Jump to content


Photo

Phillips Quadra vs Shadow


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 May 2005 - 01:09 PM

Who can tell me about the Phillip's quadra telecine? I'm going to transfer (supervised) the most recent footage I shot, and the Shadow will probably not be available. Is the Quadra an acceptable substitute? I understand it's a tube machine, but is it better than an Ursa Diamond? I've got super-16 negative, w/ good density, and I'm going to transfer to Beta-sp. Eventually, the footage will end up in my reel, which I've always put together on Avids. (Though I hear Final Cut is now uncompressed.)

Related issue, some regular 16mm I shot was "best-lighted" on a Spirit to digi-beta, and I find the image veering toward a very "video originated" look. Is this the result of taking the round film pixel and turning it into a digital square? (This is kind of why I'm avoiding digi-beta on the next transfer.)
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 13 May 2005 - 01:30 PM

Who can tell me about the Phillip's quadra telecine? I'm going to transfer (supervised) the most recent footage I shot, and the Shadow will probably not be available. Is the Quadra an acceptable substitute? I understand it's a tube machine, but is it better than an Ursa Diamond? I've got super-16 negative, w/ good density, and I'm going to transfer to Beta-sp. Eventually, the footage will end up in my reel, which I've always put together on Avids. (Though I hear Final Cut is now uncompressed.)

Related issue, some regular 16mm I shot was "best-lighted" on a Spirit to digi-beta, and I find the image veering toward a very "video originated" look. Is this the result of taking the round film pixel and turning it into a digital square? (This is kind of why I'm avoiding digi-beta on the next transfer.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi,

The Quarda is a CCD telecine. Its IMHO not as good as an Ursa Diamond with a new tube and a good colorist.
The Spirit is one of the best telecine's there is, the Shadow is nearly as good. I often use a Shadow over a Spirit because of a better colorist.
I think you were unlucky with your best light transfer to Digibeta. It sounds like a trainee was at the controls and had turned up the sharpness. I always ask to turn off noise reduction and sharpening at the start of the session. I can then see what is on the film, and add any if necessary.

Stephen Williams DP
Zurich

www.stephenw.com
  • 0

#3 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 13 May 2005 - 04:11 PM

The Quadra I think was called the FDL90 in Bosch-speak and the kid brother the FDL60 were in fact the very first CCD line array telecines in the world. So for their time, they were quite sharp.
They're basically forerunners to the Spirit and can turn out some pretty decent stuff with the right color corrector.

I think you're better off with the Quadra on 16mm than an old Diamond. Hard to say really, because if the Diamond has a brand new tube, then it might have the upper hand since the Quadra is rather long in the tooth these days.

All I can say is that I've gotten some good results out of the Quadra, athough it was a couple of years ago now. Old Rank's are also notoriously finicky - they always break down - CCD line machines tend to be more reliable.
  • 0

#4 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 May 2005 - 04:42 PM

So, I steered clear of the Quadra, and scheduled a seesion on a Rank, w/ a year old Ursa tube. From your posts, I gather that means I'm using technology that's even older than the Quadra? (If you think the Rank is finicky, you should meet the colorist!) At least I know this machine. I used it and the same colorist last year for a regular 16 short that I shot on a 16-bl w/ that freakin atrocious Angenieux doorstop of a zoom, and I thought the transfer looked pretty good. (It was the tube's first job!) Since then, I've done a super-16 transfer on the Shadow. I know what I'll be missing, but the Shadow's just too expensive to employ everytime I shoot a student film. For the price I'm getting, I'll be able to see what digi-beta does for me.

Thanks for your answers.
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

CineTape

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

CineTape