[Tig] Using an optical printer as a scanner?

[adam berk]

The problem with the JK Printer / DSLR combo is the life of the  
DSLR's shutter.  Most of those things are only promised to work  
around 100 to 150 thousand times.  So, in a perfect world, we might  
say that every DSLR body you buy lasts exactly 150,000 exposures.  At  
40 frames per foot for 16mm, that equates out to exactly 3,750 feet  
of film.  You'd have to replace the DSLR body constantly.  At this  
cost, it WOULD actually save money to send out your film for HD one- 
light scanning at a facility that offers EDU discounts.


thanks so much,

Adam Berk
BluMedia Projekt and Creative Technology
Smoke/Flame artist and C>me development team
T. +13303103950
E. adam at blumediaprojekt.com

www.blumediaprojekt.com
www.creativetechnology.com



On May 3, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Steven Bradford wrote:

> Thanks to Yuri Neyman (Gamma & Density) for support in 2007.
> Guide to TIG Posting is at
> http://tig.colorist.org/wiki3/index.php/Guide_to_TIG_Etiquette
>  ====
>
>
>
>  I had posted this over at CML before realizing that this group is
> likely going to give me a better, or at least more informed and
> interesting response!
>
> I had been intending to buy a J-K Digital Printer
>  http://www.jkcamera.com/digital_printer.htm this month as a way  
> for my
> visual fx students to make hi resolution scans of Super16 so they'd
> have very large file size image sequences to get experience working
> with,  and the problems entailed etc. This is a slow printer that  
> uses a
> digital SLR in place of the bolex in the the basic JK optical setup
> that's been around for a long time. I liked it because it was under  
> 10k
> dollars but was a ready to go all in one solution that results in
>  large full res files, depending on the DSLR used.
>
>  But they don't respond to emails, and when I tracked them down today,
> I gathered he's not making them anymore. He hinted that he might
> eventually if enough orders build up, but he didn't seem too  
> enthused by
> that idea.
>
>
>  So now I'm looking for alternates. I know there are wonderful  
> solutions
> out there but I'm not looking to spend a few  hundred thousand  
> dollars,
> I'd have to plan years in advance to make  that happen, so if that's
> your suggestion, I'll ignore it. ;-) I'm  wondering how difficult it
> would be to do this on our own, with a used  optical printer and a  
> DSLR
> with a macro lens. There seem to be a lot  of them (optical printers)
> just sitting around out there. I just don't  know how involved or
> difficult the automation neccesary would be to  synchronize the taking
> camera, and the optical printer and for  recording off to a  
> computer and
> hard drive. (Though simply recording  to compact flash is an  
> acceptable
> option and might be faster.) Speed is not a concern. Our volume is  
> low,
> this is just to scan in short shots, not whole feature films.
>
>  Steven Bradford
>  Director, School of Film
>  Collins College
>  Tempe Arizona
>
> _______________________________________________
> No personal abuse; absolutely no advertising or marketing on the  
> main TIG mailinglist.  Emergency
> tig contact address is rob (at) calarts.edu
> Tig mailing list
> Tig at tig.colorist.org
> http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig