-
i'm about to blow up my latest super 8 short to 16 mm for submitting to festivals. anybody knows who does this the best and the cheapest? i don't need anything fancy, just a regular frame by frame optical print. i've checked with many places, and it seems like i'll have to pay around $100 per minute, which is a little over my budget. especially since that doesn't include a composite print. if i could just get it down to $60 or so i'd be fine. anybody? roger?
i was also thinking of doing it myself, but i have no idea what film stock and such to use, and i'm worried that the method i have at my disposal isn't good enough sharpness and contrast-wise. i'm planning on shooting the projection screen (smooth sheet of paper) frame by frame using a projector with single frame capability. what do you think? should i go with a high or low con stock? i was thinking 7274 (vision 200t), but maybe i need 7279 to get an exposure, due to the weak light in single frame mode? or maybe the the new fuji 400t, which is fast and is supposed to have 15 stops of latitude or something?
thanks,
matt
-
actually, that's not my experience. at least it's not possible to send video to gothenburg, copenhagen, uppsala, stockholm, berlin, helsinki and most other major ones in northern europe. sometimes they do accept video, but then you'll get shown in a night club at the opening party or something. doesn't work if you want to be screened in the main section, and/or as an opening film before a feature.
but thanks anyway... ;-)
/matt
-
Hi, Mattias!
I already emailed you this information but thought I would go ahead and mention it for those that weren't aware. The version of the WorkPrinter I've built for Matt Pacini runs at about 1 frame per second and can stop on any frame indefinately without heat build up, warpage, focus shift or damage to the film. Also, there is a remote control and a remote advance trigger, making it ideal to use as a poor man's optical printer. The condenser lens that lets video cameras shoot right off the film will work with 16mm cameras, as well. Hook up a solenoid release to the 16mm camera and you're set!
------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html
-
hi, hope im not to vague this time.
in europe it is possible to contribute films to festivals in different formats than only 16mm.
i think it might be a lot cheaper to dub it on digi-cam or beta sp.
------------------
'be the one who is it'
-
So Roger,
Are you saying that you've basically built Matt an honest-to-god you-can-make-16mm-blow-ups functioning optical printer, no matter how "poor-man's" you want to describe it as?
If so, I think you make have finally sold me on one... this is what we've been looking for for a loooong time.
Please elaborate on the functionality of this improved unit in this capacity, if you could.
Did I miss a post somewhere?
------------------
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dogstarman:
[B]So Roger, Are you saying that you've basically built Matt an honest-to-god you-can-make-16mm-blow-ups functioning optical printer, no matter how "poor-man's" you want to describe it as?
(Matt Pacini responds): Yep, why do you think I've been raving on this board for everyone to get one of these?
I just cannot believe that you guys aren't all getting one, because it is unreal how cool this is.
dogstarman: "Please elaborate on the functionality of this improved unit in this capacity, if you could. Did I miss a post somewhere?"
(Matt Pacini responds):
You didn't miss a post.
I bludgeoned Roger with questions, and this hairbrain idea I've had for a long time, to be able to digitize Super 8 footage with a digital still camera.
So the unit I'm getting is not the standard Workprinter, it's a hotrodded super-modified system.
I'm sure Roger will elaborate, but needless to say, I'm very excited, and also thinking about doing 16mm blowups also!
Best of all, I'm getting it next week! I can't wait!!!!!!!
Speaking of that....
ROGER - What do I need to do (i.e. have you build) to be able to do this with my Scoopic?
The solenoid release switch you're referring to...
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Matt--
Are there any film Co-Ops that have a printer??? I know there is one in San Fran that I have used before. They charge me $7 an hour as a member--I don't even live there I joined just to use the printer over a weekend. Good Luck
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
ROGER - What do I need to do (i.e. have you build) to be able to do this with my Scoopic?
The solenoid release switch you're referring to...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nothing but send me money. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
No seriously, I can build you a simple solenoid activator that will work with a standard cable release, although I prefer to use a solid plunger mounted on a base that the camera mounts on. Cable releases, as a rule, wear out pretty fast and aren't meant for the repetitive actions called for doing this kind of work. A solid metal plunger won't wear out and can operate faster. You would need to send me your camera so that I can custom fit the actuator. Then all you'd have to do is load the camera and projector, set your exposure and press the button. The WorkPrinter will do the rest! You'll be copying right off the film and the color negative will have enough latitude that you won't have to monitor exposures. One medium exposure should do the trick. Just set it and go get a sandwich!
