Does anyone Rank transfer their K40?

[mattias]

yes, it's better to have fewer optical elements between the film and the ccd, but his setup is still a film chain. all aerial image film chains focus the camera on the film in the gate, more or less directly. unless he's figured out a way to contact print onto the ccd, the only difference is how many pieces of glass the light has to pass through. it sounds like a very nice setup, and it might very well be the next best thing to a rank, but it still can't provide "rank quality" because of the fact that lenses and ccd's are inferior to flying spots.

[MovieStuff]

Hi, all!

Matt is correct. The transfer set up I am building won't be as good as a flying spot scanner like the Rank. However, that said, there is much to be gained by reducing the number of elements in the lensing arraingement. I've built optical printers for years and basically, this is the way most are built, except I'm imaging onto a CCD array instead of film. Not as good as a Rank, but hard to beat a Nikon enlarging lens for sharpness if compared to a regular "film chain" which uses no less than three different lensing elements: The projection lens, the condenser lens and the camera's taking lens, all of which I have removed to increase image fidelity. As such, I'd hardly call this a standard "film chain" by any means. In fact, I know of know one imaging film to video this way.

Regarding the Video WorkPrinter, I have a site set up about it at:
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/products.html

I am currently offering free tests of 30 seconds worth of super 8 or Reg 8mm to VHS for those that are seriously interested in buying the unit.

Later...

Roger Evans

[dogstarman]

I think we can all agree that the products being offered for sale by *afterimagephoto* won't really stand up against a RANK transfer, as far as the end result being a pristine and absolutely clean transfer. However, I do think it's worth giving some serious consideration his products for the simple fact that he has done something (if indeed the transfer provided by these machines is worth looking at)that we all have all been demanding for a long time: products that will allow us to make films on super8 without costing us a fortune, while allowing us to have control what we are doing. I would point out the fact that previous to this, the prospects of owning a 5-bladed proector that would allow you to make ANY sort of quality transfer @24fps was a longshot for most people, and the ammount of money involved (for equipment of questionable condition, anyway) far outstripped the practicality of not sending work out to be done by "professionals", whose machines and procedure at least had some sort of track record.

If one were able to buy a projector for $400 that would allow you to make transfers that were of as high a quality as most trasnsfer houses provide (because, face it, most of them DO do their transfers using a film chain w/ a 5-blade projector), it would be yet another step towards getting a project off the ground with minimum cost and, more importantly maximum control. I mean, afer everything is said and done, you can always go back and retransfer your film using a RANK. This to me seems like a REALLY useful tool to get a film to the point where it's READY to be RANK transfered an $225 hour, rather than perhaps an outright alternative. Think of it this way: for $400 you can make your own video dailies and workprints until the cows come home. I'd actually be more concerned with what that GAF projector is going to do to my film... I hope he is really making some serious mechanical adjustments to those things, because in the past I've found that they shread film to tiny, useless bits...


[This message has been edited by dogstarman (edited July 30, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

Thanks for the kind words.... I think.

Actually, one of the reasons I chose these particular GAF units was the simplicity of the film path. Perhaps you had some problems in the past with another type of projector with the GAF name on it (most notably their sound units which I hated for the very reason you mentioned), but it is impossible for these units to chew up film for the simple reason they were chosen: They lack the traditional loop and advance sprockets, which which is what ACTUALLY chews films on other projectors during a jam.

The trade off is that the image isn't as stable as finer units like Elmos and the such. But you are simply incorrect to suggest that these units are capable of chewing film to tiny little bits. It is mechanically impossible for that to happen. Also, the film path guides the film by the edges so scratches are no problem. Believe me, I would never suggest putting film in a unit I sold that would knowingly scratch film. BTW: The CineMate 5 bladed units are not Rank synchronous. Only the WorkPrinter is frame accurate to the Rank.

Again, thanks for the (mostly) kind words, but these units do not eat film and never will. In fact, I think they are probably the most gentle on films of any projector I have ever seen. A very clean, simple design. That's why they were chosen.

Roger Evans

[MovieStuff]

One other thing: If you are curious about the quality of the WorkPrinter, I am offering free 30 second tests of footage anyone sends me. Email me at

[email protected]

for details. I'll be posting info on the website soon. Offer ends at the end of August.

Gotta go back to work, now...

Roger