Leicina Special Test Results, and a Gauntlet Is Thrown...

[MovieStuff]

If you would like to send us some footage to transfer, I can show you what a solid transfer looks like on a WorkPrinter.

Roger

Alright, but I will do this anonymously using a stateside contact, quite likely to ensure this is as if I were any other customer.

Why? You just said it was an "across the board problem." If there is an inherent problem with all WorkPrinters, then there is no reason for you to send it in such a clandestine fashion, is there? After all, there is nothing I can do to improve the quality of the final results, even if I knew it was you!!! Unless, of course, you admit that not all WorkPrinter transfers are the same and that there can be differences in quality, depending on the amount of care taken by the operator.

I will also send that film to a state-of-the-art transfer facility. I will then post results on this board.

Right now you're in a lot of trouble.

Why, because the masses will really expect my $1395 WorkPrinter to outperform a $250,000 Rank? It was never meant to. :lol:

Let's see if you can get out of it.

I think I just did. I also think this means more to you than it does to me. Not sure why, really, I didn't think the whole WorkPrinter issue really affected you, but please do send in your film and I'll do my best to satisfy you.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

PS: Does this mean you don't want to do the Star Trek thing with me?

[Santo]

After all, there is nothing I can do to improve the quality of the final results, even if I knew it was you!!!

Sure you can. In the most deceptive scenario possible, you will send it to a state of the art transfer place. Look, I'm not saying you would, but in a true double-blind test, this is required to 100% insure that I am getting and posting what anybody else would be getting from a well maintained workprinter transfer. This is beyond any denial.

--------------------------
Why, because the masses will really expect my $1395 WorkPrinter to outperform a $250,000 Rank? It was never meant to.

No, but you are claiming in your posts on this topic that it is the equal in image stability.

---------------
Santo wrote:
Let's see if you can get out of it.


I think I just did.

No, you've just dug a bigger hole for yourself. Would like a wider shovel?
-------------------

PS: Does this mean you don't want to do the Star Trek thing with me?

Well, having had one deal go sour with Paramount, I can tell you, based on that which is admitedly very little experience (LOTS of people have a single potential deal go sour with a major studio), I can tell you we have no chance going in with a casting idea for a remake of a project they hold all rights to. We couldn't even begin to register such a thing with the WGA and have no legs to stand on.

However, you have a terrific idea I contributed in a minor way to for entertainment, and I am 100% certain you are a heck of a good guy. This subject is completely seperate from such things.

It is based entirely on my quest to produce viable and usable super 8 footage in professional-minded projects. The first of which I made many references to on this board ended up as a short now in several international festivals and invited to others and on the imdb adding to my credits, I am surprised and pleased to say. It was very useful in learning what worked and what doesn't and cutting through the shocking amount of B.S. surrounding super8. This new testing (and the feature which will follow when the testing and evaluation is complete), will come to a conclusive end soon enough. I have wondered long enough why I can't get a really firm image in my super 8 transfers, and am narrowing down very strategically and logically why that is. The camera is no longer the problem.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I can tell you we have no chance going in with a casting idea for a remake of a project they hold all rights to. We couldn't even begin to register such a thing with the WGA and have no legs to stand on.

Did anyone really take the whole idea as anything else than a joke, as something for entertainment? 8O 8O 8O

Jeez, if someone did they need to wake up! 8O 8O 8O

[MovieStuff]

After all, there is nothing I can do to improve the quality of the final results, even if I knew it was you!!!

Sure you can. In the most deceptive scenario possible, you will send it to a state of the art transfer place. Look, I'm not saying you would,

Even though you just did.

but in a true double-blind test, this is required to 100% insure that I am getting and posting what anybody else would be getting from a well maintained workprinter transfer. This is beyond any denial.

Whatever. I don't personally do the transfers that come into my shop and I think you know that. If you want to hold me responsible for the work of someone else, then take every measure to try and fool me to get the results you are seeking to prove your point. But if you want to see the best results that a WorkPrinter can offer, then make sure that the guy that invented it does your transfer. If I do that and the results are bad, then you will be able to gloat for a month. I'd think even the most remote possibility of that would be irresistable to you. :lol:

At any rate, make sure that you mark your form as a "free test transfer" of a WorkPrinter, so that we use an actual WorkPrinter and not the Sniper. Also specify that you want a single chip or three chip camera used in the test. The form can be found here:

http://www.moviestuff.tv/form.html

Why, because the masses will really expect my $1395 WorkPrinter to outperform a $250,000 Rank? It was never meant to.

