Posted 08 July 2007 - 04:31 PM
Posted 08 July 2007 - 09:27 PM
Asking if splicing and cementing is still relevant well thats a person question. At times I would rather have the physicallity of film and cutting it by hand. In fact I rather really enjoy it and find it relaxing if i'm organized. Some projects lend themselves to an NLE while others a Steenbeck. In terms of education, I think film students should learn the old ways and splice their films together then move up to the newer ways.
Posted 09 July 2007 - 03:12 AM
Let us forget about the DI process or other grading. My main purpose is to judge my own original rushes/work without any other post. This enables me to really judge my exposure setting, my light contrast ratio decision and so on. What format would you suggest me to see the rushes from the original 16mm negatives? I have two choices - A TC tranfered DVCpro tape OR a direct positive print from the original negative. Will a DVCpro final product is inferior to the positive print film? Thanks.
Posted 09 July 2007 - 10:42 AM
I could qualify that by saying if you are shooting for a digital/video finish that superiority may or may not be relevant (I'm doing 16mm - originated work now that goes through Final Cut, Color, Motion 3 etc).
Or maybe if you're doing real scanning as opposed to video transfer, but to see what you can do with your negative & judge your work, why not go with daily prints ?.
(As an aside, I'm at the point where I'm really thinking "let film be film" & for the digital 'envirionment' I'm ready to switch to digital capture..... as 4K become viable... I learned filmmaking on reversal stocks, didn't even workprint everything... just wound the film carefully and used a Moviscop viewer or light panel and magnifying glass - very "WYSIWYG" very educational..)