Posted by Derek Gee on 04/29/06 00:39

"MovieStuff" <moviestuff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1146147768.319544.158610@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Derek Gee wrote:
>
>> I have reservations about Moviestuff's "speed change transform" software
>> based on my experiences with other professional video software. There is
>> a
>> definate limit as to how much transforming you can do before weird things
>> begin to happen.
>
> The CineCap software for MovieStuff products employs the exact same
> pulldown patterns used by high end Rank transfer units. There is zero
> difference. But if you fail to enable the interpolated pulldown
> pattern then it will look jerky on television. Likewise, if you use the
> interpolated pulldown pattern for viewing on a computer, it will look
> odd. It's all about correctly setting up the preferences in the CineCap
> software for the intended display venue. But the pulldown pattern is
> based on the same broadcast standards used in Ranks, Spirits, Phillips
> and others. There is no difference. So if you don't like the pulldown
> patterns used by CineCap for creating speed changes, then you also will
> not like the motion characteristics of a high end Rank transfer, since
> they both use the exact same patterns.

I have seen problems when using NLE editors to interpolate film speed. For
example, 16mm film shot at 16-18 fps was transferred at 24fps. Using two
different brands of NLE editor software to bring the rate back down close to
original shooting speed left all kinds of weird visible artifacts. Please
explain how your interpolation works differently from the NLE software.

>> If you want the finest quality transfer for
>> your film, it's simply not possible to use the do-it-yourself stuff that
>> Moviestuff and Tobin Cinema Systems are selling. The Rank and Grass
>> Valley
>> systems beat them hands down.
>
> There is no doubt that a $250,000 Rank is going to offer more potential
> than a $1395.00 WorkPrinter or a $6000 DV8 Sniper but, for reversal
> home movie film, the minor differences are hardly worth the $249,000
> difference in price, especially if you use a good 3CCD camera and have
> it set up properly. There is a reason that we have sold more than 2000
> units worldwide and that the Academy of Motion Picture Film Archives in
> Hollywood made our units the archiving tool of choice and it wasn't
> because our units produced a substandard image when set up correctly.
> Our units have also been used to produce broadcast grade footage for
> the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, Fox as well as tons of
> music videos. More specifically, regarding the qualitative difference
> between our units and a Rank, please see the comparison done in PC
> magazine where footage was sent to us and to a lab with a Rank Turbo:
>
> http://www.moviestuff.tv/whats_new.html#Sniper%20vs%20Rank%20in%20PC%20Magazine

A favorable comparison, but in the still photo above, the Rank transfer has
better shadow detail and more pleasing flesh tones.

> I think the images speak for themselves and demonstrate more
> similarities to high end transfers than appreciable differences,
> especially when you consider the tremendous difference in cost. I agree
> with you that, if you can afford a Rank transfer, then that is the way
> to go. That's what I would do, too. But if you can't, then the
> WorkPrinter and Sniper units are a more than acceptable close second.

The big problem with the Moviestuff products is the inability to transfer
sound films. Nearly all of my S8 films had a soundtrack, which for me rules
out Moviestuff. Manually syncing the sound up from a separate soundtrack is
a pain. For me, it's well worth the extra bucks to pay for a pro transfer
to have the sound exactly where I put it in the first place.

Derek

[Back to original message]