If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
VanguardLH WROTE: the Costco photo center will do conversion from reel to DVD I don't _think_ either of those have branches in the UK. I just did a Google search to find those. Google probably used geolocation on my IP address to skew search results to those in my area. If an online search doesn't find you any local stores to do the conversion, the search will point you at mail-in service centers. I already noted one of those but seems pricey to me. Pointing a digital camera (to record video) at a screen where you projected the film would be the worst way to convert. The conversion But - with various refinements - is what most people seem to do, some of them with results they're happy with. The main problem seems to be what they mostly call "flicker", which I take to be the sync.ing problem. The flicker is because the film halts a frame in front of the light and behind the lens. The shutter on the projector blocks out the black area between frames. Your eyes meld the frames (24 per second). The video recording device has its own frame rate which likely does not match that of the projector. Also, even if the video recorder has a 24 frame/sec frame rate, it would not be sync with the projector. You won't get the projector's frame rate in sync with the frame rate of the video recorder (they'll be different rates) nor would you get the framing of the projector to sync with the framing of the video recorder (if the recorder framed at the same 24 frame/sec rate). They mainly seek a variable speed projector, so they can set to 16 2/3 (EU) or 20 (NTSC). I'd have assumed there would still eventually be a sybc/flicker problem. Hadn't thought about changing the frame rate on the projector. Do you have one of those? https://www.videomaker.com/article/c...eo-tape-or-dvd Pity it's a long sheet of black when viewed in my preferred browser. Sounds like a problem with an adblocker or the blacklist(s) you configured it to use. I can view that site using Firefox and Google Chrome and both have uBlock Origin along with uMatrix (configured only to block off-domain scripts). I have uBlock Origin configured to use its own very short list of blocks along with the Fanboy Ultimate blocklist which is EasyList+EasyPrivacy+Fanboy. I deselected all the precompiled 'hosts' files in uBlock since those are way too aggressive or too often off-target and cause too many problems at good sites. I'm in the USA. Sometimes a site will restrict content based on geolocation of IP address; i.e., they allow viewing only within their preferred region. I know some BBC videos (usually sports) are off limits to me from an USA-based IP address. Maybe the site doesn't want UK folks reading their content - except you said Google Chrome worked. Presumably you aren't using a proxy in one of your web browsers that makes it look like it is in-region or, at least, not in a restricted region blocked by the site. Tis a problem with your preferred web browser and appropriate for inquiry in a newsgroup or web forum that discusses that web browser. If it's for Firefox, its newsgroup is mozilla.support.firefox on Mozilla's server (news.mozilla.org, port 119). Views OK in Chrome, but doesn't really tell me more than I had already figured out, combined with a touching faith that if you contact the professionals to ask them technical questions about their process, you'll get a sensible answer. (In UK in 2017, you'd most likely get no answer at all; if not that, you'd get an answer full of platitudes written by someone who has no clue technically; if not that, you might get a rude answer.) They probably point at the "professionals" because those are document processing centers that can afford that super-expensive equipment to do such conversions. All the home-brew solutions end up looking home brewed hence crappy. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
In message om, John
Dulak writes: [] JP: (John, by the way) While I've never done this there IS a product that claims to do what you want in a dedicated package for $300 US. This looks most interesting. I've had good feedback from Wolverine on their slide "scanners" (they actually answered my questions in a sensible manner, re cropping and how to change it), though I've not bought any so far. This sounds good: frame-by-frame scanning, and it makes a video file for you. (Pity it's to SD card _only_ [max. 32G], but that's they way they prefer.) http://secure.mm5server.com/merchant..._Code=WD&Produ ct_Code=F2DMM100&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1 _Somewhat_ confusing: "Image sensor: 3.53 Mega pixels (2304H x 1536V) 1/3" CMOS sensor", but "Resolution 720P"?!? In theory 720p is perhaps the only downside I can see, in that good 8mm film is capable of better than that, but in practice it probably wouldn't matter to me. http://www.wolverinedata.com/videos/...ieMaker_V1.pdf I see they've blanked out the "Resolution: 720p" line in the .pdf. No idea what the quality is like. Workmanlike, I expect. Their slide "scanners" are in reality little cameras, as are most but the really top-end ones from whatever name; I'm curious to know whether this is a camera or a line scanner (I see no sprocket feed in the pictures). Interesting that it goes at 30 fps; I presume most software can slow down the result to the required (in my case) 16 and 18. (I generally use Virtualdub, but have never had occasion to see if it has a frame rate changer.) HTH & GL John Thanks; I wasn't aware of this device. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
On 7/3/2017 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Workmanlike, I expect. Their slide "scanners" are in reality little cameras, as are most but the really top-end ones from whatever name; I'm curious to know whether this is a camera or a line scanner (I see no sprocket feed in the pictures). Interesting that it goes at 30 fps; I presume most software can slow down the result to the required (in my case) 16 and 18. (I generally use Virtualdub, but have never had occasion to see if it has a frame rate changer.) HTH & GL John Thanks; I wasn't aware of this device. John: A 1/3 inch CCD would be just about 8mm. Perhaps this device uses the CCD to make what amounts to a still image of each frame without using a lens. If they used "edge finding" firmware they may not need sprockets. Some flatbed document scanners can do this to find the edge of documents. This would yield a series of still digital images that could be sequentially presented as a video. Since you must set the controls to either 8mm or Super-8 the firmware probably knows what the canonical frame rate is and may be able to use it in constructing the MP4. A YouTube comparison of the results; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj9rApV_Yx4 John -- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
According to J. P. Gilliver (John) :-
... What experience have people had with converting old cine film? ... One of my friends tried to use a small screen and a camcorder to copy his 8mm cine film, but could not get rid of the flicker no matter how hard he tried. Eventually he paid a business near Chester (England) to convert his film to DVD, and edited from that. I can find out about the business if needed. -- Jim Hicks |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
none Jim Hicks wrote:
According to J. P. Gilliver (John) :- ... What experience have people had with converting old cine film? ... One of my friends tried to use a small screen and a camcorder to copy his 8mm cine film, but could not get rid of the flicker no matter how hard he tried. Eventually he paid a business near Chester (England) to convert his film to DVD, and edited from that. I can find out about the business if needed. You can DIY with a flatbed scanner. This article is humorous. The guy makes a device for cranking the film through the scanner. And any project you can walk away from, while it does the capture, is a "good" project :-) I can see Rube Goldberg looking down from heaven and smiling. http://jiminger.com/s8/index.html And you really do need 4800DPI (real resolution, not interpolated). My scanner is only 1200DPI real resolution, and even though it came with a transparency adapter, the low resolution meant the provision of an adapter was a cruel joke. You couldn't actually work with film, because the resolution was too low. A scanner with 4800 DPI is a better starting material, even if 4800 DPI is approaching the grain limits of the film stock itself. I tried to pull one 35mm negative, using my scanner. The KodaChrome setting did an excellent job of inverting the colors - I liked the colors (after the scan, the colors are positive). But the grainy nature of the resulting image, wasn't good for anything. I wouldn't waste the inkjet paper trying to print a copy. ******* Regarding your camcorder method, it might have been interesting to do a frame by frame analysis of the camcorder footage. Some camcorders allow capture over Firewire, for transferring the recording to a computer. Some newer ones might have HDMI output, and you can get HDMI capture cards for computers as well. You might find a mixture of "good" frames and "not so good" frames, and by selecting the good frames you could make a movie. The film projector could be 16 to 18 FPS, and then it might depend on how the camcorder is capturing (60p ?) as to whether intact frames could be recovered. But in terms of kookiness, the flatbed scanner idea is a sure bet. It's just slow though. ******* And the kind of recording device you use, can make a difference. This camera, for example, uses a global shutter rather than a rolling shutter. And can do proper motion capture. And at 162 FPS, would be able to find the occasional picture on the wall that would be suited for inclusion in the movie. https://www.ptgrey.com/grasshopper3-usb3-vision-cameras GS3-U3-23S6C-C Color 2.3 MP Sony IMX174 CMOS, 1/1.2", 5.86 µm Global shutter 1920 x 1200 163 FPS 995.00 USD https://www.ptgrey.com/support/downloads/10146 This short video, shows a global shutter camera recording a rotating fan blade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nguv9lOkmXI So for $1000 plus a few bucks for a C-mount lens or whatever mount that thing has got, you can make recordings over USB3. Before buying a product like that, I'd want to double-check the part number... Paul |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
... The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made me wonder: What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.) I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have the projectors (-:! I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen? You *can* project onto a screen and point a video camera at the screen, but there are a number of problems: - parallax (getting the camera and projector looking along the same axis with no horizontal displacement so you don't get a parallelogram picture) - unless you use a completely matt screen, you get hot spot - poor contrast It's rather akin to recording from a record or CD by playing the sound through the speaker and holding the tape recorder microphone to the speaker rather than connecting a cable between the two. I can't think of any other way, but can see lots of problems: not only optical (getting things lined up, do you use a large or small image, do you actually shoot from the opposite side of the screen, do you even do something odd like projecting directly onto the sensor), but matters of sync: IIRR (silent) standard 8 used 16 frames per second and super 8 18 [I think 24 for sound film], which don't map well to the 24 or 25 of "PAL" or the 30 of NTSC which the video camera is likely to be (I'm in "PAL"-land) - especially as most projectors actually cut the beam twice per frame to reduce flicker? What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive) high/main street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_ just use a projector/camera setup? I can see that the best possible method would use a telecine machine like the broadcasters use (which does not use intermittent-motion), but I very much doubt most shops offering "conversion" services have anything like that. I'm not sure what technique most shops use. I would have thought some sort of telecine where the camera sensor looks at the image projected from the film without an intermediate screen. In theory, you can make a telecine with a "1 x many" pixel sensor if the film is moved continuously past at exactly the right speed in relation to the clocking of the sensor, but any dust on the sensor produces vertical lines. My dad got all our Standard- and Super-8 films converted to DVD by a professional (mail-order) company, though it wasn't cheap. But the conversion seems to be flawless in that there is always exactly one film frame per video frame (for 24 fps film) or else A, A/B, B. C, C/D, D (ie alternate video frames have a mixture of two video frames) for 18 fps film, with everything running the standard 4% fast because video is 25 rather than 24 fps. There was one film where I didn't want them to do this: we'd filmed a journey around town from a camera in the car window, at a rate of 1 fps (so it's very speeded-up). The firm treated this as 18 fps so you got the recurring mixed frames. When I came to slow this down a bit by replicating each video frame, the merged frames were very intrusive, so I had to find a way of dumping the raw video to lots of separate still images, delete every third frame and then convert the resulting pictures back to a video file in Premiere Elements. This gave slightly more jerky results but not marred by the visually jarring merged frames. P. P. S: At least when well lit, cine film - even 8mm, especially super 8 (which used more of the film width) - was capable of better-than-SD resolution, though I'll probably not worry too much about that. I've found that 8 mm always looks very soft (and grainy) compared with SD video, though it's possible that video uses edge-enhancement to make the picture *look* sharper. Ironically, some of the sharpest film (of Pickering Steam Fair in the mid-sixties, in a field with Castle Howard's dome in the background) was on Standard 8, The grain is horrendous, but it looks sharper than any of the Super 8 from the later 60s and 70s. And that's not just the grain making the picture look sharper, because it doesn't happen with one roll of Ektachrome 160 Super 8 from the early 80s which has even more pronounced grain. Maybe Dad's original Standard 8 camera had a better lens than the later Super 8 one. I remember Dad had a 1000W photoflood light with a cylindrical bulb and a U-shaped reflector that he mounted on the camera for shooting indoors, and we all look like rabbits caught in the headlights because we are dazzled by the light and there are very stark shadows. Think of the problem of red-eye and stark shadows on a still photo, and imagine a whole film like that! On one film, the results are better, so maybe he tried bouncing the light off the ceiling. Film was so grainy in those days that it had to be very insensitive in order to keep the grain under control, whereas nowadays you can shoot with a video camera in normal room lighting so you don't suffer from lighting by one point source. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive) | high/main street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_ | just use a projector/camera setup? For what it's worth... A friend recently had some 8 mm converted. It was probably about an hour's worth, put onto DVD. I thought they did a good job. The reels were 50-60 years old and not carefully stored. The total cost was about $200. (Probably about 6 billion British pounds in your economy... plus the VAT tax. On thing that struck me (besides paying $200 to see childhood moments that will probably never be watched again) was that the movement was choppy (low frame rate) and the event was a novelty. Filming was so novel that the films were mostly comprised of people taking turns waving and grinning at the camera. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk... "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message ... The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made me wonder: What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.) I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have the projectors (-:! I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen? You *can* project onto a screen and point a video camera at the screen, but there are a number of problems: - parallax (getting the camera and projector looking along the same axis with no horizontal displacement so you don't get a parallelogram picture) - unless you use a completely matt screen, you get hot spot - poor contrast It's rather akin to recording from a record or CD by playing the sound through the speaker and holding the tape recorder microphone to the speaker rather than connecting a cable between the two. I can't think of any other way, but can see lots of problems: not only optical (getting things lined up, do you use a large or small image, do you actually shoot from the opposite side of the screen, do you even do something odd like projecting directly onto the sensor), but matters of sync: IIRR (silent) standard 8 used 16 frames per second and super 8 18 [I think 24 for sound film], which don't map well to the 24 or 25 of "PAL" or the 30 of NTSC which the video camera is likely to be (I'm in "PAL"-land) - especially as most projectors actually cut the beam twice per frame to reduce flicker? I think you have to accept that for PAL video you play the film at 25 rather than 24 fps and pitch correct the audio (if any) - that's what broadcasters do, and if they'd found a way of playing the film at 24 fps, they'd do it. I recently had to produce a video DVD from a 24 fps video. Video DVD (as far as I know) can only be 25 or 30 fps. I was using Premiere Elements. At first I tried the sledge hammer approach: let Premiere do the 24-to-25 conversion by blending frames. The results were almost unwatchable if the camera panned or someone moved across the frame. So I got Premiere to treat the original video as 25 fps - perfect motion rendition, but the voice of the subject was slightly too high-pitched, though she may have been flattered that her voice sounded a touch more girlish! So I copied the soundtrack to a WAV file, used the pitch-correction feature of CoolEdit or Audacity and then added it back to the pictures again. A 4% speed-up of movement isn't really noticeable but a 4% shift in pitch alters the characteristics of someone's voice slightly, hence the correction. My dad got all our Standard- and Super-8 films converted to DVD by a professional (mail-order) company, though it wasn't cheap. But the conversion seems to be flawless in that there is always exactly one film frame per video frame (for 24 fps film) or else A, A/B, B, C, C/D, D (ie alternate video frames have a mixture of two video frames) for 18 fps film, with everything running the standard 4% fast because video is 25 rather than 24 fps. All this part of my explanation assumes PAL rather than NTSC video - apologies, I hadn't realised at first that this was a worldwide rather than UK-specific newsgroup :-) The blurring caused by blending frames (such as you'd get with 3:2 pulldown when showing 24 fps on 30 fps TV in NTSC land) isn't too noticeable until you slow everything right down by replicating each video frame multiple times, as in the 1 fps film that I described. For those that are interested, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3eZB2QNvtM. It's an interesting social record of the town where I lived in the mid 70s, because of all the changes. The road at https://youtu.be/f3eZB2QNvtM?t=1m56s was pedestrianised soon after we filmed and is now terraced into long flat steps. And the road between https://youtu.be/f3eZB2QNvtM?t=2m37s and https://youtu.be/f3eZB2QNvtM?t=2m43s no longer exists - all the buildings around there were demolished and rebuilt and the replacement road was diverted. The bit beginning at https://youtu.be/f3eZB2QNvtM?t=2m53s is a camera fault: the light meter only worked on that camera if the normal-speed shutter release was half-pressed, whereas I was firing off frames at about 1 fps with a cable release, so we rigged up an elastic band to half-press the filming button to make the meter work and stop down the lens by the correct amount. And at this point in the film, the elastic band fell off and so all the frames were overexposed until we noticed. Some time I need to shoot a modern-day version with my dashcam, following the route as accurately as modern-day changes in one-way streets and pedestrianised roads will allow. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
In message , none
writes: According to J. P. Gilliver (John) :- ... What experience have people had with converting old cine film? ... One of my friends tried to use a small screen and a camcorder to copy his 8mm cine film, but could not get rid of the flicker no matter how hard he tried. Eventually he paid a business near Chester (England) to convert his film to DVD, and edited from that. I can find out about the business if needed. Thanks, but I don't _think_ I'll be sending it out to a third party: it's the sort of thing I _feel_ I should be able to do for myself. The Wolverine looks interesting. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
"Mayayana" wrote in message
news "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive) | high/main street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_ | just use a projector/camera setup? For what it's worth... A friend recently had some 8 mm converted. It was probably about an hour's worth, put onto DVD. I thought they did a good job. The reels were 50-60 years old and not carefully stored. The total cost was about $200. (Probably about 6 billion British pounds in your economy... plus the VAT tax. Haha. You may well be right about the value of our pound, post-Brexit. I'm staunchly pro-Europe but equally staunchly anti-EU - in other words I want the trading relationship that we agreed to in the 1974 referendum but not the political union "United States of Europe" that the Maastricht agreement of the 1990s allowed, requiring us to take any EU citizens (especially from poorer eastern European countries) who want to live/work here. I wish we'd been able to go back to pre-Maastricht Europe, where it was a Common Market but where Europe couldn't interfere politically or foist their legislation on us, ie to be able to choose an in-between state, rather than fully out or fully in. Sorry, got waylaid into a political rant there :-) On thing that struck me (besides paying $200 to see childhood moments that will probably never be watched again) was that the movement was choppy (low frame rate) and the event was a novelty. Filming was so novel that the films were mostly comprised of people taking turns waving and grinning at the camera. Agreed. And of course everything looks a bit surreal when it has no sound and is jerky - and everyone was self-conscious because a cine camera was so rare and unnaturally bright lights were needed for anything indoors. And everyone over-acted for the camera. When my infant school got an adventure playground (telegraph pole of varying lengths to walk over, tunnels made out of concrete drainpipes etc) the headmistress asked my dad, who had a cine camera, to film the children playing on it, to keep for posterity (*). And he said that he went there for several days at playtime, but only on the last day did he have any film in the camera, because he wanted everyone to get used to the camera so they'd got past the self-conscious mugging-at-the-camera stage :-) (*) I wonder if that film still exists in the school's archives somewhere... I bet kids who were in that film, who would be in their fifties now, would be interested to see it. I know I would. I'd have been about 5 or 6 at the time in 1968 or 1969. My hair was almost white in those days, rather than light brown (or dark fair) as it is nowadays. I also had a great deal *more* hair than I do today ;-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , none writes: According to J. P. Gilliver (John) :- ... What experience have people had with converting old cine film? ... One of my friends tried to use a small screen and a camcorder to copy his 8mm cine film, but could not get rid of the flicker no matter how hard he tried. Eventually he paid a business near Chester (England) to convert his film to DVD, and edited from that. I can find out about the business if needed. Thanks, but I don't _think_ I'll be sending it out to a third party: it's the sort of thing I _feel_ I should be able to do for myself. The Wolverine looks interesting. If there's some motion in it, why not scan about 72 frames of it, with a flatbed scanner, and experiment with the capture and see what you can make of it ? You don't have to digitize the whole thing, to decide whether an extended project will be "fun" or not. You'll need a good scanner though (because it's a relatively small piece of film). Paul |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
In message om, John
Dulak writes: On 7/3/2017 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] Thanks; I wasn't aware of this device. (Wolverine Moviemaker) John: A 1/3 inch CCD would be just about 8mm. Perhaps this device uses the CCD to make what amounts to a still image of each frame without using a Interesting; the digital equivalent of a contact print, i. e. the film directly in contact with the sensor; interesting idea. Would have to have a good compromise between ensuring good contact and not scratching the film. lens. If they used "edge finding" firmware they may not need sprockets. Some flatbed document scanners can do this to find the edge of documents. This would yield a series of still digital images that could be sequentially presented as a video. Since you must set the controls to either 8mm or Super-8 the firmware probably knows what the canonical frame rate is and may be able to use it in constructing the MP4. Ah, I'd wondered about the 30 fps. Maybe that's just how fast it processes, but the MP4 files are correct rate (i. e. it scans at nearly twice real time). A YouTube comparison of the results; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj9rApV_Yx4 Thanks, I'll have a look at that this evening, John John -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
