Thanks. Interesting stuff. But, regardless of the DVD's value (or lack
thereof) as an archival medium, right now I have absolutely no way to
view any of the films I have. That's what I'm looking for.
Chuck Norcutt
usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Sorry to be obtuse. If I am to provide useless info, it should at least be
> clear. I am no expert in video conversion as a preface.
> My point was that a DVD with MPEG compression is an easy convenient way to
> view the film, though is a lossy encoding technique and should not be
> considered a "digital archive". I would think of it as a modest sized .jpg.
> The theoretical max resolution of 8mm film (5.16 X4.14 mm at 80 cycles/mm)
> should be about 780X 589 and for super 8-- 910 X662. I suspect the actual
> resolution with the lenses used is much lower. The DV tape resolution is
> about 720X480 and much crummier after MPEG-2 for DVD playing. The MPEG's are
> also terrible to edit due to all the artifacts produced. Also DVD's may not
> be as robust a storage medium as thought.
>
> I think the Seattle place uses a fairly good 3 CCD camera for capture---it is
> not frame by frame scanning, though should be flicker free. They will also
> provide a DV tape. A place in New Mexico claim to have a proprietary
> technique for telecine transfer without using a projector. I have no
> experience with that outfit--caveat emptor http://www.film-to-video.com It
> may at least be worth checking out their tutorial.
> I suspect High def video archiving will become more easily available soon as
> the ridiculous format war works itself out and as the gear becomes
> commonplace. The HD-DVD players are now in stores, though I don't think
> Blu-Ray is. I am sufficiently challenged by single frame images anyway.
> Mike
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|