I just got it about a month ago, and my parents sent me some old 8mm film ranging from the early 50's to the early '70's. I cannot tell you how absolutely gorgeous the transfer was. Spectacular. I will never shoot video again, now that I'm able to digitize super 8 and 8mm film.
I was completely surprised how beautiful the kodak color was after fifty years...I had seen these movies projected years ago, but after burning these files to a DVD I was shocked at what I saw, it was like seeing different footage.
Furthermore, it made my DV footage pale in comparison.
Roger, you are hero!!!
I love my workprinter Jr.
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Oh, I don't have to stand here and listen to this.... :roll:
No, really, you are too kind. I have had a lot of nice responses to the WorkPrinter units and we've made some improvements over the last year or so. I did a count recently and, believe it or not, we have shipped over 400 units world wide. Not all of them are WorkPrinters (but probably 90%). Some have been CineMate units, but that's a WHOLE lot of 8mm transfers goin' on out there. Also, a gentleman contacted me recently that is writing a coffee table book on fun projects that can be done with a Mac and he's including a section on the WorkPrinter and is going to feature a nice photo, too. It's supposed to come out in January. TOO COOL!
I'll be undating the website soon with more photos and some new products related to slide transfers and sound synch stuff.
Roger
No, really, you are too kind. I have had a lot of nice responses to the WorkPrinter units and we've made some improvements over the last year or so. I did a count recently and, believe it or not, we have shipped over 400 units world wide. Not all of them are WorkPrinters (but probably 90%). Some have been CineMate units, but that's a WHOLE lot of 8mm transfers goin' on out there. Also, a gentleman contacted me recently that is writing a coffee table book on fun projects that can be done with a Mac and he's including a section on the WorkPrinter and is going to feature a nice photo, too. It's supposed to come out in January. TOO COOL!
I'll be undating the website soon with more photos and some new products related to slide transfers and sound synch stuff.
Roger
-
Santo
i've got to say, roger, from all the research i've been doing into how to make a super 8 feature a viable possibility with the best preservation of image possible at the best price, picking up one of your workprinters to do an initial edit, followed by a Rank transfer of the physically editted film itself to make a final "video draft" to send out, is a no-brainer at his point.
by putting your workprinter into the post-production equation, the micro-budget filmmaker saves 4 figures when the total is added up doing it that way rather than a Rank transfer of your whole 6 to 8 hours of footage. and they have a machine they can use for future projects.
by putting your workprinter into the post-production equation, the micro-budget filmmaker saves 4 figures when the total is added up doing it that way rather than a Rank transfer of your whole 6 to 8 hours of footage. and they have a machine they can use for future projects.
-
MattPacini
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:43 pm
- Location: Northern California
- Contact:
I had this exact same thought, whereas you do a "low quality" capture using a workprinter, edit using an NLE, then physically cut the film with your low quality edit as a guide. Then get that final cut transfered at the highest quality you can afford. I liken it to offline editing in FCP.Santo wrote:i've got to say, roger, from all the research i've been doing into how to make a super 8 feature a viable possibility with the best preservation of image possible at the best price, picking up one of your workprinters to do an initial edit, followed by a Rank transfer of the physically editted film itself to make a final "video draft" to send out, is a no-brainer at his point.
by putting your workprinter into the post-production equation, the micro-budget filmmaker saves 4 figures when the total is added up doing it that way rather than a Rank transfer of your whole 6 to 8 hours of footage. and they have a machine they can use for future projects.
But the obvious big concern is how do you "transfer" a low quality edited version of your film to actually splicing your celluloid? Can you cut your film frame-accurate from an edited workprint? If so, how? Does it use some form of timecode? EDL? Would Apple Cinema Tools be helpful?
The other concern is this... You lose the ability to use transitions, compositing, special effects, CC, etc. in your NLE on the initial cut. You'd have to save that until after the Rank. Not having enough coverage in this case would certianly slow you down. And could become extremely costly and time consuming. Really annoying if you're on a creative roll. You can't very well Rank a few frames here, and a few frames there.
Santo, have you come up with a process for all of this? I would be very interested.
:?:
Last edited by Ultrazero on Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Roger, Do you keep track of what the intended use is of all the workprinter units out there that you have made? Would be interesting to know the different uses for the workprinters. Would be interesting to kniow what hardware is being used with the workprinters as well. I'm sure that changes month to month for many users. :?:
-
Santo
Ultrazero
You've right about all those things. I don't have answers.
