Diy telecine unit

[ronnoco]

Now, again, could you please explain to me how Roger screwed your clients?
I still can´t understand how you can say something like that.

I dont have any clients for Roger to screw...I think you have mistaken me for someone else who has posted in this thread.Read back through the thread a little and you will find the member who suggested the above.

But honestly your aggressive and unpleasant manner leaves a lot to be desired..no one else has been so vitreolic in their comments...only you.

BTW could you put me in touch with the person that sold you your crystal ball..I want one too.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I think you have mistaken me for someone else who has posted in this thread.

Ooopps, sorry, I thought you were the other guy... :oops:

But honestly your aggressive and unpleasant manner leaves a lot to be desired..no one else has been so vitreolic in their comments...only you.

Thats me. Might as well get it all out instead of smalltalking. At least nobody misunderstands what I have to say, right?

This whole thread is very weird. It is 100% logical to make the software "a WP only", I can´t understand what all the fuss is about, really.

BTW could you put me in touch with the person that sold you your crystal ball..I want one too.

I´ll give it to you after I made a few millions buying stock share. ;)

[digvid]

All,

I still support CineCap. All customers who have ever bought Dodcap or CineCap can still upgrade to the most recent version (1.40) for free. They can just email me and I will send them the latest software. This hasn't changed. I may need to add an extra note explaining that to my website. Thanks to the 1.36 user who pointed this out.

Scott,

I wrote Dodcap/CineCap to use with my WorkPrinter because I didn't like using Premiere. Every version of the software ever released was written with Roger's collaboration, and contains what you would consider to be joint "intellectual property" belonging to Roger and myself.

My website clearly states multiple times (including on the first page, which I'm sure your customers see when they follow your links) that the software works with "WorkPrinter" units from a company called "MovieStuff." I never designed it to work with anything else, and I believe some of the instructions on the main screen of some versions of the software even mention the WorkPrinter. I have always been aware of individuals that use the software with homemade units, and that is okay. At least they know it is not my responsibility to make the software work with their unit.

I did not know that you personally were making units and selling them to other people who were then purchasing CineCap. I am grateful for any business you have brought me, and I fully intend to support any customer who has ever purchased CineCap for any reason. But...I don't feel bound to continue to market my software in a way that supports your particular business model. I don't recall that you ever made me aware of what you were doing, nor have we ever collaborated or made any business agreements together.

Roger and I have discussed for years now limiting the availability of the software. However, Roger has always vetoed this because he did not want to limit options for hobbyists who wanted to make their own individual unit and transfer grandpa's films. No one strong-armed me into limiting access to the software.

The software is not my main source of income, and if I made no money from it at all, I would probably still work on it as a hobby, and it would not affect my family or lifestyle significantly. Roger is not the ogre you portrayed him to be in your previous posts. He enjoys what he does and puts a lot of passion into his products.

Jeff

[bulldogpictures]

Hi Ronnoco,

I've seen your work at Vimeo.

In my opinion it's a very bad transfer.........
Poor winning bidder.

Sorry it's my opinion.

[granfer]

Yes, the result shown on Vimeo is not brilliant (and I'm suprised you got what you did for the "bare" machine) but the quality of the final result is down to many factors.
The machine appears to operate satisfactorily; there is no streaking and frame to frame capture seems consistent in the one I watched (the Zoo). But at least 90% of a transfer is down to the technique...

1. The cleanliness of the original film.
2. The cleanliness of the field lens if one is used.
3. The optical "set up" of the external components.
4. The quality and resolution of the camera used for pick up.
5. The type and configuration of the capture card if one is used.
6. The degree of post-capture processing.
7. The expertise of the operator.
and, finally, in this case, the upload to Vimeo.
So, pay no heed Ronnoco, we all have to learn by experience... search the websites, read the forums and carry on regardless. Your result is creditable for the equipment you say you used. My own leap from "field lens" to "direct from gate" produced a substantial improvement immediately, and there are many posts in this forum on what can be achieved with software after capture, or from different kinds of camera.

Good luck,

Granfer

[MoonstruckProductions]

This thread is better than Jerry Springer. All we need is a midget with a nympho transvestite boyfriend.

[ronnoco]

The machine appears to operate satisfactorily; there is no streaking and frame to frame capture seems consistent in the one I watched (the Zoo). But at least 90% of a transfer is down to the technique...

