Eric,
I like your thinking! Any ballpark figure on what this device may run
(sans camera)?
P.S. I just had to cut my ex-wife a check for $100,000 (her half of the
equity in the house) and am now dealing with a $3,000 a month house
payment. That only leaves me with $500 a month for all my bills. Sadly,
traditional telecine is out of the picture for a bit. Do I qualify for
your scholarship program? :)
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 07:40 PM, eric jarvies wrote:
> i had a premature postulation! my meesage posted before i completed it
> ... and i dont remember hitting the 'send now' button. so here, i will
> complete what was written in the last post. sorry:
>
> all we
>> really need to be doing is having a machine assign a value to each
>> frame
>>
>> of film, digitize it verbatim(today's sensors can digitize film much
>> more information then could ever be found on a 16mm frame of film, and
>> even a 65/70mm frame of film!! and no, i am not talking about a
>> digital
>>
>> video sensor/processor), which means an exact digital duplicate that
>> cannot be told apart from the original image on the frame of plastic
>> film itself, and
>
> and then maintain the master, high res files on removable media like cd
> roms, dvd's, hard drives, removable drives, any type of computer
> related
> storage medium, wherein the sequencial images need not be opened or
> played in their high res quality to referance their value/timecode.
> they are only used to record/store direct to dvd, or any of the digital
> tape formats. understand?? this is DIGITAL MEDIA!!! why are people
> spending a shit ton of money for DIGITAL TAPE DECKS and not taking
> advantage of them?? people are trying to keep their NLE from crashing
> when attempting to record their movie onto digital tape. hello? what
> is wrong with this picute? it's digital, it need only be copied ...
> why
> should you have to PLAY it or purchase expensive hardware in an effort
> to play it on your computer without droppin frames of taking a dump?
> simply ridiculas as far as i am concerned.
>
> none the less, i have been working on a new film digitizer, and hope to
> post images and functions/features of the device in late feb or early
> march. much like the jk-printer or workprinter, it allows film to be
> easily transfered to tape or computer. however, some basic needs are
> being addressed in this programmable device ... for starters, the
> device
> allows for realtime viewing(just like a traditional steenbeck, etc.),
> wherein you can mark an in and out point, and that is stored, and you
> move onto the next in/out point, until you have determined what, if
> anything, you wish to digitize from that particular roll of film. each
> rol you load into the device, may be stored/indexed, so not only can
> you
> mark you ins and outs for the time you are going to digitize, you can
> store these and weeks or months later, load the reel and the machine
> will digitize what was previously saved in memory based on the in/out
> points that were marked. enough on-board memory to keep track of
> thousands of rolls of film. the loaded film must be marked first
> frame(you must load and advance it past the leader to the frame you
> wish
> to consider the first frame on the roll) and market last frame. this
> allows each and every frame inbetween to be assign a sequencial
> code(like you digital still camera does when you shoot photos). if no
> first frame last frames are marked, it will look for first frame
> immedialty after the leader(it does the same for the end of the spool,
> but the device must have leader as the sensor requires it). when the
> leader is reached, the film does not advance any more unless you tell
> it
> to, this way film does not wind all the way making the film come of the
> other reel until you really want it to.
>
> the device, at this point in its design, is the size of my apple HD
> monitor ... but the final prototype will be a tad bit smaller. either
> way it is a desktop device that can adjust verticle or horazontal. the
> device is crystal speed controlled both directions, presets and
> varaible
> dial speeds(when using this device with another film camera or a video
> camera, serves no purpose with a dSLR). feed and take sides of gate
> have
> loaded arms, when tensioned, make contact with shut-off switch, to
> prevent film from tearing if problems occur. the taking camera(video,
> digital video, slr, movie, digital SLR, cctv, whatever ... anything
> that
> images) mounts on a 3 axis linear movement, initially with hand
> dials(as
> are found on your mill or lathe, accurate and settable), eventually
> servo controlled with joystick and memory to store and recall saved
> positions(if you use many differant cameras .. for example, you may use
> your miniDV camera to telecine some dv quality footage for internet or
> vhs tape release ... heck, even dvd or broadcast depending on your
> camera. or, you may use yoru dSLR to digitize your footage because you
> plan to create some kick ass special effects. having the ability to
> store and recall these physical camera positoning setting will save
> alot
> of time when swapping or reloading cameras that you may otherwise use
> on
> a regular basis for what they were orignally intended.). the device
> has
> both led and lcd display. prior to the main gate, an inexpensive
> single
> chip sensor passes the signal to the lcd ... this way you do not have
> to
> squint :) the main gate, as the main transports, will be lock and
> load.