No, but you are claiming in your posts on this topic that it is the equal in image stability.

Respectfully, Santo, please read again. What I said is that there are differences in performance between Ranks optimized for 8mm and Ranks that basically handle 35mm day in and day out. Ranks weave and breath. The smaller the frame, the greater the need to optimize the Rank for the smaller format to minimize that movement. A typical Rank is not optimized for 8mm and a well tuned WorkPrinter (or any projector, really) will be just as stable as a typical Rank but not as good as, say, the Flying Spot which is optimized for 8mm film.

Just as there are differences in performace between one Rank and the next, there are going to be differences in performance between one WorkPrinter and the next, depending on operator input. You make a point that most WorkPrinters are used to transfer home movies so the operators might not be as concerned about the degree of registration they provide. This is very true. But then you follow up on that by suggesting that you'll then send your film to one of these very same WorkPrinter transfer houses! And when I suggest that you send the film directly to me for a real test of the machine and the man that invented it, you suddenly go all cloak and dagger in an effort to fool the system. Again, why bother? If there is a problem with the WorkPrinter, then there is nothing that I can do to improve the quality of the results it produces. The idea of me sending it to a Rank house to deceive you is so silly that I'm not even insulted by it. People that know me know I am honest. I think you do too:

I am 100% certain you are a heck of a good guy.

Yes, I'm feeling the love.

I have wondered long enough why I can't get a really firm image in my super 8 transfers, and am narrowing down very strategically and logically why that is.

Respectfully, you still really don't know why. All you know is that you sent your film to someone and it came back unstable. You don't know how these units work and you don't know what conditions could lead to the instability. If you had sent your footage to a Rank house that was not optimized for 8mm and your image breathed, I doubt very seriously you'd declare that all Ranks are undependable. In fact, this really begs the question, have you ever had your 8mm footage Rank transferred? It would seem unlikely. If you had and it was stable, then you would have said so long ago instead of stating,

"I have wondered long enough why I can't get a really firm image in my super 8 transfers".

Of course, if you haven't had 8mm footage Ranked at a variety of houses (I have), then you are really in no position to argue about the stability of a typical 8mm Rank transfer as compared to a projected 8mm image. Again, 35mm Rank transfers look pretty stable but they do breath. That is a known fact in the industry. Crop into an 8mm section of that 35mm image and it doesn't look so pretty.

The camera is no longer the problem.

I never said that it was, friend. While I like double super 8, you will find me a huge proponent of sprocketless film transports. ;)

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[S8 Booster]

With all respect - calm down Santo.
Having had the opportunity to examine one of Andreas´ WPs I am pretty sure they will be 100% stable when correctly adjusted and film perfs are "good". I´d suggest you leave the WP issue dead. Friendly advice

R

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Maybe the smartest thing to do for Santo is to buy a WP for himself, then he can transfer all his rolls over and over again while sending them off to all the top transfer houses in between and buy a big magnifying glass to search for any trace of unstability.

Then he could even be sure that his WP´d films haven´t been sent off to a Rank to try to fool him that the WP would give stable results.

Talk about paranoia, do you really think that your search for the "ultimate and stable camera and transfer-method" will give results that are "true"?

I mean there are so many cameras, if you have one that is stable how can you say that "these cameras are stable" because you don´t know if your camera is one in 100 of those cameras and there are 99 unstable cameras for every stable camera?

Like if you find a Rank that is stable there might be 99 that are not, so you can´t say "Ranks are stable" can you? You can only say "this transfer house gave me a stable and great transfer", but next week they might transfer a film that is not as stable as yours, right?

If you want stable images, why don´t you just get a HD camera and be done with it. Seems like an awful lot of trouble for almost nothing for me.

[Dave Anderson]

Scheesh.... Santo. I don't even know what to say!?

How can you make such assertations against the Workprinter when you've (apparently) never had a Rank transfer done?? I think that is most unfair. I'm guessing that when you get some Rank transfers back, there will be more similarities and few differences.

As for the care and feeding of the Workprinter, I own both the 8mm, and 16mm versions. I can attest to the fact that (like any mechanical device) they need routine maintenance. Parts get tired, film advance claws get sloppy when worn, film lubricants need to be cleaned out of the path, etc... *Then* there's the whole issue of the operator: how experienced are they, how 'fussy' are they, if the CCD gets shifted during the transfer, how many sniffs of cement have they had for the day (just kidding...) My point is that there is a plethora of variables. Hire 10 contractors to put a deck on your house, and you'll get 10 different jobs from cheap crap, to real craftsmanship. You get the point.

Have I ever had any *issues* with my Workprinters? You bet! But the funny thing was that each time, it always turned out to be something I was or wasn't doing. Most recently, I was having an issue that turned out to be a result of trying to transfer a small 50' reel. Turns out that 50' reels can be very unstable with tension and cause some jitter problems. Solution? Put it on a larger reel with other film. Problem solved. Rock steady. (By the way, what size reel did you say that you sent to the guy who did your Workprinter transfers? - just curious). Anyhow, I stand by the results that I get with my Workprinter, any day of the week. In fact, if you want to send me some film, I'd be happy to run it for you.

I would suggest that you give Roger an HONEST shot at transferring a real of known Santo film. Coming from the medical field, as anyone would tell you, you always need a known 'standard' to compare all other results to. Why not use the best of what Roger can give you as your 'standard'?

With all of the dork issues that I've ever had, the biggest dork has always turned out to be me! Not that I'm sticking up for Roger, but he is always there to help me trouble shoot any problems that I run into. In fact, he's given me his cell phone number. I think that says a lot about his dependable service, and willingness to help more than anything.

Cheers,

Dave

[super8man]

I´d suggest you leave the WP issue dead. Friendly advice

R

Interesting tone...I've noticed similar tones from others wrt to the workprinter. Of course, is there such a thing as "tone" on a open line gab forum?

Colonel Klink: Hogan, you are up to something. I know it, I just know it.

[MovieStuff]

I´d suggest you leave the WP issue dead. Friendly advice

R

Interesting tone...I've noticed similar tones from others wrt to the workprinter. .

Yes, this is just getting silly. After a good night's sleep, here is my take on it:

I like Santo and I think that he is an intelligent contributor to this forum, even when we sometimes disagree. He wants to get the best registration he can from his camera and any sort of telecine transfer where the registration has been compromised by breathing will only create frustration in trying to achieve that goal. But is the point here to judge a specific service offered by someone -be it Rank or WorkPrinter- or is the goal here to solve the camera registration problem? Let's look at this logically:

Camera registration-

One doesn't need to do any telecine transfer to judge registration of their camera. Merely adjust the framing of a projector and observe the frame line. If the frame line changes size and shape, the you have an unsteady camera. Period. That's it, pure and simple. This is because the exposed frame will be in a different place on each exposure and that will cause the frame line to swell and contract in size. If the frame line stays the same size from frame to frame, then the camera is steady, even if the frame line moves up and down in the projector or telecine system, be it Rank or WorkPrinter.

WorkPrinter quality-

I am happy to do a test for anyone that wants to see how the WorkPrinter's perform. In fact, there is a section called "free test" on our order form. We get a lot of free tests and you can bet that I do NOT send them out to a Rank house in an effort to deceive a potential WorkPrinter buyer. What good would that do, anyway? If the registration of a typical 8mm Rank transfer is the same as the WorkPrinter (as I maintain), then I would be spending money for nothing. If the registration is better than the WorkPrinter (as Santo maintains), then the customer is going to notice the difference as soon as they run their first roll of film in their newly delivered WorkPrinter and want their money back. To date, no one has asked for their money back.

Standards of performance-

Now, is this because the typical WorkPrinter owner has lower standards? I am quite certain that is part of it, but not out of apathy. After all, the majority of people transferring film today -WorkPrinter or Rank- have probably never shot super 8 film in their life; just as the people that MAKE Super 8 film (Kodak) most likely no longer shoot super 8 film at all. Likewise, the people that offer Rank services often have a different attitude about 8mm film and that attitude shows up in the degree of optimizing they do on their Rank systems for 8mm transfers. Undisputably, some Rank houses have better registration on 8mm than others. To maintain this superior performance, the units have to be serviced on a regular basis. But, more importantly, the operator of the Rank has to know what to look for and why, before he can pick up the phone and request that service call. The same holds true with any telecine system, including the WorkPrinter. It's all about standards and understanding the system.

Understanding the system-

And if new WorkPrinter owners did have higher standards, would they stand their ground and say, "What a waste of $1395.00. I could have paid a mere $248, 605.00 more and gotten a REAL telecine system!" Not likely. If they have registration problems that bother them (assuming they know what to look for), they are going to pick up the phone and ask me to help them solve the problem. After all, spending another $248, 605.00 isn't going to mean that servicing won't be necessary on their telecine system; only that it will be more expensive to maintain for the marginal difference in performance. If the typical Rank house can invest $250,000 and live with breathing in their 8mm transfers, then so can someone that only spent $1395.00. Do either HAVE to live with transfer issues? Nope, but it is up to them to contact their manufacturers about solving the problem.

The WorkPrinter units offer a lot of similarities to the results of a Rank transfer, since the WorkPrinters allow the user to scan frame by frame. The similarities have been noted by countless users and customers, not the least of which is PC Magazine:

http://www.moviestuff.tv/whats_new.html ... 20Magazine

But, of course, the WorkPrinter is not a Rank and was never intended to be. Well maintained, it can offer good registration and can be a viable alternative to a Rank for people that can not afford a Rank. Which brings me to this- Santo previously posted:

This subject is........ based entirely on my quest to produce viable and usable super 8 footage in professional-minded projects.

Is that your only goal here? If so, then let me give you the same advice that I use myself: Send your movie footage to a top of the line Rank house and don't even bother messing around with any other transfer method. If you are producing professional footage and have the budget, then why even think twice about it? That's what I would do and I can build my own telecine systems!

But if you are working on a low budget and can't afford a Rank, your method of addressing any perceived shortcomings of the Workprinter does not speed the plow for your cause. It seems needlessly combative. Assuming that your only goal is to solve your registration problems, this appears to be a no brainer to me. Just send me some of your footage specifically to my attention and let me help you solve your problem. It's free. How much easier does it have to be?

Roger Evans
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[ccortez]

It is based entirely on my quest to produce viable and usable super 8 footage in professional-minded projects. [...] I have wondered long enough why I can't get a really firm image in my super 8 transfers, and am narrowing down very strategically and logically why that is. The camera is no longer the problem.

I think you are wasting your time trying to achieve perfect registration in Super8. If you wish to use it professionally, use it as professionals do -- exploit its weaknesses as well as its strengths by using your imagination and using the format poetically.

If what you seek instead is technical superiority, I can point you in the direction of a number of affordable 16mm cameras that can offer you far superior registration than your legendary special if only due to the nature of the (larger) format.

How come I have trouble imagining, say, Sven Nyquist futzing about image registration and quarrelling about transfer quality rather than putting his camera in front of his poetic eye and shooting hauntingly beautiful images in everyday situations? His footage may have from time to time experienced registration problems -- I was too busy being mesmerized to notice.

c.

P.S. I admit it -- I am on a now monthlong Sven Nyquist kick. Forgive me, but he ain't a terrible role model you have to admit...

[MovieStuff]

It is based entirely on my quest to produce viable and usable super 8 footage in professional-minded projects. [...] I have wondered long enough why I can't get a really firm image in my super 8 transfers, and am narrowing down very strategically and logically why that is. The camera is no longer the problem.

I think you are wasting your time trying to achieve perfect registration in Super8.

I don't think that Santo is looking for perfect registration; just some predictable way to determine what level of registration he has on his camera. Telecine of shot footage really isn't necessary (nor the best way) to determine that but I don't think that he is wasting his time trying to get the best registration possible from his camera. I think we'd all like the good old days when even the cheapest Minolta Auto-Pack shot rock steady footage dependably. I actually understand his frustration quite well.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Santo]

The more I thought about it, the more it screams out to be done. A simple test and evaluation of real world results for an independent filmmaker. Image quality, stability, cost breakdown. Nothing up for speculation of conjecture, just real world results in a tamper-proof environment by somebody looking for legitimate answers for his own benefit. Why hasn't anybody done this before?

I've ordered/bought my film today and will begin.

It could be cherry pie or it could be humble pie for Roger. Everyone from independent super8 filmmakers to home shooters will benefit. I won't be submitting blurry faded ektachrome shaky hand-held old home movies like that PC Magazine "test" with a bunch of advanced prep. This will be a sampling of what anybody submitting properly exposed and focused footage for transfer will get. Optimally maintained/optimized state-of-the-art workprinter facility vs. Optimally maintained/optimized state-of-the-art rank/shadow/spirit facility.

I've got to do something with this thread. Francis the Talking Mule nor anybody else will post a 20 second locked-down clip of double super8, nor will anybody post a 20 second clip of single8, to demonstrate a "stability advantage" over my super 8 clip after all that talk and conjecture. Unless you do, I don't want to hear another word about that fantasy. I'm tired of it. Go ahead and have fun with those formats, because I'm sure they are fun with some cool cameras and stuff, but don't feed us a line about a stability advantage when you can't prove one with even a simple short little clip.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Santo wrote:

Optimally maintained/optimized state-of-the-art workprinter facility vs. Optimally maintained/optimized state-of-the-art rank/shadow/spirit facility.

