Video WorkPrinter Review posted

[Matt Pacini]

My purpose for this thing is 2 or 3-fold.
1. No matter what, it's way cheaper than doing a RANK transfer, and it looks like the quality of even the basic Workprinter is good enough for most video stuff, certainly enough to preview your work to anyone.

2. Using a high end digital still camera, one would be able to scan each frame at a preposterously high resolution. My reason for this, is I want to scan in high-res, up-res them even more, then do a lot of enhancement in Adobe AfterFX & Photoshop to see just how good I can make Super 8 look.
If it doesn't look so good, I'm abandoning the format.
I'll bring the resolution down for a video version, and may even render a short out to 35mm to see how it looks, if I can do it cheaply.

I really think there's much more in that little S8 frame than is getting recorded, even to a Rank. So we'll see!
This seems to be the best, most economical way to do that. Much cheaper than any other options out there.

Matt Pacini

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

[mattias]

it's certainly possible to get more information from a super 8 frame than can fit in a video signal. the theoretical limit is 900 pixel lines of resolution (450 line pairs), and my own tests (see http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/Forum239/HTML/000544.html) suggest you can realistically get up to 700.

/matt

ps. roger, *i wish* i could afford a high quality 3-ccd video camera... ;-)

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Mattias!

Actually, used stand alone 3 ship analog cameras by Ikegami, Sony, Hitachi and Panasonic regularly show up on ebay for anywhere from $800-$1,000. These cameras are generally about 5 years old but still put out a terrific picture; better than a new $3,500 Canon XL1, despite the much ballyhoo'd FireWire.

The thing that's a good deal about these stand-alone (non dockable) cameras is that, because they can't be docked (or weren't made to be originally) they don't demand as high a used price. Yet, BECAUSE they were not dockable, that only means they were, more than likely, to be used on a copy stand and not in the field, therefore they have less wear and tear. So you get a better camera at a cheaper price!

There are also 3 chip "remote cams" made by Sony and others that have no viewfinder, no handle, no frills but still have a broadcast zoom and high resolution CCDs. In essecence, they are exactly the same image quality as their "stand alone" and "dockable" counterparts, but were meant for courtroom or remote pedistal usage, so they've been reduced to nothing more than a small box with a lens. These are NOT survaillence cameras. These are broadcast grade cameras minus all the bells and whistles. They also show up on ebay all the time going for about $500 on the average.

Roger

[Matt Pacini]

Matthias, that link shows up dead for me.
Can you double check it?

Roger, I sent off the cashiers check today.
I'm excited about this little experiment.
It's gonna be way cool, and Alex, I have no idea what you mean by the "eggs in one basket" statement.

You mean you think it's a bad idea to pay a fraction of what a telecine session costs, to buy hardware that will enable me to do thousands of telecine sessions?

Can't wait to get it, Roger. COOL!!!!!

Matt Pacini

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

[mattias]

there's nothing wrong with the address, but the hostboard software often includes a comma or a parenthesis at the end of the links, which seems to be the case here. remove the ")" and it should work.

/matt

[Matt Pacini]

Roger, I'm curious.
How many people have inquired about the condenser lens setup like I'm getting on my Workprinter?
Have you put it on Longnecker's site yet? (Did I spell that correctly?)

Matt Pacini

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

[Matt Pacini]

.

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

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Matt!

Sorry it took so long to respond to your question. A LOT of people have asked about both the WorkPrinter and the condenser lens set up. However, you are the only one that has decided to get the condenser lens, so far. I haven't got that far into your conversion, yet. But when I get the whole thing together, I'll run your test roll you sent me using both the condenser lens and the infamous ink jet paper! I'll post some side by side samples so people can see the dif. Now that I've recovered a bit from this week's disaster, I can get back to work.

Roger

[Matt Pacini]

Great!
I can't wait!
(Well, I guess I CAN wait, because I'll have to!!!!)
Hopefully, I'll get it around the time I get my footage back from my upcoming shoot, and I can see the results right away!
It's going to be an awesome experience, to shoot film, and NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR TELECINE!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll probably go in and pay for an empty session, just because it will feel so weird not to be doing it! (har har!)

It should be interesting.
I'll ask you more specifics directly, I guess.

thanks,
matt pacini

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

[Matt Pacini]

Roger, I was wondering if you had a chance to test the footage I sent you.
I'm kind of curious to see how it turned out, especially the shot in China!
If ya get a chance, can you post a frame or two on your site?
Thanks!
Matt Pacini

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