8mm Forum: Best way of transfering to digital?

This is topic Best way of transfering to digital? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002822

Posted by Don Huber (Member # 828) on June 01, 2007, 11:06 PM:

Would appreciate some advise on transfering some 8mm to digtal. I've got a Chinon 3000 for reg 8 and a Sankyo 800 for super 8 with sound. Both are variable speed as my St1200hd wont do that. I've got a Sony hdv camcorder and a Viewtopia that my dad had, but never used. Should I use it or project onto a my theater screen? The film has not been played much at all (old family stuff) should I clean it first and if so what's the best way of doing that? Should I capture then crop to the right size or align it the best that I can? Any thoughts? I only want to do this once.
thanks
Don.

Posted by Louis Li (Member # 776) on June 02, 2007, 03:36 AM:

for transfer, i use one of those home telecine devices.
mines a national WV-J20N but there are numerous models on ebay.
however, i do think shooting of your screen is perfectly fine.

Posted by Don Huber (Member # 828) on June 02, 2007, 08:00 PM:

Thanks for the reply. Did you clean your film prior to transfer?
THanks
DOn

Posted by Louis Li (Member # 776) on June 02, 2007, 09:22 PM:

im sure many here will tell you of the benefits of cleaning your films prior to projecting.
I wiped my films with denatured alcohol.
But i wish i could get filmrenew though if not for the ban.

Posted by Mike Nyberg (Member # 838) on June 03, 2007, 09:28 PM:

My website details my method of converting 8mm to AVI/MPG2. I recommend that method first. It actually pays for itself if you have enough film. Otherwise, I recommend NOT using any mirror device. I DO recommend shooting the image on a 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of paper and shooting that with the camcorder. Alignment is trick but can be done depending upon the throw and the shape of the devices.

Best of luck.
Mike

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 03, 2007, 09:44 PM:

Hi Mike,

Welcome to the Forum! There are more than a few Filmshooting.com Forum members over here, myself included.

I've been kind of curious for some time why many people shoot their transfers on a sheet of white paper as opposed to for example a matte screen.

Can you explain?

Posted by Mike Nyberg (Member # 838) on June 03, 2007, 11:23 PM:

Thanks for the welcome Steve.

Well, first I have to say I converted over to a the workprinter method quite a while ago now. I have no personal need ever to shoot a white piece of paper.

But, back when I did experiment, I found that a large, full screen (classic living room screening) was not conducive to filming since the camcorder picked up the grain of the projection screen itself. I also found that edge to edge brightness was better with a smaller image...so, I ultimately went down to the smaller size. You cannot go too small since you will loose information that will not be able to be resolved by the camcorder. It's all a balance.

But again, after that experimentation, I got out of it all together and went to my current method. And now I have converted both of my workprinters to the LED light and DC motor. No more heat and more punchy colors...I simply have to filter the camcorder (a GL2) with the 85 filter; works great. There is no need to go back for me.

Cheers,
Mike

Posted by Knut Nordahl (Member # 518) on June 04, 2007, 01:48 AM:

Hi Mike,
How's those H8 shots comming along?

Don,
Welcome to the forum.
Here is some more reading for you to do: http://homepage.mac.com/onsuper8/diytelecine/
It is a more advanced diy method that wil give you great images. (workprinter basically)

Mirrors and condensors are a hassel. you need first surface mirror and a big enough condensor. If you have that you are set, but still the aligning is fiddeling.

I use a lens from a slide projector and a 10 watt light source in a eumig 607D. I also cut out the original frame to cature the whole picture including sprocet hole.

You can try those cheap bacprojecting screens, but I think you'll find that just capturing from a piece of paper is almost better than the screen-box-method.

Remember this DIY telecine is just as addicting as collecting films, bying equipment, using it, watching films, repairing ...
You can't go back...

Posted by Alan Smith (Member # 843) on June 04, 2007, 01:56 PM:

Has anyone used a gray screen instead of white? I heard this recommended years ago -- I suspect to lower contrast.

In my recent experiments I've found that introducing a dim ambient light onto the projected image would 'open up' the shadow detail and do little, if any thing, to the hi-lights -- a dimmer switch is handy. The effect can be monitored on the TV while recording. It's like 'flashing' partially developed film to boost shadow density.

I'll have a go at the grey screen for effect.

Posted by Mike Nyberg (Member # 838) on June 04, 2007, 04:56 PM:

Hi Knut - things are great with the H8. Shot two rolls already and have 100D in the waiting...(sorry, back to topic).

I used to watch my movies and slides (Zeiss Tessar lensed cameras with Kodachrome slides) on a grey screen but was always dissatisfied. Things seemed less warm. I think white screens give a slightly warmer tone to reversal images and that appeals to me. I would not go back to the grey screen if I had the choice. But then, I am accused of wearing rose coloured glasses at times!

Not sure about the effect on videotaped results from grey screens though.

