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

Re: Pin Registration (was Re: Kepping)



On Mar 2, 18:40, GRAHAM P.M. COLLETT wrote:
} Subject: RE: Pin Registration (was Re: Kepping)

} From the MKIII days at vtr we proved that a well maintained telecine
} did not need pin reg.( sorry mike) The ursa's are even easier to keep
} in the ballpark.  Meta and jumpfree make that task easier still ,
} although the jumpfree appears only to compensate for errors at the
} sprocket.

Graham, I as I mentioned in reply to JC's post, I wish that were true
here-- it's not a matter of how good the realtime registration is,
it's a question of giving the client what they insist upon: the 'same'
pin registration that was used in the camera.  It's my experience that
ILM, Digital Domain, and other effects houses here on the west coast
prefer their composite elements to be pin-registered, even if there is
stabilization to be done later-- they feel they want to match what was
done in camera, process for process.  Perhaps this is really an issue
of the client's education; I would like to know if there has ever been
exhaustive testing of compositing with elements transferred using the
various forms of realtime registration, versus the various forms of
pin-registration, for various telecines.  The problem would be in
'unifying' the variables of transport/servo issues on the different
machines..  

I've been working on elements for the upcoming 'Titanic' film and have
seen pin-registration recordings from several houses, of a test film I
then transferred via pin-registration myself.  There is definitely
wide variation in the performance of the systems.  




-- 
Rob Lingelbach          |  2660 Hollyridge Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90068
rob at alegria.com  	| "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or 
rob at info.com		|  cat are not the better for it."  --Abraham Lincoln
rob at cloister.org		KB6CUN   http://www.alegria.com