Re: FRAMEWORKS Digest - 21 Jul 2006 to 22 Jul 2006 - Special issue (#2006-78)

From: Jud Yalkut (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Jul 22 2006 - 17:05:54 PDT

Dear Jeff and Alain:

  Yes, it's true that you only get half the information from the video
scan with the TVT shutter,
  but when you consider that I was able to get the entire Auricon system
for $125 at a camera
  store close-out sale, and spent about the same for the TVT conversion
back then (in an
  ancient mystic time of cinema bliss), it's still a deal and it does
work, especially for image processed work.
  Yes, the Palmer unit is quite good but a big difference in cost for
the individual, I think.

  As far as A-1, I have had recent experiences with their work in making
prints from some old reversal material and,
  yes, there were a few problems: one being a strange fishlike odor from
some new prints (re "the Pisces
  Syndrome"), which was inexplicable for something brand new. This was
in 2000.
  Over the years with A-1, I have always settled for "best light" prints
since timing was unavailable there.

 - Jud Yalkut


 Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:32:02 -0500
 From: Jeff Kreines <email suppressed>
 Subject: Re: FRAMEWORKS Digest - 21 Jul 2006 - Special issue (#2006-77)

 On Jul 22, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Jud Yalkut wrote:

> I still have one that was outfitted by F&B Ceco with a TVT shutter
> which shoots perfect
> images of video monitor images without drift lines or any problems.

 The Auricon 144-degree TVT shutter is a fine thing, but note that you
 are only capturing one of the two fields of NTSC video, which cuts in
 half the vertical resolution. A true kinescope recording camera,
 like the Palmer, had a super-fast pulldown and a 288-degree shutter,
 so captured both fields. DuArt still uses one for kinescopes.

 As for A-1, will the dying-off of reversal print stocks leave them
 any work to do? Processing B&W reversal original, sure, but what
 else? Thanks, Kodak...

 ubject: Re: FRAMEWORKS Digest - 21 Jul 2006 - Special issue (#2006-77)

> As far as A-1 film labs in New York, they have long been a friend to
> the independent filmmaker,
> providing good deals and decent work. Back in the 60s, they were a
> that one filmmaker
> turned another onto, and did many fantastic things like nursing
> Carolee Schneemann's sewn,
> pasted and collaged "Fuses" through a contact printer to make a
> positive. I still
> miss the luxury of being able to shoot in the morning and watch
> later that same day.
> Freddy has definitely kept up the heritage.
> - Jud Yalkut

 I've actually had really spotty results with A1.

 In several cases Freddy was good enough to refund my money when the lab
  had clearly made a mistake, but what I wanted was my footage. During
  time I used A1's services I did have a few very positive results, but
  was never consistent. Perhaps this is a recent development as I had
 nothing until Jud's comments above about how it used to be.

 For B/W reversal (anywhere) I'd try Mark Kosarik, and Film & Video
 Services in Minneapolis. I've had very good and consistent result with
  both of these places. I haven't been shooting the new Tri-X, but Mark
 developed the process with the older Tri-X which reduced the grain
  considerably. He really brought out the beauty of the older Tri-X and
 you wanted grain well all you had to do was ask.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.