DIY Telecine: My experience

[Raimo]

KimmoH, a forum member made an important contribution to the subject of Transfers( in a previous thread) by showing that one could video the emulsion (or gate) directly without intervening mirrors and without using the projection lens. This was achieved by the use of an add on macro lens and filming the emulsion directly. There has been little added to his post so I am contributing my experiences with his technique.
I had the use a Sony TRV900 camera for one day (never having owned or used a video camera before). I used my B&H 466 dual projector with added speed control and a macro lens (Raynox C3500,12x). Video was captured directly via firewire to computer. The first problem I ran into was that I could not get a head on shot of the film gate due to the bulk of the camera. If the camera was outside the projector for a head on shot then I could not focus on the emulsion so all my captures were done with the camera slightly angled. Later I tried the Optura 20 camera which is slim in design and had no problems at all in focusing on the emulsion with a full frame, head on. I confirm, therefore, Kimmo's observation that it is feasible to video the emulsion directly but each projector-camera set up will determine this individually. I found that I could get basically flicker free transfers on-the-fly only in progressive scan mode (30 fps) . Interlaced capture had horrible flicker unremovable by all efforts to vary the projector speed. The 900 camera does not have true manual control of iris and shutter at the same time. If you set one setting, the other is automatic. This meant that when I had a scene where there was high contrast (say a bright sky in the upper half of the frame and a dark lower half) the iris fluctuated wildly in searching for the "correct" exposure if the shutter is set to 1/60. In evenly lit scenes without much contrast there was no problem and I was impressed by the transfer. I feel that each scene must be set up individually for best results and I fear that simply running a reel through the projector is not going to do it. Recently, there have been interesting postings on video forums showing that Canon "low end" cameras such as the optura 10, 20 and 300MC can provide progressive scan video by using the still shot mode and direct to computer recording via firewire. This means that by refining Kimmo's technique, home film transfers become possible for the" budget restricted" film maker. Of course, using a high quality first surface mirror at 45 degrees would enable bulkier high end cameras to be used for filming the emulsion since the camera bulk doesn't become a problem. This situation becomes reminiscent of the WorkPrinter set up. Now, I am off to run my fishing lodge in northern Ontario till October . Then I will buy a camera and experiment further.

[Raimo]

I am posting two unretouched frames from the above mentioned on -the -fly captures with projector at about 16 fps.They will download somewhat slowly as I have not altered the frames in any way. The picture does not completely fill the frame as I could not get the bulky camera close enough as I had to shoot the emulsion at an angle. Therefore the focus on the emulsion is not uniform. The pine needles will give some idea of the overall sharpness. Shooting precisely head on would improve the sharpness. As this happens to be my first ever attempt at a capture I would appreciate comparisons to frames by folks who might have used the Cinemate system or workprinter of Roger.


The second frame:

[scottbobo2]

The shots are great,did you use any macro-lens 12x .I think you are on to something very BIG!!!!!

[sigr]

Hi Raimo,

Your results look good, in view of the problems you are noting (shooting at an angle and not getting the camera close enough to the projector).

I had the use a Sony TRV900 camera for one day (never having owned or used a video camera before). I used my B&H 466 dual projector with added speed control and a macro lens (Raynox C3500,12x). Video was captured directly via firewire to computer. The first problem I ran into was that I could not get a head on shot of the film gate due to the bulk of the camera. If the camera was outside the projector for a head on shot then I could not focus on the emulsion so all my captures were done with the camera slightly angled.

How close could you get the lens of the camera to the film plane with a head on shot? KimmoH was reporting that he was able to focus with the 12x macro lens at 8-10 cm (3-4 incles). Of course he was using a camera with 25x optical zoom as opposed to 12x on the TRV900.

What about using the 24x macro lens that also comes with the CM-3500 set? Will it not allow you to focus on just the film frame in a head on shot at a greater distance than the 8-10 cm reported by KimmoH?

KimmoH (or anyone else) please comment.

I found that I could get basically flicker free transfers on-the-fly only in progressive scan mode (30 fps) . Interlaced capture had horrible flicker unremovable by all efforts to vary the projector speed. The 900 camera does not have true manual control of iris and shutter at the same time. If you set one setting, the other is automatic.

I believe you can achieve complete manual control of the shutter and iris at the same time with the TRV900. What you need to do is activate the PROGRAM AE function and then select the "Sunset & moon mode". This fixes the shutter at 1/60 and still allows manual control of the exposure (iris). TRV900 owners please correct me if I’m wrong. I can certainly do this with my Sony TRV720 (digital8) camcorder, and I can tell from pictures of the TRV900 that it also has the PROGRAM AE function, although I cannot confirm that it includes the "Sunset & moon mode".

As this happens to be my first ever attempt at a capture I would appreciate comparisons to frames by folks who might have used the Cinemate system or workprinter of Roger.

For examples of single frames captured with the Workprinter, see “Film frames” at the following address:
http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts/gallery/

Here are a couple of specific examples:
http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts ... lbum02/aaa
http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts ... 2/IMGA0221

Regards,
sigr

[paulcotto]

Search my old posts on the subject using;

Paul Cotto Sony Macro Lens

I have posted this info several times so I don't want to cover it all again.