Cheers,
Mike

Posted by Alan Smith (Member # 843) on June 04, 2007, 06:10 PM:

Hmmmmm -- Zeiss Tessar, drool [Smile]

Sort of back on track, I read in the description of the DIY workprinter that it's necessary to reduce the lamp wattage (don't know why) however, it brings to mind the exceptional hi-light rendering I got from the Leitz Focotar f4.5 enlarging lens -- just wondering how it might work fitted to a projector for transfer purposes -- instead of changing the lamp.

Also sort of on track, why is it necessary to use a mirror with the workprinter DIY? Why noy just put the field lens in line with the projector and hang the camera upside down?

thanks, alan

Posted by Knut Nordahl (Member # 518) on June 05, 2007, 02:20 AM:

Alan, if you set your DV cam infront of your projector outputting 100 or 150 watts I suspect that the CCD in your DV won't be to pleased with you...
All you'll get is washed out white.

The mirror in the condensor set up will make you able to work at a 45 degree to the projector. this is more easy than right infront of it with that set up.

With a macro\slide projector lens set up you must flip the picture in NLE

Posted by Mike Nyberg (Member # 838) on June 05, 2007, 08:08 PM:

Unless you have a special lens, focusing a consumer camcorder onto the LENS of the telecine projector (assuming the light source has been changed to an incandescent bulb (note: before California bans them)) is next to impossible. So, the mirror and the condenser lens make the image a proper size for the camcorder to zoom in on.

I would never recommend telecine in a DIY setup with the original haologen bulb of a projector. Wasteful and way too hot on the film. Hence, convert to an LED or incandescent light source.

A basic diagram is on my website (should be pretty common knowledge - the workprinter setup). The upgraded method incorporates either a 1CCD or 3CCD camera with a special lens to do just as you propose - focusing on the image of the lens - directly in line, no mirror or condenser lens. I wish I could afford to upgrade to that method...one day perhaps.

Cheers,
Mike

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on June 06, 2007, 02:55 AM:

Don. If you pop a ND filter over your camera lens it will help to cut down the light getting to the imaging chip.

Here at the "old firm" we use ariel optical system which is about as near to flying spot cinetel as you can get, but most of our transfers are for the trade so domestic clients are not keen on paying so much.

You can get away with using a good camera that offers some manual control of exposure etc, but try to cut down on the light getting to the camera lens with that filter. It will help the bleech out effect.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on June 06, 2007, 12:26 PM:

For those transferring 18FPS, the best solution is to project at 24FPS and capture in 24PA (24 progressive/advanced pulldown) so that you have a true 24 frame for frame conversion on your DV tape.

Then load that into Adobe Premiere, right click the clip and select the speed. Then simply adjust the speed to slow it back down to 18FPS. That gives you a true 18FPS on the video instead of 20FPS via a 3 blade shutter.

To get the projector dead on at 24FPS speed, simply crank up the video camera's shutter speed until you get strobing in the image, and then adjust the projector's speed until the strobing is gone. then lower the camera's shutter speed back down to it's lowest setting.

Posted by Alan Smith (Member # 843) on June 06, 2007, 05:07 PM:

Brad, now that's some very helpful (and clear) information. Thanks. 18FPS rules, at least economically and noise wise.

I'm trying to figure how I can make use of these tips with my limited equipment. To begin with (might be embarrassing myself here) my poor old Sony PC-110 single chip only has two AE exposure modes that allow close focusing. The Low light setting seems to be fixed at about 1/4th sec. so any movement smears, which leaves me 1 option - the Portrait mode (parameters unknown). About all I can say for it is that it's mini DV and not VHS. Certainly no 24PA.

I DO however have the 3 blade shutter on my projector! - so I figure I'm half the way there.

My question at this point is the software, since I use a Mac and FCP is beyond my means and budget.

So, I am asking can Quicktime Pro or Capturemate do the speed correction you speak of re. Premiere? I figure software upgrade can't be helped.

Thanks all for the shareing

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on June 07, 2007, 03:09 AM:

It's possible on FCP, but super easy on Premiere. I really couldn't tell you about any other software, just check and see for yourself.

Do note if you don't transfer at 24 progressive to DV, you are likely to end up with some ugly motion artifacts when you try to slow it back down to 18FPS. Best to borrow a 24P camera for the transfer.

Posted by Alan Smith (Member # 843) on June 08, 2007, 06:56 PM:

Thank you Brad. If I'm understanding this correctly it's the progressive scan that eliminates motion artifacts by movement across the TWO FIELDS of an interlace scan, especially with slower frame rates. The NTSC 60 field process is the 'smoothest' because of the higher frame rate and higher number of merged fields -- is that a correct way of thinking on it?

I've noticed that the 'DIY workprinter' fellows seem to prefer the progressive scan cameras.

I downloaded the Capturemate frame grab program that incorporates the frame playback speed correction. I can't believe how simple it is (seems). The issue I'm struggling with is timeing the 'grab' of both fields with an interlace scan camera.

Seems it would be simplicity it'self with a progressive scan camera.

Any clarification if my thinking is muddy would be appreciated. I'm anxious to get the transfer process down to free myself to better work like writing and camera work.

Thanks again, alan

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on June 09, 2007, 10:23 PM:

Interlaced video is always going to introduce blurring and motion artifacts. You always want to shoot progressive.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2