Discussion:
converting cine film
Add Reply
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-02 07:48:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD
was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made me
wonder:

What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new
for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.)

I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have
the projectors (-:!

I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do
you just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen? I
can't think of any other way, but can see lots of problems: not only
optical (getting things lined up, do you use a large or small image, do
you actually shoot from the opposite side of the screen, do you even do
something odd like projecting directly onto the sensor), but matters of
sync: IIRR (silent) standard 8 used 16 frames per second and super 8 18
[I think 24 for sound film], which don't map well to the 24 or 25 of
"PAL" or the 30 of NTSC which the video camera is likely to be (I'm in
"PAL"-land) - especially as most projectors actually cut the beam twice
per frame to reduce flicker?

What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive)
high/main street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_
just use a projector/camera setup? I can see that the best possible
method would use a telecine machine like the broadcasters use (which
does not use intermittent-motion), but I very much doubt most shops
offering "conversion" services have anything like that.

So, generally - what are people's thoughts/experiences?

Just a random thought triggered by the VHS discussion; I don't
anticipate doing it any time soon - a project for retirement. (Though
thinking about it now, there may be slightly more urgency than I'd
assumed if I'm going to do it using my old projectors, as the longer I
leave it there's always increasing chance that belts may have perished
or similar, if they haven't already [I was going to say or electronics
degraded - capacitors dried out etc. - but I don't think there _is_ any
electronics in my old projectors, certainly not the old Russian OMO
wheezer for the standard 8!].)

(A sign that it's time to think about it: my spelling checker doesn't
know "cine"! [And yes I know it really should have an accent.] I came
across a .sig or similar on similar lines - something like "You know
you're old when you type VCR and the spelling checker wants to change it
to vicar.")

P. S.: I say the standard 8 was 16 frames per second, though only
roughly: it was a clockwork camera! Virtually the same as the Zapruder
one, in fact it may even be the same model; not that I'm that old!, but
that was what a schoolboy in the 70s in England could afford. But it was
_fairly_ steady in speed, and I'd be happy to accept a fixed rate for
the conversion, especially as there's no sound.

P. P. S: At least when well lit, cine film - even 8mm, especially super
8 (which used more of the film width) - was capable of better-than-SD
resolution, though I'll probably not worry too much about that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Paul
2017-07-02 13:22:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new
for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have
the projectors (-:!
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do
you just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen? I
can't think of any other way, but can see lots of problems: not only
optical (getting things lined up, do you use a large or small image, do
you actually shoot from the opposite side of the screen, do you even do
something odd like projecting directly onto the sensor), but matters of
sync: IIRR (silent) standard 8 used 16 frames per second and super 8 18
[I think 24 for sound film], which don't map well to the 24 or 25 of
"PAL" or the 30 of NTSC which the video camera is likely to be (I'm in
"PAL"-land) - especially as most projectors actually cut the beam twice
per frame to reduce flicker?
What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive)
high/main street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_
just use a projector/camera setup? I can see that the best possible
method would use a telecine machine like the broadcasters use (which
does not use intermittent-motion), but I very much doubt most shops
offering "conversion" services have anything like that.
So, generally - what are people's thoughts/experiences?
Just a random thought triggered by the VHS discussion; I don't
anticipate doing it any time soon - a project for retirement. (Though
thinking about it now, there may be slightly more urgency than I'd
assumed if I'm going to do it using my old projectors, as the longer I
leave it there's always increasing chance that belts may have perished
or similar, if they haven't already [I was going to say or electronics
degraded - capacitors dried out etc. - but I don't think there _is_ any
electronics in my old projectors, certainly not the old Russian OMO
wheezer for the standard 8!].)
(A sign that it's time to think about it: my spelling checker doesn't
know "cine"! [And yes I know it really should have an accent.] I came
across a .sig or similar on similar lines - something like "You know
you're old when you type VCR and the spelling checker wants to change it
to vicar.")
P. S.: I say the standard 8 was 16 frames per second, though only
roughly: it was a clockwork camera! Virtually the same as the Zapruder
one, in fact it may even be the same model; not that I'm that old!, but
that was what a schoolboy in the 70s in England could afford. But it was
_fairly_ steady in speed, and I'd be happy to accept a fixed rate for
the conversion, especially as there's no sound.
P. P. S: At least when well lit, cine film - even 8mm, especially super
8 (which used more of the film width) - was capable of better-than-SD
resolution, though I'll probably not worry too much about that.
You can find a thread on the topic.

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/8mm-film-to-dvd-transfer-do-it-yourself.38847/

Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-02 17:02:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to
DVD was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
[]
Post by Paul
You can find a thread on the topic.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/8mm-film-to-dvd-transfer-do-it-you
rself.38847/
Paul
Thanks for that.

It runs to 7 pages; I've just spent several hours reading page 1, which
took me from the original post (2002) up to about 2011 or 2012. Just
waiting for page 2 to load ... ah, it seems to be empty, as do pages 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7.

Certainly an interesting page 1 though! (And interesting how many -
though a small proportion of the total - think we're talking about 8mm
videotapes, not 8mm film.) Back on page 1 now - the last post is
2012-8-23.

I see the word "telecine" has more interpretations than I'd thought: it
seems some machines with that name are in effect film viewers, using
rotating prisms or other mechanisms. (I had only come across it in
broadcast professional circles, where it means a machine that has a
_line_ rather than frame sensor, and scans smoothly-moving film.)
There's also frequent mention of "aerial transfer", without however
anyone saying what it actually means. (I _think_ they mean using a box
with a mirror in it rather than projecting onto a wall/screen and
videoing that.)

I'm intrigued by the guy using a flatbed scanner! But only links to his
results, not his method. Also in the camera that actually screws in
place of the projector lens, but that link no longer works (it was from
2011): http://www.easy-transfert.com/product.php?id_product=21,
apparently in France.

Has anyone here done this (capture of material on cine film - to
anything digital, i. e. DVD, hard disc, memory stick ...) recently?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Just as many people feel Christmas hasn't begun until they've heard the carols
at King's, or that the election campaign hasn't begun until some politician
lambasts the BBC ... - Eddie Mair, Radio Times 2013/11/16-22
Sjouke Burry
2017-07-02 20:20:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new
for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have
the projectors (-:!
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do
you just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen? I
can't think of any other way, but can see lots of problems: not only
optical (getting things lined up, do you use a large or small image, do
you actually shoot from the opposite side of the screen, do you even do
something odd like projecting directly onto the sensor), but matters of
sync: IIRR (silent) standard 8 used 16 frames per second and super 8 18
[I think 24 for sound film], which don't map well to the 24 or 25 of
"PAL" or the 30 of NTSC which the video camera is likely to be (I'm in
"PAL"-land) - especially as most projectors actually cut the beam twice
per frame to reduce flicker?
What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive)
high/main street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_
just use a projector/camera setup? I can see that the best possible
method would use a telecine machine like the broadcasters use (which
does not use intermittent-motion), but I very much doubt most shops
offering "conversion" services have anything like that.
So, generally - what are people's thoughts/experiences?
Just a random thought triggered by the VHS discussion; I don't
anticipate doing it any time soon - a project for retirement. (Though
thinking about it now, there may be slightly more urgency than I'd
assumed if I'm going to do it using my old projectors, as the longer I
leave it there's always increasing chance that belts may have perished
or similar, if they haven't already [I was going to say or electronics
degraded - capacitors dried out etc. - but I don't think there _is_ any
electronics in my old projectors, certainly not the old Russian OMO
wheezer for the standard 8!].)
(A sign that it's time to think about it: my spelling checker doesn't
know "cine"! [And yes I know it really should have an accent.] I came
across a .sig or similar on similar lines - something like "You know
you're old when you type VCR and the spelling checker wants to change it
to vicar.")
P. S.: I say the standard 8 was 16 frames per second, though only
roughly: it was a clockwork camera! Virtually the same as the Zapruder
one, in fact it may even be the same model; not that I'm that old!, but
that was what a schoolboy in the 70s in England could afford. But it was
_fairly_ steady in speed, and I'd be happy to accept a fixed rate for
the conversion, especially as there's no sound.
P. P. S: At least when well lit, cine film - even 8mm, especially super
8 (which used more of the film width) - was capable of better-than-SD
resolution, though I'll probably not worry too much about that.
You can find a thread on the topic.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/8mm-film-to-dvd-transfer-do-it-yourself.38847/
Paul
A neigbour went to a shop with his films spools and had them converted.
Prisetag was about 300 dollar.
VanguardLH
2017-07-02 19:07:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD
was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made me
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still
have the projectors (-:!
As noted in the W7 group in my reply, and only if you're willing to pay
more for someone else to do the conversion instead of you having to buy
the hardware and software and learn through trial and error, the Costco
photo center will do conversion from reel to DVD. Walgreens will
convert tapes but they don't list reels. Having someone else do it
means you can check their work was correct before paying but the cost
goes up by whatever is the "certain amount" of reels you need to
convert.

There are other places to do the conversion but some seem rather pricey.
http://www.homemoviedepot.com/ advertizes they will convert whatever you
can fit into a FedEx medium-size box for $300. Uffdah. That's costly
for just one large reel but then you can probably shove in a whole bunch
of those 8mm palm-sized reels. However, Costco only quotes "starting at
$19.99" so until you present them with what you want them to convert
then you don't know what they will really charge.

Pointing a digital camera (to record video) at a screen where you
projected the film would be the worst way to convert. The conversion
machines that I remember reading projected the film onto a CCD panel
that did the recording. It was all inside the "projector". Also
remember that your eyes are melding the frames together. A digital
camera pointing at a screen would capture all the flicker between frames
on the film and the framing within the video might not match.

I doubt you have the inclination to learn or the money to buy a
Rank-Cintel film-to-tape machine. It's a behemoth that occupies a room
and costs $150K (for a used price). Guess they got cheaper since about
2005 and are now /only/ $90K. Choke choke. That's what the movie
industry uses to move their movies from film (that deteriorates) to
video to store on more stable media.

https://www.videomaker.com/article/c10/10486-how-to-transfer-8mm-16mm-35mm-or-65mm-film-to-video-tape-or-dvd
(quite a bit less than "7 pages")
pjp
2017-07-02 20:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD
was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made me
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still
have the projectors (-:!
As noted in the W7 group in my reply, and only if you're willing to pay
more for someone else to do the conversion instead of you having to buy
the hardware and software and learn through trial and error, the Costco
photo center will do conversion from reel to DVD. Walgreens will
convert tapes but they don't list reels. Having someone else do it
means you can check their work was correct before paying but the cost
goes up by whatever is the "certain amount" of reels you need to
convert.
There are other places to do the conversion but some seem rather pricey.
http://www.homemoviedepot.com/ advertizes they will convert whatever you
can fit into a FedEx medium-size box for $300. Uffdah. That's costly
for just one large reel but then you can probably shove in a whole bunch
of those 8mm palm-sized reels. However, Costco only quotes "starting at
$19.99" so until you present them with what you want them to convert
then you don't know what they will really charge.
Pointing a digital camera (to record video) at a screen where you
projected the film would be the worst way to convert. The conversion
machines that I remember reading projected the film onto a CCD panel
that did the recording. It was all inside the "projector". Also
remember that your eyes are melding the frames together. A digital
camera pointing at a screen would capture all the flicker between frames
on the film and the framing within the video might not match.
I doubt you have the inclination to learn or the money to buy a
Rank-Cintel film-to-tape machine. It's a behemoth that occupies a room
and costs $150K (for a used price). Guess they got cheaper since about
2005 and are now /only/ $90K. Choke choke. That's what the movie
industry uses to move their movies from film (that deteriorates) to
video to store on more stable media.
https://www.videomaker.com/article/c10/10486-how-to-transfer-8mm-16mm-35mm-or-65mm-film-to-video-tape-or-dvd
(quite a bit less than "7 pages")
If you can get the output to SVGA or Composite then the easiest way by
far is simply connect playback device to a hardware dvd recorder. Older
gear usually has that feature. I have a combo DVD/VCR hooked up to my
hardware DVD recorder as part and parcel of larger entertainmenet
system. I've easily converted VHS to DVD without issue with acceptable
quality given source quality. Same with the odd copy protected dvd I've
encountered I couldn't find any way to rip so copied it instead the old
slow way :) Pain in butt when forced to do that but it works 100% of the
time regardless of copy protection; else it won't play in dvd player so
they have to accept that one can do that.

Only complaint I have is that my dvd recorder only "sees" DVD+R disks
which seem harder to find then DVD-R disks. It was < $100 more than a
few years ago now so no complaints given it plays many pc formats video
natively, e.g. avi, mpg etc. I have a supply of DVD+RW's I usually use
to record and then I copy that disk using a pc to a normal DVD-R disk
(which is lossless so doesn't really matter other then few minutes
longer).

To original poster, you only have a couple of vcr tapes then look at
email and figure out reply, come visit and I'd do them for free. Note -
it'll take at least as long as tapes are plus time for introductions,
setup etc. so might instead want to leave them and come back, Also note
- I'm hour outside town in Musq. Valley area.
VanguardLH
2017-07-02 20:55:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pjp
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
If you can get the output to SVGA or Composite then the easiest way by
far is simply connect playback device to a hardware dvd recorder.
That's like saying your flashlight has RCA ports for SVGA or composite.
Really?

There are *film* projectors with RCA connectors? Never saw one.
Neglecting the audio component and just looking at the video components,
projectors have a bulb aka lamp, shutter, sprockets to position and halt
each film frame behind the lens, and motor to move the film and
mechanical parts.

To what logic or circuitry would the RCA ports connect in a film
projector? The projector doesn't itself capture the image. It's just
shining a light through the film.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-projector1.htm


I very much doubt Gilliver has a projector with an internal CCD screen
to capture the image and output to signal connectors instead of
projecting the modified light to a screen. If he had one of those, he
would definitely remember having one and not have asked about how to
convert film to video.

Maybe you forgot Gilliver was asking how to convert *film* to video, not
about converting VHS tapes to video/disc.
pjp
2017-07-02 23:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by pjp
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
If you can get the output to SVGA or Composite then the easiest way by
far is simply connect playback device to a hardware dvd recorder.
That's like saying your flashlight has RCA ports for SVGA or composite.
Really?
There are *film* projectors with RCA connectors? Never saw one.
Neglecting the audio component and just looking at the video components,
projectors have a bulb aka lamp, shutter, sprockets to position and halt
each film frame behind the lens, and motor to move the film and
mechanical parts.
To what logic or circuitry would the RCA ports connect in a film
projector? The projector doesn't itself capture the image. It's just
shining a light through the film.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-projector1.htm
http://youtu.be/En__V0oEJsU
I very much doubt Gilliver has a projector with an internal CCD screen
to capture the image and output to signal connectors instead of
projecting the modified light to a screen. If he had one of those, he
would definitely remember having one and not have asked about how to
convert film to video.
Maybe you forgot Gilliver was asking how to convert *film* to video, not
about converting VHS tapes to video/disc.
You know exactly what was meant, e.g. vcr's, dvd players, reel-to-reel,
camcorder units etc. etc. I was under impression original post was about
8Mm tapes and those players provided suitable outputs.

Of course FILM doesn't provide any type of output except light without
something special as an extra. You just want to "I dunno what?".
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-03 00:35:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by pjp
Post by VanguardLH
Maybe you forgot Gilliver was asking how to convert *film* to video, not
about converting VHS tapes to video/disc.
You know exactly what was meant, e.g. vcr's, dvd players, reel-to-reel,
camcorder units etc. etc. I was under impression original post was about
8Mm tapes and those players provided suitable outputs.
I did include the words "cine film" in the subject line.
Post by pjp
Of course FILM doesn't provide any type of output except light without
something special as an extra. You just want to "I dunno what?".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If, after hearing my songs, just one human being is inspired to say something
nasty to a friend, or perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been
worth the while. - Liner notes, "Songs & More Songs By Tom Lehrer", Rhino
Records, 1997.
VanguardLH
2017-07-03 03:50:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pjp
Post by VanguardLH
Post by pjp
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
If you can get the output to SVGA or Composite then the easiest way by
far is simply connect playback device to a hardware dvd recorder.
That's like saying your flashlight has RCA ports for SVGA or composite.
Really?
There are *film* projectors with RCA connectors? Never saw one.
Neglecting the audio component and just looking at the video components,
projectors have a bulb aka lamp, shutter, sprockets to position and halt
each film frame behind the lens, and motor to move the film and
mechanical parts.
To what logic or circuitry would the RCA ports connect in a film
projector? The projector doesn't itself capture the image. It's just
shining a light through the film.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-projector1.htm
http://youtu.be/En__V0oEJsU
I very much doubt Gilliver has a projector with an internal CCD screen
to capture the image and output to signal connectors instead of
projecting the modified light to a screen. If he had one of those, he
would definitely remember having one and not have asked about how to
convert film to video.
Maybe you forgot Gilliver was asking how to convert *film* to video, not
about converting VHS tapes to video/disc.
You know exactly what was meant, e.g. vcr's, dvd players, reel-to-reel,
camcorder units etc. etc. I was under impression original post was about
8Mm tapes and those players provided suitable outputs.
In the other thread in the Win7 newsgroup, that OP only wanted the audio
because his friend is blind. So audio outputs from a film projector
would work if the projector had those outputs. Yes, I know what you
meant but you forget THIS discussion was about converting film - both
video and audio. Reel-to-reel is just audio tape, not film. Camcorders
combine a video camera with a videocassette recorder. Those don't use
film. They started out using tape and then to flash memory. 8mm audio
tapes is not what Gilliver asked about. He has some 8mm film reels (and
why he added "cine" to his description).

8mm audio tape:
http://tinyurl.com/y7ruf4ln

8mm film:
http://tinyurl.com/y7ububnf
Post by pjp
Of course FILM doesn't provide any type of output except light without
something special as an extra.
You're back on track. Film, as in photographic film with frames of
images and an audio track on the side. Not [audio] tape.
Post by pjp
You just want to "I dunno what?".
It's now my fault that you misunderstood? Uh huh.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-02 21:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD
was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made me
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still
have the projectors (-:!
As noted in the W7 group in my reply, and only if you're willing to pay
more for someone else to do the conversion instead of you having to buy
the hardware and software and learn through trial and error, the Costco
photo center will do conversion from reel to DVD. Walgreens will
I don't _think_ either of those have branches in the UK.
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Pointing a digital camera (to record video) at a screen where you
projected the film would be the worst way to convert. The conversion
But - with various refinements - is what most people seem to do, some of
them with results they're happy with. The main problem seems to be what
they mostly call "flicker", which I take to be the sync.ing problem.
Post by VanguardLH
machines that I remember reading projected the film onto a CCD panel
that did the recording. It was all inside the "projector". Also
remember that your eyes are melding the frames together. A digital
camera pointing at a screen would capture all the flicker between frames
on the film and the framing within the video might not match.
They mainly seek a variable speed projector, so they can set to 16 2/3
(EU) or 20 (NTSC). I'd have assumed there would still eventually be a
sybc/flicker problem. You'd still get it with direct projection onto the
CCD (which would be achievable anyway with a camera if you could take
the lens off), unless there was some electronic locking of the scanning
to the mechanicals.
Post by VanguardLH
I doubt you have the inclination to learn or the money to buy a
Rank-Cintel film-to-tape machine. It's a behemoth that occupies a room
and costs $150K (for a used price). Guess they got cheaper since about
2005 and are now /only/ $90K. Choke choke. That's what the movie
industry uses to move their movies from film (that deteriorates) to
video to store on more stable media.
I know (a branch of the company I used to work for also used to make
such "true telecine" as I think of it machines); they don't have a frame
sensor, just a line sensor, and don't move the film in jerks. As you
say, I'd assumed the price would be prohibitive, and I hadn't thought
about the space. (Though I think console rather than room size, but
still BIG.)
Post by VanguardLH
https://www.videomaker.com/article/c10/10486-how-to-transfer-8mm-16mm-35
mm-or-65mm-film-to-video-tape-or-dvd
(quite a bit less than "7 pages")
Pity it's a long sheet of black when viewed in my preferred browser.
Views OK in Chrome, but doesn't really tell me more than I had already
figured out, combined with a touching faith that if you contact the
professionals to ask them technical questions about their process,
you'll get a sensible answer. (In UK in 2017, you'd most likely get no
answer at all; if not that, you'd get an answer full of platitudes
written by someone who has no clue technically; if not that, you might
get a rude answer.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Look, if it'll help you to do what I tell you, baby, imagine that I've got a
blaster ray in my hand." "Uh - you _have_ got a blaster ray in your hand." "So
you shouldn't have to tax your imagination too hard." (Link episode)
Paul
2017-07-02 22:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by VanguardLH
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD
was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made me
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still
have the projectors (-:!
As noted in the W7 group in my reply, and only if you're willing to pay
more for someone else to do the conversion instead of you having to buy
the hardware and software and learn through trial and error, the Costco
photo center will do conversion from reel to DVD. Walgreens will
I don't _think_ either of those have branches in the UK.
[]
Post by VanguardLH
Pointing a digital camera (to record video) at a screen where you
projected the film would be the worst way to convert. The conversion
But - with various refinements - is what most people seem to do, some of
them with results they're happy with. The main problem seems to be what
they mostly call "flicker", which I take to be the sync.ing problem.
I've heard of this procedure, but because the frame rates are different
in your case, I don't know what it would be called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3:2_pulldown

Someone using Final Cut Pro was fooling around with that
sort of approach.

"Q: adding pulldown to 8mm film from 18fps -> 24fps"
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1750712?tstart=0

Paul
VanguardLH
2017-07-03 04:17:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
the Costco photo center will do conversion from reel to DVD
I don't _think_ either of those have branches in the UK.
I just did a Google search to find those. Google probably used
geolocation on my IP address to skew search results to those in my area.
If an online search doesn't find you any local stores to do the
conversion, the search will point you at mail-in service centers. I
already noted one of those but seems pricey to me.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Pointing a digital camera (to record video) at a screen where you
projected the film would be the worst way to convert. The conversion
But - with various refinements - is what most people seem to do, some of
them with results they're happy with. The main problem seems to be what
they mostly call "flicker", which I take to be the sync.ing problem.
The flicker is because the film halts a frame in front of the light and
behind the lens. The shutter on the projector blocks out the black area
between frames. Your eyes meld the frames (24 per second). The video
recording device has its own frame rate which likely does not match that
of the projector. Also, even if the video recorder has a 24 frame/sec
frame rate, it would not be sync with the projector. You won't get the
projector's frame rate in sync with the frame rate of the video recorder
(they'll be different rates) nor would you get the framing of the
projector to sync with the framing of the video recorder (if the
recorder framed at the same 24 frame/sec rate).
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
They mainly seek a variable speed projector, so they can set to 16 2/3
(EU) or 20 (NTSC). I'd have assumed there would still eventually be a
sybc/flicker problem.
Hadn't thought about changing the frame rate on the projector. Do you
have one of those?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
https://www.videomaker.com/article/c10/10486-how-to-transfer-8mm-16mm-35mm-or-65mm-film-to-video-tape-or-dvd
Pity it's a long sheet of black when viewed in my preferred browser.
Sounds like a problem with an adblocker or the blacklist(s) you
configured it to use. I can view that site using Firefox and Google
Chrome and both have uBlock Origin along with uMatrix (configured only
to block off-domain scripts). I have uBlock Origin configured to use
its own very short list of blocks along with the Fanboy Ultimate
blocklist which is EasyList+EasyPrivacy+Fanboy. I deselected all the
precompiled 'hosts' files in uBlock since those are way too aggressive
or too often off-target and cause too many problems at good sites.

I'm in the USA. Sometimes a site will restrict content based on
geolocation of IP address; i.e., they allow viewing only within their
preferred region. I know some BBC videos (usually sports) are off
limits to me from an USA-based IP address. Maybe the site doesn't want
UK folks reading their content - except you said Google Chrome worked.
Presumably you aren't using a proxy in one of your web browsers that
makes it look like it is in-region or, at least, not in a restricted
region blocked by the site.

Tis a problem with your preferred web browser and appropriate for
inquiry in a newsgroup or web forum that discusses that web browser. If
it's for Firefox, its newsgroup is mozilla.support.firefox on Mozilla's
server (news.mozilla.org, port 119).
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Views OK in Chrome, but doesn't really tell me more than I had already
figured out, combined with a touching faith that if you contact the
professionals to ask them technical questions about their process,
you'll get a sensible answer. (In UK in 2017, you'd most likely get no
answer at all; if not that, you'd get an answer full of platitudes
written by someone who has no clue technically; if not that, you might
get a rude answer.)
They probably point at the "professionals" because those are document
processing centers that can afford that super-expensive equipment to do
such conversions. All the home-brew solutions end up looking home
brewed hence crappy.
Nil
2017-07-02 22:11:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
Not that I have much to compare it to, but about 6 or 8 years ago I had
these guys convert about 20 minutes of old 8mm and super8 home movie
film to DVD. At the time, I thought their price was reasonable and the
quality of their work was good.

http://www.homemoviedepot.com/
Diesel
2017-07-02 23:00:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to
DVD was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally)
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
new for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still
shooting it.)
I've done it a few times. It requires specific hardware and a lot of
time that could be better spent doing other things. There's no real
money in this area to do it these days.
--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

"You, you, and you ... Panic. The rest of you, come with me."
- U.S. Marine Corp Gunnery Sgt.
John Dulak
2017-07-03 01:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD was in
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new for that
matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not sound, so
that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have the projectors (-:!
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you just
set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen? I can't think of
any other way, but can see lots of problems: not only optical (getting things
lined up, do you use a large or small image, do you actually shoot from the
opposite side of the screen, do you even do something odd like projecting
directly onto the sensor), but matters of sync: IIRR (silent) standard 8 used 16
frames per second and super 8 18 [I think 24 for sound film], which don't map
well to the 24 or 25 of "PAL" or the 30 of NTSC which the video camera is likely
to be (I'm in "PAL"-land) - especially as most projectors actually cut the beam
twice per frame to reduce flicker?
What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive) high/main
street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_ just use a
projector/camera setup? I can see that the best possible method would use a
telecine machine like the broadcasters use (which does not use
intermittent-motion), but I very much doubt most shops offering "conversion"
services have anything like that.
So, generally - what are people's thoughts/experiences?
Just a random thought triggered by the VHS discussion; I don't anticipate doing
it any time soon - a project for retirement. (Though thinking about it now,
there may be slightly more urgency than I'd assumed if I'm going to do it using
my old projectors, as the longer I leave it there's always increasing chance
that belts may have perished or similar, if they haven't already [I was going to
say or electronics degraded - capacitors dried out etc. - but I don't think
there _is_ any electronics in my old projectors, certainly not the old Russian
OMO wheezer for the standard 8!].)
(A sign that it's time to think about it: my spelling checker doesn't know
"cine"! [And yes I know it really should have an accent.] I came across a .sig
or similar on similar lines - something like "You know you're old when you type
VCR and the spelling checker wants to change it to vicar.")
P. S.: I say the standard 8 was 16 frames per second, though only roughly: it
was a clockwork camera! Virtually the same as the Zapruder one, in fact it may
even be the same model; not that I'm that old!, but that was what a schoolboy in
the 70s in England could afford. But it was _fairly_ steady in speed, and I'd be
happy to accept a fixed rate for the conversion, especially as there's no sound.
P. P. S: At least when well lit, cine film - even 8mm, especially super 8 (which
used more of the film width) - was capable of better-than-SD resolution, though
I'll probably not worry too much about that.
JP:

While I've never done this there IS a product that claims to do what you want in
a dedicated package for $300 US.

http://secure.mm5server.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=WD&Product_Code=F2DMM100&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1

http://www.wolverinedata.com/videos/mvp/F2DMovieMaker_V1.pdf

No idea what the quality is like.

HTH & GL

John

--
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-03 07:17:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <5959a088$0$51631$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com>, John
Dulak <***@Booogus.com> writes:
[]
(John, by the way)
Post by John Dulak
While I've never done this there IS a product that claims to do what
you want in a dedicated package for $300 US.
This looks most interesting. I've had good feedback from Wolverine on
their slide "scanners" (they actually answered my questions in a
sensible manner, re cropping and how to change it), though I've not
bought any so far.

This sounds good: frame-by-frame scanning, and it makes a video file for
you. (Pity it's to SD card _only_ [max. 32G], but that's they way they
prefer.)
Post by John Dulak
http://secure.mm5server.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=WD&Produ
ct_Code=F2DMM100&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1
_Somewhat_ confusing: "Image sensor: 3.53 Mega pixels (2304H x 1536V)
1/3" CMOS sensor", but "Resolution 720P"?!? In theory 720p is perhaps
the only downside I can see, in that good 8mm film is capable of better
than that, but in practice it probably wouldn't matter to me.
Post by John Dulak
http://www.wolverinedata.com/videos/mvp/F2DMovieMaker_V1.pdf
I see they've blanked out the "Resolution: 720p" line in the .pdf.
Post by John Dulak
No idea what the quality is like.
Workmanlike, I expect. Their slide "scanners" are in reality little
cameras, as are most but the really top-end ones from whatever name; I'm
curious to know whether this is a camera or a line scanner (I see no
sprocket feed in the pictures). Interesting that it goes at 30 fps; I
presume most software can slow down the result to the required (in my
case) 16 and 18. (I generally use Virtualdub, but have never had
occasion to see if it has a frame rate changer.)
Post by John Dulak
HTH & GL
John
Thanks; I wasn't aware of this device.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke
John Dulak
2017-07-03 11:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Workmanlike, I expect. Their slide "scanners" are in reality little cameras, as
are most but the really top-end ones from whatever name; I'm curious to know
whether this is a camera or a line scanner (I see no sprocket feed in the
pictures). Interesting that it goes at 30 fps; I presume most software can slow
down the result to the required (in my case) 16 and 18. (I generally use
Virtualdub, but have never had occasion to see if it has a frame rate changer.)
Post by John Dulak
HTH & GL
John
Thanks; I wasn't aware of this device.
John:

A 1/3 inch CCD would be just about 8mm. Perhaps this device uses the CCD to make
what amounts to a still image of each frame without using a lens. If they used
"edge finding" firmware they may not need sprockets. Some flatbed document
scanners can do this to find the edge of documents. This would yield a series of
still digital images that could be sequentially presented as a video. Since you
must set the controls to either 8mm or Super-8 the firmware probably knows what
the canonical frame rate is and may be able to use it in constructing the MP4.

A YouTube comparison of the results;



John


--
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-04 07:22:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by John Dulak
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Thanks; I wasn't aware of this device.
(Wolverine Moviemaker)
Post by John Dulak
A 1/3 inch CCD would be just about 8mm. Perhaps this device uses the
CCD to make what amounts to a still image of each frame without using a
Interesting; the digital equivalent of a contact print, i. e. the film
directly in contact with the sensor; interesting idea. Would have to
have a good compromise between ensuring good contact and not scratching
the film.
Post by John Dulak
lens. If they used "edge finding" firmware they may not need sprockets.
Some flatbed document scanners can do this to find the edge of
documents. This would yield a series of still digital images that could
be sequentially presented as a video. Since you must set the controls
to either 8mm or Super-8 the firmware probably knows what the canonical
frame rate is and may be able to use it in constructing the MP4.
Ah, I'd wondered about the 30 fps. Maybe that's just how fast it
processes, but the MP4 files are correct rate (i. e. it scans at nearly
twice real time).
Post by John Dulak
A YouTube comparison of the results;
http://youtu.be/vj9rApV_Yx4
Thanks, I'll have a look at that this evening,
Post by John Dulak
John
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-05 19:34:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I thought people might be interested in the reply I've just sent to
Wolverine in reply to their reply to some questions I asked:


Thanks for your speedy reply. I have a couple more questions (0a and 0b
below), plus some clarifications on some of the questions.

0a: I gather the XYW adjustment is only available on later models; is
there any way of telling which is being offered?

0b: is the "exposure control", whether auto or manual, purely
manipulation of the images/video files, or does it actually vary the
intensity of the light source (or some parameter of the camera)?
Hi,
1. The unit is only available in the US. Please, check B&H at
www.bandh.com for final cost to the UK.
Thanks; looks like $299.99 for the unit plus at least $46.51. Any
_plans_ to sell over here?
2. The included power supply works from 110 to 240V.
That would be OK, thanks.
3. The unit scan frame-by-frame at the rate of 2 frames per second. At
the end it generates one MP4 type of video file. Please, check the

I have; thanks for that.
4. It uses a camera lens on top with an LED light on the bottom to
shine light through the film without heat.
Is the zoom adjustment in instructions_to_adjustXYW.pdf purely
electronic, or does it actually move the lens? Also, I gather it still
misses about 10% of the film: any plans to fix that? I wouldn't mind if
it gets bits of adjacent frames - I'd tweak those afterwards.
5. 2304Hx1536V is the scanning resolution and then we merge the pixels
to 720P to reduce the graininess in the video due to the low resolution
of 8 or super 8 film.
I see. I've heard the compression is a bit vicious: any plans to either
offer low and high compression options (like a lot of stills cameras
do), or uncompressed? (Yes, I realise this would produce big files.)
This probably ties in with the answer to the above about the zoom: I
think a lot of people would just like the full 2304×1536 (I'm assuming
the zoom _is_ only electronic) raw data, to post-process on their
computers.
6. Currently there is no chips that can produce less than 30fps and for
that reason you slow down the playback using any computer video player.
For 8mm you reduce the speed to 60% and for super 8 to 80%.
By "chips" I presume you mean firmware. Not really a problem - as you
say, we can manipulate it afterwards - but it would be good if this was
considered for future firmware. Less important than the full-sensor-data
and lower (or no) compression, though.
7. The film is pulled from its sprocket holes. It is not a smooth
motion. It stops at each frame take an image and then proceed to the
next. It should not damage your film. However, thick splices may not
go through the machine where you have to stop recording move the film
away from the splice and re-start recording.
It wasn't damaging the film I was concerned about, but damaging the
machine - from F2DMovieMaker_V1.pdf: "Do not record/rewind the films if
they are broken, ruptured, misaligned, overlapped, gapped/perforated
holes, or bent. Improper operations can damage the device. Wolverine
Data is not responsible for consequential damages and warranty will be
void."
Thanks,
Wolverine Data
9939 Muirlands Blvd.
Irvine, CA 92618
949-458-9888 (M-F 9:00-5:00 PST)
On Jul 4, 2017, at 12:12 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John)
I am very interested in your standard/super 8 mm film to digital
1. Is it available (or going to be) in the UK? (I'm not worried about
it only having NTSC output for the TV; I'd be using computer file
anyway.)
2. If not, does its power supply accept 240V?
3. Is it intermittent-motion (i. e. moves the film in jerks), using a
full-frame sensor, or smooth motion using a line sensor like a
professional telecine machine?
4. Does it use a lens system, or just place the film directly on the
sensor? (Each would have its advantages.)
5. On
http://secure.mm5server.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=WD&Prod
uct_Code=F2DMM100&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1
, you mention "Image sensor: 3.53 Mega pixels (2304H x 1536V) 1/3"
CMOS sensor", but also "Resolution 720P"; which is it? (I see that in
the .pdf, the 720P line has been blanked out.)
6. It says "frame rate 30 frames", but are the MP4 files actually 16
(standard 8) or 18 (super) as is appropriate, i. e. it just converts
at about twice-real-time?
7. Does it use sprocket wheels to feed the film, or smooth ones? I am
a bit puzzled about the warning in the .pdf that damaged film might
damage it.
Thanking you in advance.
--
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.
--
J. P. Gilliver
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-05 20:24:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Wolverine replied almost straight away! (Though only to my completely
new questions.) Here's my reply to that reply (I've trimmed the previous
Hi,
All the models on the market has the XYW adjustment. Their serial
number starts with 17xxxx. Even for older models we have a firmware
update to add the XYW adjustment.
Is that something the ordinary user can apply without soldering or
voiding the guarantee?
The EV setting is to adjust the back light intensity.
Excellent; thanks.
[]
A. _Is_ it true that even at maximum zoom out, you miss some of the
scanned frame? (Or the scan misses some of the actual frame? Especially
on super 8?)
[]
B. _Are_ there any plans for a future version [ideally backward
applicable via firmware update (-:] to offer lower or no compression, at
the expense of larger files of course?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the
date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin
Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-05 21:48:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Wolverine replied almost straight away! (Though only to my completely
[]
And again:


You can zoom out until you see the sprocket holes.

Next version will have all out improvements. Sorry, cannot tell you
more.


Sounds promising!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm a gay man in a woman's body - and I love it! - Sheridan Smith (actress),
in Radio Times, 3-9 April 2010
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-30 13:20:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dulak
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD was in
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or
[]
Post by John Dulak
While I've never done this there IS a product that claims to do what
you want in a dedicated package for $300 US.
http://secure.mm5server.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=WD&Produ
ct_Code=F2DMM100&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1
http://www.wolverinedata.com/videos/mvp/F2DMovieMaker_V1.pdf
No idea what the quality is like.
[]
I've been (back burner) looking into this, and, of the devices that
aren't just variations on point-a-projector-at-a-camera (or both at a
screen, sometimes via a box), and are within the price range of (fairly
rich!) amateurs:

I've found two actual chassis, with assorted electronics (or the same
electronics but varying firmware).