1. The cleanliness of the original film.
2. The cleanliness of the field lens if one is used.
3. The optical "set up" of the external components.
4. The quality and resolution of the camera used for pick up.
5. The type and configuration of the capture card if one is used.
6. The degree of post-capture processing.
7. The expertise of the operator.
and, finally, in this case, the upload to Vimeo.
So, pay no heed Ronnoco, we all have to learn by experience... search the websites, read the forums and carry on regardless. Your result is creditable for the equipment you say you used. My own leap from "field lens" to "direct from gate" produced a substantial improvement immediately, and there are many posts in this forum on what can be achieved with software after capture, or from different kinds of camera.

Good luck,

Granfer

I agree thanks for pointing this out....the DIY unit works great and I hid nothing from any potential bidders. The reserve I set was half of what the auction realised. I bid on ebay often and I decide what price I am willing to bid for an item...no one else.

Whilst transfering film to video might not be rocket science as another member pointed out..it does take time, patience and a desire to get the best you can out of the equipment you have to hand.I am very proud of my efforts..the B&W Faces and Friends transfer is as good as I have seen anywhere using the standard of equipment I used (the interlacing abberations are due to the upload not the transfer).The transfer of the colour films was done very quickly whilst the auction was active and I posted this fact along side the vimeo upload.

[ronnoco]

This thread is better than Jerry Springer. All we need is a midget with a nympho transvestite boyfriend.

Gotta agree with you too Moonstruck

[ronnoco]

Hi Ronnoco,

I've seen your work at Vimeo.

In my opinion it's a very bad transfer.........
Poor winning bidder.

Sorry it's my opinion.

Which you are entitled to mate....but I dont agree with you.

[VideoFred]

I have started my own DIY telecine project about 5 years ago. When searching the internet, it was very obvious that Roger with his Workprinters has developed a unique sytem. The modified Gaf projector, the special bulb, the condenser lens, the modified mouse and the Dodcap (later Cinecap) software. I do not know of any other systems like this in those days. Later, the Tobin unit was there too, but this is a complete different design.

It was also very obvious that Dodcap was made for the Workprinter and that Jeff and Roger where working very close together on this. It's their project and they are free to do whatever they want to do with it.

I have understood there is no patent on the Workprinter, so anybody can copy it and sell it. Personal I would never do this, because I do not like the idea of copying ideas from others. Fortunately, I have enough ideas of my own.

Now, if someone wants to build a Workprinter clone with the intention to sell lots of them, then please make your own software or make a good business deal with someone else and never refer to any software without asking the author first.

About the price of quality telecine units: it is not possible to get a top quality product for an insane low price. If you do not have enough money then build your own unit or get yourself another hobby. (or work harder )

Fred.

Ps: my own units are no Workprinter clones, I do not need Cinecap any more and I do not sell them.

[ronnoco]

And I have to congratulate you on your transfers because they are SUPERB !

Ps: my own units are no Workprinter clones, I do not need Cinecap any more and I do not sell them

What capture software program do you use Fred ?

Your results are really amazing 8O

[VideoFred]

Thank you Ronnoco :oops:

I'm using the machine vision camera software for capturing. The projector is triggering the camera itself, not the software. The camera sends a frame to the software everytime it gets a pulse on the trigger input.

Fred.

[reflex]

FYI, Clive Tobin's soon-to-be released $1495 transfer system doesn't need special software. It includes a 1 CCD camera and runs at 20 or 24 fps and outputs S-Video.

http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/index ... age848.htm

It just highlights that Roger's approach is not the only way to skin a cat. In fact, the people who have come up with mouse-based control systems are obviously taking advantage of his research rather than creating their own system like Clive and Fred have done (and their systems produce great results).

[MovieStuff]

FYI, Clive Tobin's soon-to-be released $1495 transfer system doesn't need special software. It includes a 1 CCD camera and runs at 20 or 24 fps and outputs S-Video.

Actually, it doesn't do both speeds. You have to order one or the other. But it looks like a good price for the home movie enthusiast wanting to do it himself. Cheers to Clive for addressing this part of the market with a new unit.

Roger

[telesync]

Whatever. I have no idea why you are so pissed but I hope that your company does really well, Scott.

Roger

Sorry again for the rant on Saturday. Bad day and a few 2 many glasses of wine after dinner.

It was a pleasure speaking with you on the phone and I'm glad we could resolve this matter. I have contacted Jeff via email, just waiting a response.

TTYLater,

Scott