Two projectors optical printer for S8 special effe

[Matt Pacini]

OK, I'll jump in and keep these guys apart, since it's my images used as a reference here.

Roger is correct, all projectors are different.
However, if you telecine your images, they usually won't be cropped as severely as the image on the left, however, I had two sessions on Lost Tribes, with different colorists, and they each cropped differently!
So it varies, no matter what.

What confuses me is this:
That anyone crops during telecine at all!
I just don't get it!

The excuse used, is that TV sets will crop when your video is played.
But that sounds like a reason NOT to crop in transfer, not a reason TO crop!
If the TV is going to crop anyway, don't you want to retain as much image as possible, since you're going to lose some anyway?
Why lose even more?
Can someone please explain this bizarre logic? Because it seems to be universal.
Am I missing something?

Matt Pacini

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

[#Pedro]

I can imagine, that they cropp the pic in a way, that it fits into the tv frame. Then - once cropped to the tv ratio, there should be no further cropping neccessary!
If the reality is so different (I have no expieriences, as I enjoy projection much more), I further can imagine that the reason is the accurance of adjustment. If you cropp more than neccessary, you don?t need to align the transfer setup so exactly in order to avoid capturing one border of the frame. Cropping a certain amount at all sides, you can be shure obtain a full size image in the transfer.

Roger:
I can imagine, that projectors have differnt gate openings and ratios. The projectors I had up to now, always combined perfectly with my cameras. A title shot from the right to the left resulted in a projected title from the right to the left. If not, parallaxis adjustment of the Beaulieu viewfinder was neccessary (a tricky thing).
So the system works o.k. for me.
However, you are right, for printing it would be better to use a projector with a very open gate in order to avoid a futher cropping down of the result. The Beaulieu EL709 claims to have the most open gate available and technical possible.
But you may agree with me, that widening a steel gate with mom?s nail file CANNOT be a general advise for the average user. This is a job for a specialized service shop.
The reason why I assumed the use of some effect filter is, because the borders of color areas in the right photo are shiny and brilliant as when applying these filters, giving it a kind of video registration look, where you always recognize a shiny border between the differnt segments of the pic.
The left pic looks quite differnt, more "natural". Perhaps it would be helpful, to pass both pics thru the same process.

The extreme cropping of the left one, if the reason is the parallaxis, it is understandable. I just achieved good results with back projection using a setup with first surface mirror and ground glass (size of a sheet of paper). No hotspot, no grain in the transfer... and no parallaxis.
But I believe that the direct printing methode is far better!

Pedro

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

[mattias]

> giving it a kind of video registration look

well, there's *definitely* some sharpening applied, but he did shoot it with a video camera, so that can be easily explained. roger, did you adjust the detail setting on your camera at all? the reason the sharpening isn't as obvious in the left image could very well be that it's lower in contrast, and was a little softer to begin with.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by #Pedro:
I can imagine, that they cropp the pic in a way, that it fits into the tv frame. Then - once cropped to the tv ratio, there should be no further cropping neccessary!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Pedro!

Well, I never implied that the cropping on the right photo fit video proportions. The purpose of the right photo is to show that you have the whole frame available to crop how ever you want, that's all. More to the point, this thread isn't about cropping for video. It's about copy film to film, which means that the right photo is more revelant since NO cropping should be tolerated when doing optical printing.

You're reading far too much into these photos. The comparison is to show that a normal gate crops and the WorkPrinter does not. That's all. Period. Got it?

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

But you may agree with me, that widening a steel gate with mom?s nail file CANNOT be a general advise for the average user.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course! That's why I use my dad's nail file.

Look, I never implied that enlarging the gate was easy and that someone should do it with mom's nail file. Come on, Pedro. Give me a break, here. All I did was tell the guy that he needs to enlarge the gate and I showed him the comparison photos so he'd understand why. I never implied that he should do a hack job. In fact, HOW he should do it was never an issue until you made it one. The guy is a mechanical engineer. I think he can figure out how to machine the gate bigger, you know? Cut us both some slack, dude. You're trying to make an issue where there is none.

Roger

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

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited January 21, 2002).]

[MovieStuff]

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

well, there's *definitely* some sharpening applied, but he did shoot it with a video camera, so that can be easily explained. roger, did you adjust the detail setting on your camera at all? the reason the sharpening isn't as obvious in the left image could very well be that it's lower in contrast, and was a little softer to begin with.
/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Mattias!

Frankly, I just don't remember. I may have even had the gain increased to +9db, for all I know. I was doing a lot experiments and just grabbed a frame off the timeline randomly that conveniently matched the one on the left, which had been shot more than a month before via projection. I didn't do a formal set up where I projected the footage and shot it and then used the condenser lens and shot it again, all in one setting. All these photos were produced as I had time in between my "real job". They might not even be the exact same frame!

Also, my wife and I are both photographers and are kept pretty busy doing a LOT of photoshop work. We are still both not 100% sure who did the work on that particular image. We think she did and she doesn't recall adding any sharpening but she might have. At any rate, who cares? In either case, the image would not be accurate in terms of detail since an undersized image at 72 dpi would not be any more accurate without sharpening than it would with sharpening. And even if I post full size images shot with my 700 line broadcast camera, that won't be typical of everyone's results.

Again, it was meant only to show the difference in cropping, not sharpness, though, certainly, the image on the right is naturally going to be sharper since it was shot right off the film. That sort of difference is going to be obvious, regardless of image size. The image on the left was definately softer as it was shot off a piece of ink jet paper and with a totally different camera, even!

Roger

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

[Mikko]

http://www.city-net.com/%7Efodder/s8mm/optprint.html

DIY optical printer

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