From: 40 Frames Directory (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 19 2005 - 11:11:05 PST
> [...] as far as i know, nobody makes that argument, and while some may
> still love their Steenbecks, everybody seems to have thrown over
> their Reel-To-Reel machines for ProTools. Now that i think about it,
> it seems kind of odd. Anybody have thoughts on why some old
> technologies maintain their devotees, while other similar ones do not?
In regards to field recording, the choice of DAT over Nagra (for me
personally) had to do with a loss of more than 20lbs of metal hanging from
the neck. Even with a better harness (supported by both shoulders) this
machine is a pain. I can see how the Nagra was used in the industry for so
long as sound mixers usually work off a chart with wheels. The people who
have done location sound for me have never worked off a cart. DAT also
allows indexing of takes.
I still have a Magnasync 2200 and 3000. And cut on a flatbed with tape and
sound fill and cotton glove on one hand (like a pop star). I do however
find that opting for the computer to make certain trims before going to
mag can save me some time, esp in regards to cutting an interview that is
non-sync w/ the pix (people tend to yammer on).
I'd also say that sound has always been second fiddle to film images,
historically speaking. The attraction starts with what one sees, it's
usually only later that sound starts to play a more signifcant part of
one's interest in film-making or viewing.
Alain
------------------
40 FRAMES DIRECTORY
425 SE 3rd, #400
Portland, OR 97214 USA
telephone: +1 503 231 6548
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.