------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogstarman:
Are you saying that you've basically built Matt an honest-to-god you-can-make-16mm-blow-ups functioning optical printer, no matter how "poor-man's" you want to describe it as?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, the new WorkPrinter now uses a cool 40 watt bulb and enlarged gate and is packaged with a condenser lens that will let you shoot right off the film. Now, the regular WorkPrinter transfers at 4-6fps, which is too fast for optical printing. However, the delux model that I've built for Matt travels at 1 frame per second and can sit on a single frame indefinately with ZERO damage to the film. No burning, no warping, no loss of focus. In fact the bulb is so low wattage, you can turn it off and unscrew it without even burning your fingers! The film NEVER gets hot and the built in reflective diffuser means perfectly even illumination from corner to corner.
The remote control for Matt's WorkPrinter has a remote socket for being activated by an intervelometer and the WorkPrinter can use its own synch switch to trigger the camera. So, in essense, you use an intervelometer to trigger the WorkPrinter to advance. When it does, it triggers the camera to shoot a frame. Then the WorkPrinter sits there waiting for the intervelometer to trigger it again and the cycle repeats itself over and over. The same synch in the WorkPrinter is also used to trip the capture mouse with a computer for video transfers.
In all, the delux model is a pretty complete system that lets you transfer to either film or video with equal ease.
------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html
-
Cool beans...
No, Matt, trust me. I was one of the first people to tell Roger I thought his products were outa' sight, and that was way back when...
I just don't have the cash to buy one right at the moment. To be honest, I was always more interested in the CineMate projector, but that was before he made the WorkPrinter DV compatible. Now that he has designed it to double as a optical printer, I'm with you in thinking that it's probably the single most usefull thing anybody who wants to seriously work at making films with S8 could own at this point, besides a good camera and a computer. I just shelled out some of my savings for a new camera (which I ordered from Wittner-Kinotechnik, BTW. I'll have reports for anybody thinking of ordering from them just as soon as I get the camera), and then I need to start stocking up on film, but a WorkPrinter will probably be my next major purchase, as soon as you post some of your footage that you transfer using it!
Sam
------------------
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dogstarman:
[B]...but a WorkPrinter will probably be my next major purchase, as soon as you post some of your footage that you transfer using it!
Sam
Which hopefully won't be too long from now.
I'm still working out the kinks in figuring out which digital still camera is able to be controlled by software.
I think the Nikon D1 can, but it's way out of my budget!
Anybody know lots about this?
I'm all ears!
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
I know zero about digital still cameras, except that unless you spend mega-bucks, the image quality sucks (compared to 35mm stills, not to mention medium format... my Holga takes better images X a million... isn't that the way it always is with digital...?)
I'm more curious as to Roger's opinion on how a consumer miniDV camera will work in conjunction with the WorkPrinter... I bought a Sharp model (mostly 'cause it has analoge video and audio RCA inputs/ outputs and an independent mic jack) when BestBuy was blowing them out for $500 + $100 mail-in rebate last month. Nice little cameras with a ton of features. I got it to use as a DV deck for having my footage transfered to tape for editing... now I'm hoping I can do the transfers myself...
How about it, Roger? Would it look alright?
------------------
-
To Roger and Matt P
I have a question regarding the highest/Matt's model of the Workprinter.
What is the advantage of using a still cam instead of going straight to video. I am assuming you will be editing in some form of compressed video. If that is the case, you would be just adding another compression to the image? The still cam compress's the image then your NLE must recompress again to able to work with it. Since video has a fixed luma/chroma bandwidth what will be the benefit in doing it first with a still cam?
Is it the the lens? The CCD?
Again, I ask the question with an assumption that I am missing some technical factor here? Thanx.
------------------
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
[B] "To Roger and Matt P
I have a question regarding the highest/Matt's model of the Workprinter.
What is the advantage of using a still cam instead of going straight to video. I am assuming you will be editing in some form of compressed video. "
You be assuming incorrectly! I'm digitizing using TIFF files, in high resolution, so there's not a bunch of re-compression going on.
Also, video is NOT just defined by its resolution, although that's one factor here.
First of all NTSC is a horrific monster, being that it has nowhere near the color imaging capabilities as a 24bit Tiff file.
So, I want to capture in higher resolution (2K-3K horizontal) AND to capture without the corruption that NTSC creates.
