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

Re: Re: Re: aaton/ARRI code verses doing it by hand

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!

John Snopes

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/