> another words, you will be able to load 8mm, s8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and
> 65/70mm transports and gates onto the device, set the dial to the
> applicable film format, and the macning will transport the film
> correctly according to it's format/size. and LED daylight temp color
> balanced light source with dimming control, and a seperate contrast
> control ... both manual and electronic control. naturally, the device
> will work as a free standing device, or with a computer/capture
> utility.
> and for digital slr cameras, movie, slr, etc., pc/flash/socket control
> is utilized so you need not manually advance non video type of devices.
> a number of other useful features i have most likely failed to mention
> ... but basically everything i felt i needed for myself, i have
> implimented into it's design.
>
> i have an electrical engineer taking care of the circuitry/electronic
> componants, and a another engineer experienced with cad dealing with
> our
> design issues as we advance the physical prototype. the initial
> prototype consists of various componants for purposes of testing
> function. once the device is working, all componants that cna be
> purchased off-the-shelf, will be! so those being the least expensive
> and most reliable will naturally be used, and will dictate the final
> design of the product. any componants that we are not able to purchase
> off the shelf, like the actual chassis/housing/mounting parts, as well
> as gates, etc., those will be made using emachineshop.com, based on the
> cad files converted into emachineshop.com's own cad utility file
> format,
> at which point online orders can be easily placed and parts delivered
> in
> a matter of days. the reason i have eelcted to go this route is
> because
> if anyone else is interest in such a device, i will either sell it as a
> kit(you will receive the parts from emachineshop, not the digital
> drawings, and the list of off-the-shelf componants from various
> vendors,
> which you will purhcase directly), or as a completely assembled and
> tested device. naturally, over time, lens/bellows, direct sensor
> imaging couplers, and other accessories will be designed based on third
> party products(particular cameras, etc.) and will be available for
> purchase, which again, you can but from me, and you will receive direct
> from emachineshop.com(the company that machines the actual part). this
> route means the device componants on a machined/custom basis, are more
> expensive. however, if the demand warrants the manufacture of 50-100
> or
> more of the same item, then i will do that and sell direct. but untl
> such a day, i care not invest the money in inventory ... as i am sure
> you cna understand why. the plastic and rubber parts i have no choice
> but to run in qty ... imagine your printer or scanner on your desk with
> it's housing ... it would still work, but would look like crap and the
> internal componants would get dirty. so i am doing a 50piece/per
> componant run ... so aside from design time and costs i have spent, and
> will continue to spend until completed, as well as third party
> contracting and consulting fees, those will be my only costs into the
> creation of the device ...so naturally, i would like to sell as many as
> possible to recoup those fees.
>
> so let me know if any of you are interested. i am sort of taking the
> same approach that the a-cam took with their s16 camera ... and most
> likely in the next month or so i should have a website with detials and
> photos of the device in it's current stage. although the working
> prototype will be completed in short order, the completed assembled
> unit
> may take only a short time, or a considerable time ... that really
> depends on multiple factors, of which are not conclusive at this point.
>
> the bottom line is, for people like myself who live over 1000 miles
> away
> from a film transfer house, the entire process is a pain in the ass.
> because a device like this, coupled with a nice digital SLR
> camera/videohead, digital video camera, can and will provide you with
> the same or better results as you would get from most telecine
> services,
> then why not? the only draw back is time ... going the ultra high res
> route will take a day or two per roll of film ... but it is automattic,
> so you need only start the transfer and walk away. but because the
> device will allow you to mark in and out points throughout the reel,
> you
> can digitize only the footage you really need for your final output.
> otherwise, use a video camera and digitize it in a matter of minutes
> for
> dailies of offline or for work where that quality is not an issue.
>
> once i get the bugs worked out of this remote product development
> process, wherein myself, the other contributors, and the manufacturers
> and suppliers are all over the world, i will most likely apply some
> additional efforts to a simple, yet effective film processing machine
> that will again, provide a simple solution to a currently difficult
> proposition. had i been able to find a film digitizer or film
> processor
> that fit the bill, i would have spared myself all of this research and
> expense ... beleive me. i just hope there are other people out there
> that could benefit from these types of devices.