Cheers,
Paul Cotto

[T-Scan]

Interesting concept. good stills too. just wonder if its harder to focus in and align the frame while using the hotter shorter lived projector bulb in a B&H. the Workprinter you can tinker around with your image for a long time with the light on. here's a WP still with the canon optura10 http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts ... mktII_0001

Who is experimenting with still shot mode? how does that work?

[LastQuark]

Search my old posts on the subject using;

Paul Cotto Sony Macro Lens

I have posted this info several times so I don't want to cover it all again.

Cheers,
Paul Cotto

Your posts are not neglected, Paul. I have one and it worked great. The only problem is Sony already discontinued the 45mm and 50mm lenses so they are now hard to find.
 

[Royalbox]

I've just caught up on this subject and watched KimmoH's transfer which looked great.
I haven't seen any posts from anyone trying this with a workprinter to bypass the lenses. Is this a possibility or is the projecter used not suitable for this?

[LastQuark]

I've just caught up on this subject and watched KimmoH's transfer which looked great.
I haven't seen any posts from anyone trying this with a workprinter to bypass the lenses. Is this a possibility or is the projecter used not suitable for this?

I tried it with the XP but the Raynox lens will not center on the gate of the Gaf projector. The diameter of the lens is large enough that it will hit the side of the projector. The use of extension tubes will not help either. I use it with a TRV-900 BTW. If you don't mind grinding the side of the projector, this should work ok.
 

[sigr]

I tried it with the XP but the Raynox lens will not center on the gate of the Gaf projector. The diameter of the lens is large enough that it will hit the side of the projector. The use of extension tubes will not help either. I use it with a TRV-900 BTW. If you don't mind grinding the side of the projector, this should work ok.
 

This leads me back to the question I posed earlier: What is the maximum distance for the combination of the TRV900 and the 12x Raynox CM-3500 to be able to completely zoom in on and sharply focus on a R8/S8 frame? (Ideally R8, since it is the smallest.) KimmoH reported 8-10cm (3-4 inches), but that was with a 25x zoom. The TRV900 only has 12x zoom. Would it help to use the 24x macro lens that also comes with the Raynox CM-3500 lens set? On my WP 2, the distance from the film gate to the front of the projector body is between 11.0 and 11.5 cm.

[LastQuark]

This leads me back to the question I posed earlier: What is the maximum distance for the combination of the TRV900 and the 12x Raynox CM-3500 to be able to completely zoom in on and sharply focus on a R8/S8 frame? (Ideally R8, since it is the smallest.) KimmoH reported 8-10cm (3-4 inches), but that was with a 25x zoom. The TRV900 only has 12x zoom. Would it help to use the 24x macro lens that also comes with the Raynox CM-3500 lens set? On my WP 2, the distance from the film gate to the front of the projector body is between 11.0 and 11.5 cm.

The 24x Raynox shall be positioned 3.75cm from the gate. The 12x, 7.25cm from the gate. In both cases you have to use an extension tube to go beyond the 11.5cm distance of the gate and front face of the WP. The TRV-900 will handle both without problem. The 12x works better because, if you decide to grind the projector to fit the diameter of the macro lens, it will not hit the critical elements of the projector. Using 24x lens will be too close to the gate and shutter area. Also, I noticed some vignetting on the 24x at that distance. 12x is just perfect.
 

[sigr]

Hi LastQuark,

Thanks for your reply, which clarifies the situation significantly. Just one further question:

The TRV-900 will handle both without problem. The 12x works better because, if you decide to grind the projector to fit the diameter of the macro lens, it will not hit the critical elements of the projector.  

Based on your specific wording, can I assume that it would not be necessary to completely "cut through" the side of the projector? I.e. a bit of "grinding" is all that is required?

Thanks in advance.
sigr

[LastQuark]

Based on your specific wording, can I assume that it would not be necessary to completely "cut through" the side of the projector? I.e. a bit of "grinding" is all that is required?

I stated grinding because I was thinking of Dremel to cut through by "grinding" . Yes, the right word is to cut through the projector.
 

[Royalbox]

@LastQuark
Thanks for the info from me also. Shame about it not quite fitting though. I don't think I'd want to try cutting the projector myself. I'm not even sure the lens would fit my TRV-740 camcorder anyway, that's even if I could get the lenses in the UK. A link on Raynox's site takes you to Jessops here in the UK as the supplier, but they don't seem to stock it. I'd like to hear Roger's thought's on this idea if he's reading this though.

[sigr]

LastQuark,

Thanks for the additional clarification!

Royalbox,

@LastQuark
I'm not even sure the lens would fit my TRV-740 camcorder anyway, that's even if I could get the lenses in the UK.

Based on pictures from KimmoH's original thread, I would guess that you can use the CM-3500 lens set with your TRV-740 camcorder.

http://batman.jypoly.fi/~robin/super8/emma/IMG_0213.JPG
http://batman.jypoly.fi/~robin/super8/emma/IMG_0215.JPG

As far as I can see, the lens specifications are the same on my TRV-720 digital8 camcorder as on the one KimmoH was using, and I would guess yours is the same as mine. Note the 37mm diameter spec clearly visible in the first picture.

I have actually gone ahead and ordered the CM-3500 and expect to receive it within a week. I will let you know how things work out.

Regards,
sigr