What is your WorkPrinter setup like?

[Royalbox]

@vinylwall
OK, thanks.

Your picture inspired me to do a search on tabletop tripods and I see you can also get small "G-clamp" camera stands. That should be ideal for my setup.
Thanks again.

@super8man
Well spotted.

[ericMartinJarvies]

here is a smpte test chart that is on a 16mm strip of film(in other words, this is exposed onto the film in the test chart manufacture lab ... not by me). so this effectively tells the story as it relates to the telecine camera/dSLR and the lens as it relates to resolution and quality. now then, i have posted the results using a 55mm micro nikkor lens and a canon digital rebel with bellows inbetween and extension tube on rear side of lens connecting to bellows.

i recorded the same image using ALL of the settings on the canon dSLR digital camera(you'll notice some RAW images in that folder). so take a look for yourself at how much better it is capturing images at higher resolutions(in other words, blow up the image and look at the tiny charts/lines/numbers and see how broken they are on the lower res images).

when i have time, i will post the same tests i took using the kodak dcs pro/c(same as 14n, 14nx, and pro/n) 13 megapixal camera(has 35mm wide sensor). the differances are significant!! both the canon and the kodak have small, small fine, med, med fine, large, large fine, and raw. however, the sensor on the kodak camera is twice the size as that on the digital rebel. when viewing the small images, you will notice a significant differance in picture res quality when blowing up the image ... the kodak's larger sensor wins hands down. take note, the small setting on the kodak is actually a smaller resolution then is the small setting on the canon ... however, the image is better!! so this proves size DOES matter as it relates to sensors. i will post technical data when i have time, like exact resolutions(you need only open/view the image ot see the resolutions, image attributes, camera settings). also, in these tests i used differant exposure settings under the tungsten light setting. i will post the daylight, flouresent, etc. results later, including those with filter compensation.

the folder is located at:
http://www.ericjarvies.com/8mmfilmshoot ... TestChart/

feel free to d/l all the images and take a peek. very interesting. i will post the kodak images when i have time ... stay tuned, and look for them in the same dir, with differant sequencial numbering attributes.

now then, i have some other lenses, like the 20 and 35mm macro lenses from canon. these lenses provide more impressive results then the 55mm macro nikkor(modified mind you), but are far more rare and alot more expensive. i have found another lens for under $50.00 that is holding it's own against the nikkor, and if it pasts some more tests, i will be very pleased.

i've now further reduced the size of my film digitizing machine to under 24 inches long, 12" high(in some areas, while most other areas are only 6" high), and 4" wide. so it is very small, and one does not need to worry about vibration, as the camera, when attached, literally becomes one piece with the rest of the device ... so you could be rocking it in your hand while the film is advancing and not mess up registration(camera side) ... within reason of course. 70% is off the shelf items/used items on ebay, and the rest is machined/wired special/custom. i have been learning CAD, so i have bene making improvements on the plans, and have been porting them to an online machine shop's software app for getting online machine quotes. the controller is a parallax pic bs2 board ... that cna be reprogrammed using p-basic on either a pc or a mac(via serial/serial to usb adapter).

eric

[Konton]

I have to ask all those with a WorkPrinter, does you film ever start to waver back and forth? I never had a problem with this using my WorkPrinter Pro. But since I switched to a WorkPrinter XP I have had a problem where the film begins to warp back and forth like the film is being bent a little. It only really happens when the film is at least half way through a 50' reel. I think it's caused by the more noticeable bend at the end of a 50' reel, but why didn't it happen on my WorkPrinter Pro? If some has an idea let me know. I can show you an example if you need one.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Eric Martin Jarvies,

Do you only plan to take still images from the film, or do you plan to use the transferred stuff as film-transfer (as in moving images)?
If so, why the need of the huge resolution?
I mean what are you going to use as the final product, a DVD? Seems like an awful lot of resolution that will only be scaled down.

How much disk space would you need to transfer a couple of 400 fot reels with this huge resolution, I get disk-panic just thinking about it!

But the results are very impressive!
Now we only need a standard for moving images at a resolution of 3072 x 2048!!!

[S8 Booster]

Now we only need a standard for moving images at a resolution of 3072 x 2048!!!

My old MAC AV 840 captures, processes (any size you want) and plays back up to 4000x3000 (technically 4000x4000) format files - with a suitable screen and little turbo charging

Interlock control with a scanner possible. Real time scanning not possible.

R

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Yeah, but the downside is that you have to see it on your computer, most people tend to want to see their movies in their livingroom, with a projector (a video-projector) or a TV.

I´m not sure how high resolutions a data projector can handle, but it will increase of course, as everything else.

[MovieStuff]

I have to ask all those with a WorkPrinter, does you film ever start to waver back and forth? I never had a problem with this using my WorkPrinter Pro. But since I switched to a WorkPrinter XP I have had a problem where the film begins to warp back and forth like the film is being bent a little. It only really happens when the film is at least half way through a 50' reel. I think it's caused by the more noticeable bend at the end of a 50' reel, but why didn't it happen on my WorkPrinter Pro? If some has an idea let me know. I can show you an example if you need one.

Hi, Justin!

If you are having a problem with your unit, please contact me off-list and I will help you. I have an agreement with Andreas not to make this a WorkPrinter service forum and it is virtually impossible for us to discuss the details of your particular problem in depth like this.

