Had an idea about a new scanner

[MovieStuff]

I've been long thinking about a new form of WorkPrinter that would be a sort of table top model capable of handling only the 50 foot reels. It wouldn't be fast but it would have a small camera built in that imaged directly off the film. Now, while cheap color cameras don't have terrific color or very good resolution, black and white cameras usually have superior resolution and an extended grey scale, compared to color cameras of the same calibre.

What I propose is a WorkPrinter with a built in black and white camera and RGB color wheel to break the image into color separations. Three black and white video frames would be taken of each film frame; one for red, one for green and one for blue. Special software would allow a preview of playback in black and white of just one of the separations, just to check motion. The frames would be combined into a color image when the file is rendered out with the appropriate speed change.

Now, here's the really cool part: Since the images haven't been combined into a final AVI, the color could be controlled with slider bars as red, blue and green adjustments. A preview window would show the final color for one frame and markers would let you make color and density adjustments on a cut by cut basis, frame accurate.

So the idea is that you would make the initial "scan" of the film and then work out all your color and density adjustments and then render. Because the camera is imaging directly off the film, and in black and white separations, the image should be reallllly sharp and because you are working with color components, the contrast and color fidelity should be outstanding.

At least in theory....

I see the unit looking a lot like the little tape recorders in the old Mission Impossible show. It would take about an hour per 50 foot reel to scan but the results should be pretty nifty.

Roger

[DriveIn]

Well hurry up about it, I'm waiting to see it.

Could part out a tabletop film editor, old tape dictation recorder, and be on the way....

How do you handle the focus for having the camera close? Most of these cameras seem to have need for some distance....

[wahiba]

While the 50' reel concept is fine for current super-8 users, there is probably still a large untapped market of old family films that individuals might wish to transpose using a computer and their digital camcorder. Most of these films will be on 200' and 400' reels.

Obviously the WorkPrinter concept does not require a projector. An intermittent mechanism with a suitable light source and a means of obtaining the image directly off the gate.

I would think more in terms of a device a bit like an editing viewer with arms capable of holding 400' reels. The film is flat with the light source underneath and a fixture for having the camera looking down onto the gate. whether or not an intermediate lens is reuired would depend on the lens on the camcorder.

There are big changes taking place on the camcorder scene, DVD recording, hard drive recording, even solid state recording. Some might even have the capability to be connected directly to the WorkPrinter taking a sequence of still shots onto the hard drive/solid state memory.

I have just read of a Samsung Gadget, 1.5GB hard drive to store still images, motion pictures, music, other audio and data files. Only a 10X optical zoom but all this a little larger than a packet of cigarettes and available in the UK next month for 699GBP. It might not be the best but is certainly the way things are going.

I have not felt the need to acquire a tape based digital camcorder, but new style devices like this are looking attractive.

[MovieStuff]

[quote="wahiba"]While the 50' reel concept is fine for current super-8 users, there is probably still a large untapped market of old family films that individuals might wish to transpose using a computer and their digital camcorder. Most of these films will be on 200' and 400' reels.
/quote]

This isn't really aimed at the home movie market. I already sell tons of the WorkPrinter and CineMate units to cover that. This is strictly an item for the type of people on this forum that digitize their own movies, want convenience and high quality, but aren't concerned about speed. Basically, your own mini-Rank sort of thing. I think it would be cute.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

While the 50' reel concept is fine for current super-8 users, there is probably still a large untapped market of old family films that individuals might wish to transpose using a computer and their digital camcorder. Most of these films will be on 200' and 400' reels.

This isn't really aimed at the home movie market. I already sell tons of the WorkPrinter and CineMate units to cover that. This is strictly an item for the type of people on this forum that digitize their own movies, want convenience and high quality, but aren't concerned about speed. Basically, your own mini-Rank sort of thing. I think it would be cute.

Roger

[Petteri]

That sounds nice Do you have some price estimates already?

For me it would be just perfect, i mean for personal use. I don't have time to do tranfering service etc. I don't have dv cam so with WP i would need to buy one as well...

Anyway we are quite lucky here in Finland, because we have Jukka and Atte here. Those guys are doing great work with their WP's. And there is more to come..... So i'm not so hurry to get my own transfering machine.

[MovieStuff]

That sounds nice Do you have some price estimates already?

