Wolverine-Hawkeye Telecine

[Stan Jelavic]

That is correct Chris. Increasing the size of the image by shortening the spacers does not improve the image perceived resolution. The image corners become soft.

Based on my tests, the optical limit of 12mm lens is with the 8mm spacer and of 16mm lens is around 20mm. This is with the BUC02 camera. The spacers for the UX226 camera are shorter because there is a 5.5mm plate that is a part of the lens holder.

We have spent quite a bit of time on this subject and it is hard to get something better than the current 16mm lens in M12 mount. There is a good choice of C mount lenses but those will not physically fit the Wolverine mounting hardware.

One more note. Going with a shorter spacers will require longer lens mount or an extension can be used.

[Chris LaRocque]

Thanks Stan

Just to ensure my understanding. The specified 16mm and the 12mm lenses are close to their optical limits in this application. Increasing the size of the captured image by using the entire area of the sensor will not improve the image detail significantly, certainly not the amount implied (in my mind) by the 25% increase in total pixels (digital resolution?) from 1920x1080 to 2592x1944. I'll simply get a better impression of the optical system limitations. The edges of the test frame tell the tale.

I'd still like to hear from David and Bruce but it sounds like I want better glass.

Regards

Chris

[Stan Jelavic]

Hi Chris,
Here is my input. David and Bruce can also pitch in...
The 12mm lens woks best with the 3/8 inch (8 or 10 mm metric) spacers and does not need an extension holder for that. Going shorter than that will push the lens limits and although the image is larger on the sensor, the actual resolution will be lower.
Here is the test image with 5mm. See the edges are a bit soft.


With the 16mm lens you have a few alternatives.
20mm spacers will give you 1900x1400 resolution.
This is close to the lens limit and may cause some slight edge degradation.

You can go intermediate with 25mm spacers.
This may be you best choice.

Going with 30mm will not give you much higher resolution that what you are getting with the 12mm and 8mm spacers.

But the bottom line is that the 16mm lens will not give you much more real optical resolution.

Unless you have a very good quality original and a really good quality large monitor you will not see much difference when you zoom in the two shots and put them side by side.

[Chris LaRocque]

Good Morning

I have a Hawkeye v12.0 with DFM 72BUC02-ML purchased from the Imaging Source and am considering switching out my 12mm TBL 12-2 C 5MP (with IR cut) with a 16mm TBN 16 C 5MP (also with IR cut). TIS are also recommending that I change the 10mm height Lens Holder with a 16mm height lens holder. I saw that some have used a 16 mm lens with their Hawkeye and wanted some advice.

My purpose is to be able to use the full resolution of the camera, expanding the std 8mm frame image to the full width of the sensor.

Does the increased resolution provide a benefit? Most of my stock of home movies are handheld and the edge blurring of near subjects looks to be the result of low frame rate coupled with hand motion. I expect panoramic shots to be "clearer" and for a near subject to have more detail, though as already stated may still be blurred.

What frame / camera spacing changes will I need to make to accommodate the lens? I tried to move the 12 mm lens 5mm closer to the film transport and found that the lens OD interfered with the Wolverine body slightly, and that I would also need an extension tube to be able to achieve focus.

Other observations are appreciated.

Thanks

Chris LaRocque

[Stan Jelavic]

If mechanically you can come up with two rollers that pinch the film in between them then I can do the stepper control.

[Kamel Ikhlef]

Thanks Stan, i think i didn't quite understand it but it remains to be thought about.

[Stan Jelavic]

That sounds pretty complicated Kamel. If a stepper controller is used with 128 micro steps and 1.8 degrees per step I believe it should be possible to pull the film with the capstan and that should work even if several perforations are bad if we use a large capstan.

[Kamel Ikhlef]

Hello Stan David and the others,
Thank you very much everybody.
Always very interesting to follow your experiences.
I will return soon in the adventure. Thanks Stan for the links.
Yes, solve the jitter problem is essential. It would be wonderful not to have a claw anymore.
a smooth training and even to pass the damaged films would be a dream for me.

I will completely dismadisassemble my wolverine unit and make your improvements because I never really got the results as good as you.
I will start from the beginning.

is a perforation transistor detector possible on hawkey, Stan, please ? It would solve many problems

[Stan Jelavic]

Yes the rig has to be very solid. I just got the SPC900NC webcam from ebay and will try it in video mode. It has a very sensitive CCD and will be interesting to see the dynamic range performance. Also apparently you can change the FPS. So my plan is to take the FPS down to 10 or 6 and see if I can still extract good frames.

[David Brown]

I think this will interest Kamel since there is NO CLAW. I've been going back and forth on a vertical or horizontal rig for the dslr. After looking at this, I've decided on horizontal to keep my camera grounded. I intend to re-purpose the Winait's face plate as the deck.

Will see.

[Stan Jelavic]

Kamel, David, Bruce.. I know you are pretty handy with the 3D printers.
Here is the idea on how to develop your own telecine. The cam used is RPI with a custom lens and resulting pink glow but still interesting idea.
http://tscann8.torulf.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vQSJZa7OGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re8KhnXMi3U

[Stan Jelavic]

That is great David. Looks like we got a fix for one of the big issues.

[David Brown]

STAN The aluminum tape is absolutely BRILLIANT !!!

I had some deep grooves in the claw from the cam. It took 3 wraps on the Winait's claw and now Super8 and Reg8 are both silent. Well yes, more like a clock.

[Stan Jelavic]

David, I had a nasty jitter and slippage with my old Wolverine and completely fixed the issue. Just wanted to let you know before I compile the pics and instructions. IT is a bit involved. The issue is with cam wear. The metal shroud that goes over the plastic claw part has a nice little groove in it and this limits the amount of claw travel.
Fix, wrap a piece of aluminum tape over the claw return side (the side that causes claw retraction). This is a low force side causing less tape wear.
Pics and instructions to follow.

Here is the picture of the claw mechanism wear. A grove gets created by the cam limiting the claw travel during film transport phase.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/bVBobgUJ9g5DRzza9

The idea is to wrap one turn of aluminum tape over the claw mechanism other side which extends the travel during the retraction phase.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/j4Zxs9j1szw2F85k6

Actually this was my first attempt and I put the tape on the active side and that wears out the tape faster. So the picture gives you an idea how it should be done but the tape should go on the other side.

Additionally, I removed the stopper as well but now not really sure if that is required. May be a good idea to reduce the wear on the tape added.



Just ran a whole reel at 2 FPS and not a single claw slippage. The scanner also sounds different, sounds like my grandma's desk clock just clicking faster. Very quiet actually.

[David Brown]

The Wolverine's claw movement, range of motion, seems to be designed for R8mm film.

Here R8 and S8 shown together in the gate. Claw is 3rd sprocket from right, both films were moved by claw.



For S8, the claw's range is a little short. The finish position (right side) could be a tiny bit earlier. 0.1mm?
The starting position (left side) should be another 0.5mm farther.

Changing the claw's range would not impact R8mm.

Video of claw in slow motion.
https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared...WdzqE3ca2LBUdi


This machine had significant use. I tried bending the claw's flange, where it impinges on the cam, rather than fill in the divot. I thought maybe the wear had limited the claw's range. It's difficult to be precise and I caused the claw to bind on one side of the cam. Bent it back!



All this video and the pictures are made with the Winait, same as the Wolverine 720p model.



The only changes I think happened with the MM Pro is the 720p video was resized to 1080p, with no increase in sensor, lens, or resolution.

The film threading posts moved, an arm for larger supply reel was added. Larger supply reels can cause added stress in the gate with added weight.