[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
I agree, but the point is, it's an option.
> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:10:57 +0100 > From: linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx > To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [LUG] Old films > > On 23/08/2011 16:18, Jack Oley wrote: > > It certainly won't be as good as a 'proper' conversion, but certainly > > a decent enough compromise. The conversion process will give better > > saturation, brightness and so on, but you can tweak the file when > > you've done it the cheap way, increase brightness, etc., etc. If I > > was doing it, I'd project the film onto a small screen for optimum > > clarity and brightness, you just have to put the camera a bit nearer! > > And there is the consideration of 'keystone' effect which is a > > slightly distorted image, but, again, you could compensate for this > > post-production. > The problem with post-production is that - as with all things - you > can't put back what isn't there to start with. Given that Neil > mentioned one of them is his wedding I'd be very inclined to spend the > extra to get a proper job done of conserving such an important event. > > Julian > > > -- > The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG > http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list > FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq |
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq