WorkPrinter owners speak out!

[MovieStuff]

Okay, since no one except Matt on this forum has bought a WorkPrinter and he's still in the process of working out some camera issues, I prompted some of my other clients to wax eloquently about their WorkPrinters. Here are a few that posted on Andreas's shooting8mm forum:
(I'm sure he won't mind the reprint)

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

Hello, everyone. My name is Don and Roger (aka moviestuff) asked me to write in about the workrinter he built for me. I'm not an independent film maker like you guys are. I have a small photographic business where people sometimes ask me to transfer home movies. I found Roger in the Metadirectory after doing a search. I've had my workprinter now for about two months and it works like a champ. I had previously used a Goko TC-20 which died and was to expensive to have repaired. I also had a variable speed projector that I used for 20fps transfers but had no multiplexor and had to shoot off a small rear screen. I originaly was asking Roger about the condenser lens he sells, which is a really good deal and then we started talking the problems inherent in getting decent transfers and flicker and sound and pretty soon I was ordering a workprinter. Roger's a pretty smart guy, it seems.

When I first got the workprinter, I didn't have a clue how to set it up. I could not understand what an arial image was or how I was supposed to focus my Sony hi8 camera since ther was no screen. Roger patiently talked me thru it and when all was said and done, the difference in image quality between the old and the new was unbelievable. Every piece of footage I have transferred with the workprinter is so sharp you can see the grain. The image is stable and bright, unlike the Goko unit, and the compliments I've received from my clients is very satisfying. I even had some old movies that one person originally paid a lot of money to have transferred in California and she felt that what I did with my little Sony camera and the workprinter was better. I never saw her other transfer but she was impressed enough to give me the other rolls. Roger even explained how to sync up the sound from some old sound movies using a program called Premier and an old sound projector to transfer the sound. It was easy to do. When I saw how much used telecine projectors on ebay were selling for, I feared that my transfer business was history. The workprinter is a real bargain.

As I say, I'm not a film maker and probably not much of an endorsement. I have never shot a movie camera in my life. But I have transferred many, many hours of other peoples movies and the workprinter keeps right on chugging along. Every frame is perfect and flicker free. I've never used any of the fancy transfer houses in california so I can't really make a comparison. But as far as the workprinter is concerned, I highly recommend it over anything else that I've tried in the past.

Don N.
Pasadena, TX

__________________________________________

Hi! I was recently asked by Roger Evans to express my opinion on this forum about the Workprinter he manufactured for my video business several months ago. I do commercials and industrials and sometimes have the need for using film. The Workprinter has allowed me to produce projects in film that I otherwise would have been forced to do in video. The ability to transfer my own footage and control the color & image is great! It's not a Rank, but the final image is film and all that film implies. The amount of money saved in the process more than makes up for any difference between the Rank & Workprinter. I do use a three chip camera, which helps give a more pleasing image, but I have also been well satisfied with the results on my single chip camcorder even in the auto mode. There is no flicker using either camera since the Workprinter transfers frame by frame. The transfers are clean and very professional looking. I can also shoot synch sound and the audio matches perfectly. I am very happy with the Workprinter. No more Rank for me!

Royce Guinn

____________________________________________


I started using a new workprinter 2 last week and am extremely pleased with the results. In fact, I am stunned by the quality of some mid-50's vintage 8mm films I restored. The unit is easy to set up and the registration is rock-solid. Since it uses an inexpensive low-power bulb, no film burns nor $40+ bulbs to replace. You can stop the transfer process at any time by stopping the motor, and continue without skipping a beat. This is very useful for checking focus, framing, white balance etc.

For those who might have experimented with transfers by shooting at a screen, note
that a subtle yet strong advantage of the WP's optical transfer system is that your DV
camera can compensate for focus imperfections on both the camera AND projector. That is, you never have to twiddle the projector's focus. And needless to say, the resulting WP transfers are markedly superior to screen copying, both in terms of resolution and color.

I use my unit with a Canon GL1 and a very fast workstation (dual 1800+ athlons). Roger
delivered the unit with its timing estimated for this setup. The timing wasn't quite right, and Roger cheerfully worked me through evaluating the problem. He offered to readjust the timing - postpaid shipping included - but with his help I opted to readjust the timing cam so that the unit works great. So, GL1 owners can rest comfortably knowing that the WP works with GL1.

Overall, a great hack and the best transfer system I've come across for anything less than megabucks.

-----------

One more note about WorkPrinter and making transfers. WP's output quality is far in excess of VHS videotape resolution. I recommend rendering the finished video in MPEG2 (DVD) or MPEG1 (videoCD) with Tsunami encoder set to 2.5 Mbps, which works great on my JVC DVD deck.

James Nichols
Silicon Valley

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

I want to thank Don and Royce and Jim for their kind words. If anyone has any questions about these posts, the originals can be found in the "Forum" section at:
http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/index.php

There should be appropriate email links on the names except for Don, who preferred to not post his. I you have a question for him, go ahead and post your inquiry and I will relay his answer to the group.

Roger

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

[MovieStuff]

Bowing to public pressure, I will be posting some film clips on my website in the near future. I have avoided this in the past because I've always felt that web based video wasn't reliable and I didn't want to spend all my free time explaining that the jerkiness on screen has nothing to do with the WorkPrinter. Uninformed rumors are hard to fight. However, I have recently seen some online movies that Michael Carter posted that makes me believe that a quality, jerk free clip can be achieved. I will keep you posted.

Another thing coming down the pike is a 16mm version of the WorkPrinter. I am building one right now for someone and it looks promising, indeed.

And finally, I did some tests with some super 8 200 neg on the WorkPrinter and they came out just terrific. No scratches and the image had a full tonal range that you would expect from neg. I will be doing a test on some of the 50 asa neg soon and will post clips of all on my site when I revamp it in the next couple of weeks.

Stay tuned!

Roger

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

[Big Ted]

Drop the price and I'd purchase one. I got into Super 8 because I wanted to make films without having to spend money out my ass. I don't know about the rest of the people on this board, but 400 bucks is alot of cash to me.

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

[StopMoWorks]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Bowing to public pressure, I will be posting some film clips on my website in the near future. I have avoided this in the past.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A true capitalist.....giving what the public wants! We are salivating to get a "rough" idea of workprinter results.....just looking at the stills (on your site), was impressive! Yeah.... you shouldn't worry ....just make a disclaimer that the movie clip postings may not represent the actual finished transferred product (due to its web-based nature) and also, list what program, equipment, etc. you used for the transfer.

Nice testimonials. I was wondering though, one of your customers needed to tweak the timing of the workprinter via the cam / switch adjustment or something? What would necessitate this kind of timing adjustment?

Anyway, it looks like your a busy dude and spending lots of time in your shop!

Lionel


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

[StopMoWorks]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Ted:
Drop the price and I'd purchase one. I got into Super 8 because I wanted to make films without having to spend money out my ass. I don't know about the rest of the people on this board, but 400 bucks is alot of cash to me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am somewhat of a novice gadgeteer and nowhere near the capabilities of Roger. Long time ago, I did modify a 16mm projector for single frame work (so film would not burn & to get accurate frame registration).....my crude unit wasn't even motorized (hand crank manual advance!), did not have switches or cams (like roger's unit)....it was a beech to tweak that sucker, filing out gate, fooling around pressure plate tension, etc.. I can guess that Roger had to do lots of R&D to get the workprinter where it is today.

If you look at the big picture, the workprinter is a one time moderate investment for a "custom made" product.
It could be pricey for the casual Super8 aficianado.....but for the more serious users of this film format....the workprinter finally represents a cost-effective "bridge" between Super 8 and "digital" (compared to pricey film transfer houses).....a tool allowing much more distribution options of the Super 8 product.

Sorry Roger for hogging your topic/thread here, but i was compelled to reply.

Lionel




[This message has been edited by StopMoWorks (edited January 07, 2002).]

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Ted:
Drop the price and I'd purchase one. I got into Super 8 because I wanted to make films without having to spend money out my ass. I don't know about the rest of the people on this board, but 400 bucks is alot of cash to me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Ted!

You obviously haven't priced film to video transfers. If $400 is a lot of money to you, then you are in for a shock! More to the point, I went to great trouble researching ways to make these units as cost effective as they are. Try going on ebay and searching for used "telecine" projectors and see how far $400 will go!

Roger

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

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StopMoWorks:
I was wondering though, one of your customers needed to tweak the timing of the workprinter via the cam / switch adjustment or something? What would necessitate this kind of timing adjustment?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a quirky thing that was the result of two things:

1) Jim was using a GL-1 and the delay on the firewire signal on that camera seems to be slightly different than all the other firewire cameras that other people have been using.

2) Jim's computer is a MONSTER. It has about 1.5 gigs of RAM! Dual Athalon 1800's; holy smoke! I never anticipated a computer so responsive. Between the two, the usual firewire timing was off by 135 degrees. Truly weird. I doubt seriously that anyone else will have such an awesome machine.

Anyway, he likes to tinker as well and wrote some special program to analyze the problem on his end and fixed the damned thing his own damned self! Damn, I like customers like that.

Roger


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

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Ted:
"Drop the price and I'd purchase one. I got into Super 8 because I wanted to make films without having to spend money out my ass. I don't know about the rest of the people on this board, but 400 bucks is alot of cash to me."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big Ted, I'll try to be as civil and polite as possible here, however, it's obvious that you know nothing at all about what most of the people on this board are up to with Super 8.

If you're happy to project your film on your bedroom wall, then fine. Do that.
But you should have passed over this posting and left it alone, because it doesn't apply to you, and you have no idea how ridiculous that statement sounds.

However, for those of us out here, who want to do more with our footage than just say "look Ma, see the pretty pictures on my wall", then we HAVE to find some way to get our filmmaking effors to video.

The professional standard for doing that, is a RANK transfer, which is VERY expensive, and not just 400 bucks kind of expensive.
I transferred ALREADY EDITED FOOTAGE of my film, Lost Tribes to videotape (101 minutes worth of film), and it cost me over $5,000 to do that.
How does that compare to $400?
5K is a lot of cash.
$400 is NOT a lot of cash IF someone is taking filmmaking seriously, which you obviously are not.

There simply is no other quality, inexpensive option out there to transfer film to video, period.
There is RANK Telecine, and there are film chain systems, which do not even warrant being included in the same conversation as the Workprinter.

Roger Evans is as near as the Messiah for Super 8 as anyone has been in recent years, if ever. This is a huge opportunity for those of us who can't afford to spend thousands of dollars every time we want 30+ minutes of footage transferred to video.

This Workprinter is an absolute godsend to us out here who are seriously trying to climb up the ladder of film artistry.

Your statement shows your gross ignorance of this.

Matt Pacini

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

[MovieStuff]

While I certainly don't consider myself a messiah by any stretch, I do agree with Matt's position regarding the lack of tools and resources available to super 8 users. Nothing beats projecting the original on a screen. However, nothing looks worse than a big, fat, hairy splice interrupting that serenity.

Any film on video is never as good as it would be projected but there is a state of grace one can achieve IF you have control over the transfer. Doing it yourself is a compromise, to be sure, but if going into a Rank session with only $400 isn't going to get you anywhere it's a lead pipe cinch that going in with $200 won't do any better.

Is $400 a lot of money? Sure it is and no one wants to spend more money than they have to. However, and this is the first rule as a good producer: Not getting what you need at half the price is NOT a bargain.

So, Big Ted, my question to you would be: What should I drop my price to for it to be a good deal for you? And just what exactly are you basing that reasoning on? What is my product more expensive than that makes it a bad deal for people like you that want to save money?

Not being defensive, just darned curious.

Roger

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

[Matt Pacini]

I didn't mean to be so harsh, but really, there just isn't anything out there that is a competing product, and yet, Roger is still charging very little for what this thing does.

I have a challenge for any of you who doubt this:
Buy a projector and try to do this yourself, like I did.
I spent far more than the Workprinter cost me, not counting the many hours of failed R&D.
If you find something anywhere near the quality, at a cheaper price, I'll eat my shorts! (Wow, I sound like Cal Worthington now!)

Matt Pacini

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