Josh Gladstone

Also, just a tip, daylight spools are great because you can load and unload them without a darkroom or changing bag, obviously. But just remember, when you're unloading in the light you will flash the outside few feet of film / the last few seconds on the roll. Not usually a big deal, but if you do unload the film in the dark, you'll be able to keep those images.

You use a second, empty daylight spool as the takeup reel. You send that to the lab in a light proof container, like the black plastic one the film came in (and it's a good idea to tape the lid closed). Every time you finish a roll, the now empty daylight spool from the feed side becomes the takeup spool for the next roll. If you want to short-end something (i.e. shoot 50' of your 100' roll, and save the other 50'), you'll need extra empty spools and light proof containers. Depending on where you live, you might be able to get that stuff at your local lab.

Whatever you can get me really, even if it's just a few seconds of footage. I do 100000kbps h264 for 2k video when I upload to youtube.

Well, if you want to export a ProRes file or a higher bit-rate mp4 and upload it to a file hosting website, I'd be happy to compare it.

Let me first say it does look great. At a reasonable sitting distance, all of the issues I'm about to list are much less noticeable. However, looking at it up close, say 2-3 feet away, the compression is noticeably blocky and really very unforgiving with the grain. There are sections where the encoded grain in the image seems to almost 'dance' or 'breathe' as opposed to being randomly organic every frame. And the reds in people's skin tones, the blacks in the tires, and just all the details in general get blotched all together in little squareish blobs. And it's a shame because you can tell that the detail really is there on the film, it just gets killed in the compression. Now again, sitting 6 or 7 feet away from the tv, these things are much less noticeable. At this viewing distance and screen size (it's a 39" display), while it's not as sharp as something projected on film, it is very passable, and you really only notice the encoding blobs if you're looking for them. Was this the original file you got from bitworks?

Just watched it on a 4k tv and it really looks great! I just wish vimeo would do higher bitrates

I've had this problem when processing old kodachrome rolls, too (in caffenol). I've tried washing soda and lots of washing, but it didn't do much. I've ended up wiping it off after every time with pec pads. I'd really love to hear more about the borax method!

Wow, it really looks fantastic. Steady and smooth as all hell. I'd love to see a side by side with a Leicina Special. I've been thinking about getting one for a while, but now I don't know! Ps. The image looks really sharp in the center and seems like it softens out towards the edges (especially noticeable in the shot with the person walking across the bridge). I don't know if that the lens or not. Anyone have a thought? Also, you can tell some software stabilization is used at around 39-48 seconds in (the frame edges jitter around a bit), but it's really minor, and that was the only time I noticed it. Really remarkable stabilization. Beautiful. Can't wait to see more!

I've got a Revere wind-up magazine camera that could pretty much fit in a coat pocket. I can't imagine it getting much more portable than that! But like someone mentioned before, you have to reload the magazines if you want to use it (a project I've been meaning to get around to myself, actually). Other than that, I'd say go Bolex or Beaulieu. Personally, I love the Beaulieu form factor, especially over a Bolex, so that'd be my camera of choice. Bolexs are known for their reliability and ruggedness though, so that's worth taking into consideration. Edit: Here's a video on how to reload 16mm magazines, if you decide to go that direction:

Hey Peter, thanks for the kind words! I actually did experiment with HDR/bracketing exposures and then stitching them back together in post. I had some results posted on the previous page, but here's the video: The real issue with it was that it took 3-4 times longer in an already slow process, and the results weren't much better (if at all) than just a single exposure. I never really considered going the flatbed route. I did look at it, when doing my initial research, but decided against it. I'm not really sure why. I guess for workflow reasons. The Müller HM framescanner is my sort of dream-goal, and that was machine vision. Maybe that's why I went that direction.

Really really really damn cool.

Pretty neat!

Blackmagic may or may not be working on such a device. Until then, theres always the diy route. I would like to build a sprocketless multi-gauge scanner based on the stepper motor/arduino stuff I've learned so far. The Muller HM has always been inspirational to me. Sort of a pipe dream though...

You're right, it says dpi but I read pixels. Tricky.

6k resolution at 9 fps? I'd love to see samples. I wonder what kind of camera they're using.

