Posted by dvhitman on 04/27/06 15:59

I have to agree with roger.

I initially purchased a Workprinter for transferring my film "STUNTMAN"
which was shot on super duper 8mm. I had some previous super 8mm film
transferred at a reputable lab using a 'film chain' style method.

For the average user, the filmchain method was _alright_, but it caused
a loss of sharpness and a lack of contrast in the image. The blacks
were murky and not as rich as they should be. Also the image suffered
from additional motion blur from being video taped while being
projected. Not to mention the fact that typical film chain methods
will not let you run at a true 16/18/24fps film speed.

The workprinter is awesome because it allows FRAME by FRAME scanning.
So each frame of your film is photographed individually. This is the
same principal that is used by high end scanners for feature film work,
at an incredibly low fraction of the cost.

Now the restriction on the workprinter is the type of CAMERA that you
choose to hook up. Find a friend with a high end broadcast 3ccd camera
and you'll get some images that are quite comparable to a rank/cintel
scan/transfer. Or like the other guy was mentioning find a used GL2 for
pretty cheap and do it that way and you'll get some great results.

Since owning a Workprinter, I've upgraded to a DV8 Sniper pro and have
started my own business with the equipment. The DV8 comes standard
with a high end 3ccd camera that also has manual colour and density
adjustments to pull detail out of the shadows and highlights that most
transfer methods would never be able to handle.

In regards to the cinecap software and pulldown patterns... I used to
work in VFX and have had to deal with 16mm and 35mm footage scanned off
high end ranks, and they give the exact same patterns that the cinecap
software allows for. If I shuttle frame by frame through something off
of a RANK at 24fps and something speed changed with interlacing at
24fps off cinecap the resulting patterns are identical. Infact, the
thing that is even cooler about cinecap's workflow with the
workprinter/sniper is that your initial captured file doesn't have any
speed applied to it initially. You can then make your footage play
back in slo-mo or regular speed without having to retransfer the
footage. You can have a much more natural speed change than if you were
to try and slow down footage AFTER paying for a RANK scan. (this would
cause the interlacing issues that the other guy was mentioning, unless
you de-interlaced the footage... but it will just add more step in
processing for you).

Check out roger's site for more info: www.moviestuff.tv he has been
extremely supportive, and his customer service is bar none the best
that I've ever had.


Justin
frame discreet
8mm.film.transfer.house
www.justinlovell.com


MovieStuff wrote:
> Derek Gee wrote:
>
> > I have reservations about Moviestuff's "speed change transform" software
> > based on my experiences with other professional video software. There is a
> > definate limit as to how much transforming you can do before weird things
> > begin to happen.
>
> The CineCap software for MovieStuff products employs the exact same
> pulldown patterns used by high end Rank transfer units. There is zero
> difference. But if you fail to enable the interpolated pulldown
> pattern then it will look jerky on television. Likewise, if you use the
> interpolated pulldown pattern for viewing on a computer, it will look
> odd. It's all about correctly setting up the preferences in the CineCap
> software for the intended display venue. But the pulldown pattern is
> based on the same broadcast standards used in Ranks, Spirits, Phillips
> and others. There is no difference. So if you don't like the pulldown
> patterns used by CineCap for creating speed changes, then you also will
> not like the motion characteristics of a high end Rank transfer, since
> they both use the exact same patterns.
>
> > Unless you have a ton of film, it's simply cheaper to a let a professional
> > transfer place do the work.
>
> I would tend to agree.
>
> > If you want the finest quality transfer for
> > your film, it's simply not possible to use the do-it-yourself stuff that
> > Moviestuff and Tobin Cinema Systems are selling. The Rank and Grass Valley
> > systems beat them hands down.
>
> There is no doubt that a $250,000 Rank is going to offer more potential
> than a $1395.00 WorkPrinter or a $6000 DV8 Sniper but, for reversal
> home movie film, the minor differences are hardly worth the $249,000
> difference in price, especially if you use a good 3CCD camera and have
> it set up properly. There is a reason that we have sold more than 2000
> units worldwide and that the Academy of Motion Picture Film Archives in
> Hollywood made our units the archiving tool of choice and it wasn't
> because our units produced a substandard image when set up correctly.
> Our units have also been used to produce broadcast grade footage for
> the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, Fox as well as tons of
> music videos. More specifically, regarding the qualitative difference
> between our units and a Rank, please see the comparison done in PC
> magazine where footage was sent to us and to a lab with a Rank Turbo:
>
> http://www.moviestuff.tv/whats_new.html#Sniper%20vs%20Rank%20in%20PC%20Magazine
>
> I think the images speak for themselves and demonstrate more
> similarities to high end transfers than appreciable differences,
> especially when you consider the tremendous difference in cost. I agree
> with you that, if you can afford a Rank transfer, then that is the way
> to go. That's what I would do, too. But if you can't, then the
> WorkPrinter and Sniper units are a more than acceptable close second.
>
> Roger Evans
> MovieStuff

[Back to original message]