However, I will offer this: Transferring directly off a 50 foot reel is probably the worst way to run film on any projector. It increases the amount of memory curl in the film and the amount of back torque on a small reel is pretty high; on sprocketless units like the WorkPrinter, a balanced tension is critical. For the absolute best transfers on these units, using a larger feed reel that has a large central hub, like the special take up reel has, is best. That gives the feeding mechnanism of the unit less resistance to pull against because the larger reel has more leverage and turns easier. As you noted, it really only happens sometimes near the end of a 50 foot reel, where the back torque and the memory curl is really high. Use of a larger reel with a bigger center hub will solve this problem. Also, having a selection of source reels that you already know works perfectly with the WorkPrinter will mean effortless and perfect transfers every time. Using the client supplied source reel is always a crap shoot and should be avoided, if possible.

Hope this helps!
If not, please contact me off-list.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[ericMartinJarvies]

Eric Martin Jarvies,

Do you only plan to take still images from the film, or do you plan to use the transferred stuff as film-transfer (as in moving images)?
If so, why the need of the huge resolution?
I mean what are you going to use as the final product, a DVD? Seems like an awful lot of resolution that will only be scaled down.

How much disk space would you need to transfer a couple of 400 fot reels with this huge resolution, I get disk-panic just thinking about it!

But the results are very impressive!
Now we only need a standard for moving images at a resolution of 3072 x 2048!!!

for starters, my whole interest in taking a dSLR camera and somehow using it to capture frames of motion picture film is fun, interesting, and somewhat exciting at times. i have been comparing scanners, digital camera sensors, video cameras/ccd, etc., along with host computer side apps, and interface boards like the PIC i've mentioned above in an earlier post. experimenting, learning new things, understanding in detail what i had merely understood in general in the past ... being able to control a process within my own domain. the art of design, prototyping, experimenting, etc. is all very interesting for me, and something i do no matter what.

now then, regarding making DIGITAL films from one's celluloid films via a dSLR camera, you ask if the purpose is strictly for still images. the answer is no. although it is really easy to snap a single image of any frame of film on a reel, the purpose of using a dSLR camera instead of a video camera, is becuase of the QUALITY of the individual frames/images.

making:

DIGITAL MASTERS, ARCHIVES, CGI, STILLS/PRESS RELEASES, POSTERS/LARGE FORMAT PRINTING, ETC.: highest possible quality available today. can convert to any other format, be it a still image, sequencial still images, or video standards/formats. platform independant. can print back out to film/celluloid. true RGB. and the list goes on.

the downside ot using a dSLR camera is the speed in which it captures the frames of film. for example, using an ideal dSLR camera/computer/film transport device, one could get a 1fps transfer rate. for individuals, special effects houses, and even archives, this is acceptable. but for service houses/transfer houses, this is clearly not acceptable, as they are servicing many clients who want their film transferred to video as quickly as possible.

the market up and until recently, has been transfering film to video, editing with video, then taking the edl from the nle/video and doing an actual film/celluloid cut/edit. pretty much every transfer house transfers to some type of video format, be it ntsc/pal, all the way up to a really high res video formats ... but video formats none the less, all of which require playback devices and tapes. only recently has one been able to have their film transferred to digital storage devices, like hard drvies, etc. but even today, places that perform this service charge an arm and a leg, and the options are very limited.

another item on the market that has GREATLY improved, and has come down in price(new units under $150k) are film printers for motion picture film(16/35mm). these film printers take sequencial still images and prints them directly back out to a filmstock, one frame at a time. again, this process is slow(1fps aprox), but is well worth it.

a big problem with homemade video telecine units is the fact that the source material/film is typically shot at 24fps, and the video camera used for the transfer is running/recording at 25/30fps. so shutter speeds/adjustments are an issue, as well as up/down conversion of framerates. however, this problem is now solveable with the use of 24p camera heads. this now allows a realtime 24fps projected film to be recorded to a video format at 24p/fps. there are a numbr of new cameras with variable shutter speeds supporting 24p, that can record ok res or really high res, wherein one could do a realtime telecine transfer directly to HD(1920x1080p, and more easily/less costly to 1080x720p/i, etc.).

in my opinion, the IDELA setup would be to have a normal res 24p camera head for performing realtime transfers of filmstock. the device perfoming this transfer takes and marks in/out points on the film roll/reel. this allows entire rolls of film to be transferred to video quickly. this film is then edited, and once a rough cut or final cut has been made, the user can then go back and change out the 24p camera head with a higher res dSLr camera head, and then capture only those frames that have made the cut. typically, this would represent 1/4th of the roll of film(assuming a 4 to 1 shooting ratio, wherein one take of each scene has made the cut), so then, doing a highest possible quality digital transfer of the film at 1fps does not take up a day of transfer time, or days of transfer time, but only minutes/hours.

so this is what i am trying to setup for myself. this route allows me to originate on film, thus getting/acheiving that nice film look/latitude, but being able to edit all the way to the master print(digital print) my film, never having to deal with the film in a cutting room floor environment. the film need only be transferred 2 times at them most ... once for a realtime 24p video for editing, and once for a high res 1fps for mastering. these final master digital files cna be the highest possible res like 4k for exmaple, so the user cna then decide to down convert those images to whatever size they desire, to whatever video format they desire ... all while maintaining an ARCHIVE DIGITAL MASTER that can be used in 20 years, and not be subject to degregation or the like. these files can be saved on dvd data disks for cheap storage purposes.

once a person has a digital master of their film, they need only assemble the individual still images into movies/video formats. one can easily send 1000 2k or 4k frames of their film to the CGI house for compositing/special effects, just as easily as one could take and send soem scene samples to the director on dvd in dvd quality video. whatever the case, it makes sense, and in every case it provides the absolute BEST and HIGHEST image quality possible ... something even the BEST video camera could not accomplish.

eric

[Dave Anderson]

<post deleted>