I will then have a high res version of my footage for a couple of useful reasons:
1. I will do image enhancements and AfterFX work in Hi-Res, which will improve the image.
2. I will have a high-res version of the footage, if I am lucky enough to get a project bankrolled for output to 35mm, in which case, it will look as good as possible for Super 8. I could go to 35mm, without it having gone through either NTSC (Yuk!) or being low-res D1 resolution.
Regardless of step #2 above, I will have captured far more detail from the S8 footage than a standard telecine is capable of, so even if I bump it down to D1 (720x480) for video output, I think the results will be better than standard telecine, and even if I'm wrong, the Workprinter is a fraction of what an average telecine session is, so I'm ahead either way!
------------------
-
> First of all NTSC is a horrific monster, being that it has nowhere near the color imaging capabilities as a 24bit Tiff file.
i'm curious why you think so. don't confuse the limits of video cameras and broadcast systems with the video format itself (here we go again). i've never been able so see a very big difference between 4:4:4 rgb and 4:1:1 yuv. even in theory, the s/n ratio is the same, and the colorspaces are pretty much the same, so i don't see how the lower chroma sampling itself could mean so much.
so, here are two versions of the same image. (not anymore. email me if you want to see them) one has gone through a digital conversion to ntsc dv and back. which one is it? it's not quite as good, but to say it's nowhere near is going to far imho. and before you mention it: yes, these have been converted to 4:2:0 jpeg, but i can send you tiff files if you want to see that it doesn't matter.
/matt
[This message has been edited by mattias (edited November 08, 2001).]
-
Matt P:
"I want to capture in higher resolution (2K-3K horizontal)"
WOW- HOLY sHIT!! YOu are editing in 24 bit TIFF 2k-3k res. If 24 bit uncompress 720x 486 video is a little less than 1 MB/f you will increase the data rate to NINE times!! That is 216 MEGABYTES PER SECOND!!! (9MBx24fps)
That is more than HD.
What you got PEntium VI????
After Effects? for composites?
Or am I missing something again!!!???
------------------
[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited November 04, 2001).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
Matt P:
"I want to capture in higher resolution (2K-3K horizontal)"
WOW- HOLY sHIT!! YOu are editing in 24 bit TIFF 2k-3k res. If 24 bit uncompress 720x 486 video is a little less than 1 MB/s you will increase the data rate to NINE times!! That is 216 MEGABYTES PER SECOND!!! (9MBx24fps)
That is more than HD.
What you got PEntium VI????
After Effects? for composites?
Or am I missing something again!!!???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(Matt Pacini resonds):
You guys are missing the point.
First of all, I don't have to argue that NTSC has a more limited color palette. It's not disputable, otherwise there would be no mention of "safe" colors, etc., color fringing, etc.
I'm going to scan at the higher res., then probably downsize after image enhancement, but maybe not.
I'll most likely deal with them as Targa files, and render out low-res AVI files for preview, just like the big boys.
You guys don't seem to be able to pry yourself away from the thought that I MAY NOT BE USING THE FOOTAGE FOR VIDEO OUTPUT ONLY!!!!!
So comparing image A to image B on a using the low res files you posted here, is not anything like a true "A-B" test, and I don't know what the original capture was anyway, so it proves nothing.
And besides, you're making your arguments in "hypothitical-land", where money is no object.
And it's just plain silly to think that a video signal is as good as a quality, high res digital still camera image. I don't have to argue specs, it's just not even debatable among reasonable people, if for the resolution factor alone. Can a well shot 720x486 image look as good as a well shot 3K or 4K image? (All other factors being equal?)
I think not...
As I stated, regardless of whether or not you think I will get superior results, IT IS STILL CHEAPER THAN TELECINE!!!!
So it's certainly worth a try for me to do this, regardless of the outcome (which will certainly not be inferior, as you would agree Im' sure).
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
MAtt P.
I think you quoted the wrong person. If not my point is to get your stills to playback as series of frames in your PC for editing purposes you will need a NLE that can handle 200 MB/s! Again I jsut want to clarify how you will edit using the Workprinter and a still cam. If you gonna offline then isn't it better just to go straight to video and conform later. And if you do find a way to get theatrical release ( I hope you do) would it not be more reasonable to go from S8 film to 35 film since laser prints are EXTREMELY expensive and are only your used for high end ILM type composites?
------------------
-
> I don't have to argue that NTSC has a more limited color palette. It's not disputable...
it sort of pisses me off that you say you don't have to argue when i just posted pictures contradicting your statement, thereby making it disputable by definition. you might not agree with my analysis, but why should i buy your argument if you have none? you obviously don't *have* to argue anything, but i thought it would be interesting to hear what you had to say...
anyway, limited color palette, safe colors and color fringing are issues in analog broadcast ntsc, yes. in "digital ntsc?" no. there's no stopping you from editing in the full colorspace and only remove the illegal colors when mastering your video tape, or leave the full color in there for output to 35 mm or hd.