Did you miss the part where Roger wrote:

let me give you the same advice that I use myself: Send your movie footage to a top of the line Rank house and don't even bother messing around with any other transfer method. If you are producing professional footage and have the budget, then why even think twice about it? That's what I would do and I can build my own telecine systems!

I mean seriously, the "Optimally maintained/optimized state-of-the-art rank/shadow/spirit facility." will win this test, it is quite obvious, isn´t it?

If you want the absolutely best results there is no way a WP will beat the state-of-the-art rank-transfer, who expects it to?

Will anyone be surprised when the Rank wins? I don´t think so

[christoph]

Will anyone be surprised when the Rank wins? I don´t think so

actually i think the spirit will win ;)

i'm very curious about the results anyway, because santo is right about one thing:
most of the posted clips, while fun, are not really suited to judge any quality issues.
++ christoph ++

[MovieStuff]

I won't be submitting blurry faded ektachrome shaky hand-held old home movies like that PC Magazine "test" with a bunch of advanced prep.

There was no "advanced prep" for the PC Mag test. The writer sent me a test as a typical customer and he sent CinePost a test the same way. Neither CinePost nor I knew he was related to PC Magazine until after he received our footage. He is a contributor to PC Magazine; he doesn't work for them and did not present himself as such and the return shipping address was to a residence, not PC Magazine. So the results you see are from a blind test, just like you are asking for. ;)

This will be a sampling of what anybody submitting properly exposed and focused footage for transfer will get. Optimally maintained/optimized state-of-the-art workprinter facility vs. Optimally maintained/optimized state-of-the-art rank/shadow/spirit facility.

Well, we aren't a "WorkPrinter" facility. We use the Sniper-Pro for our daily transfers. So if you want a "WorkPrinter" test, then you will need to specify that on the order form as I mentioned before.

Now, for the record, I have offered to do this test personally but apparently you find that a problem though, for the life of me, I can't imagine why. :roll: I mean, you have made a broad proclamation that there is a registration problem with WorkPrinters across the board because of its sprocketless transport. If what you say is true and there is an inherent issue with WorkPrinter stability, then there is nothing that I could do to improve the results, even if I knew it was your footage. (Nevermind that super 8 cameras successfully use an even cruder sprocketless transport!)

So, come on, what is your real goal here?

Do you want to see the best that a WorkPrinter can deliver for you to solve your problem or do you want to see the best that my overworked employee can deliver in the midst of doing 300 home movie transfer orders? If you are going to test the best that the WorkPrinter has to offer, then test the machine, not the service and not my employee.

Set up a computer and I'll send you a WorkPrinter to test yourself!!!. 8O

Can you dig it? I would be putting my entire fate into your hands. How's that for a show of trust on my part?

If you want, we can make it even more interesting: If you do the tests personally and they reveal an inherent, unaddressable problem as you state, I will GIVE you the WorkPrinter to keep. You may no longer want it but they hold their value on ebay very well. That's $1395.00. Ka-ching! But if the results prove I'm right.....then you buy the unit. 8O 8O

No?

Then let me personally do the test for you. I will have a copy of the finished tape and so will you. There's as little risk of me sending the footage to a Rank house as there is of you screwing around with my transfer just to make me look bad. It's just not the nature of either one of us and you know it.

So, if you are really interested in getting accurate info about how these units work, then why not just be up front about this and stop with all the "blind taste test" nonsense. If everyone knows I am the one doing the test, there is even more pressure on me to perform and back up my position. I can't claim that my employee was having a bad day or that the unit needed servicing, etc, etc, etc. It would just be me, the WorkPrinter and the film. It would be exciting! Kind of a "High Noon" feel, don't you think?

Send me reel with your name on it or I'll send you a WorkPrinter. But don't hide in the upstairs window, dude. Come out in the street where we can face each other and let's get it on. You can even have the sun behind you if that makes you feel better.*

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

BTW: I agree with Christoph. The Spirit is going to win, so the only real useful information to be derived from this test is how steady can the WorkPrinter be. Let me personally do the test and you'll fine out. Or is the risk of my transfer coming out too stable a threat to your agenda? ;)


* I make these western analogies in fun, Santo. I truly mean no disrespect. But if they annoy you, that's certainly an undeniable perk.