From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jun 22 2010 - 13:58:06 PDT
There's also the cost. A professional 4k scan from a lab scanned to
film costs around $1,000 a minute!
On Jun 22, 2010, at 1:09 PM, bryan mckay wrote:
> I'm not sure how much of this chain of commentary is in jest, butů
> a) Filming the screen would yield a print that was only as good as,
> if not much worse than, the DVD copy. In that case, why not just
> screen the DVD?
> b) Getting a print from the DVD, even from the original digital
> master used to make the DVD, would still be vastly inferior to any
> decent 16mm print in existence. Yes, DVD can look very good, in my
> opinion, but you lose so much (dynamic range, fine detail, grain, et
> cetera) during the digitization and compression process that going
> back out to print would be worthless.
> On the other hand, if there were a good 2K or 4K scan of the
> original to use as a digital intermediate, then you could clean that
> up and make a very nice looking print. But, still, it wouldn't have
> anything on a good, clean print struck fresh from a pristine negative.
> On Jun 22, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Matt Helme wrote:
>> That might be an improvement.
>> From: Nicholas O'Brien <email suppressed>
>> To: Experimental Film Discussion List
>> <email suppressed>
>> Sent: Tue, June 22, 2010 2:18:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Rape
>> Couldn't you make a great print off a great DVD copy?
>> ya, film the screen!
>> Nicholas O'Brien
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
FrameWorks mailing list