You used to be able to get film directly from Kodak via the website. You can still get film directly from them if you call, but I have no idea what the minimum order is. If you're in Los Angeles, you can stop by the Kodak warehouse and pick up film any time during the week, and there's no minimum. Kodak no longer sells a color reversal film, though. Only black and white reversal, black and white negative (in 16mm I think. Possibly only in 400' loads), and color negative. As for labs, some people don't like Pro8mm, but I've always had good service there. Also check out Spectra Film and Video in Los Angeles. They also sell film + processing + scanning, and sell all the same film Kodak sells as well as a color reversal stock (although I know some people have had trouble with it in some super 8 cameras).

Well I think you've got a couple options. If you just want to test the camera before getting a bunch of stuff scanned, the easiest/simplest/cheapest way is to shoot a roll of reversal, get that processed, and then project it or look at it on a viewer. If it came out well, shoot the rest of the film you need for your minimum, and get it all scanned. The other option would be to talk to the lab and tell them it's a camera test. There's a chance that they'll make an exception to their minimum, since a good camera test means you'll be back with more film.

Absolutely! If they've been kept indoors in a cool dark place like under a bed or in a closet, they're probably totally fine. If they've been sitting out in a hot car in the sun for 5 months, they're probably a bit messed up, but I'd still get them processed. And just since it's sort of on topic, here's some 100 year old unprocessed negatives that were in the news recently! http://petapixel.com/2013/12/27/100-year-old-box-exposed-negatives-discovered-conservators-antarctica/

That's exactly what I did. Arduino+stepper motor. The arduino is so cool. Now I have it running the motor, the LEDs, the trigger, etc. I definitely encourage you to get one. And I had never used one before or programmed anything like that before, so its definitely doable. And it was actually a lot of fun and really rewarding getting that thing working.

Yeah, the Muller was pretty much my inspiration from the beginning; the thing's a work of art! So that's why the laser was in my head. I got this of Amazon for $8 the other day, so I'll give that a shot. I'm not exactly sure if I'll use a laser and shoot it through a perf, or just mount it behind the shutter to let me know when the shutter's clear. I'll see once my new projector gets here. Fun to play with though!

Hahaha, software on a mac? Yes and no. Here's the whole story, or you can skip down a paragraph it if you don't feel like reading. So I, like you, am using a firewire machine vision camera, and no, there is no currently supported software on osx. At least when I looked. But these cameras utilize standards (called DCAM IIDC), so there was no reason the cameras shouldn't work with osx. And if you looked at some of the camera manufacturer's websites (point grey etc) they usually have a small blurb of text about how macos might be supported through third party software. And on top of that, there was some abandoned mac software called Astro IIDC that was meant to control firewire cameras for telescope photography. You can get a demo version, but the full version is completely abandoned by the developer and impossible to register or crack. But this demo version displayed my images off my camera, so I knew at the very least it was possible. So, long story short, there are some software packages that allow firewire camera communication (pydc1394 and libdc1394), and there's some good python software to display and save images (OpenCV), but nobody had really written a program to do it. So, over a long and annoying period of trial and error, I ended up teaching myself enough Python to make it work! My software can change debayer patterns, capture 8 or 10 bit tiffs or jpegs, communicates with the Arduino I use to control the stepper motor (which I also learned how to use because of this project), toggles the aforementioned web viewer, turns the LEDs on and off, inverts the image, adjusts exposure, and lots of other features. I'd be happy to share it with you or anyone who wants it, but it's pretty customized to my hardware setup. The camera capture code should work (in theory) with your camera, but it would take some effort to get rid of the motor control code and make it work with your trigger setup. But probably not impossible.

So cool! Thanks for posting all the pictures. I was using a physical lever switch to trigger my scanner before, but I was planning to try out a light sensor with laser or led setup for the next version. The hall sensor is cool though, I might have to think about that.

Looks good! Crazy motor setup! What software are you using? And what hardware do you use to trigger it?

If you're on OSX, you just have to turn Apache on to host a local server (http://osxdaily.com/2012/09/02/start-apache-web-server-mac-os-x/). I'm betting it's just as easy on a pc. I'm not sure what software you're using to capture, but what I do is have my program save a lower resolution copy of each frame as a jpeg (lets call it capture.jpg) into the folder I'm serving. As it captures each new frame, it overwrites capture.jpg. Then I wrote a small HTML page that uses javascript to display and refresh capture.jpg every few seconds. I can load that page up on my phone, and watch my capture remotely!

Thank you so much, Peter! That really means a lot!