Super 8 workprinter...

[syracusefilm.com]

I tend to be very precise with my financial decision making, as well as most things mechanical and optical. Electronics and computers, I could use a little brushing up, but I don't think it would be a problem.

As for that long entry from Johnnycamcorder, why??? Why do you 'people' have to undermine and be so negative towards fellow filmmakers(probably 'cause YOU are Roger). I am not interested in 'copying someone elses intellectual property,' just taking something and making it my own. Just like rules for plagurism in school...remember. I believe we all are capable of doing things that we will.

What I don't understand is why filmmakers such as myself, those of whom I may or I may want to work with one day, are so easy to down an idea rather than support it??? Why don't some of us be more supportive rather than jump to the opposition. Because other's, like me, like to progress.

thanks

[syracusefilm.com]

If using Super 8 then you want:

Gaf Anscovision Super 8 Movie Projector
(88,388,1010,1333,1338,1372,1666,2388,3100
the 388 is the good one, the 1333 is the common one, it they are z models or memory masters, then that works

some viceroy may work also

If using 16mm, then the projector for you is:

Eiki SSL-0 slim line

the othere obviouses are:

a 6" condenser lens

a mirror box with the mirror set at 45 degrees

check out this site:
http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/s8mm/optprint.html

I beleive one can build a workprinter for maybe 500 dollars. A slow driven motor attatched to the inching knob.

Would one need a macro lens attatched?

[syracusefilm.com]

Originally posted by johnnycamcorder:
You'd do well to have an understanding about intellectual property if you are going to undertake a "reverse engineering" project on a patented device. Recent revisions to the laws have made this practice much more risky. Soliciting specifications on patented devices in order to "reverse engineer" the device is criminal conspiracy. These are very serious federal offenses[/qb]

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">One is allowed to deconstruct a patented product via internet legally, reproducing and selling it is another story. I just want to make that clear for those who are interested in supporting a fellow filmmaker with knowledge.

thanks

[syracusefilm.com]

I see that moviestuff's version has a synch cable with a 'special mouse', maybe there's a way around this, or I may just have to buy one to experiment with.

Anybody else????

Nick

Knowledge is free, give it away.

[johnnycamcorder]

I am not "downing" your project, Mr. Syracuse. Merely pointing out that it is not likely simple, and that it is far easier to buy something than to re-engineer it.

Some people may have old workprinters for sale. I've seen them on eBay. You could buy one second-hand and thus not be doing business with the creator. Then you could modify your device to your heart's content.

It is an impressive undertaking, should you decide to pursue it. I have no doubt it a personal transfer system could be devised without much trouble or even investment - your $500 seems right to me, excluding the cost of the computer and camera to do the frame capturing, of course.

Have you considered devising your own high-quality film chain system using a deluxe Elmo projector and a good condenser lens? If you had a good 24 fps projector and a PAL camcorder, you could make flickerless transfers pretty effortlessly could you not?

I'm by no means an expert about film transfers, but I like noodling out such problems.

[Glance]

I'd bet it could be pulled off even cheaper than $500, from a materials only standpoint.
If you've got the skills and time, then do it.
If I were 20 years old again, and didn't own a house and have a full-time+ job, but DID have lots of time and energy to do projects, it would be worth it to me. But I'm at that "time is money" point in my life.

There's certainly no "magic" in the work printer concept. I don't think anyone's ever said there was. It's a really simple concept. It just boils down to which you have more of; time or money?