Re: Looking for 16mm sound mix studio

From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Sep 03 2008 - 15:10:17 PDT

> If you don't become a video artist or digital filmmaker, then you
> seem destined to mimic a past experience under challenging
> circumstances.

Hi Bernie. I essentially _have_ become a digital filmmaker for this
& some of the reasons you mention; in my case because I wanted the
'digital canvas' & its possibilities of computer post processing /
construction. And I'm also shooting digital now (with unconventional
camera choice, a high end Nikon DSLR) but that is (in part) to
eliminate as it were, the costly middleman - raw stock, telecine etc
-- although I'll add I'm not doing this under protest or even
(surprising to me) a sense of compromise --- and am working with my
new materials' own unique, and I think considerable possibilities --

That said I have no argument at all then with Pip's response: the
cheapest and best way to optimize the quality of the film negative
you shoot is a contact print.... I say this because to approach or
match that quality with any digital steps means, well we could talk
about high end telecine or something like an Arriscanner,
transferring / scanning to a data format and so on --- if you want
to go down that route or near it we could talk about ways to do it
and save you some money but still requires investment of time & $$ on
your part, time in proportion to what you want to save, and depends
on how you feel about learning software, computer, monitoring
investment and so on and so on ---

Then again Jennifer Reeves' Light Works / Mood Disorder was
(excepting some HDV origination) workprint shot of a white wall w/ Sony
HDW-700 HDCam -- looked quite nice on the Walter Reade's DLP --

---but digital projection is, IMO, a moving target, it's getting
better but -

(Aaton K and 35mm film-outs, hmm I'm already having thoughts I can't
afford to have at this point ;-)


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