converting cine film

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
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 ?

Sounds like an awful lot of work!

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

And how: for standard 8, only about 6 mm. And very fine grain, too: the
automatic exposure my camera was fixed for was 10 ASA (which I could
only get from one make, Perutz, though I was usually very satisfied with
that). [For comparison: towards the end of its widespread use, 35mm
still film was usually 100, 200, or 400 ASA.] I did sometimes use Kodak,
and manually adjust the exposu that was nominally 25 ASA outdoors and
40 indoors. (It was 40 ASA film colour-balanced for artificial light; to
use it outdoors in daylight, you used a reddish filter, which reduced
the film sensitivity to 25 ASA, though thinking about it now, wouldn't
have reduced the grain size. At least, that was the case for super 8
film; I can't remember for standard 8 - that might have been genuinely
25 ASA.)
--
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

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
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.

(In UK we'd say Heath Robinson.)

http://jiminger.com/s8/index.html

Fascinating! The guy's expertise - certainly in software, but also
mechanical construction - far exceeds mine. But his results are
certainly better than I'd expected: I think they'd probably satisfy a
lot of people!

It reminds me of something I read about quite a few years ago: some chap
was investigating the possibility of getting information off records -
LPs etc.! (or it might have been 78s) - using a scanner. He'd got to the
point of producing a barely-recognisable audio file. (Not helped by the
fact that a record won't _fit_ on a standard scanner, of course.) But it
was a similar sort of "it must be possible" exercise.

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

(I think unlikely to be the case for 6mm film - 10 or 25 ASA in my day
[around 1970 IIRR], probably less for older material.)
[]
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.

You'd need an automatic selection method though, except for _very_
precious material. At 16 or 18, especially if you took the blade out of
the projector, I'd imagine the camcorder _would_ capture at least one
good copy of most frames, but you would need an automatic selection
method. As to 60p - if it was a camcorder intended to produce SD video,
it'd be i rather than p. (If HD, I don't know - I think things in the
world of HD aren't so fixed.)

But in terms of kookiness, the flatbed scanner
idea is a sure bet. It's just slow though.

Having viewed some of the YouTube stuff on the Wolverine, that doesn't
look as if it's anything like the 30 fps mentioned in the web page and
..pdf - it clearly runs at only a few frames per second, rather than 30
which would be more or less double real time.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The modern world so often thinks that the way to relax is by doing absolutely
nothing, and I've never really understood that.
Nigella Lawson in RT 2015/10/31-11/6

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:08:45 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-07-04 15:25, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Charlie+
writes:
[...]
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.

One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other.


A clarification: let's say you were taking a picture of a tall
building. Rather than simply pointing the view camera up at it , which
would result in what you call "keystoning" (not a bad term, I guess,
but it's new to me), you would point the view camera up, then tilt the
film plane to be parallel to the building.

By the way, that's not the same as parallax. The parallax problem with
a camera is when the lens and the viewfinder are at different heights
on the camera, so they see things at a different angle. Usually the
difference in the angle is very slight and doesn't mean much, but with
close-ups, that difference can be very great.

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2017-07-04 15:25, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Charlie+
writes:
[...]
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.

One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use

??? - projector tilted down, would produce a projected image on the
wall/screen wider at the bottom than the top. Camera tilted up towards
the screen would make an image of even a rectangle larger at the bottom.
Assuming you're pointing both at the screen from the same side; if they
are on opposite sides of the screen, things are different, but in that
case you might as well not do any tilting at all.

with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other. Not only reduced or eliminated keystoning,
also resulted huge depth of field.

Oh yes, with bellows!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other.


A clarification: let's say you were taking a picture of a tall
building. Rather than simply pointing the view camera up at it , which
would result in what you call "keystoning" (not a bad term, I guess,

It's used a lot in video projectors: some modern ones have "keystoning
correction" that actually allows them to be used from off-axis from the
screen (usually below or above it), but still produce a rectangular
image. I've always assumed they do it electronically, but it might be by
moving the image transparency I suppose.

but it's new to me), you would point the view camera up, then tilt the
film plane to be parallel to the building.

I think most people trying to do film conversion using a film projection
and an electronic camera won't have a camera where you can move the
image sensor in that manner. (Certainly not the projector.)

By the way, that's not the same as parallax. The parallax problem with
a camera is when the lens and the viewfinder are at different heights
on the camera, so they see things at a different angle. Usually the
difference in the angle is very slight and doesn't mean much, but with
close-ups, that difference can be very great.

Indeed. SLRs get round it, as do electronic viewfinders.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 00:23:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other.


A clarification: let's say you were taking a picture of a tall
building. Rather than simply pointing the view camera up at it , which
would result in what you call "keystoning" (not a bad term, I guess,

It's used a lot in video projectors: some modern ones have "keystoning
correction" that actually allows them to be used from off-axis from the
screen (usually below or above it), but still produce a rectangular
image. I've always assumed they do it electronically, but it might be by
moving the image transparency I suppose.


Interesting, thanks. As I said, the term is new to me.



but it's new to me), you would point the view camera up, then tilt the
film plane to be parallel to the building.

