Telecine with machine vision camera

[VideoFred]

Hi, Fred!

The color looks very nice. (I like the dog!)

However, I am noticing on the enlarged images that the grain definately gets softer as you move from the center of the image. For instance, on the picture of the woman, you can clearly make out the grain in the middle higlight area but, as you move to the edge, the grain smooths out and is no longer distinct. I noticed the same thing on the other large images, as well. This means you are losing focus at the edges.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

Hello Roger!

Yes, you're right. I'm shure it is the lens. As I mentioned before, a Rodenstock or another higher quality lens would be better.
The people at the Imaging Source are aware of this, thats why they offer both lenses.

But, however, as you say, on TV this is almost invisible.


Fred.

[csven]

just browsed through the video camera's manual. didn't see any note of accepting an external trigger. i did notice that it has two firewire ports, so it might be able to accept a signal that gets passed through to the capture software. nice little camera. nice manual.

also noticed it indicated you could change your resolution. i'm guessing you've read that, Fred. could you confirm that the changes in camera settings as described don't "save" for use with Cinecap (or maybe other capture software)?

thanks for your time and patience.

[VideoFred]

also noticed it indicated you could change your resolution. i'm guessing you've read that, Fred. could you confirm that the changes in camera settings as described don't "save" for use with Cinecap (or maybe other capture software)?

thanks for your time and patience.

Hi Sven,

Cinecap accepts all the settings from the camera software, no problem.
However, if I set the camera to 640x480, I don't see the entire picture anymore, not in the Imaging software and not in Cinecap.

About the external trigger: some of their Sony cameras can be triggered.


I have no time, but lots of patience

Fred.

[ccortez]

Looking through all the lenses I already have, the only thing I can find that might be close to the quality and specs required is a Mamiya-Sekor 55mm. It's nice glass, but that's a medium format lens.

I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance here, but... is there an adapter path from c/cs-mount to Mamiya mount?

c.

[csven]

how odd. no way to "center" the image when you reduce the rez? certainly hope they're correcting this issue. sounds like a software upgrade is in order.

[ccortez]

I notice they expose an API/SDK for ActiveX development, including presumably some C++ object libraries.

Hopefully I'll have time later and I can read whatever information they make available about that. There may be fun functions/features available thru the API that they haven't gotten around to exposing to the user interface.

Fred, have you looked at their API/SDK info at all?

c.

[ccortez]

BTW, Thanks Fred for the detailed and -- yet again patient! -- answers.

c.

[christoph]

this thread has really got me thinking and i dug around for other options, came across this link:
http://www.turnkey-solutions.com.au/cam ... _index.htm

some of the cameras look really nice, some seem to be *made* for high-res super8 transfer ;)
http://www.baslerweb.com/produkte/produkte_en_168.php

for the technically experienced, there is a lot of indepth documentation too:
http://www.baslerweb.com/popups/342/A10 ... ual_V4.pdf

and, just as interesting (to me at least) are the other options for lenses. i mean, forget about 35mm lenses with extension tubes (or even medium format, geeez), they are designed for a different purpose and will never reach the performance as a lens specially designed for a small CCD chip.

have a look at those:
http://www.turnkey-solutions.com.au/cam_zoom_lenses.htm

of course, once you look around for prices, the world suddenly doesnt seem to be so good anymore:
http://www.graftek.com/pages/cameras.htm

$4000.. yuck... but 1392x1040 10bit per channel.. i guess you get what you pay for.

++ christoph ++

[edit: just to avoid any flamewars, i'm not suggesting one should use 1392x1040 pixel if you want end up on PAL (or NTSC) anyway... 1024x960 will be plenty for that while still give you headroom for stabilizing and cropping etc. however, i'm looking for a way to get a 35mm film-out done and i'd say that 1400pixels would be just about the right scale so you'd have 1200pix left for the final image (more than that wouldn't help much while making storage a and processing times nightmare)]

[VideoFred]

this thread has really got me thinking and i dug around for other options, came across this link: etc....

and, just as interesting (to me at least) are the other options for lenses. i mean, forget about 35mm lenses with extension tubes (or even medium format, geeez), they are designed for a different purpose and will never reach the performance as a lens specially designed for a small CCD chip.

