SCREEN-L Archives

October 1997, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:24:44 +0100
TEXT/PLAIN (36 lines)
On Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:10:47 -0500 Jeremy Butler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> But, if you decide to use a computer, then what you want to do is a "video
> capture."  The images you nab can then be displayed on your computer and
> tweaked to look just right.  Later, you send the image files directly to
> the printer of the book/journal article--just as you do the word processed
> files.  The resulting images look just as good as, say, frame enlargements
> from 16/35mm film (cf. FILM ART's images).
I once tried using a laserdisc player linked via an S-video wire (and
then I swapped it for a Euroconnector, to little effect) to a video card
(origin unknown: the computer was one from the University IT department) and
Microsoft Video for Windows in order to get stills off a PAL CAV disc.  Even
after trying to enhance the frames with Paint Shop Pro, the result was still
unacceptable compared with a 10 x 8 reversal printed from a 35mm positive
release print and scanned at 300dpi.  Scanning lines fragmented the picture,
the colour bled all over the place, contrast and definition was lousy.  If the
plates in Bordwell & Thompson's "Film Art" (I have the 4th edition) came from
domestic videotapes then clearly I was doing something very wrong.
Leo Enticknap
Postgraduate Common Room
School of English and American Studies
University of Exeter
Queen's Building, The Queen's Drive
Devon EX4 4QJ
United Kingdom
email: [log in to unmask]
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite