[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: conforming the neg.
- To: "'telecine at sun.alegria.com'" <telecine at sun.alegria.com>
- Subject: RE: conforming the neg.
- From: "Case, Dominic" <dominic_case at atlab.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:41:47 +1000
- Old-Return-Path: <dominic_case at atlab.com.au>
- Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 18:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: telecine at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"ARWbxC.A.ErG.GsZwz" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: telecine-request at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at sun.alegria.com>
Mike Most, Encore Video (ex-Lorimar!), L.A.wrote:
>Today, Warners assembles 3 perf negative on many of their sitcoms which are
>shot using that format.
Is that fine-cutting for a film print (which is what I'm interested in),
or just pulling takes for re-transfer?
>In those early days, we had problems primarily related to 3:2 pulldown
>considerations (there weren't any 24 frame video editing systems at the time,
>we were using Ediflex).
Ah yes . . . Ediflex! . . .
I remember attanding an ACVL meeting around 1989-ish? when producer
after producer stood up and asserted that it simply wasn't possible to
cut negative to match a tape edit - it always went out of sync. At that
time we were cutting negative to Ediflex work here in Sydney with very
few problems. (But of course we had film shot at 25 fps for PAL TV
mailinglist digest available......posting guidelines on the webpage