Jump to content


Photo

Kinescope 2005


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

#1 ATRsea

ATRsea

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 July 2005 - 08:32 PM

I'm wondering about the quality of doing a DV production , then playing the results on a HD or hi-quality video monitor (2K?) and filming that with my Arri 16Bl with 29.97 or 23.976 fps setting. Monitor resolution including 1" tape and cameras in the 1950's is cave man technology compared to today? Thanks.
  • 0

#2 Luke Prendergast

Luke Prendergast
  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Victoria Australia

Posted 05 July 2005 - 08:55 PM

What for?
  • 0

#3 ATRsea

ATRsea

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 July 2005 - 09:27 PM

What for? Because video-to-film transfers are hundreds of dollars per minute. $35,000 for a 90 min. film. I think I could do it for $3,000 kinescoping.
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 July 2005 - 11:37 PM

Using an Arri 16BL, you'll end up with a 16mm negative and only be able to project a 4x3 16mm print when most festivals either screen 35mm or digitally these days, with few screening 16mm. Plus you get crappy mono-optical sound on 16mm prints.

This comes under the category of "if it were such a good idea, everyone would already be doing it." In other words, you get what you pay for -- you won't be getting the quality of a $35,000 transfer for only $3,000.

In fact, CRT recorders are based on a similar idea, just not using a camera running at normal speed when pointing at a hi-res monitor.
  • 0

#5 ATRsea

ATRsea

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 July 2005 - 12:22 AM

Ahhhh..... my doing this is only to get a "film-look" better than any video-only film manipulation. The final product would be on DVD.
My question is would it look BETTER - MUCH BETTER than the classic kinescope work done in the past? Like this :
1)Film miniDV black and white
2)import/edit on computer
3)export back to miniDV
4)play back on a high-resolution LCD monitor
5)film this with a Arri loaded with plus-x @ 29.97
6)devolpe film and rank to miniDV
7)edit on computer adding sound
8)burn 1,000 DVD's at home and then sell them online for $10
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 July 2005 - 02:45 AM

I suspect it would be a rather bad and expensive way of achieving a film look compared to using film-look software.

Sure, it would have to look better than a 1950's kinescope.

You'd be better off just shooting with a good 24P camera or just shooting b&w 16mm to begin with (or b&w Super-8 reversal).

Transferring DV to 16mm using a jury-rigged kinescope and then transferring it back to DV again seems to me would just get you really bad-quality DV -- fuzzy, grainy -- in the most expensive and complicated method possible.

You have to ask yourself what you are really trying to achieve, look-wise. It seems like this plan only makes sense for a really experimental look where you plan on making the image look funky. For example, I once transferred 24P SD to 35mm color reversal and cross-processed it for a unique look.
  • 0

#7 Luke Prendergast

Luke Prendergast
  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Victoria Australia

Posted 06 July 2005 - 04:07 AM

I think you misunderstand the reason for video-film transfers. It isn't for a 'film look'. It's so you can print and project the thing. Why on earth don't you shoot on film in the first place?
  • 0

#8 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 06 July 2005 - 11:46 AM

You might be better off buying an old Kinescop and swapping out the video screen. You can find them in several post houses, for the price of hauling them away. Again, it might be a useful idea for cross-format long term archives, but as an effect it sounds like going around 5 sides of a triangle to get from points A to B.

Edited by Robert Hughes, 06 July 2005 - 11:48 AM.

  • 0

#9 ATRsea

ATRsea

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 July 2005 - 07:24 PM

I think you're all wrong. I don't think any of you know what'll look like. I'm gonna go experiment. Up yours respectively.
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 July 2005 - 08:34 PM

I think you're all wrong. I don't think any of you know what'll look like. I'm gonna go experiment. Up yours respectively.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Jeez, you ASKED for our opinion. You just didn't get an answer you wanted to hear.

Of course we don't know what the results would be of something that you haven't built yet!!! We can only make educated guesses based on past experiences with various methods of transferring video to film, or film to video, and with film-look processes, and with 24P video, with 16mm b&w, etc.

It sounds like you've already made up your mind that this is a good idea -- so just do it. Just stop asking people for their opinions if you don't want an honest response.
  • 0

#11 Luke Prendergast

Luke Prendergast
  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Victoria Australia

Posted 07 July 2005 - 04:52 AM

Zeppelins are the future of air travel. You'll see...
  • 0

#12 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11934 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 July 2005 - 08:35 AM

Hi,

If I were going to do this, I'd probably try and get one of those hi-res monochrome medical monitors, some RGB dichroic filters and a stop-motion camera with very good registration. That way I might expect to get half-decent results, after say six months of fiddling around with it...

Phil
  • 0

#13 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 07 July 2005 - 04:00 PM

Zeppelins are the future of air travel. You'll see...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


For example:

Oversized blimp to move multi-ton cargo
  • 0

#14 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2005 - 05:33 PM

"I think you're all wrong. I don't think any of you know what'll look like. I'm gonna go experiment. Up yours respectively."

These men do know what they are talking about and are obviously more experienced than you.But if you want to waste money and time...go ahead.I'm sure it will look fantastic.

You just told a handful of pros and an award winning member of the ASC "Up yours" and that they don't know what they are talking about. Thats pretty smart buddy.Don't come crying for help here after your half baked mini-dv to film project goes sour.

I'm suprised people kept responding.

Nobody help this ignorant Jackass...let him learn his lesson the hard way.
If people try to help you ,you show respect for it.
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 July 2005 - 05:54 PM

To set the record straight, I've been nominated twice for an IFP Spirit Award for cinematography but have never won, nor any other significant award, except for dinky amatuer awards for some Super-8 stuff in college.
  • 0

#16 ATRsea

ATRsea

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 July 2005 - 08:02 PM

Oh such big egos here.. Doesn't DuArt still do kinescoping for $7,000 for a 90 min. feature. That's what I read awhile ago. If my project stays on tv it'll look just fine!
Yeah and that's for the great help. Tards.
  • 0

#17 ATRsea

ATRsea

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 July 2005 - 08:08 PM

ps-I hate cinematographers, you're the reason western civilization is going straight to hell.
  • 0

#18 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 07 July 2005 - 09:16 PM

Chill, buddy, we were just tying to give you some advice - that you requested. There's no need to get huffy.

Want a sophisticated kinescope for a fair price? Call Dennis O'Rourke here:

Cinesound, Inc.

He's got 2; one with a mechanical advance, another with an air-jet advance. If you don't come and get it he may throw it away, so hurry.

Edited by Robert Hughes, 07 July 2005 - 09:19 PM.

  • 0

#19 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 July 2005 - 10:01 PM

You see why it's important that people sign their posts with their real names? People who use pseudonyms often feel empowered to be rude because there's no consequences.
  • 0

#20 Allen Achterberg

Allen Achterberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Santa Maria CA

Posted 07 July 2005 - 10:24 PM

You see why it's important that people sign their posts with their real names?  People who use pseudonyms often feel empowered to be rude because there's no consequences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Consequences? You going to hunt him down and beat his ass? Can I shoot it? ahh, I can see it now, I'd get a techno crane for this. It would be awesome.

Yes, I do see the significance of what you speak of.
  • 0


The Slider

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

CineLab

Technodolly

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies