[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: aaton/ARRI code verses doing it by hand
- To: jbowring at lemac.com.au, telecine at alegria.com
- Subject: Re: Re: Re: aaton/ARRI code verses doing it by hand
- From: J Snopes <JSnopes at aol.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 04:29:44 EST
- Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
- Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 01:32:41 -0800
- Resent-From: telecine at alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"hegXZ.A.RSH.TNGy0" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: telecine-request at alegria.com
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
jbowring at lemac.com.au wrote:
>Yes the Steenbeck is still a great way to cut - and in itself its
>inexpensive - but don't forget the cost of the extra film shot on slates,
>workprint, the mag film, spacer, tape, the neg match and then either the
>print or telecine transfer still has to be done.
Actually, my friends use no slates, but record sound with a Nagra SNN
built onto the side of their camera, that runs only when the camera runs.
Very simple to sync up! Personally I think the best way is to work on
an Avid, conform workprint as you go along so you can project, and you
can always cut on the flatbed, too. All this would be easier if
Aatoncode was easy to print, so it could be read easily off of cut
InstantSync looks pretty wonderful -- and I bet colorists will like not
having to deal with preroll and slates. Me, I hope it will cut my
telecine bills, with all that saved time!
thanks to Aine Marsland and Pandora International in 1998...
no product marketing allowed on the main TIG. Contact rob at alegria.com
TIG subscriber count is 907 on Fri Jan 23 01:30:55 PST 1998
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/