Print

Print


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.