You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
the same way as theatrical prints. This included adding change marks,<br />
unless the studio advised otherwise, because the networks and local<br />
stations often used the change marks in the same way that a theater<br />
projectionist would. It also meant that the print was a third- or<br />
fourth-generation element, just as a theatrical print.<br />
Nowadays most theatrical films are transferred from a second-generation<br />
element, meaning an interpositive, a "lo-con" print or a reversal<br />
internegative, that was made directly from "The Negative" specifically<br />
for video transfer use. (I call it "The Negative" because the best<br />
existing film is referred to that way, even though it may not<br />
necessarily be the same piece of film that went through the camera. For<br />
"Snow White," for example, this term refers to the color negative that<br />
was generated on the Cineon system a few years ago, not the RGB negative<br />
that was originally shot.) Not only does this greatly reduce generation<br />
losses, but there is no need for change marks. (Programs and<br />
commercials shot on film for TV are normally transferred directly from<br />
the camera negative and then edited on tape. Feature films can<br />
transferred directly as well, but they usually aren't due to the risks<br />
involved in taking "The Negative" out of the storage facility for a few<br />
days for the transfer.)<br />
Getting back to <strong>CED</strong>, a guy I know in Hollywood transferred the "rings"<br />
animation (for RCA's stereo discs) and some other stuff for RCA<br />
SelectaVision back then, and he told me that they were *very* fussy<br />
about picture and sound quality. RCA was having its transfers done on<br />
the Rank Cintel Mark III flying-spot scanner at a time (only a few years<br />
after the Mark III was first adapted for NTSC) when some studios were<br />
still doing transfers for home video on older Plumbicon-based film<br />
camera chain systems.<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:08:41 -0700 (PDT)<br />
<strong>From</strong>: Jesse Skeen<br />
To: Tom Howe <br />
Subject: Re: <strong>CED</strong> Digest Vol. 2 No. 20<br />
Mime-Version: 1.0<br />
(I know this is starting to get off topic again, but...)<br />
I participated in Video Magazine's last "Mad as Hell" survey and had a<br />
few of my answers printed eventually. They quoted me saying "People who<br />
make fun of my <strong>CED</strong> videodisc player", my actual comment had to do with<br />
friends I had saying I was nuts for having one, which is true, but all<br />
THEY had were MONO VHS machines for watching movies! I'd rather watch my<br />
stereo <strong>CED</strong> player than any mono piece of junk; even some movie theaters<br />
still only have mono sound which is inexcusable!<br />
They also quoted me, with my name, saying that everyone should "Just say<br />
'no' to cable", which I thought was pretty cool.<br />
I will try to flood them with a 'complaint' about "lack of new releases<br />
on <strong>CED</strong>", just to see if they mention it if they get enough!
Change language