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


Vince R. Forcier wrote:

> >Did anyone else notice how this beautiful machine (the Ursa) was outdone
> in noise performance by the "bastard" Mark III (Turbo III) in Cintels
> own booth.

I think that you've misunderstood the statement. I am not suggesting
that these after market add-ons are not a good thing, take a look at the
Innovations TK products, or the new add-ons that Cintel is pushing, or
the many products that Options are promoting, these are all very good
products, and all have there place in our little world. However, we have
all walked into a facility and seen the old MKIII sitting in the corner
working away while being held together by who knows what, with the wires
protruding from the back of the machine and a look of pain under its
doors. As for the Turbo 3, I think it is safe to say that, although a
nice looking machine,  the URSA line of telecine has nothing to fear
from this new creation. When you speak of noise, are you talking less
noise, or less detail there by providing the illusion of less noise. I
would think that the analog processing of the telecine (A BIG LOW PASS
FILTER) would have something to do with that. I suppose that is why the
Turbo III portion of the Cintel booth was such a lonely place. I would
agree that the URSA requires these new products to stay on top of the
game, I just hope that it doesn't turn into the MKIII thing all over
again. Hopefully we can get some other opinions about the Turbo III to
see how people thought it stacked up. 

Steven Flippin
Chief Engineer	
Crash & Sue's Film and Video Post
Minneapolis, MN
Ph: (612) 338-7947
Fax:(612) 338-4601 

sflippi9 at mail.idt.net
steven at crash-sues.com

thanks to David Gustafson of CFI & Drew Marsh of Filmworkers Club 
for supporting the Telecine Internet Group in 1997
mailinglist digest available......posting guidelines on the webpage