/matt
-
OK, it wasn't my intention to get into a NTSC/no NTSC argument, but you're missing my point.
It doesn't matter, for me anyway, because it's not any more money to get a decent digital still camera, than it is to get a DV camera, neither of which I now own.
And the big issue for me, is the higher resolution, so that's the real reason I'm doing it that way.
Granted, it will take longer, but other than that, there's no down side to what I'm doing, for my purposes, which is the whole point.
Here's my plan:
1. Shoot a short on S8.
2. Digitize it in high-res using the computer and Workprinter.
3. Edit it on the computer, adding FX, etc.,
4. Create a video version AND...
5. Output to 16mm neg (or 35mm neg) and have a print made that I can show in festivals.
I don't want a D1 res print made, I want it to be higher res, otherwise the deficiencies of Super 8 will be even more apparent.
So my point is, I'm really trying to get everything I can out of S8, instead of cutting corners along the way, going "yeah, this will probably be OK," etc., and then when it gets to film, is NOT OK.
Of course, if I were never going to do anything with this footage other than videotape or viewed on the net, or whatever, I wouldn't care, but I'm eyeing the possiblity of making a film print out of it in 16 or 35, so every little bit is going to matter.
And I don't mean to sound insulting by doubting you guys, it's just that I followed lots of advice I heard and read before doing Lost Tribes, and was bit in the ass in the end from lots of it, mostly of the "it's fine, you can't tell the difference" kind of advice. You can't tell the difference on your TV maybe, but you can on a huge freakin theater screen!
Namely, believing people that said Ektachrome S8 was nice looking stuff and not too grainy, when in fact it's horrifying excrement, with grain the size of golf balls, WHEN VIEWED ON A BIG SCREEN, which is where the s__t hits the fan in this scenario...
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Matt, I just want you to know that I'm with you 100% on this.
Hard drives are cheap these days, there's no reason I can think of NOT to scan at 2k or better. Especially with HD right around the corner (my company already has "reasonable" HD editing tools in development)
Why should I capture everything twice? I'll get it in at better res than anything available RIGHT NOW, then I'll have it for future use.
Your plans for the workprinter are pretty much right on with mine. SOoo...
I've been doing a little research on the high quality stills front. The new Canon showed promise, especially with the software from www.breezesys.co.uk. Unfortunately, it's about 5 seconds for transfer though the (yucky!) USB. I got an email back from Chris Breeze today, suggesting an Olympus that can apparently do 10fps, but I haven't looked for one yet.
I'll be REALLY interested in seeing the results of your hotrodded workprinter.
------------------
Mikel Z
-
I have no qualms about what Matt P is doing.
I am just confused on the actual use of a high res pic of his frames. High scan even in high budget production is only used for composites ( to be used in high end systems like fire and inferno ).With those 2k scans how will he edit?
If he does offline with it - would it not be easier, faster and less resource intensive to just go straight to a video format?
If the scans are his master for 35 or 16 or s16 who will pay for the laser transfer. It is difficult enough to find somebody to pay for a S8 feature transfer, it would be almost ridiculous to find somebody to do laser transfers.
"Especially with HD right around the corner "
Yes for high end production companies. HD Cam is still far from accessible not to mention there are also less company with HD editing capabilities.
Cranium: a detail explanation of your plans would be nice and might illuminate this discussion. In particular how will you leap over the 9 MEGABYTE PER FRAME obstacle in editing. Uncompress video is about 1 MEGABYTE PER FRAME and a SCSI Raid is needed to edit that. What kind of drives are you using?
If you offlined, why not just go to video?
BTW- An Arri laser transfer is about $100 per second.
------------------
-
I'm not offlining anything.
I'm going to do exactly what my two good friends who do FX all the time do (they've worked on The Cell, The Matrix, etc.)
(they helped me on Lost Tribes, then moved to L.A. and got work in the industry doing CG stuff).
Use targa files in Premier and AfterFX, then when you preview (or make a video dub), you render out low res files.
I haven't done this myself (obviously, because I haven't had hig-res files from film before), but they do this stuff 8-14 hours a day, so they will walk me through all of it, no problem.
I've done enough pestering them with questions to know that it's do-able, and this is how they do it. I've watched them at work. No bid deal.
