Newsgroups: rec.video
From: eoates@us.oracle.com
Subject: Re: transferring film to video
Organization: Oracle Corporation, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:39:11 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <4652@vidiot.UUCP>, brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.130818.28367@hemlock.cray.com> n3022@cray.com writes:
> <>My brother and I used the method (1) that you proposed [recording off of
> <>the movie screen]. It worked very very well.
> <
> <My question is this:
> <
> <In trying this procedure myself over the weekend, I ended up with a lot of flicker
> <on the video copy of the movie.  I single-stepped the video copy in the VCR and
> <noticed that the frames alternated a little lighter and darker.  I'm wondering if
> <this fluctuation is due to the auto-exposure system in the camcorder responding
> <to the "movie" flicker action of the projector? (Unfortunately there is no manual
> <exposure on my RCA CC507 camcorder).
> <
> <I did have the movie projector about three feet from the screen and the camcorder
> <about two feet from the screen.  Would the flicker be reduced if I projected the film
> <maybe 20 feet to the screen and captured the image on the camcorder from there.
> <
> <Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> First off your lines are too long.  Please make then shorter than 79 characters.
> 
> Secondly you are running into the problem of the film being projected at 18
> frames per second, while video is 59.94 fields per second.  The video camera is
> even picking up the times that the screen is black (while the film is being
> moved to the next frame and also during the black of the double-bladed shutter).
> So, the film is being projected at a rate equal to 36 fps.  Notice that the two
> rates are not the same.
> 
> The only correct way is to use professional services that have equipment that
> will pull the film correctly through the transport, in sync with the recording
> system.
> 
> Personally these home transfer methods are for the birds.  But professional
> services are going to cost an arm and a leg.
> -- 
>       harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
> Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
>       rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
>                                    brown@wi.extrel.com

Now, let's keep this film to tape copying charge in perspective.  I had about 3
hours worth of 8mm transferred to Hi8 at a place in San Francisco (I'll provide
the name on request - just email me, please) for about $100 plus two hi8 tapes. 
If that seems steep, just try going to a photo place and asking them to create
a duplicate film of the same material!  (are we done laughing yet?)

My experience is that having your films copied onto tape is an econimical way
of obtaining viewable images (given the limitations of 8mm film and the cheesy
cameras my parents shot this stuff with in the fifties, I think there is no
resolution or color loss) which you can safely view as often as you want (I
dubbed Hi8 copies for frequent viewing, save the originals for annual
rewinding, and saved the original films in a more or less proper environment). 
Film gets brittle with age, and some color dyes fade, so copying to tape is a
good way to go. 
-- 
Ed Oates (my opinions, not Oracle's)
 
" But scientists say that on Aug. 14,2126, a huge comet
  named Swift-Tuttle may smack the Earth without first
  filing an environmental empact statement or even getting
  Al Gore's permission.  If it hits a spotted owl habitat
  there will be litigation." - George Will, Dec. 28, 1992.