16mm pc film scanner used as a telecine

[Jonathan Bryant]

The issue isn't technology, it's economics of scale. Look how much that guy is charging to just point a 16mm projector at a CCD camera (and I'm not saying that it's a rip-off either.) There isn't the market demand necessary to make such devices cheaply.

 

This would have to be a do-it-yourself engineering project.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Come on how much would it cost to develop some type of feeder to feed the film frame by frame and then software to capture each frame and turn it into avi movie?

 

Maybe the guy for the job would be the guy who made the 16mm projector telecine.

 

I think there could be a huge market if you get people who are looking to spend 10k on a video camera,to instead get them instead get say a 3k 16mm camera and 2k 16mm film scanner. Of course film is expensive and if Kodak and Fuji want to keep people buying motion picture film then this would be an advantage to them.

 

Its like this, in retail you have what they call Loss Leaders, that is where you lure in customers by offfering a product at or below cost to make money on them in another area of the store. Right now Kodak doesn't make money by telecining peoples films. So like Microsoft does with XBOX, Sony does with Playstation, and the cell phone companys, Kodak or Fuji could sell these scanners at cost and make tons more money on the back end because more people could produce on film and have more control of their final product. And even people already shooting film could afford to buy more film and have a higher shooting ratio. Believe me if producers could shoot 3 minutes s16mm film for $40 and not have to pay $200 to $800 dollars for a quality transfer then they would shoot on film. Most people that are shooting on digital claim they are because of cost, and this would give film a very competitive advantage. I think people would feel like they have more control over their production also which would increase film sales.

 

The moral of the story is Kodak and/or Fuji should do this. As all good businesses you need to be ahead of times and not wait till you have slow business to relize you need changes. Just as many other industries make more money selling you lots of little stuff rather than one big item, Kodak and Fuji can make alot more money selling you lots of film over your lifetime, and they could get people hooked on film by offering a low cost telecine. Hope they are listening!

[Nate Downes]

Their site has no mention of S16, just 16mm. 

There is the single perf factor with S16.

 

Plus there is the telecine factor.  I don't want to be at the mercy of a camera.  I want to scan right to a file without having to deal with a camera's chip and compression.

 

I'm not saying that this is a bad product, it is just not what I'm looking to do.  Though it maybe the only option out there.

 

Has anybody seen the results of this product or used it?

 

Richard Mills

Phoenix, AZ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

His site mentions that the gates are shaved, allowing you to view the whole frame. On S8 this allowed for Super-Duper 8 viewing, on 16mm you can do S16 or U16.

 

And you can use a Sniper unit and get it without the mercy of a camera.

 

And yes, I've seen the results of the Sniper, quite impressive.

[Jonathan Bryant]

His site mentions that the gates are shaved, allowing you to view the whole frame.  On S8 this allowed for Super-Duper 8 viewing, on 16mm you can do S16 or U16.

 

And you can use a Sniper unit and get it without the mercy of a camera.

 

And yes, I've seen the results of the Sniper, quite impressive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Granted you get better dynamic range,it seems to me that by using a video camera to take stills from the film that you would lose alot of resolution. Ok for home movies not if you are producing a movie or commercial.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Camera technicians:

 

Apropos of nothing, what sort of (secondhand) camera would one buy to get hold of a very steady, easily-super-16ised gate and pulldown mechanism which would be amenable to having the backing plate hollowed out and a light source stuck in?

 

Apropos of nothing, of course.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Someone on CML pointed out these products:

http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/index.html

 

But I doubt it is cheap enough to satisfy most of you...

 

Here's another one:

http://www.jkcamera.com/digital_printer.htm

[Richard Mills]

Someone on CML pointed out these products:

http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/index.html

 

But I doubt it is cheap enough to satisfy most of you...

 

Here's another one:

http://www.jkcamera.com/digital_printer.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Price is right but the technology is wrong.

 

The Tobin machine only has 480 lines. Most TV engineers will balk at that (NTSC). Although it is on the right track as far as something for the desktop.

 

The JK has a camera. I don't want the camera involved at all.

I guess that a camera may be the only option.

 

I want to be able to shoot 24 frames (film), scan 24 frames, edit in 24 frames, and then output to anything I want, DVD, tape (HD or SD) or output to film, (although unlikely but it would be nice to have that option) without dumbing down the image that I captured on the film frame by adding either camera or tape compression and resolution loss.

 

I have all the technology to do the above except a direct A/D conversion of the film frame, on the desktop, without the use of a digital camera and it's added compression.

 

Richard Mills

Phoenix, AZ

[Luke Prendergast]

How on earth would you handle the vast amount of data in, through and out of your system, at a resolution high enough to output back to film, and without any compression?

It seems you're trying to get around the Fast/Cheap/Good triangle, which isn't going to happen outside of a quantum duality. Quantum dualitys are not very user-friendly.

 

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

You can handle it easily enough by doing the normal offline/online cycle. Hard disk space is cheap. This could be done for a few thousand units of currency if you were willing to live with the fairly slow DSLR approach.

