[Tig] Steve Hullfish interviews Mr. Lumiere
steve4lists at veralith.com
Wed Nov 18 09:20:10 GMT 2009
Jeff - I respect you tremendously and I agree about many of your
points. I also know that in this discussion I am definitely the one at
the disadvantage in terms of expertise and detailed knowledge. I cede
to you on all points, other than the fact that just because you have
an image of a RED shooting something off a wall does NOT mean that the
film was transferred that way for the broadcast itself. You can read
my story on PVC about this now. It may have been a test. It may have
been for real. It may have been for a publicity shot. Publicists don't
know how things SHOULD be done.
PVC ARTICLE ABOUT THE TRANSFERS:
He did claim that they projected 8mm footage against a wall and shot
it with a RED, which is pretty crazy for a project that has HD in the
I have great old 8mm home movies that I tried to transfer to the best
of my ability but I know I screwed up (The film is still fine.) I wish
I could afford a better transfer. Obviously this series for the
History Channel SHOULD be able to afford a better transfer than was
done in some cases. And my own experience with the value of my
family's footage almost led me to create a stock footage company based
solely on old family film footage. It's great stuff.
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:51 AM, Jeff Kreines wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:42 AM, Steve Hullfish wrote:
>> He did say that he shot the 8mm footage off a wall using a RED. I
>> obviously do not think this is wise, but it doesn't mean I'm
>> getting "hyped."
> As well as 16mm footage not from archives, it appears.
>> The truth is very simple. You CAN NOT TRANSFER materials from the
>> National Archives like this. They won't let you. It's impossible.
> I know that -- and it's a good rule. Note that I make scanners for
> archives including the Library of Congress, so am very familiar with
> this world.
> I have a strong sense that Lumiere doesn't really know what he is
> doing, from my brief correspondence with him -- he thought a "film
> recorder" was something used to transfer film to HD or digital
> formats, not the other way around. Fine mistake for someone who
> doesn't claim expertise, but it would be a bit like a so-called
> editor calling an Avid a Moviola (if it weren't so late I'd come up
> with a better analogy).
> These people should know better, or hire someone who does!
> Looking forward to your piece and making snarky comments! ;-)
More information about the Tig