Attention PAL Users: Seeking Opinions on Dodcap Pulldown

[digvid]

If there are any PAL Dodcap users out there, I would like to hear about your opinions of Dodcap's 16 and 18 fps to PAL interpolated pulldown.

If you have used the interpolated pulldown methods, how does the resulting footage look to you? Does it look smooth or jerky? Do you prefer it to the whole-frame pulldown?

Bear in mind that you can only view interpolated pulldown footage on a television monitor. If you view it on your computer screen, you will see interlaced "jaggies." These do not appear however if you view the footage on television.

- Jeff Dodson

[avortex]

Hello Jeff,

As I'm now saving some bucks to buy a Workprinter, I will go for your software too.

I've got a question: Is it possible to control a digital still camera for making the trasfer process on the extra resolution these cameras offer? It could be fantastic to capture the frames at much more better resolution than the opressive 720*576 and store them directly on the hard drive of the PC for editing.

Thanks!

[digvid]

It is possible that Dodcap could control a digital still camera right now, but not probable. It just depends on how the drive for the digital camera was written. I have thought before though about adding support for digital still cameras, but have not had the time yet to investigate this. The big obstacle I see with this is the long amount of time it would take to store each frame to disk, because they would be very large. This might require the WP to run at a very slow rate. The idea does sound promising though. I can't commit to investigating this any time soon, since I have a lot on my plate. When I do look into it though, I will post something on the boards about it.

- Jeff Dodson

[Tom*]

Whilst you are thinking about the next version of your software:

Would it be more trouble than it's worth to add the option of triggering the frame capture via the serial port instead of the 'special mouse'?

I know there would be no performance improvement, but it would be a more elegant solution.

Tom

[Andreas Wideroe]

I agree with Tom. Making the capture trigger go through the serial cable is a far more elegant and safe sollution. I've blown it many times by thinking I'm doing a capture until I see the mouse cursor just outside the capture button clicking on nothing.

[digvid]

Well, maybe you should give this comment to Roger!

I think as long as he ships WorkPrinters that use the mouse, the vast bulk of WP users will use the mouse as well. In this case, it would probably just complicate Dodcap to have options for both mouse capture and serial port capture.

Also, many new computers that are being sold now do not have a serial cable at all, nor do they have a parallel port. The latest trend is to have USB and IEEE-1394 ports only on the computer. There are several machines at my workplace like this, actually.

Here are a couple of suggestions though:

1) On my computer, I use a USB mouse as my main mouse, and also connect the "special" WorkPrinter mouse via PS-2 cable. Windows handles two mice being connected just fine, so I simply remove the trackball from the WP mouse. Now the only mouse I have to worry about moving is the main computer mouse, which is set away from the WP.

2) I could possibly modify Dodcap so that the mouse cursor is "locked" over the sample button during a capture session. The only way to "unlock" it would be to press some key combination so that you could then move over and press the "End" button. This would mean that the sample button would not lose the mouse even if you hit the mouse with your hand accidentally.

What do you think?

- Jeff

[MovieStuff]

Would it be more trouble than it's worth to add the option of triggering the frame capture via the serial port instead of the 'special mouse'? I know there would be no performance improvement, but it would be a more elegant solution.

I considered that early on. You're right. It would be a more elegant solution.....as long as you have a serial port!

As Jeff pointed out, many new computers no longer have seriel ports. Considering that the WorkPrinter has to work with ALL computers, I figured the mouse is the most universal way to interface with the user's computer. Also, it's the easiest way for me to trouble shoot over the phone in case there's a problem. If their original mouse works and the WorkPrinter mouse doesn't for some reason, that's a pretty easy thing to pin point.

Regarding use with a digital still camera: I've had many inquiries about this but the electronics are not worth pursuing until someone is able to find a digital still camera with a zoom long enough to accomodate the 3x condenser lens I use. I could special order a different condenser lens but the cost would be prohibitive for what would surely be the rare exception. The only way I can keep the costs of the WorkPrinters under control is by ordering lenses in bulk from my supplier. That said, my idea of "bulk" and my supplier's idea of "bulk" are pretty much mutually exclusive but I've done business with them for so long that they cut me a deal on the pitiful numbers I order. Asking them for the same discount on a special one-off for the occasional client that wants to use a digital still camera would be pushing my luck, I think.

Beyond that, Jeff's concern about where the camera writes to is valid. The only camera I know of that can write directly to the hard drive of a computer is the Nikon D1h. The write times are pretty long and the camera is numbingly expensive; generally beyond the hopes and dreams of the casual Super 8 home telecine enthusiast.

Now, someone did recently suggest to me that one could possibly use a digital still camera even if it DIDN'T crop all the way into the super 8 frame. The idea is that even if it only cropped half way, the resolution would still be way beyond the normal 720 x 480 or NTSC or 720 x 576 for PAL. The trick would be applying some sort of macro to batch process all the frames to re-crop to the final video viewing size. The end result would not offer all that a digital still camera has to offer but would be better than a video camera.

-HOWEVER-

Consumer digital still cameras are notoriously unstable from frame to frame. We have a Minota Dimage7, which takes beautiful shots. But, frankly, I can lock off the camera and shoot two identical shots in a row and there will be SOMEthing slightly different about each shot. Looking at them one at a time you might not notice but, in succession, I'm sure you would see the accumulative effect. The color balance can shift slightly, density migrates a bit. Again, the differences are not a problem for general picture taking as they are well within the scope of what Photoshop can handle to manipulate. But for frame by frame copying, I think these differences would prove problematic. And the Minolta is not the only camera that has this problem. We have quite a few photographer friends and they notice the same things with their Fujis, Canons, Kodaks, even the lower cost Nikon digital cameras. Perhaps the higher end Nikon will work better but, again, we're talking $$$$$ for a difference that the average viewer might not appreciate. Still, the quest for using a digital still camera is a noble one if someone can lick the problems!

Roger