I think most people trying to do film conversion using a film projection
and an electronic camera won't have a camera where you can move the
image sensor in that manner. (Certainly not the projector.)


No, of course not. Wolf was talking about a view camera, and my reply,
quoted above , also specified that I was talking about a view camera
(which I used to use many years ago; in my first life I was
photographer).


By the way, that's not the same as parallax. The parallax problem with
a camera is when the lens and the viewfinder are at different heights
on the camera, so they see things at a different angle. Usually the
difference in the angle is very slight and doesn't mean much, but with
close-ups, that difference can be very great.

Indeed. SLRs get round it, as do electronic viewfinders.


Yep. By the way, if you're interested, my first SLR was a 4x5 Tele
Graflex.

In message , Charlie+
writes:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote as underneath :

snip
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.

snip

Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct

Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)

In message , "J. P. Gilliver
(John)" writes:
In message , Charlie+
writes:
[]
Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct

Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]
Video camera that is. Which is what we're talking about here.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" 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+

Gives the authentic experience (-:! Though in my case you'd need the
wheezing sound of my old OMO Russian projector, too.

For the full effect you need the clatter of the projector (caused mostly by
the claw mechanism of the film advance and also by the film sprockets
"sticking" slightly on the various guide cogs and then clicking as each
sprocket hole detached from the toothed wheel. And the constant whir of the
fan, even when the projector wasn't running.

But most of all the sweetish smell of the film stock, the dust on the valves
(for the sound amplifier) and on the lamp.

Then of course there is the anticipation after the film has been laced up,
of turning the projector to "run" and hoping that the film will feed
smoothly and not bunch up before the gate, or pull tight the loop of slack
between the feed sprocket and the gate which leads to a juddering picture. I
was once on a course where the presenter was showing a 16 mm film and we got
the dreaded juddery picture which dissolved into streaks. Everyone tittered
and the presenter looked non-plussed, so I said I *might* know how to fix
it. Sure enough, there was the same spring-loaded mechanism as on our Super
8 projector which allowed a loop to be created at the right size, and all I
had to do was loosen the film from the feed sprocket to re-create the loop
of slack, then hook the film back onto the sprocket - what worked for a
little 8 mm worked for 16 mm as well except there were sprocket holes down
*both* sides of the film.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
I did sometimes use Kodak, and manually adjust the exposu that was
nominally 25 ASA outdoors and 40 indoors. (It was 40 ASA film
colour-balanced for artificial light; to use it outdoors in daylight, you
used a reddish filter, which reduced the film sensitivity to 25 ASA,
though thinking about it now, wouldn't have reduced the grain size. At
least, that was the case for super 8 film; I can't remember for standard
8 - that might have been genuinely 25 ASA.)

Super 8 cassettes had a little cutout notch which, if it was cut out, slid
an orange filter with the camera into the optical path for daylight. If you
were shooting in artificial light, you inserted a "key" (at least on dad's
Nikon) which counteracted the movement of the filter, leaving unfiltered
light to reach the film. I'm surprised that the filter factor was as little
as 2/3 stop (40 down to 25) because the converse blue filter for using
daylight film in artificial light for still photography eats up about 2
stops IIRC.

I presume the notch was absent for daylight film so the filter didn't get
moved into the path.

I thought people might be interested in the reply I've just sent to
Wolverine in reply to their reply to some questions I asked:


Thanks for your speedy reply. I have a couple more questions (0a and 0b
below), plus some clarifications on some of the questions.

0a: I gather the XYW adjustment is only available on later models; is
there any way of telling which is being offered?

0b: is the "exposure control", whether auto or manual, purely
manipulation of the images/video files, or does it actually vary the
intensity of the light source (or some parameter of the camera)?

In message ,
Info Wolverine writes:
Hi,

1. The unit is only available in the US. Please, check B&H at
www.bandh.com for final cost to the UK.

Thanks; looks like $299.99 for the unit plus at least $46.51. Any
_plans_ to sell over here?

2. The included power supply works from 110 to 240V.

That would be OK, thanks.

3. The unit scan frame-by-frame at the rate of 2 frames per second. At
the end it generates one MP4 type of video file. Please, check the
video link below:
https://youtu.be/9jzXrR1Dmfw

I have; thanks for that.

4. It uses a camera lens on top with an LED light on the bottom to
shine light through the film without heat.

Is the zoom adjustment in instructions_to_adjustXYW.pdf purely
electronic, or does it actually move the lens? Also, I gather it still
misses about 10% of the film: any plans to fix that? I wouldn't mind if
it gets bits of adjacent frames - I'd tweak those afterwards.

5. 2304Hx1536V is the scanning resolution and then we merge the pixels
to 720P to reduce the graininess in the video due to the low resolution
of 8 or super 8 film.

I see. I've heard the compression is a bit vicious: any plans to either
offer low and high compression options (like a lot of stills cameras
do), or uncompressed? (Yes, I realise this would produce big files.)
This probably ties in with the answer to the above about the zoom: I
think a lot of people would just like the full 2304×1536 (I'm assuming
the zoom _is_ only electronic) raw data, to post-process on their
computers.

