New Video WorkPrinter Images!

[MovieStuff]

Hi, all!

This image was taken from Matt Pacini's film "Los Tribes" while testing the advance on his WorkPrinter I'm building for him.



For more images check out:
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/printer_images2.html

Roger

[mattias]

hey roger, i know that you want people to send a test roll if they are really interested, and i know you're waiting for some footage from me for that purpose, :-) but could you upload a few full resolution stills meanwhile? please?

/matt

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
hey roger, i know that you want people to send a test roll if they are really interested, and i know you're waiting for some footage from me for that purpose, :-) but could you upload a few full resolution stills meanwhile? please?

/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm. Well, I respectfully decline. My main purpose for posting these smaller images is to show "clarity" and not resolution, since clarity is necessary to edit properly. I hope you understand that I am not dodging the issue. On the contrary, I never wanted image quality to BE an issue since image quality has nothing to do with the intended purpose of the WorkPrinter, which is to make temporary Rank speed transfers for editing or sound work.

However, I can't ignore the fact that many people have expressed interest in using the WorkPrinter for final transfers. Therefore, I am kind of stuck in the middle; not wanting to make image quality an issue but trying to address the needs and inquiries of those that see the WorkPrinter as an alternative to telecine services.

It is for this same reason that I also don't post AVI clips on the web. They're unreliable and I just don't want to fan undue speculation about image and transfer quality. Hell, a single frame of super 8 transferred on a Rank doesn't look worth beans as a freeze. It really needs to be seen at running speed. I certainly have no illusions about competing with a Rank, so a single frame full resolution posting would only cause me more problems than it would solve, I'm afraid.

If people want to see what the results of the WorkPrinter looks like, the can send me a sample reel. I can't make it any easier for them or any more fair to myself. I hope you understand. But thanks for the interest, I mean that.

Roger

[Scottness]

They're quite impressive results Roger - maybe you could wind up providing a telecine service!

It's interesting too - seeing that, after seeing Lost Tribes on NTSC, and after seeing much of the In My Image footage projected then, ranked to miniDV, and then dubbed to PAL (just for a reference tape) and watching the successive degredation in quality it's really made me realise how important it is (if you're film isn't finished on film) to have it presented on the highest possible medium that you can -- when In My Image is finally edited we'll do PAL and NTSC VHS cassettes - but we'll also do DVD's and hopefully a BetaSP master as well - and push the highest standard format that we can each time.

There's nothing like projected film, and unfortunatley when most people see a little VHS transfer and they're told it's Super 8 - they imediately think it's Super 8 that's crappy - which is something to avoid if we can - for the reputation of the medium - let alone our own product!

Scot M

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

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scottness:
They're quite impressive results Roger - maybe you could wind up providing a telecine service!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, while the INTEREST in the WorkPrinter has been high, the sales are pretty dismal. Lots of talkers but no takers. So far, only two people have taken me up on the free tests. I have been formulating a telecine service for quite some time, actually, but have just been too damn busy with work. However, I did post an idea of for providing a "Video WorkPrinting" service for those that need a Rank accurate transfer of all their footage for editing prior to an actual Rank session. I've also found a nifty little black and white video camera that I could build into the WorkPrinters to simplify the process a bit for those without cameras that just want a Rank accurate transfer. However, I still haven't a sense of what the market really is. Do people want to use the thing for final transfers? Do they want someone else to do it? Do they just need temporary transfers? Or is most everyone pretty much just wishful thinkers?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scottness:

It's interesting too - seeing that, after seeing Lost Tribes on NTSC, and after seeing much of the In My Image footage projected then, ranked to miniDV, and then dubbed to PAL (just for a reference tape) and watching the successive degredation in quality it's really made me realise how important it is (if you're film isn't finished on film) to have it presented on the highest possible medium that you can -- when In My Image is finally edited we'll do PAL and NTSC VHS cassettes - but we'll also do DVD's and hopefully a BetaSP master as well - and push the highest standard format that we can each time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the stills you presented so far look just great. Subtle lighting is so very hard to do on K40 and you guys seemed to nail it on the head. Yeah, the stakes in super 8 are so high, everything has to line up just right. My wife and I are also still photographers and we HATE using Polaroids because they are so expensive and they break and, and, and, and.... So when we have photo sessions where the client requires us to shoot on reversal, I use my Ikegami 3 chip instead of Polaroids. The contrast of a broadcast grade video camera is pretty darned close to reversal, so if it looks good on the video, we know it will look fine on the reversal film.

I suggested that to a friend that was shooting some K40 super 8 and let him borrow my camera and he did the same thing when lighting his set up. Turned out just terrific. He even went so far as to figure out the "ASA" of the video camera and pretty much used it as a light meter. He knew the difference in "ASA" between the camera and the K40 and would just offset the exposure based on what the aperature ring of the video camera told him once he saw what he liked on a calibrated monitor.

