8mm/16mm transfered to DV50

JesterJJZ said:
Film. A transfer to Harddrive (DVCPROHD) is gonna be about $750 per hour of film plus some extra like prep shipping etc. The film ia about 1:20 min.

I'm looking for alternatives. I think my budget for this would be like $600. Spending $1500 is not an option considering I just blew about 10k on this new cam and accessories. Being able to do it myself with the HVX would be ideal, just trying toi figure out if it's possible in any way shape or form. It doesn't have to be perfect. The film is really old anyway. I'd be up for projecting it in a small theatre and recording it that way. Just trying to figure out the best method. Shoot 24P, 60P? 60i?

Any other creative options?
Click to expand...

Labs will make deals.

You call the lab, tell them what you're doing, and how much you have to spend, and see what they are willing to do for you.

They know not everyone is out to making big studio features. Just don't expect your film to be the number one priority at the lab.

I had about 400ft of personal 16mm telecined last year to DVCam at a very decent rate. To make an HD transfer was only slighty more expensive, and I am debating in the coming year or so to have a retransfer just for archival purposes.
 
JesterJJZ said:
Any places you can recommend? NY possibly? Not having to ship stuff would be great.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I am not familiar with NY labs.

Even when I was on the East coast I dealt with West coast labs.

Fotokem, Deluxe, Efilm, Crest, etc
 
The Sarlacc said:
Projected images created with light....light being projected onto a wall.....camera used to captureprojection of image.

This = equals loss of light and loss of detail.

It is NOT the same thing as running the actual print through any type of telecine process where the light beamed through the image is captured directly.

It is cheap amatuer method of attempting to provide a professional service, and quite frankly I don't take you as a professional after creating this thread. Especially, with your "or I make money" reply.

Seriously, go out and do some research on telecines and tranfers.
Click to expand...

maybe... but people have used this as a DIY method for a long long time, so as long as a person was upfront re the methodology, priced the service appropriately, i see no reason to get bent out of shape over this. Let the kid make some change. sheesh....
 
Well I just had a brainfart. I gather that shooting a projection screen means a lot of light loss. But what about using a rear-projection screen and shooting into that? Have the camera and projector pointing right at eachother with the screen in between them. Probably not the best, but it'll probably be betther than shooting a standard white screen no?
 
FatBird19 said:
Have you actually tried this method? Do you know for a fact that it'll look bad? Are you speaking from real life experience or just assumption?


I saw someone do something similar. They posted a clip on this site actually. I would defenitely pay for that quality.
Look, it's not like I'd lie on my site. I'll say that I'm using an "optical filmed projection process," or something like that. If the customer is not satisfied with the video results that I will post on the website, then they'll obviously look elsewhere.
And further, if absolute maximum quality of transfer is the customer's primary concern(and I am still unaware of the quality differences between a scanned and filmed transfer, so I can't really quantify how big of a deal it is) then they will, as the quality concerned customer, search the market for the best transfer possible. If they don't, now who's fault is that?
And again, what dramatic difference is there between a scanned transfer and a filmed transfer?
Click to expand...
Taking the picture projected on a wall is bulls**t. I am speaking from years of experience, I have written about it and I know what I am talking about.
Notwithstanding that there is always someone who does it the quick and dirty way.
Some customers are satisfied (not knowing better but disappointed) some will argue others just pay and go away. So it all boils down to your honesty. If you are honest you do not advertise your process as something like an electro-optical process. If you want a satiesfied customer, someone who recommends your service then go the honest way, if you want to ripp him off, well...

And yes, there is a dramatic difference between scanned and filmed transfers. The delta between both depends on the quality of the source material.
 
The Sarlacc said:
Projected images created with light....light being projected onto a wall.....camera used to captureprojection of image.

This = equals loss of light and loss of detail.
You'll have to be more specific on what you mean by "loss of light." If you mean the image will be darker, then I merely have to expose it higher. If you're talking about a hotspot, then I may have a problem(which might be easy enough to streamline correction in after effects, if it's a minor hotspot).
And what do you mean by "loss of detail"? Resolution? If I'm outputing to DVDs that are only SD anyways, then I don't see how that's a problem. Unless of course the lens on the projector delivers lower than SD quality resolution, which I would find wierd.
The only real concern I have, from my moderately uneducated standpoint, is the difference in lattitude between the film and the captured image. That may legitimately be an issue.



