How do you judge my DIY transfer?

Post by **mathis** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:23 am

ItÃ‚Â´s done with a Bauer T525, a Sony VX1-E three CCD Hi8 (but direct to DV input). Photographed with 4008ZMII with Angenieux 8-64 and 6-80. Film material K40 and Plus-X. Plus-X is unfortunately underexposed and therefore brightened up with the video camera.
For the computer screen I set a Gamma curve of 0.9 while exporting the mpg1.
I have to practice a bit more setting the sharpness quickly on this cam... but there is one or two shots which are as sharp as they can get.

What do you think? Actually the most curious question I have is: What particular improvements could I have using a workprinter instead? Or another transfer method?

Here it is (15MB, mpg1, no sound)
ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video ... Mathis.mpg

Bests,
- Mathis

Post by **sunrise** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:52 am

It's quite good in sharpness and has ok contrast. But I sense a bit of flicker.

For DIY it's very good.

michael

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:54 am

You seem to have a "hotspot" in the middle, it is brighter than the rest of the frame. And you have flicker, the brightness of the film pulsates back and forth a little bit. All these things should be solved with a WP.

Post by **VideoFred** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:20 pm

I agree with Michael and Kent:

It's very, very good for DIY!
But there is some hotspot and flicker, yes....

Fred.

Post by **mathis** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:30 pm

Thanks so far!
Flicker and hotspot I thought too are the most obvious signs.
But do you think there would be a difference in sharpness and contrast behaviour? (As far as you can tell by watching a mpg1 movie, of course...)

Please notice registration (the shaking is solely my hand). I have no need for a DS8.

And itÃ‚Â´s not only these shots, itÃ‚Â´s consistently good in all rolls.

Post by **VideoFred** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:43 pm

mathis wrote: But do you think there would be a difference in sharpness and contrast behaviour? (As far as you can tell by watching a mpg1 movie, of course...)

Yes, I do think so....
Maybe you could do a test, to compare...

Fred.

Post by **Scotness** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:00 pm

I reckon it's about the best off the wall job I've seen - I agree re the flicker etc - what are the frame rates of the original and the video you captured it with - it seems to me to be some kind of frame blending there

Well done though!

Scot

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:08 pm

Looks better than my last Workprinter transfer, I'm sorry to say.

Simple yet interesting subject matter. I like it. Obviously film shot with quality lenses and a proper camera for solid registration, but how come you didn't mount your video camera on a tripod?

Post by **mathis** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:25 pm

Scotness wrote:- what are the frame rates of the original and the video you captured it with - it seems to me to be some kind of frame blending there

Yes, thatÃ‚Â´s why it looks more soft than on the interlacing TV. Well, my projector runs only on 24fps, so I also shot on 24. The videocamera is set to 1/75s aperture time. Maybe I should modify my projector once to 25fps.

Post by **mathis** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:31 pm

Santo wrote:Looks better than my last Workprinter transfer, I'm sorry to say.

ThatÃ‚Â´s interesting, I was wondering if thatÃ‚Â´s possible. I like my method since it seems to capture the Super8 quality quite well. And I think some little flicker and hotspot adds to that. What I would love to improve is contrast and detail.

Santo wrote:Simple yet interesting subject matter. I like it. Obviously film shot with quality lenses and a proper camera for solid registration, but how come you didn't mount your video camera on a tripod?

Well, I used a tripod on some shots, but I only have a photo tripod without a fluid head. So when the apple moved fast, I prefered shooting with hand. Otherwise I get jolts, which are actually also there in this clip.
Looking again I see indeed some registration softness, but not the obvious ones I had two years ago when I was shooting with my Nizo.
My Beaulieu is quite freshly serviced by BjÃƒÂ¶rn Anderson and, well, it was worth it.

Post by **mathis** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:33 pm

Santo wrote: but how come you didn't mount your video camera on a tripod?

Now I see what you have written. :lol: Of course I have mounted the Video camera on a tripod! The shakes are in the Super8.

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:50 pm

It's me who misread your post!

I thought you were refering to your video camera and not your Beaulieu. I need to make some coffee this morning and wake up...

My transfer was poor because the guy was just learning how to do them I think and working out the bugs. It wasn't aligned properly, and the camera was set on autoexposure. I've had decent workprinter transfers and it's an okay system when set up properly with a good camera. However, I must agree that I like the "feel" of your clip.

Post by **Sparky** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:08 am

That was filmed off a wall? Looks really good apart from the pulsating which isnt that bad. I didn't notice the hotspot so bad- more a little vignetting . What resolution is that camera?- I couldn't find anything on the net about it except replacement batteries.
I hope to start experimenting with my own transfer system this weekend if I can find the time- have the capture card now thanks to a kind member of this forum and am intrigued as to what results I can get from the 3CCD medical camera I picked up.

Mark

Post by **scottbobo2** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:00 am

That is an excellent transfer! It really captures the beauty of shooting on film.I didnt notice any hotspot at all, this shows that off the wall ,when done right is a viable way of creating a digital copy

Post by **mathis** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:28 pm

Thanks again, guys.

The vignetting you probably mean the projector in the low left corner, right? It disappears on the TV (underscan).

The Sony VX1-E you sometimes find on ebay. ItÃ‚Â´s one the most professional Hi8 cams Sony built. The resolution of the CCDs I donÃ‚Â´t know, probably only the size of a videoframe.