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

Right now Kodak doesn't make money by telecining peoples films. So like Microsoft does with XBOX, Sony does with Playstation, and the cell phone companys, Kodak or Fuji could sell these scanners at cost and make tons more money on the back end because more people could produce on film and have more control of their final product

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But this is the whole history of the Spirit DataCine, which is - more or less - an evolved BTS FDL-90 Telecine w/Kodak optical system etc.

 

And they've sold a ton of film - and a lot of 16mm - due to it, I would say. (True "scanner" or not).

 

The question here is how to build the street racer in the garage, the Indy Car or Formula One car has already been invented.

 

-Sam

[Jonathan Bryant]

Well I think they could make an economical scanner. And yes I think it would bring more people to the film side, keep some people using film who were leaning to digital on a cost basis, and without the high costs of a telecine it would allow people to buy more film. This is all very good for Fuji's and Kodak's bottom line. Will it be as fast or as good of quality as the Spirit? Probably not , but it could be done. The economy is all about supply and demand. Right now we only have a select number of places to do a telecine and you better believe you are paying premium because of that. Having something like this would democratize this industry just like photoshop did with graphic design and the DV format did with tv. Sure there will always be better but with more movies going digital and more digital projection there needs to be a cheaper way of bridging the gap.

[Richard Mills]

How on earth would you handle the vast amount of data in, through and out of your system, at a resolution high enough to output back to film, and without any compression?

It seems you're trying to get around the Fast/Cheap/Good triangle, which isn't going to happen outside of a quantum duality. Quantum dualitys are not very user-friendly.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No not really.

That's what proxies are for. Scan, edit with proxies or offline, then conform. I want the best signal going in as I can get and let the NLE compress the frame. Not send in a compressed frame and compress it again, which is what we have now with any tape based format. It is unlikely I would do filmouts. In the event that I would do a project that needed to be filmed out, I would have that option.

 

I guess it is more about control than anything else.

 

As for the fast/cheap/good triangle, I'm only asking for 2 of the three. Good and inexpensive (not cheap). As for fast, well, with no transfer houses in my city, in the time it would take me to scan the footage it would be faster that waitng 2 weeks, in some cases, to get the transfer back :)

 

 

Richard Mills

Phoenix,AZ

[Richard Mills]

But this is the whole history of the Spirit DataCine, which is - more or less - an evolved BTS FDL-90 Telecine w/Kodak optical system etc.

 

And they've sold a ton of film - and a lot of 16mm -  due to it, I would say. (True "scanner" or not).

 

The question here is how to build the street racer in the garage, the Indy Car or Formula One car has already been invented.

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Since about NAB 2001 I noticed the middle getting squeezed. It was either big pictures (HD) or small pictures (the web), while the middle was kinda SOL. I haven't back since.

 

So yeah I want someone to take the parts of the Indy car and build a dune buggy that I can use in my garage :)

 

Richard Mills

Phoenix, AZ

[Richard Mills]

Well I think they could make an economical scanner. And yes I think it would bring more people to the film side, keep some people using film who were leaning to digital on a cost basis, and without the high costs of a telecine it would allow people to buy more film. This is all very good for Fuji's and Kodak's bottom line. Will it be as fast or as good of quality as the Spirit? Probably not , but it could be done. The economy is all about supply and demand. Right now we only have a select number of places to do a telecine and you better believe you are paying premium because of that. Having something like this would democratize this industry just like photoshop did with graphic design and the DV format did with tv. Sure there will always be better but with more movies going digital and more digital projection there needs to be a cheaper way of bridging the gap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Finally, somebody GETS IT! :lol:

Your post is spot on.

 

Richard Mills

Phoenix, AZ

[Sam Wells]

If it's not as good quality as a Spirit then I don't know. Film isn't economical to begin with I hate to say.

 

What's the goal ? Image quality or just making the statement "I shot film" ?

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

Camera technicians:

 

Apropos of nothing, what sort of (secondhand) camera would one buy to get hold of a very steady, easily-super-16ised gate and pulldown mechanism which would be amenable to having the backing plate hollowed out and a light source stuck in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not a camera technician.

 

But the "easily-super-16ised" cameras tend to be pressure plate in the mag types, ie Aaton Eclair (reg issues ?)* Arri SR.

 

Mitchell 16 or Maurer would be good, but as to easily S16 able I don't know.

 

* I mean at the exacting level presumably required here.

 

-Sam

[Richard Mills]

If it's not as good quality as a Spirit then I don't know. Film isn't economical to begin with I hate to say.

 

What's the goal ?  Image quality or just making the statement "I shot film" ?

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The quality would be better than tape transfer.

My goal is to remove tape from transfer equation and self control of the image that I shoot.

Image quality is the reason I like to shoot film.

 

 

 

Richard Mills

Phoenix, AZ

[Sam Wells]

You can do this now, it's just not cheap.

 

I like cheap also. But we have to say, control of *what* quality of image ?

 

Is something below the par of a Spirit - in telecine mode - acceptable ? I'm not sure it would be for me.

 

Control is good but not if you've thrown away the quality that's on your negative.

 

-Sam

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> But the "easily-super-16ised" cameras tend to be pressure plate in the mag types, ie

> Aaton Eclair (reg issues ?)* Arri SR.