(Yes, lots of hard drive space will be required, but in reality, I suspect that I'll bring the file sizes down to somewhere around 1K or so. To whatever res it takes to show S8 in all it's glory!)
And as far as laser outputting, I'm not going to do that either.
My next two Roger Evans (Moviestuff) orders, are going to be for:
1. A 16mm Workprinter
2. A system to shoot film off a monitor with a cine camera.
Don't laugh, that's how it was done in the days before laser film output.
I read a great interview with the one of the guys who works at ILM for like a million years now,(wish I could remember his name... it wasn't Muren), and he described how they did the FX in Young Sherlock Holmes. (Fun movie, by the way).
He said they emptied out a cupboard in the kitchen, where they had a big hi-res monitor with a 35mm film camera pointed at it, set up to single frame shoot off the monitor!
They would never show clients this rig, because it looked so cheesy, but it worked pretty freakin well, if you ask me.
If it's good enough for Young Sherlock Holmes, it's good enough for me!The FX in that movie were great. Certainly not substandard.
So, eventually, if eveything goes right, I'll be doing all this stuff in-house.
I won't have to send anything out but to have my film processed.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Matt P
"Don't laugh,"
Far from it. As this forum knows, you are one of those individuals who takes those risks for the sake of your film, for the sake of Super8. Keep taking those risks for us MAtt!
Like I said, I just wanted to pick that brain. Once in a while something useful pops out http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
-
yeah, i think matt is doing the right thing too, just trying to point aout the possible flaws in his plan/argument. i would want somebody to do the same for me if i was to spend thousands on something completely untested.
> Use targa files in Premier and AfterFX, then when you preview (or make a video dub), you render out low res files.
cool. i like to preview on a video monitor and have complete real time access to the material while i edit though. imagine having to render just to be able to view how a straight cut will look. couldn't you just render a low res version from the stills for editing, keeping the same time code, and then just "relink media", or whatever it's called in other programs than fcp, to get back to the the high res file when you're done? i did pretty much this all the time before i got my editing setup at home four years ago: rendered stuff from the editing station at work to cinepak, put on a cd, edited at home, took the project file back and linked it to the high res files. worked great and gave me the best of several worlds.
/matt
[This message has been edited by mattias (edited November 08, 2001).]
-
I'm not planning to edit in full resolution. I'm just capturing. Capture the high quality stills, downconvert to the current standard I want to use, then edit with that avi. But I still have the hi-res stuff JUST IN CASE. I can always render it out to HD or whatever I want (hi-res DivX?) later. Bottom line is, if I'm going to put the time in to capture 100,000 frames of something, why not do it as high as I can once? Put the film in the can.
You're right. It'd be tough to find a system that could do 9MB/frame. But I've happily worked with 1.7MB tgas with no problems in real time.
MDLZ
------------------
Mikel Z
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mattias:
[B]yeah, i think matt is doing the right thing too, just trying to point aout the possible flaws in his plan/argument. i would want somebody to do the same for me if i was to spend thousands on something completely untested.
(Matt Pacini responds):
mattias, I appreciate the comments you've made.
I hope I don't sound too argumentativ,e sometimes I kind of poke someone with a hot iron, just to bring more information out of 'em! Hope it's not too annoying! Thanks for the advice, I certainly do realize there are those among this board that have much more experience than me in certain areas.
mattias:
"cool. i like to preview on a video monitor and have complete real time access to the material while i edit though. imagine having to render just to be able to view how a straight cut will look. couldn't you just render a low res version from the stills for editing, keeping the same time code, and then just "relink media", or whatever it's called in other programs than fcp, to get back to the the high res file when you're done? i did pretty much this all the time before i got my editing setup at home four years ago: rendered stuff from the editing station at work to cinepak, put on a cd, edited at home, took the project file back and linked it to the high res files. worked great and gave me the best of several worlds.
/matt"
(Matt Pacini responds):
Yeah, I may end up doing that too.
I'll sort it all out as soon as I get the system up and running, as to what the best method will be.
My FX buddies I referred to, are usually doing shots that are several seconds in length, and rarely over a couple minutes, so it's a whole different ballgame. Whatever I figure out, it's gong to be at least passable, even if I have to compromise, and did I mention that it will be CHEAPER THAN TELECINE????????
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
BTW- An Arri laser transfer is about $100 per second.
---
BUT a really nice quality 2k EBR, very close to Arri laser is 325 per minute at WWW.DVFILM.COM from any res Quicktime Files. You can output the edited program to a bunch of No-Compresion, Hi Res MOV files an get it transferred.