Right now I'm only looking at the workprinter as an approach to do a more as a cost effective way to do a rough edit for a film, rather than dropping all that money on a 300 dollar an hour Rank transfer -- or whatever deal one can get -- on 6 to 8 hours of footage which probably runs into, I don't know, 10 to 12 hours of actual scanning time? More? A lot of people propose different timelines, but for certain, 6 hours of footage isn't just going to be 6 hours of Rank transfer time because the scanning process takes longer than that. It's a whack of money.
So just by doing a transfer for a rough cut with a workprinter, using your own minidv cam or a friend's or whatever, you save tons of money.
For right now, once I do the "rough computer edit" I'm thinking of even doing a really old school rough cut edit of the film itself, hopefully figuring it out using some software solution, but, if you have to, just trying to time it counting frames -- giving yourself a good safety margin if you feel you need to. However this approach will likely drive you buggy, no doubt. But on the other hand, you've got your reference and timing all there on your computer, you can recheck frame by frame endings and beginings for shots and you'll be very familiar with your footage at this point, so it's not like you're going in there from scratch.
As far as effects and whatnot, I guess you'd do them best on the Rank transfered version. However, you're not going to be able to get them back onto the film, so there's where the problem lies if you're planning an optical 16mm blow up for film festivals so that you get the best image possible with as little money as a microbudget filmmaker has to work with.
So it's old school special effects and tricks filmed on set and in camera dissolves and fades in that case that you have to plan prior to post. Really, it just depends on how involved you want to get with your effects as a big factor with regards to that. If you need all the visual tricks that can be had with Adobe et al, well you're going to have to do a larger gauge transfer from the unavoidably inferior digital. I can't see any way around that.
At the Canadian Film Centre this year, the Universal Studios Shorts were shot on 35mm, then transfered to HD with a DV version for editting with. Somehow they had it all coded so that once they finished with the DV edit, the HD version then reassembled and it was transfered directly to a new 35mm negative from wich prints would be made and the original film footage was never touched and the HD was never compressed in anyway. In this manner HD was pushed all the way possible and lots of money was saved in physical film colour timing and reassembly of the physical film. They look terrific.
On another thread I mentioned the HD transfer as the logic solution that a savvy distributor would do if there ever was a super 8 film which was deamed good enough for a reasonable sized theatrical release. They would put a final polish on the film that way and make it look as good as would be visually possible. And they'd have no problem spending a 100 grand or whatever to do it. But of course you'd have to have a great film and one that a real distributor would see at a real film festival -- and that's where the concern for a 16mm print of optimum quality comes in. And why it's so important if you're thinking big on a microbudget.
But anyways, I'm getting off topic. No, I don't have a lot of the answers yet.
You've right about all those things. I don't have answers.
Right now I'm only looking at the workprinter as an approach to do a more as a cost effective way to do a rough edit for a film, rather than dropping all that money on a 300 dollar an hour Rank transfer -- or whatever deal one can get -- on 6 to 8 hours of footage which probably runs into, I don't know, 10 to 12 hours of actual scanning time? More? A lot of people propose different timelines, but for certain, 6 hours of footage isn't just going to be 6 hours of Rank transfer time because the scanning process takes longer than that. It's a whack of money.
So just by doing a transfer for a rough cut with a workprinter, using your own minidv cam or a friend's or whatever, you save tons of money.
For right now, once I do the "rough computer edit" I'm thinking of even doing a really old school rough cut edit of the film itself, hopefully figuring it out using some software solution, but, if you have to, just trying to time it counting frames -- giving yourself a good safety margin if you feel you need to. However this approach will likely drive you buggy, no doubt. But on the other hand, you've got your reference and timing all there on your computer, you can recheck frame by frame endings and beginings for shots and you'll be very familiar with your footage at this point, so it's not like you're going in there from scratch.
As far as effects and whatnot, I guess you'd do them best on the Rank transfered version. However, you're not going to be able to get them back onto the film, so there's where the problem lies if you're planning an optical 16mm blow up for film festivals so that you get the best image possible with as little money as a microbudget filmmaker has to work with.