It is NOT the same thing as running the actual print through any type of telecine process where the light beamed through the image is captured directly.
Obviously, but I still don't see how anyone, unless you're a video nerd like me or most people in here, would be dissatisfied with the quality of a projected transfer. Again, do you have first hand experience with this where you could say that, "yes, the quality difference between the two is enough that a casual observer would notice." If it is, then maybe I shouldn't sell it.
Or, I could sell the service anyways. If there really is a big difference, then the customers will not buy the service and demand will go down to a point where the venture is no longer profitable. If, assuming that the transfer quality is horrible, the consumer doesn't care enough to do their homework on the quality differences between my product and a professional scan, then who's fault is that? The only one who could really lose from the bad quality 8mm transfers(which has still not been proven to be so) is me.

It is cheap amatuer method of attempting to provide a professional service, and quite frankly I don't take you as a professional after creating this thread. Especially, with your "or I make money" reply.
You can't be serious. You really can't be serious.
Do you see JVC apologizing for their harddrive based "Everio" camcorders with sub-DVD quality MPEG-2 video, when the hardware reviews and information are openly available on the internet? Do you see e-Machines apologizing for the bottom-of-the-line parts they put into all their computers, when all the specs to each model are listed right there on the box? Do you see McDonalds getting sued for making customers fat, when they have all of their nutrition information readily available for anyone who cares to know? Oh wait, actually that did happen.
Customer stupidity is not my problem if I'm being honest with my product.
If I'm advertizing something as one thing, and it turns out to be something different, then that is my problem. That is an ethical fault on my character.
With this though, I'd tell people what the process is and I'd post examples on my website. If they're not happy with it, then obviously they'll search for something better.

It's not in my best interest to sell a bad product. For one thing, I'd feel bad, ethically. For another, It generates bad word of mouth which is defenitely something I wouldn't want.
Unless you have some actual hard evidence to demonstrate how a filmed 8mm transfer is absolute unacceptable crap compared to a scanned transfer, then I really don't see what you're complaining about, and I'd appreciate if you'd step off my back about it and quit hitting me with accusations of "unprofessionalism" and "bad product" that you have yet to substantiate with any solid evidence.
Click to expand...

In the end though, I've got more important things to do than worry about your opinion of my business ethics--which at this point are only in the ideas state anyways.
Thank you everyone else for your help.
 
brianluce said:
maybe... but people have used this as a DIY method for a long long time, so as long as a person was upfront re the methodology, priced the service appropriately, i see no reason to get bent out of shape over this. Let the kid make some change. sheesh....
Click to expand...

Come on, this is a not a process to be charged.
This is not professional. This is amateurish at its worst.
 
PKraft said:
Taking the picture projected on a wall is bulls**t. I am speaking from years of experience, I have written about it and I know what I am talking about.
Notwithstanding that there is always someone who does it the quick and dirty way.
Some customers are satisfied (not knowing better but disappointed) some will argue others just pay and go away. So it all boils down to your honesty. If you are honest you do not advertise your process as something like an electro-optical process. If you want a satiesfied customer, someone who recommends your service then go the honest way, if you want to ripp him off, well...

And yes, there is a dramatic difference between scanned and filmed transfers. The delta between both depends on the quality of the source material.
Click to expand...

Alright, thank you. Informed advice I appreciate. :)

I would be honest though on the site; I'd explain the process(using the most attractively worded description of course:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)) and then I'd provide high quality samples on the web for viewing. If they don't like it, they'll look for something else.

You're pretty strongly against the idea though. If you believe it's that noticable then maybe I wouldn't even want to try. The last thing I want is bad word of mouth, even if it's just a little bit. I also wouldn't want disappointed customers(although I would admittingly feel less bad if they didn't even bother to research the subject decently for themselves). So maybe I should just scrap the idea.
That said though, I'd want to see it for myself just to be sure.
 
Alright, I think I'm going to look into this myself. I know a guy who may be able to get access to a 8mm projector.

How many lines of rez is 8mm supposed to be capable of?
This way I can make comparisons if I do tests.
 
