[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CINTEL VS QUADRA



This is a tough question, as both the Quadra and the current model Cintel
Ursa Gold are very high quality machines, and both are capable of excellent
results.

The advantages of CCD telecines are objective: lower initial cost, less to go
wrong, lower operating costs.  Their disadvantages are largely subjective:
their output doesn't have the same "look," so clients are not as enthused
them; and you can't see "live" corrections on a still frame -- at least not
on the earlier machines -- due to the line-array chips used.  A machine in
the Quadra's class might not have all of the range (i.e. the ability to
satisfactorily handle very different types of film or over- and underexposed
images) of a recent flying spot telecine, but Philips and Kodak proved this
was not an inherent limitation of CCDs in the "Spirit," which may be thought
of as the Quadra's big sister.

As a PS to Dick Hobbs' posting on this subject, I'd just like to add that in
the Cintel Ursa Gold, A-to-D conversion takes place just past the
photomultiplier stage, after which the video path stays digital.
 Consequently, although the two machines are very different in terms of
actual design, the overall concepts are not so dissimilar as they may appear.

Christopher Bacon
DuArt Film & Video