So it's old school special effects and tricks filmed on set and in camera dissolves and fades in that case that you have to plan prior to post. Really, it just depends on how involved you want to get with your effects as a big factor with regards to that. If you need all the visual tricks that can be had with Adobe et al, well you're going to have to do a larger gauge transfer from the unavoidably inferior digital. I can't see any way around that.
At the Canadian Film Centre this year, the Universal Studios Shorts were shot on 35mm, then transfered to HD with a DV version for editting with. Somehow they had it all coded so that once they finished with the DV edit, the HD version then reassembled and it was transfered directly to a new 35mm negative from wich prints would be made and the original film footage was never touched and the HD was never compressed in anyway. In this manner HD was pushed all the way possible and lots of money was saved in physical film colour timing and reassembly of the physical film. They look terrific.
On another thread I mentioned the HD transfer as the logic solution that a savvy distributor would do if there ever was a super 8 film which was deamed good enough for a reasonable sized theatrical release. They would put a final polish on the film that way and make it look as good as would be visually possible. And they'd have no problem spending a 100 grand or whatever to do it. But of course you'd have to have a great film and one that a real distributor would see at a real film festival -- and that's where the concern for a 16mm print of optimum quality comes in. And why it's so important if you're thinking big on a microbudget.
But anyways, I'm getting off topic. No, I don't have a lot of the answers yet.
hmmmm
I've gone over this many times in my head and I've come to the conclusion that its near impossible to make a frame accurate cut of the film. Now I've only shot tri-x/plus-x and K40, but none of them have frame numbers along the edge of the film. Isn't this key to using an EDL? Is there a super8 stock that does have frame numbers? (not that it would be worth it). Anyone know of a DIY method for timecode?
So basically, I think you'd have to wing it, using an edited workprint as a guide. Yes it would be time-consuming, but might be worth it in some situations.
Secondly, doing an optical blow-up to 16mm from a Rank->HD doesn't sound so bad to me. I'd trade the minor (how minor is probably opinion) loss of quality for the flexability of using all of FCP's bells and whistles. Of course, this is dependant on what i'm producing. Isn't HD supposed to be the only video format that can compete with film's resolution? Rank to HD is possible right? HD to 16mm?
I've gone over this many times in my head and I've come to the conclusion that its near impossible to make a frame accurate cut of the film. Now I've only shot tri-x/plus-x and K40, but none of them have frame numbers along the edge of the film. Isn't this key to using an EDL? Is there a super8 stock that does have frame numbers? (not that it would be worth it). Anyone know of a DIY method for timecode?
So basically, I think you'd have to wing it, using an edited workprint as a guide. Yes it would be time-consuming, but might be worth it in some situations.
Secondly, doing an optical blow-up to 16mm from a Rank->HD doesn't sound so bad to me. I'd trade the minor (how minor is probably opinion) loss of quality for the flexability of using all of FCP's bells and whistles. Of course, this is dependant on what i'm producing. Isn't HD supposed to be the only video format that can compete with film's resolution? Rank to HD is possible right? HD to 16mm?
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
It's funny reading all this talk about using the WorkPrinter to create a temp transfer for editing since that was the ORIGINAL intention for the unit when I first designed it. The original version had no condenser lens and no modified gate. It used a standard projection bulb and you would copy from a small screen, like a sheet of ink jet paper. The idea was to create a frame accurate temp video copy of the original footage so that you could then know how to edit your raw footage or what to take to a Rank transfer session to save money. I wasn't concerned about quality when I built the first unit because it was just supposed to be a workprint, hence the name "WorkPrinter". Catchy, eh?
Anyway, the test I did just projecting onto paper was surprisingly crisp and clear since I was able to maintain total frame discretion. Once I added the 3:2 pulldown, it became evident that quality final transfers were totally viable. After I added the condenser lens, everything fell into place.
If there were a practical way to add edge numbering or information on the frame line that would later be masked, then we'd have something, I think.
Roger
Anyway, the test I did just projecting onto paper was surprisingly crisp and clear since I was able to maintain total frame discretion. Once I added the 3:2 pulldown, it became evident that quality final transfers were totally viable. After I added the condenser lens, everything fell into place.
If there were a practical way to add edge numbering or information on the frame line that would later be masked, then we'd have something, I think.
Roger
Roger, does the software used to capture to the computer add timecode to the captured frames? Or is this something else we'd need? Or is that a dumb question? I've never really used timecode.MovieStuff wrote: If there were a practical way to add edge numbering or information on the frame line that would later be masked, then we'd have something, I think.