FatBird19 said:
In the end though, I've got more important things to do than worry about your opinion of my business ethics--which at this point are only in the ideas state anyways.
Thank you everyone else for your help.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the "more important things to do" don´t seem to be shooting for real with the HVX...
Come on, try to get paid camera gigs once you get your HVX and if someone asks you to tranfer his 8mm stuff to video, charge 30 bucks for your time and than concentrate on developing your shooting skills again...
 
You know, in all honesty, as amateurish as it may sound this idea really isn't that far off from the concept behind 35mm adapters.

And yet 35mm adapters are treated with a sense of underground respect, and there are defenitely some members of this group that have and will tell a client "yeah we can do 35mm depth of field" and then show them some samples.
If the client isn't impressed, they'll turn you away. It's that simple. It's that honest.

While obviously 35mm adapters have been given more time and intrest for refinement of design, the hokeyness of the concept is still there. If I can't get the film projector idea to work, then I'll scratch it like a bad miniDV tape. But if it's not too much work to do and I can get the image quality to a standard that's acceptable by me, then I see no reason not to go forward with it.
I personally hate the drop in image quality of the mini35 and I'm not to fond of the resolution that the M2 produces either. If I were the client, I'd probably turn them away. My choice. As the client it's my responsibility to search for a product worthy of buying, and it's the seller's job to create a product worth selling. Both sides hold some responsibility. I see this film transfer idea as being no different.
 
Last edited:
Spartacus said:
Unfortunately, the "more important things to do" don´t seem to be shooting for real with the HVX...
Come on, try to get paid camera gigs once you get your HVX and if someone asks you to tranfer his 8mm stuff to video, charge 30 bucks for your time and than concentrate on developing your shooting skills again...
Click to expand...

I said it was only an undeveloped idea. That's why I started this thread to ask questions about it.


(maybe it was a bad idea to mention that I'm only 20. Oh well.)
 
FatBird19 said:
You'll have to be more specific on what you mean by "loss of light." If you mean the image will be darker, then I merely have to expose it higher. If you're talking about a hotspot, then I may have a problem(which might be easy enough to streamline correction in after effects, if it's a minor hotspot).
And what do you mean by "loss of detail"? Resolution? If I'm outputing to DVDs that are only SD anyways, then I don't see how that's a problem. Unless of course the lens on the projector delivers lower than SD quality resolution, which I would find wierd. The only real concern I have, from my moderately uneducated standpoint, is the difference in lattitude between the film and the captured image. That may legitimately be an issue.
Fatbird, this is shere physics. A slide is crispier with better colours then a print.
Take an old photo camera and make the experience yourself. Read about the subject in basic books about photography.
Well it's not sufficent to point a video camera but you have to know the physics of plain old photography as well.

Obviously, but I still don't see how anyone, unless you're a video nerd like me or most people in here, would be dissatisfied with the quality of a projected transfer. Again, do you have first hand experience with this where you could say that, "yes, the quality difference between the two is enough that a casual observer would notice." If it is, then maybe I shouldn't sell it.
Or, I could sell the service anyways. If there really is a big difference, then the customers will not buy the service and demand will go down to a point where the venture is no longer profitable. If, assuming that the transfer quality is horrible, the consumer doesn't care enough to do their homework on the quality differences between my product and a professional scan, then who's fault is that? The only one who could really lose from the bad quality 8mm transfers(which has still not been proven to be so) is me.
The quality differs (see my earlier post above). However you can sell the service if you explain what you do. Some people only look for the price and do not mind quality, some do not know about better quality, some are not aware about the relation between quality and price. But don't call it professional.

If I'm advertizing something as one thing, and it turns out to be something different, then that is my problem. That is an ethical fault on my character.
With this though, I'd tell people what the process is and I'd post examples on my website. If they're not happy with it, then obviously they'll search for something better.
You did not say that before. But it is a good point in itself.