Jose
------------------
-
> I kind of poke someone with a hot iron, just to bring more information out of 'em!
yeah, me too, haven't you noticed? ;-)
/matt
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
> I kind of poke someone with a hot iron, just to bring more information out of 'em!
yeah, me too, haven't you noticed? ;-)
/matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, at least we understand each other! Thanks for the usefull pointers. I will admit, I'm no genius at video.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Matt--
Beware of Film:Tape:Film Xfers. I have seen some that look good but none that look great. Get in touch with FilmCraft Lab in Detroit MI. They will make you a 16mm MOS print for a cheap price so that you can see what it will look like. Good Luck
------------------
-
I'm not doing Film-Tape-Film.
No tape in this process!!!!
I'm going:
1. Film-
2. Digitized into the computer WITHOUT A TAPE INTERMEDIATE at 2K resolution -
3. Filming off a high-res computer RGB monitor.
Not the best quality, but better than the tape intermediate.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
I wondered about that.
I mean if, by using Roger's Workprinter, you do a frame acurate transfer, couldn't you do a blow up filming off a really GREAT monitor one frame at a time? Pain in the ass, but would it work?
------------------
-
Yep, it would work.
Roger and I have been going over the details for a while now.
That will be my next big project, after I get the Workprinter# up and running.
First I'll shoot my footage (next month), then do my high-res digitizing using the WP3.
Edit, do FX, and a video output.
Later, I do my own tranfers to 16mm and/or 35mm so I can show in film festivals, RIGHT IN MY HOME!
Yeah!
Let's all bow at the throne of Roger!
First, Texas gives us a man in the White House, next the Savior of all No-budget filmmakers!
Who would have guessed!
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogstarman:
I mean if, by using Roger's Workprinter, you do a frame acurate transfer, couldn't you do a blow up filming off a really GREAT monitor one frame at a time? Pain in the ass, but would it work?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, it will be totally automatic. I am designing a set up with a Bolex prealigned to a 20 inch computer monitor. The Bolex will advance super slow, at about 1 fps (to avoid roll bars) and will advance the computer automatically using the same "Synch Mouse" from the WorkPrinter series to interface with the on-screen controls of the computer. Should work fine.
Now, the design for Matt is off a high res monitor since he's using hi rez files. However, this same thing could be built to transfer off NTSC or PAL monitors to either super 8 or 16mm for those on more of a budget that wanted to shoot on film, edit on video and then print back to film for projection.
Roger
------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Let's all bow at the throne of Roger!
First, Texas gives us a man in the White House, next the Savior of all No-budget filmmakers!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, I don't have to sit here and take this. Really, I'm not worthy or such praise (and I swear I don't pay Matt a dime to say these things) http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
I'm happy to do what I can. I enjoy it.
Roger
------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Hey, I don't have to sit here and take this. Really, I'm not worthy or such praise (and I swear I don't pay Matt a dime to say these things) http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
I'm happy to do what I can. I enjoy it.
Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have had a bit of experience, in duplicating Reg 8 and S-8 film to 16mm film. The recommended film, in 16 mm, is 7272 negative stock. It is the finest resolution and the "slowest" film speed. You must use intense light to get the 'printer points" up to 25, 25, 25 for red , blue and green. Even then, the resulting resolution is only the "sum of the reciprocals, of the film stocks involved.
Best of Luck...
------------------
-
I found this place in Berlin that makes a blow up to 16mm for reversal film, charge 4US$ pr Meter (15m in a super8 cartridge), optical and onto Kodak color reversal. They charge 7.5US$ pr. meter for negativ. I'm absolutly new to super8, is that a good price? If your film is 20min long that would cost 480US$ for reversal. If I understood the price list right.
http://www.andecfilm.de
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Galen Burke:
I have had a bit of experience, in duplicating Reg 8 and S-8 film to 16mm film.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, Galen!
I think we talked some years back. I was looking for a Fujica ZC1000 and I believe I talked to you at one time. Also, I think you spoke of some anamorphic lenses and the such. Am I mistaken? I'm down here in Houston. Ring any bells?
Roger Evans
------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html
-
Prop:
No, the price is probably right, and sounds nice, BUT:
That price is proably per 16mm meter, NOT S8 meter. Big difference. A meter of S8 becomes a lot more than a meter when it's blown up to 16mm. Also, the price probably doesn't include processing and stock costs...
It always sounds cheap, but it never is...
------------------
