Roger

Hanthx · December 27th, 2001, 05:15 PM

Roger

You mentioned that you will be doing regular 8 transfers in the near future. My friend and I am looking to transfer lots of film and was wondering if you could give a description on how this would be done...Im assuming via the workprinter. Do you have a website that we can look at etc.

Thanks
Scott

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

MovieStuff · December 27th, 2001, 05:56 PM

Hi!

No the WorkPrinter will not be the basis for my transfer set up. I am building a totally custom transfer rig using a 700 line, high broadcast resolution camera. Like the WorkPrinter, I will be imaging right off the film but with superior optics than the standard projection or taking lenses used in the WorkPrinter. I am aiming for the highest quality image you can get next to a Rank transfer. I will be transfering both reversal and negative film, super 8 and regular 8mm. However, my transfer speeds will be limited to 24fps with a 3:2 pulldown or 30fps with no 3:2 pulldown. I will not be tranferring anything at 18fps, though you can order a 30fps transfer and render out the necessary speed change youself. I have no website set up for it yet but my target date for being online is around the beginning of January.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

Matt Pacini · December 28th, 2001, 03:39 AM

Roger, just curious what the superior optics will be, or is that a trade secret?

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

MovieStuff · December 28th, 2001, 04:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Roger, just curious what the superior optics will be, or is that a trade secret?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, originally, I was going to use an extension tube array with a single 70mm Nikon enlarger lens and no projection or condenser lens. However, since I want to accomodate both Super 8 and regular 8mm, repositioning and framing for the two formats on such a nano scale is just a freaking hassle. So, instead I am going with a condenser lens set up similar to the WorkPrinter. However, I am changing out the projection lens with an enlarging lens and changing out the camera lens for a prime Nikon lens. Between the two will be a mulicoated condenser lens. In all, this should give me an image superior to a typical film chain but with the flexibility that comes with shooting a three inch wide image instead of a teeny-tiny 8mm wide image. Therefore, cropping and framing of both Super 8 and Regular 8mm will be easy and quick.

Now that you know, I'll have to kill you.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited December 28, 2001).]

Brian Maier · December 29th, 2001, 06:50 PM

Hello all, I have been following the board for a while but until now have remained silent. I've been awoken smile

Are you going to sell this new version of the workprinter? How much do you think you will sell it for. I have been looking for a Elmo TRV-S8 to do some transfers since the place I used to work at used the S8 and R8 version of it and I had gotten used to using them. But I haven't had much luck tracking any of them down. I was looking at your other workprinters but I really wanted a system that projected the image straight into a camera instead of out a projection lens and through a mirror. Your new system seems to be more like what I wanted. A all in one system.

Am I correct that all of your systems can transfer both reversal and negative film?

I am assuming that it would be over a grand but any info on it would be great.

thanks,
Brian

------------------
Brian Maier
Http://www.RedFuisonFilms.com

MovieStuff · December 29th, 2001, 07:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Brian Maier:

Are you going to sell this new version of the workprinter?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't planning on it but I'm such a whore. But, for the record, this isn't a new version of the WorkPrinter. This uses a different transport and a different lensing set up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Brian Maier:

I was looking at your other workprinters but I really wanted a system that projected the image straight into a camera
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the present WorkPrinters do allow you to shoot right of the surface of the film with no screen in between. More importantly, there is no difference in the way the WorkPrinters work and the set up I'm building for my transfer service. They both use a projection lens and a taking lens with a condenser lens in between. All I've done is replace the projection lens with a better projection lens and the taking lens with a better taking lens and the condenser lens with a mulicoated condenser lens. Otherwise, the layout is exactly the same.

The fact that there is a mirror there makes zero difference in the quality of the image and is a convenience to prevent having to flop the image in post. Since some people can do a speed change on the time line (for the 3:2 pulldown) with no rendering required, it seemed silly to make them render just to flop the image. Besides, first surface mirrors are a known science. They always work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Brian Maier:

...instead of out a projection lens and through a mirror.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, some people see the condenser lens set up with the mirror and think it's like one of those cheap-ass Ambico or Sony rear projection boxes that sell on eBay and it isn't. The WorkPrinter 2&3 use a jumbo 5 inch condenser lens that has been matched to the projection lens of the WorkPrinter, which uses real glass and is not a plastic lens. It's a pretty sharp piece of glass, frankly. The condenser lens lets you copy an "ariel image" and not a collected image off a screen. That means you are shooting right off the surface of the film.

In the end, the set up I am custom building for my transfer service will have better optics (just to give everyone's footage the best possible chance) but the real difference will be in the 3 chip, 700 line Hitachi camera I have decided to use instead of my older Ikegami.

In short, if you don't have a broadcast grade, 700 line, 3 chip camera, then the fact that the WorkPrinter is using a mirror with the condenser lens won't be the weak link in the chain, believe me. The present WorkPrinters "as is" display a better image than any single chip camera can capture. The quality is good enough that you can see the grain of the film. You can't get much better than that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Brian Maier:

Am I correct that all of your systems can transfer both reversal and negative film?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. But, again, you must have a quality camera capable of manual white balance so that you can eliminate the orange masking found in color negative. Otherwise, you have to filter it out in Premier or what ever program you are using, which isn't as convenient.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Brian Maier:

I am assuming that it would be over a grand but any info on it would be great.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if I were hired to build one of these, it would probably be around $6,000, not including the broadcast camera. On the average, a good used broadcast camera (not a camcorder) would run around $800-$1200. So, in all, you'd be looking at about $7,200 for a rig like the one I'm building.

In all, the WorkPrinter for $595 is a pretty good deal and it let's you shoot right off the film with what ever camera you wish. But, if you've got $7,200, I'll be happy to build you a transfer unit just like mine!

I take PayPal! biggrin

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited December 29, 2001).]

Vurfer · December 29th, 2001, 10:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
"Am I correct that all of your systems can transfer both reversal and negative film?"

"Absolutely. But, again, you must have a quality camera capable of manual white balance so that you can eliminate the orange masking found in color negative. Otherwise, you have to filter it out in Premier or what ever program you are using, which isn't as convenient."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure a camera's white balance can eliminate a colour cast as strong as the negative masking? (My guess is that a broadcast camera would say COLOR TEMP TOO LOW) Even if it works, the amplifier for the blue chip would be running at 300% (I guess), causing a very noisy blue channel.

Daniel

MovieStuff · December 29th, 2001, 11:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vurfer:
Are you sure a camera's white balance can eliminate a colour cast as strong as the negative masking? (My guess is that a broadcast camera would say COLOR TEMP TOO LOW) Even if it works, the amplifier for the blue chip would be running at 300% (I guess), causing a very noisy blue channel.
Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah. It works perfectly, at least with a true broadcast camera. I've done it with an Ikegami, a Sony and a Hitachi. All three worked perfectly. I even did it with someone's high end consumer miniDV. No noise. In fact, no problems at all. The trick is that you use a piece of unexposed (but processed) neg to white balance to. Then you put your image neg in place.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

Thread: Roger

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions