There was no sync between 16mm projector and the camcorder. I would try it and see what happens. Borrow or otherwise :) gain use of the camcorder. Nothing to lose but a little of your time. Tomas Larsson wrote: > Well, 16mm film is quite different, since most of is 24 FPS, but 8 mm is > only 16 FPS, so filming it off with a dv-cam is not doable if one want > descent quality, even if I find a dv-cam that could run at 16 FPS, how do I > sync them. > > Here in Sweden there is a douple of companies that do the transfer, but to a > pric around $15/minute, it's becoming quite expensive. > > Now, designing and building a dedicated 8mm scanner would probaley cost me > around $1000, but think of all fun while doing it. > > With best regards > > Tomas Larsson > Sweden > http://www.tlec.se > http://www.ebaman.com > > Verus Amicus Est Tamquam Alter Idem > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu >> [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Carl Denk >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:44 PM >> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >> Subject: Re: [EE]Looking for a Camera module. >> >> A few years ago, I had (7) 400' reels of 16 mm. silent >> color/and b&w film transfered to DVD with complimentary >> sounds dubbed in for about $250 USD. The process was to >> project onto a screen 2 or 3 foot wide and used a good >> quality camcorder to capture the images. Looks good on 42" >> TV screen. If someone is interested in the service located in >> Northern Ohio, contact me privately and I'll put the contact together. >> >> As a separate issue, I have about (1000) 35mm. slides to >> convert to digital. I bought a Microtek scanmaker I700 >> scanner that does 4000 dpi. >> and has both 35 mm slide and film strip holders. The scanner >> is very slow and would probably take 20 minute to do 8 >> slides. I would like to obtain an extra set of the slide >> holders so I could be loading one while the other is >> scanning. The scanner is slow even with normal copying >> compared to the 2 HP scanners that I can't find good XP >> drivers for. I also have 4" x 5" (6 x 9 cm) and 6 x 17 cm >> film holders for the scanner that I never will have a use >> for. I'll ship (USA only) free to someone that can put them to use. :) >> >> Lee Jones wrote: >> >>>> What I want to do is a device to transfer traditional 8mm film to >>>> digital media. As you know, the film has very high "resolution" >>>> and to be somewhat "future-safe" I want to do it with as high >>>> resolution as possible. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> I'm looking for a resolution at 2048x1024 or higher. >>>> >>>> >>> I think you're asking too much from 8mm movie film. I don't recall >>> the actual size of a frame of 8mm, but as I believe 8mm >>> >> refers to the >> >>> width of the stock. So the frame has to be smaller than that. >>> >>> Film has a resolving power topping out about 50 line pairs per mm >>> under good conditions. Some films can do up to 100 lpmm >>> >> under optimum >> >>> conditions with an excellent lens and no camera shake. >>> That means, top end, you need about 200 pixels per mm resolution. >>> With an 8mm wide film frame and and aspect ratio of 4:3, >>> >> you are going >> >>> to get less than 1600x1200 pixels of _usable data_ from >>> >> each frame of >> >>> 8mm movie film. >>> >>> High end film scanners resolve 4000 pixels per inch (PPI) or about >>> 157 pixels per mm. And that resolution is more than >>> >> adequate because >> >>> they resolve the film grains. Personally, I think that >>> >> 2700-2900 PPI >> >>> (106-114 pixels per mm) was an optimum "sweet spot" in film >>> >> scanning. >> >>> I'm doing a long term project to convert my 35mm using a 2900 PPI >>> scanner. It's quicker than my 4000 PPI scanner and "looks better" >>> for normal size prints or projected images. >>> >>> Again, assuming an 8mm wide frame and 4:3 aspect ratio, I >>> >> think that >> >>> 1200x900 pixels is all that an 8mm film frame has to offer. >>> And probably slightly lower resolution than that would be fine. >>> Recall than when viewing it, even greatly enlarged, you only have a >>> fraction of a second to see each individual image. >>> >>> Before going farther, maybe you should beg or borrow or buy >>> >> time on a >> >>> film scanner. Scan some of your 8mm film frames at various >>> resolutions and see exactly how they look. I'm willing to >>> >> scan it for >> >>> you, but you being in Sweden prevents doing it quickly. >>> If you are willing to mail me a short length of film (via post), I >>> will scan it and email you back the resulting images. Now >>> >> you have me >> >>> curious. :-) (If you are interested, contact me off-list >>> >> for mailing >> >>> information.) >>> >>> >>> >>>> My idea is to do it fram by frame, and then asseble all >>>> >> the frames in >> >>>> a computer. First i was thinking of using a digital >>>> >> camera but the >> >>>> optics creates a problem since i basically want to do a >>>> "contact-copy" of the film, i.e. project the image directly on ccd >>>> >>>> >>> If you have a Canon interchangable lens digital SLR, get >>> >> (buy or rent) >> >>> a Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Photo lens. It's optimized for doing macro >>> work from 1:1 to 5:1 image scale (yes, that last is an image that is >>> 5 times the size of the original object). New, they's US$800. You >>> can easily fill a DSLR frame with an 8mm film frame >>> >> (properly backlit). >> >>> I expect that Nikon makes a similar lens, but I know & use Canon. >>> >>> Then hook the camera to your computer via firewire or USB, use the >>> supplied software to run the camera in tethered mode, and >>> >> capture all >> >>> of the 8mm film you have. >>> >>> Then you can spend your time building hardware and >>> >> programming a PIC >> >>> to automatically advance the 8mm movie film, frame by frame, under >>> coordinated control of the image capture computer. :-) >>> >>> >>> In another message, you mention having a "couple of km" of 8mm film. >>> Let's do "back of the envelope" math. 2kM is 2,000M is >>> >> 2,000,000mm of >> >>> film. If each frame is 6mm tall, you are looking at 1/3 million >>> images. If each image is 3MB (1200x900 pixels at 8 bits/pixel with >>> 3 color channels, stored as TIFF), then you are looking at >>> >> 1 terrabyte >> >>> of storage for this project. That's a couple 750MB disk >>> >> drives or 250 >> >>> full single layer DVDs. And way over 300,000 image files. >>> >>> It may be pedestrian, but I think you may be >>> >> underestimating the raw >> >>> effort needed to manage that many images or that much storage. >>> And I doubt most video editing programs would do well with >>> >> it, even if >> >>> it were broken up into multiple projects (one per 8mm film reel). >>> >>> Lee Jones >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change >> your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> >> > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist