DIY Film Scanner

here is an aprox 2 grand solution


a canon HV20 (comes out in april) - $1100
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HV20-Yes-Its-True.htm

coupled with a Black Magic Intensity card - $249
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

this lets you record RAW uncompressed 4:2:2 1920x1080 24p or DVC100 (same as the HVX200) you need a mac for the DVC100 live encode i think...

and a 16mm projector - $699
http://www.8mm16mmfilmscollectibles.com/16mm_Projectors.htm

you project the film onto a nice screen - i don't know how much they are - in a dark room.

1920x1080 and 2k are almost the same it's negligible. i don't know how well this would work but people used this as a cheep method for super8 transfer to DV.

in total is should cost around 2.5 grand
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the ideas:thumbup:

I have an HVX, so there is no need to buy an aditional cam, but I think the quality of the picture would not be very nice, projected and then filmed. But even bad quality would be enough to make a rough cut to digitalze later only the needed film negative parts in 2k. I am just a little bit afraid that these projectors would destroy my negative, by scretches or even burned frames.

Does someone know some plans for a stepmotor setup to buld a precise but slow motor to transfer the film or how to modify a digital photo camera to shoot f.ex. with 2 frames a minute and transfering the data directly to a mass storage or pc?

Have a nice weekend
David
 
if you project the image onto a really nice screen - i think this is the most important part for the quality of the picture.
and you use a projector with a 5 blade shutter - eliminates flicker!!!!
http://www.duallcamera.com/store/index.shtml - the "singer" at the bottom is $500 and it has a 5 blade shutter!!!!!

set up your hvx correctly and it should look great!!! not perfect of course cos it's DIY
it's the cheapest simplest best method other than doing it professionally

i think you always risk handling damage when you handle your film :)
as long as you buy a refurbished serviced projector, i think you're pretty safe. unless you personally screw something up.

the only other problem i can think of is; can 16mm projectors run super16 (different from regular 16mm)? i havn't seen a specific super16 projector though. i don't know much about this.
 
Last edited:
I think in order to do a telecine right which is really what you want--you need something like this rather than a front projection screen:

http://cgi.ebay.com/8mm-16mm-Slides-Projector-to-Video-Transfer-Telecine_W0QQitemZ220080594727QQihZ012QQcategoryZ15257QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This device is basically used for rear projection of the image and works with a video camera. The problem with front projection is it never really looks like it should. These type units keep the image smaller and therefore the camera can be closer to the screen. Of course make sure autofocus is off too.

Classic telecines never do front projection (as I've understood them anyway).
 
Why would you shoot in film just to record it with a camera much worse? Wouldn't that eliminate the latitude and color of film?
 
miracom - the problem with thoes cheap telecine thingy's is that the projection screens are usually realy bad. you get alot of grain and it's static so you notice it more.

if you took it apart and made the screen vibrate like in 35mm adapters, it would be excelent!!!!
 
Why would you shoot in film just to record it with a camera much worse? Wouldn't that eliminate the latitude and color of film?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I never got that either. :huh:
 
1920x1080 24p uncompressed 4:2:2 is basically the same as 16mm film.
yes you lose some of the quality, you always do with telecining.
you do keep all the nice film look though. which is why you shoot film in the first place :)


if your end product is digital and less quality than 1080p then you're smiling.

if you end product is a film print or more than 1080p then you wouldn't use this method
 
jenningsp said:
miracom - the problem with thoes cheap telecine thingy's is that the projection screens are usually realy bad. you get alot of grain and it's static so you notice it more.

if you took it apart and made the screen vibrate like in 35mm adapters, it would be excelent!!!!
Click to expand...

Yes that would be quite a telecine wouldn't it. Has anyone made something like that? In any case, the idea is that rear projection would be better than front projection in my understanding of the theory behind these devices.
 
rear projection would be better because you don't have to deal with the angles of projection...
when using front projection you get all sorts of problems because, depending on where you set up your camera, one side of the image will appear smaller. you can counter this by adjusting the angle of the projection screen it's self. but this is just a hassle that you don't have when using rear projection.

essentially telecine works the same way 35mm adapters work.
you can think of the film as the tree you want to shoot. the projection lens as the nikon/canon lens, the projection screen is the projection screen. and then you have a macro lens between the camera and the screen.

it would be easy to build a small accurate telecine device with a vibrating projection screen.

you need 2 acromats, a ground glass projection screen and a vibrating motor thingy.
it would be something like this.
projector - acromat - vibrating ground glass - acromat - camera
put it all in a nice wooden box.

you do have to flip the image from left to right in post though.
 
you could actually use a 35mm adapter... do you have one?

i think most projectors have around a 50mm lens.
get an achromat and just screw it into the filter thread on the front - most should have filter threads

then set up your camera with a 35mm adapter on the front of it. but don't put on the SLR lens. leave the front open....

there you have it. a vibrating telecine.

if you don't have a 35mm adapter. the letus35 is cheap and good.


Singer 16mm Telecine Projector with 5 blade shutter - $500
http://www.duallcamera.com/store/index.shtml

letus35A - $375
http://letus35.com/page5.html

achromatic diopter/close up lens with appropriate step up/down rings - less than$100


total $975
 
Hi,
I think I would loose a lot of quality by shooting over a 35mm Adapter, but it would be for shure good enough to edit the "captured" film to scan the finaly needed negativ strips later at a good post production house (UPP Prague are willing to give discounts for students and they have a Northlight filmscanner).

I have a Nikkor 55mm AIS Macro lens and some macro rings, so I am wondering if it is not possible to photograph directly the negativ without projecting it on a (matt)screen, perhaps even while the film is wet to reduce scretches.

Also, it would be possible to capture the film twice: once underexposed and once overexposed to put them together later to get the full dynamic range of film.

For my next film, there will be probably no later film print, only 1080p digital copies...
By the way... if someone lives in or near Prague... I am still looking for experienced grip people for the shooting in the end of march / beginning april :-)
 
Last edited:
the 16mm projector idea will never work for super16. in case no-one noticed, the projector needs perforations on both sides of the film. s16 only has perforations on one side of the film... if you go ahead and do it anyway, you will ruin 20% of your picture with the pulldown claw!
 
What did you shoot that can't get transfered for under $3k to HDCAM or D5 professionally? I just got a half s16 half 35mm project transfered to HDCAM at $300 an hour at a more expensive transfer house; it was a student rate, but even at full rate it shouldn't take so long to amount to over $3k if your project only has a $3k budget for transfer.


The thing about a professional transfer is that while you will necessarily lose quality and latitude moving from film to digital, a professional colorist will help you retain the picture faithful to your visualization. With years of experience and a industry-standard calibrated system, you'll retain all the information that will let you create your final product. From a learning experience perspective, you'll also be presented with an accurate representation of your production quality: with the "ghettocine" you would not know whether any framing, contrast, or color abberations were photography problems or problems inherrent with your transfer process.
Furthermore, you mention DI: if you indeed intend to cut your film digitally and then finish with a film print, your "ghettocine" will simply have no way to synch your timecode with your film. A professional transfer or a very (very) expensive machine are the only ways to accomplish a DI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top