Nah, just daydreaming.

Anyway we are quite lucky here in Finland, because we have Jukka and Atte here. Those guys are doing great work with their WP's. And there is more to come

Yes, it's a veritable "WorkPrinter Syndicate" over there. 8)

Roger

[Santo]

sounds absolutely fantastic! A dream!

[LastQuark]

Sounds fantastic!

- no huge lens issues
- no light distribution and reflection issues
- portable
- no need for bulky projection unit
- direct-to-film shot
- very easily to digitally manipulate
- cheap with a b&w camera

If this exist, super 8 will be hot again!

[Paul L.]

I don't see the need for a B&W camera with a color wheel. The color wheel would reduce the quality of the scan (due to non-flat gels, etc.). I don't have a problem with the quality of the color reproduction of desktop scanners, and I don't see how scanning super8 film would differ. Digital photography suffers from poor white balance, flaring, fringing, etc., but this would not be a problem with a uniform light source. Color CCD would make this a lot simpler.

Roger, would it be possible to construct such a device around the guts of a projector's pull-down claw mechanism?

[MovieStuff]

I don't see the need for a B&W camera with a color wheel. The color wheel would reduce the quality of the scan (due to non-flat gels, etc.).

True IF you put the color wheel between the film and the camera. I would put between the light source and the film. Filtering the light source is always better and doing so will not affect the quality of the transfer at all.

I don't have a problem with the quality of the color reproduction of desktop scanners, and I don't see how scanning super8 film would differ.

Desktop scanners just don't have the resolution to accomodate such a tiny frame and the time and wear on such a scanner would make it short lived. We're talking thousands and thousands of frames. I'm not sure the life expectancy of a typical home scanner is even rated at a thousand scans. Even if it were, the last scan would certainly look different than the first scan and the drift would be evident over the duration of the footage on playback, I think.

Digital photography suffers from poor white balance, flaring, fringing, etc., but this would not be a problem with a uniform light source. Color CCD would make this a lot simpler.

But at much greater expense to achieve the same quality. Using a black and white camera with a color wheel and breaking your image into color separations will achieve what you'd normaly have to pay mucho bucks for in a broadcast camera and, quite possibly, this could work even better because your registration between each color matrix would be perfect. Plus, you'd be able to work in the component mode, even though you are working in the DV codec, since each frame would be represented by three different color matrixes.

BTW: Desktop scanners employ CCDs, as well, so using them doesn't really avoid the CCD issue. In fact, desktop scanners use the cheapest CCD cameras they can get away with and channel the color in a very similar fashion to what I'm suggesting. No color wheel but the idea is pretty much the same. That's why they are so slow.

[christoph]

a very nice idea and i'd definitely be interested in such a device if it met the following:

- enlarged gate to scan super-duper8
- rock steady registration (or enlarged gate to see sproket hole for software stabilizing)
- having a white light channel to scan b/w film (or maybe you could also use only the one color channel with the least noise on the CCD?)
- multi pass scanning for noise reduction
- HD option
- Mac compatible

the nice thing about such a device is that you could render out a DV image for editing and later use the uncompressed tiff sequence for output to digibeta or print to film.

let us know when you got a prototype ;)
++ christoph ++

[studiocarter]

But that is what a 3ccd camera does; it takes one beam of light and splits it into 3 different ones, one for each chip. That would take 1/3 as long as one chip and 3 filters. It'd cost more, but time is money.
May as well add pin registration.
Michael

[MovieStuff]

But that is what a 3ccd camera does; it takes one beam of light and splits it into 3 different ones, one for each chip.

Ahh, but the difference is that a high resolution black and white camera is cheap while an equally high resolution color camera is quite prohibitively expensive. Also, having the colors recorded as black and white separations would allow more control over the picture prior to creating the final AVI.

Again, the idea isn't about speed because I don't see this as being used in a commercial setting. I see this as a tool for the independent film maker that wants quality in a compact and affordable package. I could see this working for 16mm as well.

Pin registration. Hmmmm. Not a bad idea.

Roger

[David M. Leugers]

Roger

Nice idea! I'm all for it. Screw the gel filters, use a set of nice glass filters for quality and longevity. I like the idea of more control of each color layer. More power to the basement film maker. 8)

David M. Leugers