Projectors with still frame advance function

[Mike Hannon]

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum and I must say I'm very glad I stumbled across an active discussion group for Super 8.

At the moment I've got a Eumig projector which is functional enough for transferring to digital video, but I am interested in trying it a different way. I would like to find a projector that can advance through the frames one by one, while photographing each frame with a digital still camera. This would offer uprecedented resolution, ability to correct keystoning and colour correction oppportunities (especially shooting in RAW).

Now I need to find a projector that can do this. I notice that some projectors are listed as featuring "still projection". What I want to know is this: does that mean that you can advance forward and back through the still frames, or does it just mean that you can stop at one frame, and then start playing at full speed again.

I know that a Chinon C-100, for example, has the ability to scroll through frames. There is one on ebay at the moment, but I imagine it will get quite expensive the way things are going with it and it only has a 50W bulb.

I am interested in the Sankyo Dualux 2000H, as I see it seems to be well regarded. This has a still projection function, but from squinting at low resolution photos of its controls, I can't figure out if or how you might advance through the frames.

I figure it would take about an hour's worth of constant clicking to do one reel, but I think the results would be really worth it. Any advice on suitable models?

[granfer]

Have you tried Googling " Amateur Telecine"?
There's a whole world of "frame by frame" transfer already out there for you to explore, and you don't have to do "an hour's constant clicking"!!!!

Granfer

[Mike Hannon]

Hi Granfer,

I don't want to use a video camera for telecine anymore. I want to use a digital photography camera as I am interested in the high resolution images it will produce and the scope it offers for exposure and colour correction in the RAW format.

My query is regarding the nature of still projection modes featured on many projectors. I want to know how this works as I don't have this facility on my current projector - does it mean that you can only "pause" the film, or does it also mean that you can advance on a frame by frame basis.

I know that some projectors have this facility to advance frame by frame. I am particularly interested in the Sankyo Dualux 2000H and would like to know if it has this ability.

If not, I'd be very grateful if you could advise what other models should I be considering?

[JhnZ33]

Mike, there are many examples of machines using digital still cameras for capture on the web. Do a search on youtube and you'll see quite a few of them.

Most, if not all, of the machines being used are "custom built" for the application to automate the capture process. I think you'll find it rare to find an "off the shelf" machine to "step through" each frame. You must also remember that a projecting beam of light packs a lot of heat and that leaving a frame stationary for too long may burn through the frame. Even if the machine has a "drop-in" heat filter, you'll lose a couple stops of exposure from the filter.

There are quite a few pitfalls in using a digital still camera for capturing film frame by frame. It has been discussed here before. I'm no expert, but the items that stick out in my memory were:

* Short shutter life
* Exposure variation between frames
* Long capture times
* Huge files to work with
* Long processing times

John

[MovieStuff]

Hi All,

I would like to find a projector that can advance through the frames one by one, while photographing each frame with a digital still camera......

There are no factory made 8mm projectors that will do what you want. You will have to modify a projector and replace the lamp with an LED or super low temp light source.

I figure it would take about an hour's worth of constant clicking to do one reel...

Most cameras require a couple of seconds to write to the flash card and to also prevent the imaging sensor from over heating. Also, you will get inherent exposure changes from frame to frame unless you use longer exposures of about 2 seconds or more and lock the iris open or disable the telemetry inside the lens that controls the iris. These exposure differences are not visible by looking at consecutive images side by side but, in an animation sequence, they will cause a slight flashing. Longer exposures will negate this effect but if the iris is still in the auto mode, you may find it never closes exactly the same from frame to frame which can cause slight swelling and contracting of the image as your DOF changes randomly. Also, SLRs have a shutter life of about 150,00 exposures. Realistically, they will last longer but you will start to get noticible changes in exposure long before you reach that point. Again, longer exposure times will help extend that viable lifespan for the shutter because the longer the exposure, the less any slop in the mechanics will make a difference. Since there are about 28,800 frames in a 400 foot roll, you might need a new camera every five 400 foot rolls, so you might want to consider getting several of the same model at one time, in case they stop making that model by the time you wear out the first camera!

At any rate, there are about 3,600 frames in a 50 foot roll of Super 8 film. With the iris locked and an average of about 5 seconds per frame, which is reasonable to allow for consistent exposure and adequate write time per frame, you'd be looking at about 5 hours of capture time for 50 feet and about 40 hours or a 400 foot reel. If the camera is on auto exposure by way of altering the duration of each capture, then that time could be longer, if you have darker scenes that require longer exposure times. You might want to consider automation of some kind or get a splint for your index finger. ;)

Roger

[granfer]

Just remember that there is a fairly low limit to the resoluion needed to capture Regular 8, Super 8 and even 16 mm. Anything over 2-3 Mp will not produce any improvement in the result, so a Machine Vision Camera (which is essentially a still camera that can be triggered from a projector modified for frame-by-frame and saves in Bitmap or other formats using the supplied software), is MORE than adequate. See Videofred's web pages and his (and others's) multitude of posts on this Forum.
Such a camera can work at higher speeds than CineCap or Capturemate can (no disrespect Roger, your new machines with the new software do also) and avoid the wear and shortened life that a manually operated standard Digital Still camera would suffer from such use.
In other words, automate the projector for "single frame" operation, let it control the camera electronically, let the software assemble the Bitmap file, edit it if required in normal edit software....... and save both your finger and the expensive Digital SLR. The result will be as good as you can possibly get.

Granfer

[Mike Hannon]

Thanks John, Roger and Granfer for your replies,

I'm not too worried about shutter life, as I would be shooting from live view - although sensor overheating may become an issue. Although with my model, the Canon 5D Mark II, I believe it will shut down if the sensor gets too hot.

Maintaining constant exposure should not be an issue with the camera on manual settings. I have just shot 6000 frames for an animation project I'm working on in very low light and haven't noticed any exposure fluctuations beyond that due to the scene lighting.
Roger, in your reply you refer to aperture variance across multiple shots - would this occur even with the aperture electronically set in manual mode? If so, one solution would be to use a lens with a manual aperture ring (such as older Nikon lenses) to negate any fluctuations caused by the aperture closing down for a shot and opening fully again before the next.

If shutter speed is an issue, I can bump the ISO. Some of the scenes in my animation project (which admittedly were supposed to look dark) were shot in candlelight with an ISO of around 400 to 800, yielding a shutter speed of less than 1 second.

Image write speed is quite decent with the 5D, although one issue I hadn't considered until now is the amount of memory cards I would need to store 3600 images - although there is a 6MP mode on the camera.

My biggest concern is potential damage to the film through burning it. So am I correct in saying that even if a projector has a heat filter, I would have to replace it with an LED bulb? If so, are these easy to come by?

Thanks again for your responses.

[dave]

THERE IS ONE PROJECTOR THAT WAS MANUFACTURED BY KODAK MANY YEARS AGO KNOWN AS THE MFS 8 .THE UNIT HAS A REMOTE CONTROL AND WILL ALLOW FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF 1 FRAME AT A TIME IN FULL LIGHT. NO
HEAT GLASS IS USED AND IT HAS A BUILT IN COOLING SYSTEM WHICH PREVENTS THE FILM FROM FROM BURNING . IF INTERESTED LET ME KNOW.
PRICE IS $495 PLUS SHIPPING AND INSURANCE
DAVE

[granfer]

Doesn't need to be LED; I use 12v 10 or 20W halogen capsule bulbs. Dirt cheap and a nice white light.

Granfer

[sciolist]

Contemporary with the Kodak model MFS 8, the Lafayette Super 8 motion analysis projector model AAP-900 also offered frame-by-frame operation. Two deluxe variants were available - the AAP-901 fitted with a five-digit resettable frame counter and the AAP-902 fitted with the frame counter and featuring "calibrated" frame rates of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 18 frames/second. These projectors retailed for $465.00, $575.00, and $895.00 in 1972.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Using 6 megapixel resolutions (or even higher) is a totally useless waste of resolution. The original images doesen´t have any details that would make these resolutions logical.

By all means, you could do a 20 megapixel capture from the 8mm filmframe too, and you won´t get any better images or more details than you would with a camera with much lower resolution.

[JhnZ33]

Doesn't need to be LED; I use 12v 10 or 20W halogen capsule bulbs. Dirt cheap and a nice white light.

Granfer

Unless I'm misreading Mike's post, it sounds as though he will be trying to capture a "projected" image, hence the issue of heat from projecting. Changing the lamp to a 10 or 20 watt variety most likely won't project very well any more.

Also, with the high resolution of the camera he'll be using, he'll probably pick up the texture of the surface the image is being projected on.

JP

[Mike Hannon]

Uppsala,

you are correct in stating that 6MP is a waste of resolution. However the supposition that it is totally useless is totally incorrect.

You seem not to have understood my intent in considering this method of telecine. If you are interested, I would refer you to the last sentence of the second paragraph of my original post.

[granfer]

This would offer uprecedented resolution, ability to correct keystoning and colour correction oppportunities (especially shooting in RAW).

Three considerations....
1. "unprecendented resolution". That's already been shown to be "over the top".
2. " ability to correct keystoning". Not needed if you capture direct from the gate (i.e on the optical axis), an obvious method for the best quality. See Videofred, and others.
3. "colour correction opportunities". Most machine vision camera software can adjust this at capture, and many post capture processing software packages and plug-ins can also do this on many formats. See also Videofred, and others.

You seem to be fixated on HAVING to use your Digital SLR, (and a possibly expensive projector) and a screen, when other much simpler and economical solutions are available and well proven.

Still, it's your money!!!

Granfer

[MovieStuff]

No matter how sharp the projection lens is, there is no comparison to shooting right off the emulsion. So the biggest problem with shooting off a screen is that one is, essentially, copying colored shadows and not the actual, original film frame. While this can work pretty well for standard def, DIY movie transfers for quick viewing, it is a less than ideal way to "archive" footage, especially if one is going to be then putting a lot of work into restoration and manipulation of the final imagery. In my opinion, it would seem a waste of resolution to use a megapixel digital still camera to copy an image projected onto a screen. The loss of resolution would probably negate any advantages to using such a high res imaging device.

On the other hand, if the desire is to archive the "living room home movie experience", with projection anomalies and all, then copying frame by frame from a projection screen with a digital still camera would certainly do the trick! But I'm not sure that is the intent here.

At any rate, good luck with your project!

Roger