Digi-Beta transfer?

[mattias]

roger, a video camera was still a video camera after they changed from tubes to ccd's. why? probably because it did the same thing and produced a very similar product. ;-)

/matt

[8th Man]

Anyway I was talking about a flying spot scanner. Transfering a simple film chain to digi-beta is like buying a $1000 eel-skin suitcase to carry your dirty clothes to the cleaners.
But , it really does't matter much since it's hypothetical quandary.
The best I can use at home on my mac is mini-dv. But suppose I do something good enough that it gets distribution on a shorts compilation(anything's possible). Wouldn't I want to have a digi-beta original to have someone match cut from for higher quality?

------------------
PRM

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 8th Man:
"...But suppose I do something good enough that it gets distribution on a shorts compilation(anything's possible). Wouldn't I want to have a digi-beta original to have someone match cut from for higher quality? "


Yeah, I think that's a good strategy, if you can afford the Digibeta tape cost.
WOW, these babies are expensive.
And shop around, because some post houses mark things up by the 100's percent!
I think it was P.O.P. that wanted like $650 for a blank DigiBeta tape! The guy even admitted to me on the phone "yeah, we really rape ya on the tape costs, because most of our clients are studios & stuff, who don't care what a few tapes cost, compared to the total bill".


Matt Pacini

------------------

[Vurfer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

I think it was P.O.P. that wanted like $650 for a blank DigiBeta tape! The guy even admitted to me on the phone "yeah, we really rape ya on the tape costs, because most of our clients are studios & stuff, who don't care what a few tapes cost, compared to the total bill".

[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

$650 for a DigiBeta tape???
In Germany DigiBeta tapes cost arond 44DM for a 40-minute tape (very roughly $20), and even from large-ish retailers you only have to buy a minimum of ten tapes.
Daniel

------------------

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
roger, a video camera was still a video camera after they changed from tubes to ccd's. why? probably because it did the same thing and produced a very similar product.
/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, now. Using that logic, the flat bed scanner I have hooked to my computer is really just a video copy camera, isn't it?

After all, both scanners and video cameras use CCDs to "produce a very similar product". So, why not call scanners "copy cameras"? Because they're NOT copy cameras; they're scanners! Likewise, a flying spot scanner is nothing like a film chain in form or function, even though they both produce an end product on video tape.

Roger


------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Matt Pacini]

Yep, I'm not making this up!
I forget the exact amount, but it was over $600.
I shopped around and got it much cheaper, obviously.

Incidentally, that's another way that Super 8 Sound (Pro8mm, whatever).

They INSIST that you use only new tape (purchased from them, of course), they will NOT let you use any tape that has been used ever, including if you want to add something to the end of your tape that you already recorded on.

All the other post houses I talked to said I could buy my own tape elsewhere, use a tape with other stuff on it, whatever.
Once again, S8Sound finds some BS excuse to get more money out of you...

Matt Pacini


------------------

[8th Man]

Some other Post houses have odd little things like this, but not for such money grubbing reasons as Pro8mm.
Yale for instance requires Panasonic tape for mini-dv transfers because Panasonic will void the warranty on the deck if other tape is used. I don't blame Yale for this and I can provide the tape.
Ive heard that using different brands of tapes can eventually leave a sticky film on the heads, but I'm not sure I believe it.

------------------
PRM

[mattias]

> both scanners and video cameras use CCDs to "produce a very similar product".

i disagree. video tapes and computer data files are not very similar. i'm talking real world use here, and not what happens on the technical level. most people (most filmmakers included) wouldn't know the difference between different types of film to video transfer devices, since they are all film to video transfer devices. most people would't know the difference between video cameras, since they are all video cameras. most people *would* know the difference between a video camera and a scanner, since they are different things.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
> both scanners and video cameras use CCDs to "produce a very similar product".

i disagree. video tapes and computer data files are not very similar. i'm talking real world use here, and not what happens on the technical level.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but in the real world, scanners have taken over the task once dominated by copy cameras. I know of no editing houses that don't have a scanner hooked up to their NLE system. More to the point, many of these same houses ALSO still have a copy camera hooked to the very same system. Do you suppose that a distinction isn't made when the client says,"Hey, can you transfer my photos to video?"

Now, to use your logic, the term "copy camera" could be used interchangably with the term "scanner", since they both use CCDs and perform similar tasks; namely putting images on video.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:

most people *would* know the difference between a video camera and a scanner, since they are different things.
/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the difference isn't the point at hand but, rather, the similarities. Both scanners and copy cameras use CCDs to create an image that is used on video for editing. In fact, there is more in common between a scanner and a copy camera than there is between a film-chain and a flying spot scanner like the Rank.

If the original term "copy camera" shouldn't be applied to the more sophisticated "scanner", then why should the original term "telecine" be applied to the more sophisticated "flying spot scanner"? After all, both the copy camera and film chain used a video camera for imaging and the others are both scanners!

When the term "telecine" was coined, there was no idea that there would be any such thing as a flying spot scanner. Therefore, the term "telecine" applied uniquely to a film chain first, long before scanners came on the scene.

Now, by and large, I'm just fun'n with you. I recognize that common usage is what sets the rules for meaning. If the industry now calls a flying spot scanner "telecine" then I really can't argue with that. However "industry" isn't the same the world over and in my part of the world the term "telecine" still means what it originally did; "film chain".

More importantly, if someone wants a flying spot scanner, then they'll use the term "Rank" even IF it is being done on a Phillips machine! See my point?

If we bow to common usage, then ALL flying spot scanners are Ranks, since that is the term used most commonly in association with having one's film transfered via a flying spot scanner. People say,"I've got to to a Rank session." I don't hear people say,"I've got to go attend a film chain session" or "I've got to to attend a Phillips session." The term "Rank" has become the defacto name given to high end film to video transfers, regardless of what flying spot scanner is used.

Anyway, I think it's kind of funny that some misnomers are allowed while others are not.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[mattias]

> Now, to use your logic, the term "copy camera" could be used interchangably with the term "scanner"

ok, i didn't notice you wrote *copy* camera. i have no idea what a copy camera is, so i can't really comment on that. i do know that print people still talk about repro work when they scan photos though. is this what you mean? if som it seems like my logic still holds. ;-)

/matt