My WorkPrinter Test

[MadFor3D]

I finally had a chance to view my free Work Printer test. (The company I was working for went out of business, so I've been busy lately looking for a new job.)

Here's my review. I would purchase one now, except that I'm unemployeed and low on cash. Its deffinately better than a "One light" transfer- which is pretty expensive.

I had Roger transfer a roll of old footage, (B&W) I had shot with a Cannon 814, and I mixed in a little color (k40) stuff I shot with my new Nizo 4080.

All of the footage was flicker free, in focus, and rich with that contrasty "film" look. O.k. a bit grainy, but more so on the B&W stuff (Plus X & some Tri X), compared to the k40 stuff.

As far as the k40 stuff goes, I would love to make movies like that.

Of course, I'd rather shoot 16mm or 35mm. But because of my poverty situation that's just not an option.

I'm looking forward to buying one of these Work Printers as soon as I get the dough saved up. When I do I'll want it without the mirror setup, (I can flip the image on the computer). That is to say, if I get quality out of it like this test, it will be enough for me. But if there is anything I can do to make it even better I'll do it.

Here is the link: http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

Peace,
Madrone
http://www.MadFor3D.com
*Sorry, still working on my new site* Soon as I get a steady job I'll put up some new Super 8 stuff.

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


[This message has been edited by MadFor3D (edited January 29, 2002).]

[Scott Spears]

Thanks for the review of the Workprinter. I'm very interested, but life has me working too hard to get my test roll shot.

Which version of the workprinter was used in your test?

Scott

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

[MovieStuff]

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

Which version of the workprinter was used in your test?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, his test was done quite a long time ago using Matt Pacini's unit, the WorkPrinter-3. The quality for both the WorkPrinter 2&3 is identical. The only difference is speed. The WP-2 transfers a 50 foot roll in about 10 minutes. the WP-3 takes about an hour and also has a single frame advance remote control that the WP-2 doesn't have because of its higher speed. But both are automatic and you can just let them run.

Roger

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

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadFor3D:

I'm looking forward to buying one of these Work Printers as soon as I get the dough saved up. When I do I'll want it without the mirror setup, (I can flip the image on the computer). That is to say, if I get quality out of it like this test, it will be enough for me. But if there is anything I can do to make it even better I'll do it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Madrone!

Thanks for the kind words. The mirror does nothing to degrade the image at all. I use high quality, optically flat first surface mirrors to rectify the image. The reason I suggest keeping the mirror is that many NLE programs will now allow for real time speed changes, where a render is not necessary. But none of the home based NLE systems that I know of will allow for real time horizontal flipping of the image. Therefore, if you don't have the mirror, then you will be forced to render out the footage in order to reverse it, even IF your system can do the necessary speed change in real time! As I say, the mirrors do nothing to degrade the image, so why introduce a render where one isn't needed?

Of course, on the WorkPrinter-3 units, they double as an optical printer, so the mirror is pretty much a necessity. But as I say, the mirror on the WP-2 or 3 does nothing to degrade the image, so why introduce a render where one isn't always needed?

Roger

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

[MadFor3D]

Thanks Roger,

Less time rendering is a good thing.

I also want to mention that I compared this test to a small Rank transfer I had done, also to BetaSP tape.

Side by side the difference in quality was deffinately not enough to warrant such high Rank transfer prices, for my work.

My friends BetaSP deck does have some problems, however. That is, its in some need of repairs- and every tape I put in played with a less than expected quality.)

The Work Printer test actually looked more steady- though it was a bit grainier. Note: The latter difference wasn't as noticable on the k40 stuff.

I still am convinced by what I've seen that the Work Printer is a viable option. Though I will view the tapes again in another deck as soon as I get the chance- and I'll post again regarding that.

-Madrone

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


[This message has been edited by MadFor3D (edited January 30, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by MadFor3D (edited January 30, 2002).]