>
> oh ... icing on the cake? a software application(mac/pc), that allows
> you to manage your chemicals mixtures and temps and times ... directly
> controlling the processor .. so if you have processed a filmstock in a
> particular fashion, you no doubt stored that data in memory ... because
> the device wil lkeep track of time and temps, you will most likely be
> able to replicate a process again and again with fairly consistant
> results, providing you physically mix your chemicals consistantly(the
> tank design is small, this way you can process a 400' roll of film and
> replace the chemicals(instead of replinish them) for repeatable results
> each time ... unless you are really good at replinishment and dont mind
> spending the time(not me). regarding the film digitizer, as mentioned
> early on in my last post, a utility will be created that will allow the
> management of high quality sequencial images wherin they are treated as
> movies, but not for the intention of playing them back on the computer
> for recordng to tape, but for digitally copying them and storing them
> to
> a digital format, thus somehow allowing these images to be reduced to
> their applicable output size and quality, compressed according to the
> playback device(focusing on dvd primarily), and mastered without having
> to have expensive raid configurations etc. this software may or may
> not
> happen easily ... i will put it out to the linux/freeBSD developers and
> see what kind of response i get, and who is willing to contribute/code
> for a modest fee the various elements that would be involved. still
> lots of investigation needed for this particular idea ... but all is
> currently doable, just need ot take the existng ingreients and mix them
> correctly and have people sample the flavor and buy into it.
>
> eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
> eric jarvies wrote:
>>
>> hello,
>>
>> i have found this to be an issue not very well addressed by the
>> industry
>>
>> at this point in time. typicaly, most telecine houses go directly to
>> tape of one format or another, while only one or two claim to record
>> directly to hard drive/removable media. although i am not certain, i
>> beleive these few companies that do record directly to hard
>> drive/removable media(digital file on a physical hard drive, or
>> removable media like cd rom, dvd, etc., accessable on the desktop
>> using
>> a player(quicktime, etc.) or an editor(fcp, premier, avid, etc.) or a
>> file manager(explorer, etc.), record an sRGB based signal/movie onto
>> the
>>
>> drives/media ... NOT a true RGB type image, raw, compressed or
>> otherwise.
>>
>> digital video cameras as we all know, record inferior image quality
>> then
>>
>> that of a digital SLR camera, for example. this is why a digital SLR
>> camera, eve the best ones, are not capable of recording 30fps ... at
>> most perhaps 6-10fps with a limiting burst rate factor. older analoge
>> video cameras(much cheaper/less expensive) are capable of capturing
>> higher quality images then the newer digital cameras, providing you do
>> not record to the on-board tape, but rather, using a computer and
>> capture utility which basically only utilizes the video camera's
>> optics,
>>
>> sensor, and signal transport. but not tostray too far, and getting
>> back
>>
>> to receiving your footage as digital files on a hard drive/removable
>> media, it will only be as good as the capture device that was used to
>> image your film. a 3/4" HD video sensor used to telecine your film
>> footage will not provide as good a quality image if you used a 3/4"
>> sensor recording raw sequencial images, which are later assembled into
>> clips on the computer.
>>
>> most of you probably already know this ... but i only learned it over
>> the past few months, and for those of you who do not know .. this may
>> clear things up a bit. and if i am innaccurate, please advise and
>> explain why.
>>
>> editing on your computer(fcp, avid, etc.) in either DV, SD, or HD, is
>> by
>>
>> all means alot easier if you were to receive the footage stored on a
>> hard drive. this way, you do not have to own or rent an expensive
>> deck.
>>
>> however, just remember as mentioned above, just because your footage
>> is
>> on a hard drive, does not mean it is true raw uncompressed RGB
>> content.
>>
>> it will most likely be sRGB. if your footage is going to be edited
>> directly to DVD, then an sRGB imaged/telecined film will provide as
>> good
>>
>> an image as was the lens and sensor(and lumination/contrast no doubt)
>> used on the telecine machine itself ... and as we all know, telecine
>> machines vary greatly amongst manufacturers and the place that owns
>> the
>> equipment, and if the equipment has been modified with differant
>> sensors
>>
>> or lenses, and the actual quality and maintaince of the optics and
>> measuring the light source/color tempurature/balance and contrast all
>> play a role a significant role in the quality of the digital image of
>> the frame(s) of film. then you throw the recording device(tape) into
>> the mix, and the image could potentially suffer additional
>> degregation.
>>
>> i would assume any telecine house that offers digitized film on hard
>> drive FIRST records to tape, and then uses a capture card to perform
>> the
>>
>> digitizing process. correct?
>>
>> if you want film digitzed for the purposes of COMPOSITING(creating
>> special effects using your computer and photoshop, shake, combustion,
>> etc.), you would be must better off having the film imaged directly to
>> hard drive using a high quality RGB sensor, either single chip, or 3
>> chip(prism seperates primary colors onto individual sensors), or
>> layered
>>
>> chips(primary colors are filtered out as they pass thru on a single
>> chip). this route is MUCH slower then using typical telecine
>> machines(remember, a telecine machine is fast, like a video camera,
>> because the sensor is not procesing the image as would a digital SLR
>> for
>>
>> example, which is processing true RBG), and is typically done one
>> frame
>> at a time, instead of multiple frames per second, or realtime.