 

Well, that's a pain, because you need to make a hole in the pressure plate to shine light through.

 

In an ideal world you actually want to be capable of imaging the entire width of the film, including a sprocket, so you can perform post scan stabilisation if you feel the need.

 

> Mitchell 16 or Maurer would be good, but as to easily S16 able I don't know.

 

Anyone?

 

Phil

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

 

> Mitchell 16 or Maurer would be good, but as to easily S16 able I don't know.

 

Anyone?

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Phil,

 

I know the guys at Pirate model & Motion Control in London were going to convert a Mitchell 16mm themselves. That was 4 years ago. I guess you end up with only 1 registration pin!

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

It might be easier just to buy just the printer head from JK really. Or find a used one and work from that.

 

-Sam

[Paul Bruening]

Hey now,

 

I tried the flatbed approach. I got Epson's latest scanner and was going to use the works out of a camera for transport. It didn't work out at all. The time factor was completely useless. The scanned images were not good enough and the transport aspect became a nightmare. Registration was the big unsolvable. The tiniest little variation on the transport looks like rock and roll hell when you get the images rolling back on screen. When going to LCD projection, the images made me sea-sick. Consider Canon's XL2 linked to a projector or camera with see-through pressure plate. (I recall that there where a few variable speed projectors out there sitting on shelves, collecting dust). The XL2 does the pull down for you. The EF adapter works fine and a Canon EF lens in the area of 100mm or so should work on the 16mm frame size. The stock 50mm Canon EF lens covers my 35mm frame just dandy.

 

Best of luck.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Hey now,

 

I tried the flatbed approach. I got Epson's latest scanner and was going to use the works out of a camera for transport. It didn't work out at all. The time factor was completely useless. The scanned images were not good enough and the transport aspect became a nightmare. Registration was the big unsolvable. The tiniest little variation on the transport looks like rock and roll hell when you get the images rolling back on screen. When going to LCD projection, the images made me sea-sick. Consider Canon's XL2 linked to a projector or camera with see-through pressure plate. (I recall that there where a few variable speed projectors out there sitting on shelves, collecting dust). The XL2 does the pull down for you. The EF adapter works fine and a Canon EF lens in the area of 100mm or so should work on the 16mm frame size. The stock 50mm Canon EF lens covers my 35mm frame just dandy.

 

Best of luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

High-end telecines vs home scanners, film vs. DV: you usually get what you pay for. There's many reasons that transfers done on the Spirit look so good.

[Filip Plesha]

There is a lot more to telecine than just a sensor, that is partially why it costs so much.

 

I think that a $20 000 home scanner exceeds machines such as spirit in terms of color tones and dynamic range etc. not to mention 8000dpi resolution.

[Jonathan Bryant]

High-end telecines vs home scanners, film vs. DV: you usually get what you pay for.  There's many reasons that transfers done on the Spirit look so good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On Thompsons website it says "With more than 260 units installed worldwide" Thats probably why it costs so much. All of that R&D and only 250 units sold.

 

As someone else said before, equipment becomes cheaper if it is somehow linked to consumers. Like developing MINI DV for consumers and profecting it into DVCAM and DVCPRO at a lower cost than coming up with a new format.

 

I don't feel like this would reinventing the wheel to come up with a Prosumer 16mm pc film scanner. But maybe companies like Thompson feel that it could cutin on some of their marketshare.

 

I feel it is the same reason you don't see cameras that record on hard drives coming from Sony and Pannasonic. I read posts in another forum where people were discussing reasons and they said "Its because they don't want reliabiity issues,etc...) I think they would just rather sell you tons of tapes,P2 cards,XDCAM discs,etc.. instead of selling you just one hardrive.

 

As I was told by great businessmen "It's all about the residual income" Look at most large companies and they sell small products (Coke, Heinz Ketchup, Kodak Film,etc..) to lots of people on a regular basis.

 

Would this 16mm pc film scanner be in Walmart for all the Jones to buy? Probably not. But I think it is smart to help increase the community of motion picture film users. Alot of people know film is better but they use digital for convenience.

 

There would be a major market of small video production houses that could use this to do higher quality 8 and 16mm home movie transfers. But the biggest market would be anyone using $4-20,000 video cameras. If they didn't have the high cost of a film transfer, and inconveince of driving to the closest telecine I think alot of them would consider using film on short projects.

 

People already using film could afford more film on their projects. This all translates into alot more residual income for Kodak and Fuji. All for only taking a consumer product already out there in many forms (PC Film Scanner) changing the light to work best with MP film, adding some type of feeding system,and software to go with it. I would imagine that they could recover any money spent on R&D.

[David Mullen ASC]

The question is that if it so obvious, then why isn't it already on the market?

 

Scanning at a decent quality level at practical speeds for motion picture work with enough steadiness is not as cheap to build as you think, and if sales aren't high enough to recoup development and manufacturing, no one is going to build it... or at least, not at the price levels that some of you expect. Something limited to a niche market will naturally be higher.

 

I mean, if it cost $15,000, and still was lower in quality than a modern telecine, how many of you would buy it?