Roger
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
how to do negative (or rather positive) matchback without foot numbers or keycode:
edit in 24 or 25p. this won't work with a pulled down edit.
all nle's i've used have added fake time code to each clip, starting with 00.00.00, so unless you have proper tc just use this. find the tc for the flash frame (first frame of clip) and note it along with the scene and take number.
find the in and out points and write down their time code. convert these to number fo frames, from start of take for the in point and from the in point for the out point. the formula for those who haven't finished grade school yet is secondsout - secondsin x [24|25] + framesout - framesin. :-)
make a copy of the list and sort it according to the position in the original material. it helps if you have proper time code and/or shot with sequenctial slates.
wind through the original and cut out the used takes using the list. i count frames using a ruler with a pin attached at one end that holds the sprocket of the flash frame. label them and hang on your bin or tape to the wall.
create a new reel and start splicing together the pieces according to the first not sorted list. make sure you add lots and lots of leader.
advanced: add at least 8 frames before the in point and after the out point. these frames can be skipped when doing the final video transfer, s8 print or 16/35 blow up giving you much cleaner cuts with no jumps. you don't want to do this if you intend to project the cut original obvisouly.
good luck.
/matt
edit in 24 or 25p. this won't work with a pulled down edit.
all nle's i've used have added fake time code to each clip, starting with 00.00.00, so unless you have proper tc just use this. find the tc for the flash frame (first frame of clip) and note it along with the scene and take number.
find the in and out points and write down their time code. convert these to number fo frames, from start of take for the in point and from the in point for the out point. the formula for those who haven't finished grade school yet is secondsout - secondsin x [24|25] + framesout - framesin. :-)
make a copy of the list and sort it according to the position in the original material. it helps if you have proper time code and/or shot with sequenctial slates.
wind through the original and cut out the used takes using the list. i count frames using a ruler with a pin attached at one end that holds the sprocket of the flash frame. label them and hang on your bin or tape to the wall.
create a new reel and start splicing together the pieces according to the first not sorted list. make sure you add lots and lots of leader.
advanced: add at least 8 frames before the in point and after the out point. these frames can be skipped when doing the final video transfer, s8 print or 16/35 blow up giving you much cleaner cuts with no jumps. you don't want to do this if you intend to project the cut original obvisouly.
good luck.
/matt
-
Santo
more interesting editing stuff to consider from a guy who's obviously been in the trenches. thanks!
Ultrazero - Yeah, I was thinking in terms of DV as the digital inferior for trying to make a blow-up, not HD which is great. I'm going to look into the threads somebody mentioned about using HD in combination with a workprinter. maybe it's just becoming a viable low-cost possibility with the consumer-level cameras just coming onto the market? Of course, I'd never buy one of those cameras at this point as you'd live to regret it when twice the camera comes out at half the price a couple of years later.
Ultrazero - Yeah, I was thinking in terms of DV as the digital inferior for trying to make a blow-up, not HD which is great. I'm going to look into the threads somebody mentioned about using HD in combination with a workprinter. maybe it's just becoming a viable low-cost possibility with the consumer-level cameras just coming onto the market? Of course, I'd never buy one of those cameras at this point as you'd live to regret it when twice the camera comes out at half the price a couple of years later.
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
disclaimer: i never tried the skip frame printing part, only the straight matching, but this is how i've been told to do it from various facilities that do blow ups from super-8. not all of them can handle skip frame printing since this requires a "step printer", but they suggest this method anyway followed by cutting out the extra frames in the blown up negative...
/matt
/matt
wow mattias. thanks. That's definately something to try.
Santo: What do you make of the JVC GRHD1? The first consumer HD camera. A few months old.
http://www.jvc.com/main.jsp
http://www.vanns.com/shop/servlet/item/ ... /497999292
That would be pretty awesome in conjunction with a workprinter. I've seen it priced for as low as $1700 and as high as $3500.
Santo: What do you make of the JVC GRHD1? The first consumer HD camera. A few months old.
http://www.jvc.com/main.jsp
http://www.vanns.com/shop/servlet/item/ ... /497999292
That would be pretty awesome in conjunction with a workprinter. I've seen it priced for as low as $1700 and as high as $3500.