[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Emmy request for info
- To: telecine internet group <telecine at alegria.com>
- Subject: Emmy request for info
- From: rob at alegria.com (Rob Lingelbach)
- Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 17:36:28 -0700
- Organization: Altruistic Intentions, Hollywood, CA
- Phone-number: +1 213 464 6266
- Reply-To: Rob Lingelbach <rob at alegria.com>
- Resent-Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 17:37:18 -0700
- Resent-From: telecine at alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"Cr8aH.A.fCC.Tw7S1" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: SmartList account <slist at sun.alegria.com>
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
- Sender: Rob Lingelbach <rob at sun.alegria.com>
This comes to the TIG via Bill Topazio, who was asked to post by Mark
Schubin, the author and correspondent for Videography.
Dear TIG members,
Thank you VERY much for all of your assistance thus far on my Emmy
Award research into pioneering developments in film-scratch removal
for telecines. You have helped me enormously with the factual
portion of my inquiry. I turn to you now for help with the emotional
For the committee to award an Emmy, a development must "materially
have affected the transmission, reception, or recording of
television." The committee has always interpreted the "have
affected" to mean past tense (i.e., a spectacular but brand-new
development cannot get an Emmy as soon as it comes out); furthermore,
the technology being investigated starts with "Pioneering
developments," which tends to indicate an even further past tense.
"Materially," however, is open to a great deal of interpretation.
Ultimately, the entire committee will make the decision as to whether
to award an Emmy (or multiple Emmies) for this technology. So, my
question to you this time is: Do you have any strong feelings about
awarding or not awarding an Emmy for any aspect of scratch removal?
The old-timers I've spoken to in the broadcast business praised the
Pic-Clear damp-gate as being tremendously helpful in the days when
commercials were run on film at TV stations. And it seems Pic-Clear
was used by a huge percentage of TV stations.
How do you feel about later developments in scratch removal, whether
wet gates, diffuse optics, automatic electronic systems, or
workstation-based scratch removal? If you have no strong feelings,
there's no need to respond, but, if you think something was either
REALLY worthy of Emmy recognition or so bogus that it shouldn't be
considered, I'd like to know, so I can include those feelings in my
No one will be quoted; all responses will be confidential.
If you feel like responding, please do so by May 15. Mail, courier,
fax, phone, and/or e-mail are all acceptable.
Again, many thanks for all of your help so far.
40 West 72nd Street, Apartment 43
New York, NY 10023-4104
mschubin at mcimail.com
212 579-4147 (24 hours a day/7 days a week)
fax 212 870-4520
----------End of Original Message----------
Thanks to Drew Marsh & T.J. Scott for supporting the TIG in 1998..
No product marketing allowed on the main TIG. Contact rob at alegria.com
978 subscribers in 36 countries on Sat May 2 17:36:30 PDT 1998
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/