Video WorkPrinter Review posted

[MovieStuff]

Hi, all!

I really appreciate the interest in the WorkPrinter. Recently, I posted some images from a recent test transfer. Here is a review of the transfer from the person that requested it and sent me the footage.

Please see:
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/workprinter_review.html

Thanks!

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Hi, everyone.

I have had a few emails requesting that I post a clip on the web that shows a sample transfer. I have made a conscious decision not to do this for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that web based clips always seem to look like crap. Now, others may have had better experiences, but I don't want to muddy the waters by having the clip work on one person's computer and not on another. This only leads to comments like,"Yeah, I downloaded the clip and it looked just terrible, all jerky and pixelated" or what ever. Unfortunately, these kind of uninformed comments usually spread like wildfire though they have no basis in fact, what so ever.

More importantly, if someone wants to REALLY judge the quality of the Video WorkPrinter transfer capability, then they need access to the original footage, which would be impossible viewing a clip on the internet.

I have extended the offer for a free test transfer through the end of September and have made it as painless as possible.

For more information, please see the following:

Free test info is at:
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/offer.html


Sample images are at:
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/printer_images.html

A review of the transfer is at:
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/workprinter_review.html

Again, thanks to eveyone that is interested.

Roger Evans

[Matt Pacini]

I'm in the process of having Roger do a test for me, and I'm excited about this.
I paid close to $6,000 for the telecine of my movie, and this is after I had cut it down to 101 minutes, whithout scene to scene correction! (DO NOT cut your film down for telecine, this was a huge mistake!).
So you bet I'm excited about getting something that costs less than 10% of a quickie telecine session, and I can keep using it over and over.

Pretty damn cool.

How many of you guys have these? My next step is to have him modify it with a digital still camera on the receiving end, instead of a video camera, with the condenser lens setup, so I will have over 2K film digitizing off of Super 8! This will be the only time ever, that all the quality of a super 8 frame has been realized.
This will be BETTER than Rank quality, so you guys might as well get jealous now, because I'm going to be the coolest guy around when I get that rig up and running!

Matt Pacini

------------------

[MovieStuff]

Well, we'll have the race of the two "Matts".

Mattias just announced his plan to do the same on another forum; digital camera and all. Better hurry, Matt, uh, I mean, Matt.

Oh, boy, this could get confusing!

Roger

[jocko]

Oh yea..well I'm getting Roger to build me one with all the stuff you got and..add a microwave and a beer tap...matt that sounds like a nice system..how long till you put a PRO 8 sticker on it..and sell it for $10,000
I'll buy it then

Neil

------------------

[trevorbr]

I was going to ask if it would be possible to use a digital still camera....a new camera may have to wait....this just keeps getting better. Digital projection here we come


-trevor

------------------

[trevorbr]

Roger, I was wondering about the exact process Matt P. has described. What type of digital still camera would be required? Could this be automated? If a high end still camera were to be used (based on a standard SLR), could the lens be removed and the image projected more or less directly to the CCD? I suppose surface of the CCD would be too small, but I am ignorant about such things. I am however, very interested in the potential results.


-trevor

------------------

[MovieStuff]

Hi, all.

Well, actually, the WorkPrinter runs too fast (6fps) to use with a digital still camera. So I'm going to custom make him one that runs slower and has a cooler light source. At least that's the idea. We'll see what the Bank says.

The problem with digital cameras is either their limited frame storage capacity or their inability to just be used for imaging while the computer does the actual capture. Ideally, you want the camera to just image only, with some type of digital connection going to the computer to transfer the imagery which will then be captured on the larger hard drive.

Also, there are two ways to optically set up the camera to link with the projector.

A) Aeriel image: Use a condenser lens (a fancy name for a magnifying glass) between the projection lens and the camera lens. This will allow the camera to look at a magnified image of the gate of the projector via the projection lens. This is the type of set up used in "film chain" transfers. It isn't bad, as long as you use good glass all around.

B) Direct view: Remove the lens from the projector. Take the camera lens and put it on the end of a short tube to enlarge the image it projects on the camera's CCD chip. This will effectively make it into a "microscope" capable of looking directly at Super 8 frames. This is better because only one lens is used. Ideally, the camera lens should be replaced with an enlarger's lens. They are simpler and sharper. Flat field, too, which is a must for good copy work.

Of course, the WorkPrinter works fine "as is" for making transfers to video doing nothing more than projecting on a piece of ink jet paper. The whole idea behind it was to allow people to make "temp" transfers that are frame accurate to an eventual Rank transfer. That way, they could transfer ALL their raw footage for free to determine which needs to be Ranked later on.

That was the plan, but some people seemed keen on using these for final transfers, which is cool by me. As I indicated before, the tests came out much better than I intended for the purpose of this unit.

Roger

[mattias]

my reason for using a digital camera isn't the resolution (640x480 would be enough as long as the actual resolution isn't any lower than that), but the better dynamic range and color definition (since a digital still camera doesn't have to create a video signal or match tv gamma at all). this means i can probably find one that can capture 6 images a second directly to computer. at least i hope so.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

My understanding from talking to a photographer I know that uses a digital Nikon and a digital 4x5 back is that, for the increased color response you seek going straight to the computer, the camera actually makes 3 "scans" for each picture taken; red, green, blue. This mode increases the color fidelity tremendously compared to the "normal" mode of quick exposures that use a single chip to try and break down the color spectrum. Again, no hands on experience here, just repeating his information. I'll see if I can verify this, but he says it takes almost 10 seconds per frame in that higher mode when hooked directly to the computer for computer capture.

If you aren't concerned about resolution and considering that standard NTSC is 720 x 486, then it sounds like a high end 3 chip video camera would do the trick. If you had a tech readjust the gamma to suite your needs, there are tons of capture cards that will let you go component to digital and they wouldn't care how you had the gamma set. Again, I go on shoots where there's a digital still camera being used and, inevitably, he misses something that we have to pull from the BetaSP tape as a freeze and the colors are no better on his high end digital still camera than they are off my broadcast grade 3 chip video camera.

Just a thought, since resolution isn't an issue.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 05, 2001).]