6. Currently there is no chips that can produce less than 30fps and for
that reason you slow down the playback using any computer video player.
For 8mm you reduce the speed to 60% and for super 8 to 80%.

By "chips" I presume you mean firmware. Not really a problem - as you
say, we can manipulate it afterwards - but it would be good if this was
considered for future firmware. Less important than the full-sensor-data
and lower (or no) compression, though.

7. The film is pulled from its sprocket holes. It is not a smooth
motion. It stops at each frame take an image and then proceed to the
next. It should not damage your film. However, thick splices may not
go through the machine where you have to stop recording move the film
away from the splice and re-start recording.

It wasn't damaging the film I was concerned about, but damaging the
machine - from F2DMovieMaker_V1.pdf: "Do not record/rewind the films if
they are broken, ruptured, misaligned, overlapped, gapped/perforated
holes, or bent. Improper operations can damage the device. Wolverine
Data is not responsible for consequential damages and warranty will be
void."


Thanks,
Wolverine Data
9939 Muirlands Blvd.
Irvine, CA 92618
949-458-9888 (M-F 9:00-5:00 PST)



On Jul 4, 2017, at 12:12 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:

I am very interested in your standard/super 8 mm film to digital
movie product. I have several questions:

1. Is it available (or going to be) in the UK? (I'm not worried about
it only having NTSC output for the TV; I'd be using computer file
anyway.)
2. If not, does its power supply accept 240V?
3. Is it intermittent-motion (i. e. moves the film in jerks), using a
full-frame sensor, or smooth motion using a line sensor like a
professional telecine machine?
4. Does it use a lens system, or just place the film directly on the
sensor? (Each would have its advantages.)
5. On

http://secure.mm5server.com/merchant...e_Code=WD&Prod
uct_Code=F2DMM100&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1
, you mention "Image sensor: 3.53 Mega pixels (2304H x 1536V) 1/3"
CMOS sensor", but also "Resolution 720P"; which is it? (I see that in
the .pdf, the 720P line has been blanked out.)
6. It says "frame rate 30 frames", but are the MP4 files actually 16
(standard 8) or 18 (super) as is appropriate, i. e. it just converts
at about twice-real-time?
7. Does it use sprocket wheels to feed the film, or smooth ones? I am
a bit puzzled about the warning in the .pdf that damaged film might
damage it.

Thanking you in advance.
--
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.



--
J. P. Gilliver

Wolverine replied almost straight away! (Though only to my completely
new questions.) Here's my reply to that reply (I've trimmed the previous
stuff this time):


In message ,
Support writes:
Hi,

All the models on the market has the XYW adjustment. Their serial
number starts with 17xxxx. Even for older models we have a firmware
update to add the XYW adjustment.

Is that something the ordinary user can apply without soldering or
voiding the guarantee?

The EV setting is to adjust the back light intensity.
Excellent; thanks.
[]
A. _Is_ it true that even at maximum zoom out, you miss some of the
scanned frame? (Or the scan misses some of the actual frame? Especially
on super 8?)
[]
B. _Are_ there any plans for a future version [ideally backward
applicable via firmware update (-:] to offer lower or no compression, at
the expense of larger files of course?
[]

--
J. P. Gilliver

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the
date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin
Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013

In message , "J. P. Gilliver
(John)" writes:
Wolverine replied almost straight away! (Though only to my completely
[]
And again:


You can zoom out until you see the sprocket holes.

Next version will have all out improvements. Sorry, cannot tell you
more.


Sounds promising!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm a gay man in a woman's body - and I love it! - Sheridan Smith (actress),
in Radio Times, 3-9 April 2010

In message , Charlie+
writes:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 13:10:32 -0400, Wolf K wrote
as underneath :

On 2017-07-05 02:56, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Charlie+
writes:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote as underneath :
[]
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.

snip

Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct

Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]

Camera and projector are oriented /\.

To what?

Yep, spot on, and for JPG - I can tell you it works! Simple geometric
correction for a flat plane, nothing fancy at all.. Completely different

I still don't see how. But I'll take your word for it.

from shooting 3D tall buildings problem refered to upthread, that does
need film plane correction with a bellows attached lens, and artistic
licence!. C+

Yes, I hadn't thought of that: views of features higher on the building
would still be from a below angle, so even if the building _shape_ is
corrected, you'd still get an odd result. Maybe not noticeable for a
building with a fairly flat face.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Last week, face cream. This week, the search for life on Mars. Never let it be
said /Horizon/ doesn't probe the frontiers of sciemce. - David Butcher, Radio
Times 28 July-3 August 2012.

"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?

Yes You Cando It will Work
Just Remember No Cam Lights Needed

Bing Have 6,740,000 results
For A ::

usb super 8 film editor


https://www.amazon.com/8mm-film-view...ilm%20vie wer


Wolverine F2D Mighty 20MP 7-in-1 Film to Digital Converter
by Wolverine
$99.99(2 used & new offers)
See newer model of this item