[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Eclair Cameras: RESPONSE: Film Editing

hehe. well, all i can say is, it sounds like your already graduated and no longer qualify for student support! i like the way a-cam sent me emails and showed me their product progress in the form of photos of parts and componants. i will try to do the same thing. this is not an easy thing to pull off considering it is a remote collaboration working on a very limited budget(only a matter of time before the green paper turns into blue lint ... read; bottom of my pockets). it will be sometime before real costs are determined .. and all off the shelf componants can be shopped around with the various vendors and suppliers. the actual parts and compnants that must be machined, injected, or fabricated in one way, shape or form, will be the real considering factor behind the resulting price of the unit ... or cost of the unit rather. the price of the unit will depend on the response from interested people. if i make a minimum run of custom parts and componants of 50 pieces each, then the real question is ... based on the final COST of the actual ingredients of the device(parts and componants), the assembly of the device, the testing of the device, and the factored percentage of the actual design and prototyping of the device ... will be the amount of people who will actual buy it and in what period of time. in other words, if it comes to be, that the actual cost of production is lets say $3000.00 per unit, how long will it take to sell 50 units at $5-6k each? or, lets say the cost of each unit is $1000, and is sold for $2k ... how many people in what period of time. the longer it takes to sell, the more it must sell for. the shorter it takes to sell, the less it can be sold for. supply and demand hard at work. whatever the case, i am building it first and foremost for myself and my own wants, needs and desires. and in the satisfaction of creating something useful, it owuld be fun to share it and profit from it, so i cna do it again with other ideas burning a hole in my head.

i could a BASE unit selling for a few thousand dollars, and then having the real bells and whistles as add-ons. because the unit will have a serial connection that a computer can use to program it(think BASIC STAMP), and because there will be a built-in and integrated breadboard on the main circuit, you will pretty much be able to do as you wish with the device in it's base/standard form. any and all special and useful(perhaps even cool) features will be implimented as tme and money warrant, based on either my own needs and wants and finances(asuming no one is interested in purchasing one), or based on a public demand created by those who purchase them.

i had seriously considered purchasing a workprinter or jkprinter, and was real close at times .. but in the end, i just needed something that neither unit could readily or easily provide me. so if i had purchased one of those, i would have had to modify it to meet my needs ... so why not spend the extra time and build it the way you really want it? i found, based on my own personal configurations and testing(using film projectors to actual parted film cameras and magazines, with various light sources and motors nad controls and imagine sensors, with and without optics), that the issue is NOT whether or not all of the image detail can be captured as is, and digitized ... because that is easliy done, but rather, can i perform the task in a way that is neither time consumer or difficult. if you take into account the mere process of loading a roll of film onto a projector or transport system like a flatbed or otherwise, and then spend the time isolating the specific frames you really need, and keeping track of multiple in and out points on one roll of film, and then consider you have multiple rolls of additional film with which you must do the same, it seemed to me the real isues that needed to be addressed were with the user control of the device. not to discount the difficultly of correctly imaging a frame of film onto a digital device like a camera, because this is difficult, and there are no posted or public spreadsheets that provide lens formulas for specific film/frame sizes and sensor sizes ... so this has indeed be a task ... but once completed, it is done and need no be repeated. whereas the process of digitizing the film will always be repeated each time you load a roll of film onto the device. so making the device as simple and as accurate as possible, is the overall objective. and in it's simplicity, it is to remain basic. if it does not need it, it wont have it. this applies to its size. instead of making it really small and compact, specially fitting componants inside of a cool housing, i opted to make a cool housing, but one with room to breath. this way, if sometime down the road one elects to change a abc servo with a xyz servo, that just happens to be slightly larger, or differant in shape, it will not pose or represent a problem. and the same applies for most all the other componants.

i enjoy creating nice looking designs, so it will not be ugly by any means .. heck, i want it to look cool as it sits on top of my desk directly next to my editing computer. but working correctly and being easy to service takes priority, so the resulting desing will be based on that acoridngly. figure it will look and behave like an apple 23" hd monitor ... three contact points on the surface/table when in the upright position, or slanted towards the horizontal position. and when flat on the surface/table, it will have full parameter contact. the width will allow one to mount it in a rack ... so no worries there, other then it's height which will consumer some real estate. also, instead of usng lcd printed display(alphanumeric), i have opted to use cool led displays(you know, like are found on the gettoblaster portable stereos ... the smoked panel with painted text/art in front of the digital display itself, but only readable when the display is lit). this will keep it fun, but wont jack the price so high as to make it not affordable. although the unit is intented to have a small lcd display as well.

so, in time it will be seen as either worthwhile, or not. functional or not. completed or not. only time, dedication, and money will tell.

Todd Anderson wrote:


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

eric m jarvies
cabo san lucas, baja california sur.  mexico

This email was sent to: elroro@propagandaindustries.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACL-unsubscribe@topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!