Hi Christoph!

You say nothing about my frames and divX-movies?
Mabe you expected too mutch from the 1024x768 size.
However, I still like to here your opinion. (if it's not too bad :roll: )

Not only the size is important, also the resolution. (number of pixels).
I'm sure a good camcorder with a modern megapixel CCD and a workprinter can give better results than my system, even if the size of
the created AVI files is only 720x576 pixels. Someone of this forum has send my a perfect transfer on DVD, made with a Sony 3CCD and a workprinter. You can blow this up to 1200x...pixels, no problem.

But, however, I'm very happy with my results, I'm not gonna do any tests anymore. I worked about one year on this project. I didn't know anything about camaras, lenses, software etc... when I started this. It's time to begin with the transfering, now. I can't be testing forever.

I do agree that the camera's and lenses from Basler are looking great.
The problem is always the same: no one can tell you in advance if the
camera/lens combination actualy wil perform good, for this application.
Maybe someone else wil take the risc buying them, testing them, and showing us the results... :mrgreen:

Fred.

[christoph]

Hi Christoph!

You say nothing about my frames and divX-movies?
Mabe you expected too mutch from the 1024x768 size.
However, I still like to here your opinion. (if it's not too bad :roll: )

fred,

the reason why i said this thread got me thinking was because i think your results are quite stunning... i really doubt that one can obtain much better results without spending quite a lot more money... and for TV screening further investments (time or money) should rather be spent in color correction solutions than higher resolutions or better lenses.

however, as said i'm thinking about getting some b/w super8 to 35mm, an optical blowup would be a solution but the increase in contrast (and grain) is kinda daunting... so i'm thinking digital intermediate and here pal resolution is rather a bit too low.. even more so if i'd like to do a bit of stabilising etc. so i'm looking for a solution to give me really sharp frames at around 1200-1500 pixels wide, and those firewire cams certainly are a solution to consider (even more so with only b/w).

i'm perfectly aware that if i have to buy all the gear to put this together i could robably just as well afford a 2K transfer at a spirit.

that said, if i were to build such a machine, is there anybody on this board who would be interested in stabilized high resolution frame transfers of their films?.. and would you be ready to pay like double of a normal workprinter transfer for such a service?

++ christoph ++

[filmguy]

Has there been any more advances on doing this?

I am keen to build a super8 telecine rig, and would love to hear of any more success stories or any more suitable cameras?

There are cheap multi megapixel still cameras around now, could any of these be modified for use?

[goneflyin]

I'm trying to figure out a way to use my super8 and 16mm projectors to transfer film to the computer. So far the best method I've seen is to use dodcap and capture frame by frame. But here's my question, how do you slow down the projector? If you're going to run at a slow speed do you really need the projector? couldn't you just make a setup that the film runs through at a slow speed and use a camera lens to focus the image down to a size the camera could see? I'd like to be able to use my digital camcorder to record the images.

I guess my big question would be if you want to run at a really slow speed to capture frame by frame do you really need a projector? i would think there would be a way to make a setup that would shine light through the film and into the camera.

chris

[david]

The problem is you need to build a device that stops each frame in order to avoid motion blur, unless you're capturing with high shutter speeds. Anyway, if you make the transport mechanism run very slow it should be possible to do it this way.

Regarding the projector, the eumig 610, bolex (18-5??) and many more run down to 3fps. If you need slower speeds it's highly possible that the motor doesn't have enough torque to run correctly. In this case you should think to replace the original motor with a new one.

This is what I have to do on my device, on which I'm using a Dslr camera. I found one 12V motor that runs at 40 rpm (it's already demultiplicated)

unfortunately I had to stop working on it since I'm shooting a short and printing in darkroom most of my stills archive. Plus I'm moving to another city so I haven't got the time right now...

David

PS. You should use the search option, I remember someone did a clever job in modifying a projector this way.

[goneflyin]

not long ago I built a cnc router table, and I was thinking about using one of the stepper motors from that to move the film since I could move it a specific distance by controlling the number of steps.

Chris

[david]

I strongly believe that even the most precise device won't do good if its movement is not based on the film perforation. If you find a way to build a machine that engages each perf that would be fine, I guess.
david