>>
>> as best as i can tell, regarding a $1m telecine machine and a $20-80k
>> HD
>>
>> camera, the only differances are the controls and confguration of the
>> machine itself ... meaning it is setup for the purposes of imaging
>> frames of film, instead of shooting object or subjects or sceneories.
>> a
>>
>> sensor in a digital SLR camera, a higher end camera like a kodak 14n,
>> etc., will provide a SUPERIOR image to that of a $1m telecine machine
>> ... REALLY!! what it can NOT do is provide you with the procesing
>> speed. however, that seems to all be changing technology wise, but
>> the
>> irony is, film technologies are only met with a few companies
>> worldwide,
>>
>> whereas video technologies are being met by thousands of companies.
>>
>> for those of you who have taken and edited an HD clip on you nle
>> machine, and inserted a high quality RBG image or sequence, you will
>> notice your computer's processor is bogged down considerably ...
>> correct? in other words, if you have a playback card capable of sd or
>> hd, and you play a telecined film delivered to you on digibeta, for
>> example, that would play much better and with less problems then
>> would a
>>
>> clip created from rgb images from your imaging application, like
>> photoshop. same thing with any of those filters or special effects
>> you
>> use. this was confusing for me for sometime, because the lines are
>> exremely blurred in the industry, and most people are not aware of the
>> realities beyond the formats.
>>
>> and for those who would challange the image quality comparison of a
>> telecined HD clip to that of a clip sequenced from a medium format
>> camera with a digital back on it, conected to the computer capturing
>> one
>>
>> frame at a time, you would clearly see how futile the argument would
>> be.
>>
>> the digital era now, is differant then what the digital era has been
>> ... it has been VIDEO, 30fps of it, with what?? frames and fields?
>> new
>> digital displays and hd footage is doing what? it is displaying
>> frames
>> ... not frames and fields. correct?
>>
>> so, based on my own observations, what i beleive film related
>> technology
>>
>> companies should be working on at this point in time, are software
>> applications that assign timecode to sequencial images, that are LEFT
>> as
>>
>> sequencial images, and ONLY used to either generate editable(dv, sd,
>> and
>>
>> for those who have the raids capable or realtime playback) footage for
>> preparing your final cut, or for compositing, or for printing back to
>> film.
>>
>> the system right now, which is to telecine your film, give it timecode
>> if it does not already have it, edit a low res version on the
>> computer(or a high res if going out to video tape or dvd), then take
>> your edl back to the transfer house, and have them cut the original
>> film
>>
>> accoriding to your edl, and print new film that contains
>> compositing/special effects, which then are assembled to form a
>> complete
>>
>> reel of your movie, and then it follows the traditional film
>> replication
>>
>> process. today, and to me, this system is a pain in the ass. all we
>> really need to be doing is having a machine assign a value to each
>> frame
>>
>> of film, digitize it verbatim(today's sensors can digitize film much
>> more information then could ever be found on a 16mm frame of film, and
>> even a 65/70mm frame of film!! and no, i am not talking about a
>> digital
>>
>> video sensor/processor), which means an exact digital duplicate that
>> cannot be told apart from the original image on the frame of plastic
>> film itself, and
>>
>>
>> Paul Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> it is certainly possible to digitize directly into
>>> your computer without actually going down to tape. I
>>> have seen some great setups where Final Cut Pro
>>> digitises at 10 bit resolution directly from the
>>> telecine chain.
>>>
>>> VTRs that are only players certainly can be used to
>>> digitise your dailies. But how do you want to
>>> digitise them? Do you want to get it in at 10 bit or
>>> do you want to work in offline resolution?
>>>
>>> Your question is hard to answer as it's very broad.
>>> Give me a more specific guide to how your productions
>>> work in terms of the post path you've been using.
>>> There's just so many ways to skin a cat these days.
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>> Paul Williams
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Bill Wiley <billwiley1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I am looking at investing in my own editing system,
>>>> instead of always
>>>> driving two hours and paying a healthy fee to use
>>>> the labs equiptment.
>>>> My question is this, I know that digital Beatacam
>>>> ($30,000 for used
>>>> VTR)is the format these days to telecine to (unless
>>>> you can afford the
>>>> equiptment and telecine cost of HD), but how far out
>>>> is the technology
>>>> for this going to CD with out taking alot of space
>>>> in hard memory and
>>>> raids. And can anyone explain the diffence between
>>>> VTRs that are
>>>> Editing (studio), players, and recorders. "Besides
>>>> the obvious
>>>> explainations". Can just players be used to digitize
>>>> the dailies, or do
>>>> you need the edit version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>>> http://companion.yahoo.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> eric m jarvies
>> cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
>
>
>
> eric m jarvies
> cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
>
>