nonlinear telecine.

[Ian Thomson]

I"ve posted this over at RAMPS - and thought I'd re-post here to see if I get any more advice

thanks

Ian

<Hi - I know that this has been covered before in multiple posts (I tried to

search for specific info), and was looking for some advice

The Telecine houses in my area (south-east queenland - Australia) are

looking at ways of handling timecoded non-linear files; basically upgrading

from TC DAT.

Local recordists  have a variety of machines on set (Cantar/PD6/702T -

surprisingly no DEVAs)

I've just purchased a 702T, and would like to help them speed-up the process

of selecting a machine/computer that will be a smart choice on their behalf.

options

Fostex DV40 - handles DVD/CDR media?

Aaton In-Daw - expensive, but works with everything?

how about a PC/Mac running protools? or some other program that will output

timecode.

how difficult would it be to integrate a computer into their telecine

systems, should they really be looking for a "physical machine" or is it

more prudent to just sink the cash into an In-daw.

thoughts and opinions are certainly appreciated.

cheers

--

Ian Thomson

Boom Operator and Alpine Ski Instructor

0414 468 413

ian@thompsound.com>

[Jeff Wexler]

My recommendation would be to push for Aaton InDAW system and steer clear of the fast, cheap hardware box approach of items like the Fostex DV-40/824. The big attraction for the facilities here when non-linear production work was in its infancy to purchase the DV-40 was that it was cheap, easy to operate and allowed faciulities to continue working pretty much the way they had always done things with linear tape/media. As more and more non-linear work was being done (as all of us early Deva adopters had been saying would happen), the limitations of the DV-40 became quite apparent. Now that we are firmly moving into totally file-based systems of production through post, it is my feeling that it is important to have the support of a fully capable computer based workstation to handle all of this. It is sort of the reverse of how I feel about hardware production recorders vs. recording straight into a laptop for example. On the production side I like a dedicated hardware device, like the Deva (thart is, of course, a "computer") to do the production recording, but once the tracks go into the next phase, telecine/editorial, I think the use of a full DAW for these processes (such as transfer needs, file management and so forth) is the way to go.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler  (speaking as a production sound person with extensive post involvement)

[Philip Perkins]

If they have the money, InDaw all the way.  If the choice is something cheap and easy or nothing (as in my market) then the DV40.

But as Jeff says, they may find that they have to move on to something else soon in order to keep up w/ new demands of the market, easy w/ the InDaw, not so easy or not possible w/ DV40.

Philip Perkins

[Ian Thomson]

many thanks to all who replied for the advice.

i'm passing along the information to my 2 local telecine houses.

time will tell which way they decice to go.

Cheers

Ian

[Marc Wielage]

The problem with going with inDaw is that it only works as part of the complete Aaton system, which is about $60,000. From a user standpoint, I can tell you that the Aaton system has the best hardware, in terms of reading keykode and timecode off film, but I think the Evertz Tracker system has far better software. (The issue of Aaton vs. Tracker in post is roughly as controversial as, say, Deva vs. Cantar in the audio world.)

The DV-40 (or the newer DV-824) is pretty much compatible with everything, and costs less than $5000 (sometimes a lot less). The advantage of using it is that the telecine operator merely has to slip the disk in and go. With the inDaw, you have to physically copy all the files to the internal hard drive. The inDaw does have some advantages in terms of features like automatic pull-up/pull-down, and correcting varispeed problems, but these can generally be done manually with the DV-40.

--Marc W.