It's not in my best interest to sell a bad product. For one thing, I'd feel bad, ethically. For another, It generates bad word of mouth which is defenitely something I wouldn't want.
Unless you have some actual hard evidence to demonstrate how a filmed 8mm transfer is absolute unacceptable crap compared to a scanned transfer, then I really don't see what you're complaining about, and I'd appreciate if you'd step off my back about it and quit hitting me with accusations of "unprofessionalism" and "bad product" that you have yet to substantiate with any solid evidence.
In the end though, I've got more important things to do than worry about your opinion of my business ethics--which at this point are only in the ideas state anyways.
The obvious difference has been proven lots of times. Problem is you start posting about professional services and mean something different. Again, in itself your point is a viable one. But don't call it professional.
Click to expand...

Hope this helps. Pe.
 
FatBird19 said:
How many lines of rez is 8mm supposed to be capable of?
This way I can make comparisons if I do tests.
Click to expand...

Physically the rez of 8mm is between 50 and 80 lp/mm. Beware, this talks about pairs of lines while video talks about lines. So in video-speak you would talk about 100 to 160 lines per Millimeter. A Super 8 frame is 5.36 mm wide which equals appr. 600 lines max. over the full height of the frame (4.02mm) and appr. 600 lines max. horizontally in a square as wide as the frame is high (which is the way, rez is measured with video).
If you have the right tools, rez can also be measured as appr. 5 MHz max.

Take into account please, that film a moving medium, so vertical picture stability depends on many other factors, too, which can degrade averall rez. Plus not many lenses were manufactured and adjusted to highest standards. But the above mentioned
figures are pretty much real life.

Hope this helps.
 
Fatboy,
your age is not a problem and asking is the best way to get good answers. However not all people are good in discussing a subject that gets more precise during discussing it.

Why don't you go the Moviestuff way? This is the best of all low budget ways to go. It is far better then taking the picture off the wall (ever thought about using a projection screen with good reflectance) as it mimics the above mentioned difference between slide (moviestuff) and print (wall) at its best.
 
PKraft said:
Why don't you go the Moviestuff way? This is the best of all low budget ways to go. It is far better then taking the picture off the wall (ever thought about using a projection screen with good reflectance) as it mimics the above mentioned difference between slide (moviestuff) and print (wall) at its best.
Click to expand...
I might do that. The more I think about it, perfecting the "wall filming" technique sounds like a lot of work and, as you have seen, not much quality. All of this is probably 3 months down the line if I decide to do it, but it's good to think of it now.

Thank you for your help. :)
 
hey fatbird

for a 20 yearold, you seem pretty heads up--certainly more heads up than i was at that age. I say go balls out with your idea, play your cards straight, bust your ass, and see where the chips fall. More power to you my brother.
 
i have transferred 8mm ,super 8 & 16 to dv, digibeta, HD ( 10 bit 1920x1080 24fps direct to hard drive) ... also have done 16mm to 2 k scanning ( as in $ per frame)

IMO home movies shot on reg 8 that are 30-40 years old tend to have been shot on camera' s with fair lens. they tend to be soft plus the person on camera usually is a bit soft on focus. exposure is all over the place.
not worth the $$ transferring to HD unless you have some special use for 8mm... some places have wet gate that will get rid of most scratches and gunk on film.

super 8 kodachome - if this was shot on a nizo, canon 1014 , nikon or any S8 camera with good lens this can look very good to excellent telecined to digibeta... holds up good to HD transferred either pillar ( place 4x3 frame inside 1920x1080 or inverse anamorphic is my choice or full 1920x1080 frame ) - the problem with 8/s8 to HD is scratches and they do show up HUGE.. many places have wet gate for 8/s8mm SD but nothing for HD transfers ... ... a few places for SD have both wet gate and digital scratch/dust removal ( DVNR) and if they know how to use it WOW it is amazing ...

i find DV25 format is excellent for rank transfers from old 8/s8 home movies ..

cost!!! rank transfers not film chains
8/s8/ to digibeta with wet gate = 180- 220 hr .. add DVNR 50hr ..plus tape .. 50 hr to dump to your hard drive ...

16/s16 to digibeta with wet gate 150-220 hr .. add DVNR 50hr .. 50hr dump to hard drive ..

8/s8/16/s16 to HD 10 bit 1920x1080 24fps to hard drive = aprox $15per min ( 15 minute min) = you pay for film running time = either low contrast transfer or one light...

all places also charge between 04-08 cents per foot to clean/prep film

note: there are many places that charge much higher rates !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top