I've often thought a small, all in one hand held camera/monitor device with adjustable ASA would be great for people shooting motion picture film. Just adjust your lighting, take a peek at the monitor and see what F-stop the picture looks best at. If anything, the video might force you to flatten your image, since video can be more contrasty and you might overcompensate on your lighting, but that might not be a bad thing, actually! Especially if you are going to transfer to video anyway.

Hmmmmmm....

Roger

[Scottness]

Hi Roger - I'm one of those who would be interested in getting the work printer as a telecine unit, not a work printer (sounds like a contradiction doesn't it!) - but can you explain perhaps a little more simply what the difference between the two is at the moment - the stills from Matt's film looked great - so what would the problem be if it was to be used as a telecine unit - does it all depend on the camera capturing the images?

Thanks

Scot M

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

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scottness:
Hi Roger - I'm one of those who would be interested in getting the work printer as a telecine unit - the stills from Matt's film looked great
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. Well, Matt did nice things with some of his shots to start with. Beyond that, smaller images always make things look sharper! Also, unlike the first set of images which I corrected in Premier, I exported Matt's clips to Photoshop for corrections which works much nicer and gives much finer control. Again, my goal was clarity and not resolution.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scottness:

- so what would the problem be if it was to be used as a telecine unit - does it all depend on the camera capturing the images?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that's pretty much the whole enchilada. If you use a home video camera and copy off of a small screen like I did, then the images will be good enough for editing or sound work to be sure. However, when I did my initial tests using my Ikegami 3 chip, I was surprised that the results were pretty darned good and certainly on par with some local telecine Super 8 services I had seen.

For either grade of camera, the total lack of flicker makes the transfer seem clearer than what most people achieve with home brew transfers. In that sense, I am sure that if they could point their home video camera at a projected image and not get any flicker and have true Rank speed, they would be happy as can be! At a minimum, that is exactly what the WorkPrinter does for you, even if you are doing nothing more than projecting on a small screen and copying with a basic one chip camera.

Obviously, if you use a better camera, like I did, then even projecting on a small screen will probably provide a better picture than shooting right off the film via a multiplexor with a single chip home video camera. Therefore, the camera is the critical element; more so than the use of a multiplexor.

The WorkPrinter is nothing more than a telecine projector that transfers one frame at a time at six frames per second. HOW you image the film (i.e. multiplexor and 3 chip camera) is what affects picture quality. That is why I am hesitant make image quality an issue or to promote the unit as a final transfer device since its function plays no part in image sharpness or color or contrast, etc. If I say,"Look at these images. Wouldn't you like YOUR film to look like this?" all the while knowing that 99% of the people out there don't happen to HAVE a broadcast Ikegami camera, then I would be misleading them since I know they will probably be using a single chip home video camera. That is why I clearly state how the images were transferred on the sample pages and what kind of camera was used. I don't want to mislead anyone.

The WorkPrinter's job is simply to keep it frame accurate and flicker free, period. IF someone were to use a three chip camera, then results would be on par with what I have displayed. IF they also used a multiplexor, then the results would be even better.

In the end, if you want to use the WorkPrinter for final transfers, it won't be the weak link if the chain if you don't use a good 3 chip camera or a multiplexor. And, even if you did, it still would not be as good as a Rank since the Rank isn't just about sharpness. There is also the issue of contrast and color and detail; something that is hard to address with just a good video camera, though not impossible.

As such, 'operator experience' comes into play in either case. That is why we have all seen some Rank transfers that sucked and some film chain transfers that looked better. Would the WorkPrinter be good enough for you as a final transfer device? I can't answer that question for obvious reasons.

Does any of this help?

Roger

[mattias]

roger, just a little somthing for your market research:

i'm very interested in both a telecine service and a telecine machine. however, i'm only interested in the service because it's rank accurate, and i'm only interested in buying the machine for great quality.

makes sense at all? since i don't have a multiplexor lens or a high quality camera right now, i can't get the quality i'm looking for even if i buy the workprinter, and then it makes more sense to send the film to somebody else (you?) when i need a frame accurate work print. which happens to be the position i'm in right now by the way. i decided to do a rank transfer, even though i don't really need the quality of one.

/matt

[Scottness]

Well explained - I think for people with access to a good quality camera it may well prove to be a very viable telecine alternative

Scot M

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

[Scottness]

Another question too though Roger - how do you think this would go for blow ups - Super 8 to 16mm - say with a Beaulieu R16 with a Aungineux lense (just to give a specific example)

Scot M

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