35mm telecine project advise sought. at DVinfo.net

Darren Nemeth · March 5th, 2006, 01:14 PM

I am attempting to fabricate my own telecine for 35mm film.

I have most of the equipment needed but am seeking advise and information on HD camera.

Also, recommendations on lens types.

Can anyone give me some pointers?

A videocamera lens will have to be able to optically focus sharply down to the frame of 1910s - 1920s 35mm film. Some of the film will have slight warpage. As a result, the focus depth of field must remain sharp with depth fluctuations of + or - 3 or 4 millimeters.

This will be used to transfer rare public domain films that I cannot project.

Can anyone help with suggestions?

David Delaney · March 5th, 2006, 01:32 PM

I tried those small telecine converters (got one of ebay). It worked fine for 8mm and 16mm work, but there is alot of flickering. Someone said that virtudub has a de-flicker plugin or something. I think this is what you are asking about, right?

Carl Jakobsson · March 5th, 2006, 01:44 PM

I've saved a lot of flickering footage (due to bad wiring in my spinner) with the VirtualDub filter MSU DeFlicker, http://www.compression.ru/video/deflicker/index_en.html

Darren Nemeth · March 5th, 2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Delaney

I tried those small telecine converters (got one of ebay). It worked fine for 8mm and 16mm work, but there is alot of flickering. Someone said that virtudub has a de-flicker plugin or something. I think this is what you are asking about, right?

No.

I will be running film through a 35mm editor one frame at a time. A video camera connected to my PC will be focusing in on the film.

With each advance of the film frame a sensor will be tripped and the HD image saved on the PC, in sequence. The software will convert all into HD MPEG video, if all works well.

The film to video converter boxes found on eBay and department stores are not good for the quality I am attempting to get.

I just need some pointers on what to look for in lens and HD camera types that will be best suitable.

David Delaney · March 5th, 2006, 02:07 PM

If you don't mind me asking, how is your system costing you (the one you are using, one-frame-at-time)?

Darren Nemeth · March 5th, 2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Delaney

If you don't mind me asking, how is your system costing you (the one you are using, one-frame-at-time)?

This is a semi-professional high-end project consisting of a 35mm Moviola editing machine that was owned by Warner Brothers and HD video equipment.

So far, it has cost me about $600 and I don't have the video camera yet.

35mm is primarily cinema film. I am not transfering home movies.

Tam Mullen · March 6th, 2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Nemeth

No.

I will be running film through a 35mm editor one frame at a time. A video camera connected to my PC will be focusing in on the film.

With each advance of the film frame a sensor will be tripped and the HD image saved on the PC, in sequence. The software will convert all into HD MPEG video, if all works well.

Could a digital stills camera not maybe give higher quality for cheaper if its just collecting lots of images

Mike Oveson · March 6th, 2006, 11:38 AM

I couldn't help but think the same thing that Tam just said. If you got even a 3 megapixel digital camera you'd be doing better than 1080i, plus you wouldn't have any interlacing or the same artifacts introduced by video compression. Imagine the results from a 6 megapixel camera. :D Just lock your exposure and focus and I would think the results would be fantastic.

Darren Nemeth · March 6th, 2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Oveson

I couldn't help but think the same thing that Tam just said. If you got even a 3 megapixel digital camera you'd be doing better than 1080i, plus you wouldn't have any interlacing or the same artifacts introduced by video compression. Imagine the results from a 6 megapixel camera. :D Just lock your exposure and focus and I would think the results would be fantastic.

Are there any megapixel cameras that have the HD video output jack?

I need to be able to connect it to my PC.

Nick Jushchyshyn · March 6th, 2006, 12:21 PM

Most of the Canon Digital SLRs have a USB connector and software for operating them via the connection. They also offer and SDK for free so you could script your own program to capture the images direct to disk. Once to disc as image files, you would handle them the same way as you would a traditional Cineon or EXR frameset.

Nikon's also have USB connections, but they're not as sharing with an SDK.

I would agree that this would be the way to go for a DIY Telecine system. Much higher dynamic range and resolution than any video camera.

Darren Nemeth · March 6th, 2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Jushchyshyn

Most of the Canon Digital SLRs have a USB connector and software for operating them via the connection. They also offer and SDK for free so you could script your own program to capture the images direct to disk. Once to disc as image files, you would handle them the same way as you would a traditional Cineon or EXR frameset.

Nikon's also have USB connections, but they're not as sharing with an SDK.

I would agree that this would be the way to go for a DIY Telecine system. Much higher dynamic range and resolution than any video camera.

Thanks for the info.

I will post the software later and technical details of what I am doing.

I am sure that the program I will be using downsamples each film frame video capture. I'll be back later.

Thanks for the digital camera tips. It sound more useful for my pourposes and perhaps cheaper than HD video.

Mike Oveson · March 6th, 2006, 03:08 PM

Yeah, it will most likely be cheaper than an HD solution, and if you're going frame by frame it will probably be the highest quality as well. Like Nick said, there will be a higher dynamic range and more resolution than HD. Good luck!

Darren Nemeth · March 6th, 2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Nemeth

Thanks for the info.

I will post the software later and technical details of what I am doing.

I am sure that the program I will be using downsamples each film frame video capture. I'll be back later.

Thanks for the digital camera tips. It sound more useful for my pourposes and perhaps cheaper than HD video.

The software I am thinking of using is called CineCap found here http://jeffdod.tripod.com/alternaware/.

More home telecine info can be found here but it is for 8mm film.
http://homepage.mac.com/onsuper8/diy...e/control.html

March 5th, 2006, 01:14 PM	#1
Darren Nemeth New Boot Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Waterford, Michigan Posts: 9	35mm telecine project advise sought. I am attempting to fabricate my own telecine for 35mm film. I have most of the equipment needed but am seeking advise and information on HD camera. Also, recommendations on lens types. Can anyone give me some pointers? A videocamera lens will have to be able to optically focus sharply down to the frame of 1910s - 1920s 35mm film. Some of the film will have slight warpage. As a result, the focus depth of field must remain sharp with depth fluctuations of + or - 3 or 4 millimeters. This will be used to transfer rare public domain films that I cannot project. Can anyone help with suggestions?

March 5th, 2006, 01:44 PM	#3
Carl Jakobsson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Lund, Sweden Posts: 122	I've saved a lot of flickering footage (due to bad wiring in my spinner) with the VirtualDub filter MSU DeFlicker, http://www.compression.ru/video/deflicker/index_en.html __________________ http://www.nattvard.com

March 6th, 2006, 12:21 PM	#10
Nick Jushchyshyn Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA Posts: 548	Most of the Canon Digital SLRs have a USB connector and software for operating them via the connection. They also offer and SDK for free so you could script your own program to capture the images direct to disk. Once to disc as image files, you would handle them the same way as you would a traditional Cineon or EXR frameset. Nikon's also have USB connections, but they're not as sharing with an SDK. I would agree that this would be the way to go for a DIY Telecine system. Much higher dynamic range and resolution than any video camera. __________________ Nick Jushchyshyn Matchmoving, Compositing, TD imdb

March 5th, 2006, 01:32 PM	#2
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	I tried those small telecine converters (got one of ebay). It worked fine for 8mm and 16mm work, but there is alot of flickering. Someone said that virtudub has a de-flicker plugin or something. I think this is what you are asking about, right?

March 5th, 2006, 02:07 PM	#5
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	If you don't mind me asking, how is your system costing you (the one you are using, one-frame-at-time)?

March 6th, 2006, 11:38 AM	#8
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	I couldn't help but think the same thing that Tam just said. If you got even a 3 megapixel digital camera you'd be doing better than 1080i, plus you wouldn't have any interlacing or the same artifacts introduced by video compression. Imagine the results from a 6 megapixel camera. :D Just lock your exposure and focus and I would think the results would be fantastic.

March 6th, 2006, 03:08 PM	#12
Mike Oveson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ogden, UT Posts: 349	Yeah, it will most likely be cheaper than an HD solution, and if you're going frame by frame it will probably be the highest quality as well. Like Nick said, there will be a higher dynamic range and more resolution than HD. Good luck!