The "reflecta super 8 scanner" looks to be sturdily built out of metal;
however, I've only found one
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/reflecta-super-8-scanner/182681842414, which
runs out in less than a couple of hours and has minimal information (but
is a fairly current product - USB, seller bought it 2017-1-27). I can't
see a screen on it, so it may work entirely with the PC.

The other is a plasticky thing made in China; several reviewers (of the
Wolverine version) said it developed worrying noises after doing a
fairly small number of reels. Nevertheless, about 50% of reviewers are
five star happy with it and several more four or three star (again, the
Wolverine version) - read the reviews on the USA version of Amazon.
(This is the one John Dulak linked to above.) The Wolverine version:
costs about $300; scans at 2 frames per second, making a 720p .mp4 file
on an SD card (which only plays back at 30 fps, not the 16 18 or 24 of
the original film - though this is easily corrected in software, a fact
many of the reviewers haven't grasped), and uses rather high compression
(thus making visible artefacts) you can't turn off. Make sure you get
the one with the later firmware that allows framing and sharpness
adjustments. This chassis only takes 5" reels (not a problem to me),
though many reviewers have come up with ways round that.

Two others I've found obviously use the same chassis, but (the listings
I've found) contain scandalously minimal other information, given the
price:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Winait-Film-Scanner-5-3-Reel-8mm-Super-8-Roll-Digital-Converter-1080P-/222539739492
is the WinAit, which _seems_ to be identical to the Wolverine other than
mentioning "1080p", and
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Reflecta-Film-Scanner-Super-8-Normal-8-NEW-/311918371968
is the Reflecta, which given the price they're asking has scandalously
no information at all! Definitely the Wolverine-type plastic chassis,
not the same as the other Reflecta above.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The early worm gets the bird.
none) (Jim Hicks
2017-07-03 13:42:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
... What experience have people had with converting old cine film? ...
One of my friends tried to use a small screen and a camcorder to copy
his 8mm cine film, but could not get rid of the flicker no matter
how hard he tried.

Eventually he paid a business near Chester (England) to convert his
film to DVD, and edited from that.

I can find out about the business if needed.
--
Jim Hicks
***@gmail.com
Paul
2017-07-03 18:11:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by none) (Jim Hicks
... What experience have people had with converting old cine film? ...
One of my friends tried to use a small screen and a camcorder to copy
his 8mm cine film, but could not get rid of the flicker no matter
how hard he tried.
Eventually he paid a business near Chester (England) to convert his
film to DVD, and edited from that.
I can find out about the business if needed.
You can DIY with a flatbed scanner.

This article is humorous. The guy makes
a device for cranking the film through
the scanner. And any project you can walk
away from, while it does the capture,
is a "good" project :-) I can see Rube Goldberg
looking down from heaven and smiling.

http://jiminger.com/s8/index.html

And you really do need 4800DPI (real resolution,
not interpolated). My scanner is only 1200DPI
real resolution, and even though it came with a
transparency adapter, the low resolution meant
the provision of an adapter was a cruel joke.
You couldn't actually work with film, because the
resolution was too low. A scanner with 4800 DPI is a
better starting material, even if 4800 DPI is approaching
the grain limits of the film stock itself. I tried
to pull one 35mm negative, using my scanner. The
KodaChrome setting did an excellent job of inverting
the colors - I liked the colors (after the scan, the
colors are positive). But the grainy nature
of the resulting image, wasn't good for anything. I
wouldn't waste the inkjet paper trying to print a copy.

*******

Regarding your camcorder method, it might have
been interesting to do a frame by frame analysis
of the camcorder footage. Some camcorders allow
capture over Firewire, for transferring the recording
to a computer. Some newer ones might have HDMI output,
and you can get HDMI capture cards for computers
as well. You might find a mixture of "good" frames
and "not so good" frames, and by selecting the good
frames you could make a movie. The film projector
could be 16 to 18 FPS, and then it might depend
on how the camcorder is capturing (60p ?) as to
whether intact frames could be recovered.

But in terms of kookiness, the flatbed scanner
idea is a sure bet. It's just slow though.

*******

And the kind of recording device you use, can make a difference.
This camera, for example, uses a global shutter rather than
a rolling shutter. And can do proper motion capture. And
at 162 FPS, would be able to find the occasional picture
on the wall that would be suited for inclusion in the movie.

https://www.ptgrey.com/grasshopper3-usb3-vision-cameras

GS3-U3-23S6C-C Color 2.3 MP Sony IMX174 CMOS, 1/1.2", 5.86 µm
Global shutter 1920 x 1200 163 FPS 995.00 USD

https://www.ptgrey.com/support/downloads/10146

This short video, shows a global shutter camera recording
a rotating fan blade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nguv9lOkmXI

So for $1000 plus a few bucks for a C-mount lens or whatever
mount that thing has got, you can make recordings over USB3.

Before buying a product like that, I'd want to double-check
the part number...

Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-04 22:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <oje158$a6j$***@dont-email.me>, Paul <***@needed.invalid>
writes:
[]
Post by Paul
You can DIY with a flatbed scanner.
This article is humorous. The guy makes
a device for cranking the film through
the scanner. And any project you can walk
away from, while it does the capture,
is a "good" project :-) I can see Rube Goldberg
looking down from heaven and smiling.
(In UK we'd say Heath Robinson.)
Post by Paul
http://jiminger.com/s8/index.html
Fascinating! The guy's expertise - certainly in software, but also
mechanical construction - far exceeds mine. But his results are
certainly better than I'd expected: I think they'd probably satisfy a
lot of people!

It reminds me of something I read about quite a few years ago: some chap
was investigating the possibility of getting information off records -
LPs etc.! (or it might have been 78s) - using a scanner. He'd got to the
point of producing a barely-recognisable audio file. (Not helped by the
fact that a record won't _fit_ on a standard scanner, of course.) But it
was a similar sort of "it must be possible" exercise.
Post by Paul
And you really do need 4800DPI (real resolution,
not interpolated). My scanner is only 1200DPI
real resolution, and even though it came with a
transparency adapter, the low resolution meant
the provision of an adapter was a cruel joke.
You couldn't actually work with film, because the
resolution was too low. A scanner with 4800 DPI is a
better starting material, even if 4800 DPI is approaching
the grain limits of the film stock itself. I tried
(I think unlikely to be the case for 6mm film - 10 or 25 ASA in my day
[around 1970 IIRR], probably less for older material.)
[]
Post by Paul
and "not so good" frames, and by selecting the good
frames you could make a movie. The film projector
could be 16 to 18 FPS, and then it might depend
on how the camcorder is capturing (60p ?) as to
whether intact frames could be recovered.
You'd need an automatic selection method though, except for _very_
precious material. At 16 or 18, especially if you took the blade out of
the projector, I'd imagine the camcorder _would_ capture at least one
good copy of most frames, but you would need an automatic selection
method. As to 60p - if it was a camcorder intended to produce SD video,
it'd be i rather than p. (If HD, I don't know - I think things in the
world of HD aren't so fixed.)
Post by Paul
But in terms of kookiness, the flatbed scanner
idea is a sure bet. It's just slow though.
Having viewed some of the YouTube stuff on the Wolverine, that doesn't
look as if it's anything like the 30 fps mentioned in the web page and
.pdf - it clearly runs at only a few frames per second, rather than 30
which would be more or less double real time.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The modern world so often thinks that the way to relax is by doing absolutely
nothing, and I've never really understood that.
Nigella Lawson in RT 2015/10/31-11/6
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-03 20:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by none) (Jim Hicks
... What experience have people had with converting old cine film? ...
One of my friends tried to use a small screen and a camcorder to copy
his 8mm cine film, but could not get rid of the flicker no matter
how hard he tried.
Eventually he paid a business near Chester (England) to convert his
film to DVD, and edited from that.
I can find out about the business if needed.
Thanks, but I don't _think_ I'll be sending it out to a third party:
it's the sort of thing I _feel_ I should be able to do for myself.

The Wolverine looks interesting.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke
Paul
2017-07-04 06:52:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by none) (Jim Hicks
... What experience have people had with converting old cine film? ...
One of my friends tried to use a small screen and a camcorder to copy
his 8mm cine film, but could not get rid of the flicker no matter
how hard he tried.
Eventually he paid a business near Chester (England) to convert his
film to DVD, and edited from that.
I can find out about the business if needed.
it's the sort of thing I _feel_ I should be able to do for myself.
The Wolverine looks interesting.
If there's some motion in it, why not scan about
72 frames of it, with a flatbed scanner, and experiment
with the capture and see what you can make of it ?
You don't have to digitize the whole thing, to decide
whether an extended project will be "fun" or not.
You'll need a good scanner though (because it's a relatively
small piece of film).

Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-04 19:34:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <ojfdon$5jd$***@dont-email.me>, Paul <***@needed.invalid>
writes:
[]
Post by Paul
If there's some motion in it, why not scan about
72 frames of it, with a flatbed scanner, and experiment
with the capture and see what you can make of it ?
Sounds like an awful lot of work!
Post by Paul
You don't have to digitize the whole thing, to decide
whether an extended project will be "fun" or not.
You'll need a good scanner though (because it's a relatively
small piece of film).
Paul
And how: for standard 8, only about 6 mm. And very fine grain, too: the
automatic exposure my camera was fixed for was 10 ASA (which I could
only get from one make, Perutz, though I was usually very satisfied with
that). [For comparison: towards the end of its widespread use, 35mm
still film was usually 100, 200, or 400 ASA.] I did sometimes use Kodak,
and manually adjust the exposure: that was nominally 25 ASA outdoors and
40 indoors. (It was 40 ASA film colour-balanced for artificial light; to
use it outdoors in daylight, you used a reddish filter, which reduced
the film sensitivity to 25 ASA, though thinking about it now, wouldn't
have reduced the grain size. At least, that was the case for super 8
film; I can't remember for standard 8 - that might have been genuinely
25 ASA.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their
children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a
five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12
NY
2017-07-05 17:58:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I did sometimes use Kodak, and manually adjust the exposure: that was
nominally 25 ASA outdoors and 40 indoors. (It was 40 ASA film
colour-balanced for artificial light; to use it outdoors in daylight, you
used a reddish filter, which reduced the film sensitivity to 25 ASA,
though thinking about it now, wouldn't have reduced the grain size. At
least, that was the case for super 8 film; I can't remember for standard
8 - that might have been genuinely 25 ASA.)
Super 8 cassettes had a little cutout notch which, if it was cut out, slid
an orange filter with the camera into the optical path for daylight. If you
were shooting in artificial light, you inserted a "key" (at least on dad's
Nikon) which counteracted the movement of the filter, leaving unfiltered
light to reach the film. I'm surprised that the filter factor was as little
as 2/3 stop (40 down to 25) because the converse blue filter for using
daylight film in artificial light for still photography eats up about 2
stops IIRC.

I presume the notch was absent for daylight film so the filter didn't get
moved into the path.
NY
2017-07-03 19:19:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD was
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new for
that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have the
projectors (-:!
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you
just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen?
You *can* project onto a screen and point a video camera at the screen, but
there are a number of problems:

- parallax (getting the camera and projector looking along the same axis
with no horizontal displacement so you don't get a parallelogram picture)
- unless you use a completely matt screen, you get hot spot
- poor contrast

It's rather akin to recording from a record or CD by playing the sound
through the speaker and holding the tape recorder microphone to the speaker
rather than connecting a cable between the two.
I can't think of any other way, but can see lots of problems: not only
optical (getting things lined up, do you use a large or small image, do
you actually shoot from the opposite side of the screen, do you even do
something odd like projecting directly onto the sensor), but matters of
sync: IIRR (silent) standard 8 used 16 frames per second and super 8 18 [I
think 24 for sound film], which don't map well to the 24 or 25 of "PAL" or
the 30 of NTSC which the video camera is likely to be (I'm in
"PAL"-land) - especially as most projectors actually cut the beam twice
per frame to reduce flicker?
What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive) high/main
street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_ just use a
projector/camera setup? I can see that the best possible method would use
a telecine machine like the broadcasters use (which does not use
intermittent-motion), but I very much doubt most shops offering
"conversion" services have anything like that.
I'm not sure what technique most shops use. I would have thought some sort
of telecine where the camera sensor looks at the image projected from the
film without an intermediate screen. In theory, you can make a telecine with
a "1 x many" pixel sensor if the film is moved continuously past at exactly
the right speed in relation to the clocking of the sensor, but any dust on
the sensor produces vertical lines.

My dad got all our Standard- and Super-8 films converted to DVD by a
professional (mail-order) company, though it wasn't cheap. But the
conversion seems to be flawless in that there is always exactly one film
frame per video frame (for 24 fps film) or else A, A/B, B. C, C/D, D (ie
alternate video frames have a mixture of two video frames) for 18 fps film,
with everything running the standard 4% fast because video is 25 rather than
24 fps.

There was one film where I didn't want them to do this: we'd filmed a
journey around town from a camera in the car window, at a rate of 1 fps (so
it's very speeded-up). The firm treated this as 18 fps so you got the
recurring mixed frames. When I came to slow this down a bit by replicating
each video frame, the merged frames were very intrusive, so I had to find a
way of dumping the raw video to lots of separate still images, delete every
third frame and then convert the resulting pictures back to a video file in
Premiere Elements. This gave slightly more jerky results but not marred by
the visually jarring merged frames.
P. P. S: At least when well lit, cine film - even 8mm, especially super 8
(which used more of the film width) - was capable of better-than-SD
resolution, though I'll probably not worry too much about that.
I've found that 8 mm always looks very soft (and grainy) compared with SD
video, though it's possible that video uses edge-enhancement to make the
picture *look* sharper. Ironically, some of the sharpest film (of Pickering
Steam Fair in the mid-sixties, in a field with Castle Howard's dome in the
background) was on Standard 8, The grain is horrendous, but it looks sharper
than any of the Super 8 from the later 60s and 70s. And that's not just the
grain making the picture look sharper, because it doesn't happen with one
roll of Ektachrome 160 Super 8 from the early 80s which has even more
pronounced grain. Maybe Dad's original Standard 8 camera had a better lens
than the later Super 8 one.


I remember Dad had a 1000W photoflood light with a cylindrical bulb and a
U-shaped reflector that he mounted on the camera for shooting indoors, and
we all look like rabbits caught in the headlights because we are dazzled by
the light and there are very stark shadows. Think of the problem of red-eye
and stark shadows on a still photo, and imagine a whole film like that! On
one film, the results are better, so maybe he tried bouncing the light off
the ceiling. Film was so grainy in those days that it had to be very
insensitive in order to keep the grain under control, whereas nowadays you
can shoot with a video camera in normal room lighting so you don't suffer
from lighting by one point source.
NY
2017-07-03 20:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NY
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD
was in the title of that thread, but to disc file equally) made me
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new
for that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have
the projectors (-:!
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you
just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen?
You *can* project onto a screen and point a video camera at the screen,
- parallax (getting the camera and projector looking along the same axis
with no horizontal displacement so you don't get a parallelogram picture)
- unless you use a completely matt screen, you get hot spot
- poor contrast
It's rather akin to recording from a record or CD by playing the sound
through the speaker and holding the tape recorder microphone to the
speaker rather than connecting a cable between the two.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I can't think of any other way, but can see lots of problems: not only
optical (getting things lined up, do you use a large or small image, do
you actually shoot from the opposite side of the screen, do you even do
something odd like projecting directly onto the sensor), but matters of
sync: IIRR (silent) standard 8 used 16 frames per second and super 8 18
[I think 24 for sound film], which don't map well to the 24 or 25 of
"PAL" or the 30 of NTSC which the video camera is likely to be (I'm in
"PAL"-land) - especially as most projectors actually cut the beam twice
per frame to reduce flicker?
I think you have to accept that for PAL video you play the film at 25 rather
than 24 fps and pitch correct the audio (if any) - that's what broadcasters
do, and if they'd found a way of playing the film at 24 fps, they'd do it.

I recently had to produce a video DVD from a 24 fps video. Video DVD (as far
as I know) can only be 25 or 30 fps. I was using Premiere Elements. At first
I tried the sledge hammer approach: let Premiere do the 24-to-25 conversion
by blending frames. The results were almost unwatchable if the camera panned
or someone moved across the frame. So I got Premiere to treat the original
video as 25 fps - perfect motion rendition, but the voice of the subject was
slightly too high-pitched, though she may have been flattered that her voice
sounded a touch more girlish! So I copied the soundtrack to a WAV file, used
the pitch-correction feature of CoolEdit or Audacity and then added it back
to the pictures again. A 4% speed-up of movement isn't really noticeable but
a 4% shift in pitch alters the characteristics of someone's voice slightly,
hence the correction.
Post by NY
My dad got all our Standard- and Super-8 films converted to DVD by a
professional (mail-order) company, though it wasn't cheap. But the
conversion seems to be flawless in that there is always exactly one film
frame per video frame (for 24 fps film) or else A, A/B, B, C, C/D, D (ie
alternate video frames have a mixture of two video frames) for 18 fps
film, with everything running the standard 4% fast because video is 25
rather than 24 fps.
All this part of my explanation assumes PAL rather than NTSC video -
apologies, I hadn't realised at first that this was a worldwide rather than
UK-specific newsgroup :-)

The blurring caused by blending frames (such as you'd get with 3:2 pulldown
when showing 24 fps on 30 fps TV in NTSC land) isn't too noticeable until
you slow everything right down by replicating each video frame multiple
times, as in the 1 fps film that I described.

For those that are interested, see
It's an interesting social
record of the town where I lived in the mid 70s, because of all the changes.
The road at http://youtu.be/f3eZB2QNvtM was pedestrianised soon
after we filmed and is now terraced into long flat steps. And the road
between http://youtu.be/f3eZB2QNvtM and
http://youtu.be/f3eZB2QNvtM no longer exists - all the buildings
around there were demolished and rebuilt and the replacement road was
diverted. The bit beginning at http://youtu.be/f3eZB2QNvtM is a
camera fault: the light meter only worked on that camera if the normal-speed
shutter release was half-pressed, whereas I was firing off frames at about 1
fps with a cable release, so we rigged up an elastic band to half-press the
filming button to make the meter work and stop down the lens by the correct
amount. And at this point in the film, the elastic band fell off and so all
the frames were overexposed until we noticed. Some time I need to shoot a
modern-day version with my dashcam, following the route as accurately as
modern-day changes in one-way streets and pedestrianised roads will allow.
Charlie+
2017-07-04 08:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 20:19:45 +0100, "NY" <***@privacy.net> wrote as
underneath :

snip
Post by NY
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you
just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen?
You *can* project onto a screen and point a video camera at the screen, but
- parallax (getting the camera and projector looking along the same axis
with no horizontal displacement so you don't get a parallelogram picture)
- unless you use a completely matt screen, you get hot spot
- poor contrast
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I remember a bigger problem was the colour correction depending on the
film type and age (now you would do this digitally probably). Most
Kodachrome came out far too yellow and red with (at least with my old
projector), I got around this by projecting on a cyan coloured (coated
premium matt) paper done in CoralDraw and with an inkjet printer by
experiment, CorelDraw allowed precise makeup setting by % to get the
correct reflected colours.
The flicker problem - I was using a Sony Hi8 tape analog camera in that
era and by setting the apertures, speeds etc. this problem was
minimised, these films always flickered a tiny bit anyway! C+
NY
2017-07-04 08:47:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charlie+
The flicker problem - I was using a Sony Hi8 tape analog camera in that
era and by setting the apertures, speeds etc. this problem was
minimised, these films always flickered a tiny bit anyway! C+
The flicker would be caused by the fact that the film image is being
refreshed at 18 or 24 fps (nominally, +/- some tolerance) whereas the camera
is recording at either 25 or 30 fps (PAL or NTSC). This means you get a
"beating" effect between the two, similar to the effect of spoked wagon
wheels in Westerns sometimes appearing to run backwards. Some cameras tend
to reduce the shutter speed in bright light, which makes the effect even
more noticeable, though I doubt whether an image projected onto a screen
will be bright enough cause that problem.

The way this problem is solved by professional broadcast equipment is to
synchronise the projector and camera:

- for PAL, both run at exactly the same speed (25 fps) and then pitch
correction is used to correct for the 4% increase in pitch on the audio
track

- for NTSC, the projector is run at exactly 24 fps, tied to the camera's 30
fps. Google for 3:2 pulldown for details of how 24 fps film matches to 30
fps video - it's a neat arrangement whereby alternate film frames are shown
for either two fields or three fields; this causes motion to be slightly
uneven but avoids flicker. OK, I know that NTSC isn't exactly 30 - it's
29.97 for various obscure technical reasons - but the principle is the same
and the ratio between video and film is still 24:30 or 4:5.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-04 19:25:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charlie+
snip
Post by NY
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you
just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen?
You *can* project onto a screen and point a video camera at the screen, but
- parallax (getting the camera and projector looking along the same axis
with no horizontal displacement so you don't get a parallelogram picture)
- unless you use a completely matt screen, you get hot spot
- poor contrast
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
Post by Charlie+
I remember a bigger problem was the colour correction depending on the
film type and age (now you would do this digitally probably). Most
Kodachrome came out far too yellow and red with (at least with my old
projector), I got around this by projecting on a cyan coloured (coated
premium matt) paper done in CoralDraw and with an inkjet printer by
experiment, CorelDraw allowed precise makeup setting by % to get the
correct reflected colours.
Interesting! I'd not have thought of using a printed screen to correct
the colour. As you say, I _think_ I'd do it electronically these days. I
always felt the film cast tended to follow the colours of the reels the
companies used! Kodak came on yellow reels, and favoured reds and
yellows; Perutz on green reels, and favoured greens and blues, though I
think less so.
Post by Charlie+
The flicker problem - I was using a Sony Hi8 tape analog camera in that
era and by setting the apertures, speeds etc. this problem was
minimised, these films always flickered a tiny bit anyway! C+
Gives the authentic experience (-:! Though in my case you'd need the
wheezing sound of my old OMO Russian projector, too. But I hope to avoid
any brightness flicker, probably by using something like the Wolverine,
leaving only the low frame rate one which is intrinsic to the medium
(and which I don't really remember being that noticeable when watching
the real films - but maybe the two or more blades per frame had some
effect on that).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their
children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a
five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12
Wolf K
2017-07-04 22:08:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other. Not only reduced or eliminated keystoning,
also resulted huge depth of field.
--
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"As far as we know, there are no undetected bugs in our software."”
Ken Blake
2017-07-04 22:51:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other.
A clarification: let's say you were taking a picture of a tall
building. Rather than simply pointing the view camera up at it , which
would result in what you call "keystoning" (not a bad term, I guess,
but it's new to me), you would point the view camera up, then tilt the
film plane to be parallel to the building.

By the way, that's not the same as parallax. The parallax problem with
a camera is when the lens and the viewfinder are at different heights
on the camera, so they see things at a different angle. Usually the
difference in the angle is very slight and doesn't mean much, but with
close-ups, that difference can be very great.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-04 23:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<***@invalid.news.com> writes:
[]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Wolf K
One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other.
A clarification: let's say you were taking a picture of a tall
building. Rather than simply pointing the view camera up at it , which
would result in what you call "keystoning" (not a bad term, I guess,
It's used a lot in video projectors: some modern ones have "keystoning
correction" that actually allows them to be used from off-axis from the
screen (usually below or above it), but still produce a rectangular
image. I've always assumed they do it electronically, but it might be by
moving the image transparency I suppose.
Post by Ken Blake
but it's new to me), you would point the view camera up, then tilt the
film plane to be parallel to the building.
I think most people trying to do film conversion using a film projection
and an electronic camera won't have a camera where you can move the
image sensor in that manner. (Certainly not the projector.)
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, that's not the same as parallax. The parallax problem with
a camera is when the lens and the viewfinder are at different heights
on the camera, so they see things at a different angle. Usually the
difference in the angle is very slight and doesn't mean much, but with
close-ups, that difference can be very great.
Indeed. SLRs get round it, as do electronic viewfinders.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.
Ken Blake
2017-07-05 00:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 00:23:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Wolf K
One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other.
A clarification: let's say you were taking a picture of a tall
building. Rather than simply pointing the view camera up at it , which
would result in what you call "keystoning" (not a bad term, I guess,
It's used a lot in video projectors: some modern ones have "keystoning
correction" that actually allows them to be used from off-axis from the
screen (usually below or above it), but still produce a rectangular
image. I've always assumed they do it electronically, but it might be by
moving the image transparency I suppose.
Interesting, thanks. As I said, the term is new to me.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ken Blake
but it's new to me), you would point the view camera up, then tilt the
film plane to be parallel to the building.
I think most people trying to do film conversion using a film projection
and an electronic camera won't have a camera where you can move the
image sensor in that manner. (Certainly not the projector.)
No, of course not. Wolf was talking about a view camera, and my reply,
quoted above , also specified that I was talking about a view camera
(which I used to use many years ago; in my first life I was
photographer).
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, that's not the same as parallax. The parallax problem with
a camera is when the lens and the viewfinder are at different heights
on the camera, so they see things at a different angle. Usually the
difference in the angle is very slight and doesn't mean much, but with
close-ups, that difference can be very great.
Indeed. SLRs get round it, as do electronic viewfinders.
Yep. By the way, if you're interested, my first SLR was a 4x5 Tele
Graflex.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-04 22:59:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
??? - projector tilted down, would produce a projected image on the
wall/screen wider at the bottom than the top. Camera tilted up towards
the screen would make an image of even a rectangle larger at the bottom.
Assuming you're pointing both at the screen from the same side; if they
are on opposite sides of the screen, things are different, but in that
case you might as well not do any tilting at all.
Post by Wolf K
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other. Not only reduced or eliminated keystoning,
also resulted huge depth of field.
Oh yes, with bellows!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.
Wolf K
2017-07-04 23:37:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
One tilts down, the other tilts up, the keystones cancel out. Also use
??? - projector tilted down, would produce a projected image on the
wall/screen wider at the bottom than the top. Camera tilted up towards
the screen would make an image of even a rectangle larger at the bottom.
You're right, my description was, er, ah, um, unclear. I was thinking of
the screen, where the keystoning occurs. The camera has to be tilted the
other way to offset the keystoning on the screen. Relative to each
other, the screen and the camera are tilted towards each other, like /\
(one of them is actually vertical, but that makes no difference to the
geometry). That's what I had in mind, but I described it incorrectly or
confusingly or both. Take your pick. :-)
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Assuming you're pointing both at the screen from the same side; if they
are on opposite sides of the screen, things are different, but in that
case you might as well not do any tilting at all.
Post by Wolf K
with a view camera in the olden days: you tilted the lens one way and
the film plane the other. Not only reduced or eliminated keystoning,
also resulted huge depth of field.
Oh yes, with bellows!
As Ken Blake clarified, there's more to it than tilt, you also have to
slide the film plane around.

