On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:17:02 -0500 Jeremy Butler <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > My experience has been that digitally captured images more closely approach > the quality of film-based frame enlargements (e.g., those in FILM ART) than > photographs of the monitor do. But I'm certainly open to suggestions for > better methods of nabbing material from video. I would have thought that the type of monitor and camera being used in a photographic transfer or the computer hardware in a video transfer are all variables. From the few telerecordings (pre-video TV recordings made by pointing a (usually) 16mm camera at a high-definition monitor) I've seen, the quality varies significantly. Getting back to stills, I wonder what sort of result you'd get by using a 35mm stills camera on a video image produced by an LCD projector? > Interestingly, the FILM ART Instructor's Manual (at least for the 5th > edition) details the method Kristin Thompson uses to "Make Slides from Film > and Video Images." She uses a Canon Duplicator 35 and 35mm prints for most > of the stills. What I've usually done is to place the 35mm cinema film in a stills enlarger and make a Cibachrome paper print (which I then scanned). It has sometimes taken me two or three test strips to get the exposure and gamma levels right, but the results are usually acceptable. I've never tried a slide duplicator attachment on an SLR camera, though. I'll have to get the new edition of B & T... Best wishes Leo __________________________________ Leo Enticknap Postgraduate Common Room School of English and American Studies University of Exeter Queen's Building, The Queen's Drive Exeter Devon EX4 4QJ United Kingdom email: [log in to unmask] ---- Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the University of Alabama.