. I want a good image but I'm not too fond of paying lots of money but I will if I must. Would you prefer digital or non digital?

Thanks

[ June 30, 2003 04:00 PM: Message edited by: jefury ]

**Alex** · June 30th, 2003, 06:27 PM

I would do both!

I know, I know, it's more money, but you will learn an awful lot about what you like visually about the film to video transfer process, and that should help you when booking future film transfer jobs.

What kind of project did you shoot, and what film stock did you use?

[ June 30, 2003 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Forum-405 ]

**jefury** · June 30th, 2003, 07:03 PM

But it's so expensive. I don't know.

I used mainly tri X reversal. The project is sort of a recreation of a 1950s sci fi movie.

**Alex** · June 30th, 2003, 08:15 PM

Well, then I'd start with the cheaper place and then if I didn't like the quality I would try the other place. I still think you will be better off doing the transfer twice.

The learning experience will more than pay for the extra money you spend.

**jefury** · June 30th, 2003, 10:22 PM

I must agree with you. But as a student. I think I'll go for the cheaper price. It might add to the look of the film that I am trying to achieve. I did some calculations. I definately cannot afford the digital transfer. I have about 11 roles of film and 50 cents a foot is too much. 10 cents a foot is much better, even though if the transfering method is more primative.

Thanks for your advice though. When life is more financially stable for me, I will definately consider your idea as a method of mine.

Jeffery

[ June 30, 2003 07:23 PM: Message edited by: jefury ]

**cameraguy** · July 1st, 2003, 12:09 AM

[ August 29, 2003 06:39 AM: Message edited by: cameraguy ]

**Alex** · July 1st, 2003, 12:25 AM

And cameraguy does transfers also. (just passing info along, not meant as a suggestion [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] )

**jefury** · July 1st, 2003, 03:11 PM

Hmm, maybe the place in where they do "digital" transfers is all bull **** and they're just greedy for money.

Well, in the long run, I think I made the wise choice.

Thanks everyone.

Jeffery