"It's all rather confusing, really." (Neddy Seagoon)
--
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"As far as we know, there are no undetected bugs in our software."”
Charlie+
2017-07-05 06:39:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote as underneath :

snip
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
snip

Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct
reflection bright spot for the camera to see, zoom lenses make it easy
to get the correct sizing. TTL view makes it easy to get the correct
picture. Distance from the paper screen also played a part in getting
the camera aperture correct for no flicker, dont forget this was an
analog camera in those days, digital camera transfer is much more
difficult in this respect, I think these days I would go for the
wolvarine type solution! As an engineer I just made use of what I had
around to quickly get the job jobbed! Professional transfer was always
relatively expensive even in those days and quality of our home movies
just wernt worth it!! Fun for the grandchildren to see tho.. C+
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-05 06:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charlie+
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
snip
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
snip
Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct
Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-05 06:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct
Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]
Video camera that is. Which is what we're talking about here.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
Wolf K
2017-07-05 17:10:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
snip
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
snip
Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct
Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]
Camera and projector are oriented /\.
--
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"As far as we know, there are no undetected bugs in our software."”
Charlie+
2017-07-06 06:40:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
snip
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
I did this a good number of years ago with all my 1960s to 1980s
Standard8 and Super8 silent films, the parallax problem is easily sorted
by angling both projector and camera to a centreline at the same height
and angled in opposite directions, this corrects the parallelogram
problem and if carefully arranged gets a perfect picture..
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
snip
Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct
Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]
Camera and projector are oriented /\.
Yep, spot on, and for JPG - I can tell you it works! Simple geometric
correction for a flat plane, nothing fancy at all.. Completely different
from shooting 3D tall buildings problem refered to upthread, that does
need film plane correction with a bellows attached lens, and artistic
licence!. C+
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-06 07:24:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charlie+
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[]
Post by Charlie+
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
snip
Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct
Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]
Camera and projector are oriented /\.
To what?
Post by Charlie+
Yep, spot on, and for JPG - I can tell you it works! Simple geometric
correction for a flat plane, nothing fancy at all.. Completely different
I still don't see how. But I'll take your word for it.
Post by Charlie+
from shooting 3D tall buildings problem refered to upthread, that does
need film plane correction with a bellows attached lens, and artistic
licence!. C+
Yes, I hadn't thought of that: views of features higher on the building
would still be from a below angle, so even if the building _shape_ is
corrected, you'd still get an odd result. Maybe not noticeable for a
building with a fairly flat face.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Last week, face cream. This week, the search for life on Mars. Never let it be
said /Horizon/ doesn't probe the frontiers of sciemce. - David Butcher, Radio
Times 28 July-3 August 2012.
Wolf K
2017-07-06 14:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[]
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm not saying you're not right, just that I can't understand how: to
me, such angling would _double_ rather than cancel the keystoning
problem.
snip
Camera and projector side by side (see: at the same height!) both angled
towards each other (they both have to be angled to the screen, one
corrects the other) a side advantage is that there is no direct
Whether one above the other or side by side, I don't see how "one
corrects the other", unless you're talking about camera/projector where
you can change the angle of the film or sensor independently of that of
the lens, which I'm not aware of for any camcorder or projector.
[]
Camera and projector are oriented /\.
To what?
To each other. If that's still confusing, think screen and camera.
--
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"As far as we know, there are no undetected bugs in our software."”
NY
2017-07-05 17:49:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Charlie+
The flicker problem - I was using a Sony Hi8 tape analog camera in that
era and by setting the apertures, speeds etc. this problem was
minimised, these films always flickered a tiny bit anyway! C+
Gives the authentic experience (-:! Though in my case you'd need the
wheezing sound of my old OMO Russian projector, too.
For the full effect you need the clatter of the projector (caused mostly by
the claw mechanism of the film advance and also by the film sprockets
"sticking" slightly on the various guide cogs and then clicking as each
sprocket hole detached from the toothed wheel. And the constant whir of the
fan, even when the projector wasn't running.

But most of all the sweetish smell of the film stock, the dust on the valves
(for the sound amplifier) and on the lamp.

Then of course there is the anticipation after the film has been laced up,
of turning the projector to "run" and hoping that the film will feed
smoothly and not bunch up before the gate, or pull tight the loop of slack
between the feed sprocket and the gate which leads to a juddering picture. I
was once on a course where the presenter was showing a 16 mm film and we got
the dreaded juddery picture which dissolved into streaks. Everyone tittered
and the presenter looked non-plussed, so I said I *might* know how to fix
it. Sure enough, there was the same spring-loaded mechanism as on our Super
8 projector which allowed a loop to be created at the right size, and all I
had to do was loosen the film from the feed sprocket to re-create the loop
of slack, then hook the film back onto the sprocket - what worked for a
little 8 mm worked for 16 mm as well except there were sprocket holes down
*both* sides of the film.
Mayayana
2017-07-03 19:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote

| What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive)
| high/main street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_
| just use a projector/camera setup?

For what it's worth...

A friend recently had some 8 mm converted. It was
probably about an hour's worth, put onto DVD.
I thought they did a good job. The reels were 50-60
years old and not carefully stored. The total cost
was about $200. (Probably about 6 billion British
pounds in your economy... plus the VAT tax. :)

On thing that struck me (besides paying $200 to
see childhood moments that will probably never be
watched again) was that the movement was choppy
(low frame rate) and the event was a novelty. Filming
was so novel that the films were mostly comprised
of people taking turns waving and grinning at the
camera.
NY
2017-07-03 20:36:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mayayana
| What experience do people have of the (usually rather expensive)
| high/main street shops which offer such conversion facilities: do _they_
| just use a projector/camera setup?
For what it's worth...
A friend recently had some 8 mm converted. It was
probably about an hour's worth, put onto DVD.
I thought they did a good job. The reels were 50-60
years old and not carefully stored. The total cost
was about $200. (Probably about 6 billion British
pounds in your economy... plus the VAT tax. :)
Haha. You may well be right about the value of our pound, post-Brexit. I'm
staunchly pro-Europe but equally staunchly anti-EU - in other words I want
the trading relationship that we agreed to in the 1974 referendum but not
the political union "United States of Europe" that the Maastricht agreement
of the 1990s allowed, requiring us to take any EU citizens (especially from
poorer eastern European countries) who want to live/work here. I wish we'd
been able to go back to pre-Maastricht Europe, where it was a Common Market
but where Europe couldn't interfere politically or foist their legislation
on us, ie to be able to choose an in-between state, rather than fully out or
fully in. Sorry, got waylaid into a political rant there :-)
Post by Mayayana
On thing that struck me (besides paying $200 to
see childhood moments that will probably never be
watched again) was that the movement was choppy
(low frame rate) and the event was a novelty. Filming
was so novel that the films were mostly comprised
of people taking turns waving and grinning at the
camera.
Agreed. And of course everything looks a bit surreal when it has no sound
and is jerky - and everyone was self-conscious because a cine camera was so
rare and unnaturally bright lights were needed for anything indoors. And
everyone over-acted for the camera. When my infant school got an adventure
playground (telegraph pole of varying lengths to walk over, tunnels made out
of concrete drainpipes etc) the headmistress asked my dad, who had a cine
camera, to film the children playing on it, to keep for posterity (*). And
he said that he went there for several days at playtime, but only on the
last day did he have any film in the camera, because he wanted everyone to
get used to the camera so they'd got past the self-conscious
mugging-at-the-camera stage :-)


(*) I wonder if that film still exists in the school's archives somewhere...
I bet kids who were in that film, who would be in their fifties now, would
be interested to see it. I know I would. I'd have been about 5 or 6 at the
time in 1968 or 1969. My hair was almost white in those days, rather than
light brown (or dark fair) as it is nowadays. I also had a great deal *more*
hair than I do today ;-)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-04 19:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <oje67m$rhi$***@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<***@invalid.nospam> writes:
[]
Post by Mayayana
A friend recently had some 8 mm converted. It was
probably about an hour's worth, put onto DVD.
I thought they did a good job. The reels were 50-60
years old and not carefully stored. The total cost
Hmm, that age would definitely be standard 8! Probably some of them
black and white, too.
Post by Mayayana
was about $200. (Probably about 6 billion British
pounds in your economy... plus the VAT tax. :)
(-: [Some US states have purchase tax too.]
Post by Mayayana
On thing that struck me (besides paying $200 to
see childhood moments that will probably never be
watched again) was that the movement was choppy
Yes, that's a property of home cine: standard 8 was 16 frames per second
(80 frames a foot, so 5 seconds; a 50 foot reel therefore being in
theory 4 minutes 10 seconds, though you tended to lose some at the ends,
which included turning over half way through, unless you loaded and
turned over in a bag).
Post by Mayayana
(low frame rate) and the event was a novelty. Filming
was so novel that the films were mostly comprised
of people taking turns waving and grinning at the
camera.
Indeed: it was either the novelty effect, or special occasions.
(And one of my bugbears: either the films "comprised", or "consisted
of". "were comprised of" combines two in one sentence!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their
children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a
five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12
Mynews
2017-07-29 22:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The recent thread (in the W7 'group only) about converting VHS (to DVD was
What experience have people had with converting old cine film? (Or new for
that matter! But I can't imagine many people are still shooting it.)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have the
projectors (-:!
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do you
just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen?
Yes You Cando It will Work
Just Remember No Cam Lights Needed

Bing Have 6,740,000 results
For A ::

usb super 8 film editor

<
https://www.amazon.com/8mm-film-viewer/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3A8mm%20film%20viewer
Wolverine F2D Mighty 20MP 7-in-1 Film to Digital Converter
by Wolverine
$99.99(2 used & new offers)
See newer model of this item
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-30 07:37:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <olj3bg$atq$***@dont-email.me>, Mynews
<hot-***@mynews.lazaras.mshome.net> writes:
[]
[]
Post by Mynews
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I have a certain amount of standard and super 8 film; fortunately not
sound, so that's one less thing to worry about. I _think_ I still have
the projectors (-:!
I'd be interested to hear others' experiences in converting these: do
you just set up the projector and point a video camera at the screen?
[]
Post by Mynews
<
https://www.amazon.com/8mm-film-viewer/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3
A8mm%20film%20viewer
Wolverine F2D Mighty 20MP 7-in-1 Film to Digital Converter
by Wolverine
$99.99(2 used & new offers)
See newer model of this item
That's for stills only - it can do 8mm film, but it would take an
incredibly long time to make a video with it (there are 4000 frames in a
50 foot/4'10" reel of standard 8).

The same page does also show the (also from Wolverine) "Film2Digital
MovieMaker", which seems to be the only machine priced for the amateur
market, but that's $300 (less a cent!), and not yet available in the UK
(though its power supply would work here). Reviews are mixed - the
general impression seems to be that it's a good basic machine, but uses
far too much compression in making the video files.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010
Loading...