From: Steven Budden (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 09:28:22 PST
Filmguard is $32 for a quart. Reversal work print is $34.50 for 100' (one
light- Forde Labs). So I'd say 'no' on cheaper.
As for smarter?
I'm reminded of a George Kuchar quote from his hilarious "Reflections from a
Cinematic Cesspool" (1997):
"Always edit the original directly and therefore use reversal film stock...
if it's still around: things are changing so rapidly. Try to incorporate
scratches and blotches into the mystique of the picture because you have no
choice if this antiquated mystique is thrust upon you due to rundown projectors
and flatbeds. Make your movie look like a "found" lost classic that has somehow
been restored as best as possible. This way, little imperfections will not be
so annoying if they are engulfed in a major wear-and-tear veneer. The
audience's brain will filter out the noise and seek the sweet meat underneath."
In a message dated 2/18/2006 1:50:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
email suppressed writes:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Steven Budden wrote:
> Has anyone tried to use a film protector/ restorer such as
> Filmguard for editing original?
> It is supposed to be amazing for protecting against scratches so I
> was wondering if anyone ever used it for editing rather than
> projection / preservation?
Wouldn't it be cheaper/smarter to edit a workprint rather than
Filmguard your original?
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.