"Charlie+" wrote in message
... The flicker problem - I was using a Sony Hi8 tape analog camera in that era and by setting the apertures, speeds etc. this problem was minimised, these films always flickered a tiny bit anyway! C+ The flicker would be caused by the fact that the film image is being refreshed at 18 or 24 fps (nominally, +/- some tolerance) whereas the camera is recording at either 25 or 30 fps (PAL or NTSC). This means you get a "beating" effect between the two, similar to the effect of spoked wagon wheels in Westerns sometimes appearing to run backwards. Some cameras tend to reduce the shutter speed in bright light, which makes the effect even more noticeable, though I doubt whether an image projected onto a screen will be bright enough cause that problem. The way this problem is solved by professional broadcast equipment is to synchronise the projector and camera: - for PAL, both run at exactly the same speed (25 fps) and then pitch correction is used to correct for the 4% increase in pitch on the audio track - for NTSC, the projector is run at exactly 24 fps, tied to the camera's 30 fps. Google for 3:2 pulldown for details of how 24 fps film matches to 30 fps video - it's a neat arrangement whereby alternate film frames are shown for either two fields or three fields; this causes motion to be slightly uneven but avoids flicker. OK, I know that NTSC isn't exactly 30 - it's 29.97 for various obscure technical reasons - but the principle is the same and the ratio between video and film is still 24:30 or 4:5. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
In message , Mayayana
writes: [] A friend recently had some 8 mm converted. It was probably about an hour's worth, put onto DVD. I thought they did a good job. The reels were 50-60 years old and not carefully stored. The total cost Hmm, that age would definitely be standard 8! Probably some of them black and white, too. was about $200. (Probably about 6 billion British pounds in your economy... plus the VAT tax. (-: [Some US states have purchase tax too.] On thing that struck me (besides paying $200 to see childhood moments that will probably never be watched again) was that the movement was choppy Yes, that's a property of home cine: standard 8 was 16 frames per second (80 frames a foot, so 5 seconds; a 50 foot reel therefore being in theory 4 minutes 10 seconds, though you tended to lose some at the ends, which included turning over half way through, unless you loaded and turned over in a bag). (low frame rate) and the event was a novelty. Filming was so novel that the films were mostly comprised of people taking turns waving and grinning at the camera. Indeed: it was either the novelty effect, or special occasions. (And one of my bugbears: either the films "comprised", or "consisted of". "were comprised of" combines two in one sentence!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
converting cine film
In message , Charlie+
writes: On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 20:19:45 +0100, "NY" wrote as underneath : snip I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen? You *can* project onto a screen and point a video camera at the screen, but there are a number of problems: - parallax (getting the camera and projector looking along the same axis with no horizontal displacement so you don't get a parallelogram picture) - unless you use a completely matt screen, you get hot spot - poor contrast I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture.. I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning problem. I remember a bigger problem was the colour correction depending on the film type and age (now you would do this digitally probably). Most Kodachrome came out far too yellow and red with (at least with my old projector), I got around this by projecting on a cyan coloured (coated premium matt) paper done in CoralDraw and with an inkjet printer by experiment, CorelDraw allowed precise makeup setting by % to get the correct reflected colours. Interesting! I'd not have thought of using a printed screen to correct the colour. As you say, I _think_ I'd do it electronically these days. I always felt the film cast tended to follow the colours of the reels the companies used! Kodak came on yellow reels, and favoured reds and yellows; Perutz on green reels, and favoured greens and blues, though I think less so. The flicker problem - I was using a Sony Hi8 tape analog camera in that era and by setting the apertures, speeds etc. this problem was minimised, these films always flickered a tiny bit anyway! C+ Gives the authentic experience (-:! Though in my case you'd need the wheezing sound of my old OMO Russian projector, too. But I hope to avoid any brightness flicker, probably by using something like the Wolverine, leaving only the low frame rate one which is intrinsic to the medium (and which I don't really remember being that noticeable when watching the real films - but maybe the two or more blades per frame had some effect on that). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|