Jump to content


Photo

35mm 'Home Transfer'


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 grantsmith

grantsmith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 28 October 2006 - 03:20 PM

Hello all,

I know this has been partially mentioned (myself included) before.

I had an idea a while ago to shoot on some 35mm short ends I have with an eyemo, process them in my spiral tank and project the negative in my local cinema (I have a friend who is a projectionist there) and record on video.

As was pointed out to me (sadly) print and camera film have different perforation size and the only way to do it was to use a proper telecine (though some folks were working on interesting flatbed scanner ideas).

My question is, completely regardless of quality, can anyone think of a way to transfer 35mm negative to video without using facilities houses. There must be something that somebody has had partial success with? (preferably not a flatbed scanner type method as it seems far too time consuming).

What would happen if you tried to project a b+h neg on a cinema projector? Could this be run through even once? Or is it likely to damage the projector?

What about tabletop editors?

Any suggestions, no matter how deranged would be appreciated.


Yes, I know that 35mm is designed for high end work and because of that is very expensive.

I'm not trying to think of cheap alternatives to the tried and trusted way to shoot and develop 35mm. I know it goes through this process because quality is optimum.

All I want is, as an experiment, or just to see if it can be done is to shoot, develop and edit (on video) something, regardless of quality on 35mm film.

I've managed to do s8 and 16mm so far so this is the next challenge for me. Its not really for any purpose but I really enjoy carrying out my own esoteric film experiments in my spare time. Even though most people think its a wate of time I find it very enjoyable.


Many thanks,

Grant
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 28 October 2006 - 04:08 PM

Hello all,

I know this has been partially mentioned (myself included) before.

I had an idea a while ago to shoot on some 35mm short ends I have with an eyemo, process them in my spiral tank and project the negative in my local cinema (I have a friend who is a projectionist there) and record on video.

As was pointed out to me (sadly) print and camera film have different perforation size and the only way to do it was to use a proper telecine (though some folks were working on interesting flatbed scanner ideas).

My question is, completely regardless of quality, can anyone think of a way to transfer 35mm negative to video without using facilities houses. There must be something that somebody has had partial success with? (preferably not a flatbed scanner type method as it seems far too time consuming).

What would happen if you tried to project a b+h neg on a cinema projector? Could this be run through even once? Or is it likely to damage the projector?

What about tabletop editors?

Any suggestions, no matter how deranged would be appreciated.
Yes, I know that 35mm is designed for high end work and because of that is very expensive.

I'm not trying to think of cheap alternatives to the tried and trusted way to shoot and develop 35mm. I know it goes through this process because quality is optimum.

All I want is, as an experiment, or just to see if it can be done is to shoot, develop and edit (on video) something, regardless of quality on 35mm film.

I've managed to do s8 and 16mm so far so this is the next challenge for me. Its not really for any purpose but I really enjoy carrying out my own esoteric film experiments in my spare time. Even though most people think its a wate of time I find it very enjoyable.
Many thanks,

Grant


Hi,

Why not get a print to run through the projector or shoot reversal. The neg will get ruined.

Stephen
  • 0

#3 grantsmith

grantsmith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 28 October 2006 - 05:05 PM

thanks Stephen. A print sounds like a good compromise which I had not thought of though would prefer to do as much 'DIY' as possible.

I'm not too bothered about the neg being ruined providing it can be run at least once.

I'm only thinking of using negative as thats is what I have available to me though would neversal not have the same perfs as negative?

cheers.

grant
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 28 October 2006 - 05:20 PM

thanks Stephen. A print sounds like a good compromise which I had not thought of though would prefer to do as much 'DIY' as possible.

I'm not too bothered about the neg being ruined providing it can be run at least once.

I'm only thinking of using negative as thats is what I have available to me though would neversal not have the same perfs as negative?

cheers.

grant


Grant,

The neg perfs are not the problem. Negative is very dilicate and may be scratched the first time you run it.

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 28 October 2006 - 08:05 PM

How about this? I have heard that back in the early days of cinema some dual use camera/projection machines were made, so do a little DYI mod on your Eyemo. Replace the steel pressure plate with a glass one, put a light behind it and use its gate to step-print to a digital camera?
  • 0

#6 Dan Salzmann

Dan Salzmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 29 October 2006 - 12:49 PM

How would you do this without lamp heat burning up the film as well as the inside of the Eyemo?
  • 0

#7 Clive Tobin

Clive Tobin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Spokane Valley, WA, USA

Posted 29 October 2006 - 01:10 PM

... I'm not too bothered about the neg being ruined providing it can be run at least once....


Don't count on running it even once. Unless you edge wax the film outside the sprocket holes to stand the high gate tension in the projector.

The perforations are no problem, the short pitch negative is well within the range of pitch owing to shrinkage that the projector can handle. And all projectors can handle BH (negative shape) perforations, which is what old Technicolor IB (imbibition) prints used to be made with.
  • 0

#8 grantsmith

grantsmith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 29 October 2006 - 03:18 PM

Thanks Clive,

That sounds very positive. How would I go about waxing the perforations?

Grant
  • 0

#9 Clive Tobin

Clive Tobin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Spokane Valley, WA, USA

Posted 07 November 2006 - 07:18 PM

Thanks Clive,
That sounds very positive. How would I go about waxing the perforations?
Grant

Actually you want to mostly wax the edges just outside the perforations. This is what is clamped in the projector gate. The processing machines for positive prints use a couple of narrow rollers running in a bath of fairly concentrated wax in solvent, that transfer to the edges when the film passes over it. If you are doing just a small amount maybe you could apply car wax to the edge and buff it. Waxing the film's base side seems to do more good than waxing the emulsion side.
  • 0

#10 Richardson Leao

Richardson Leao
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Other
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 09 November 2006 - 02:04 AM

Actually you want to mostly wax the edges just outside the perforations. This is what is clamped in the projector gate. The processing machines for positive prints use a couple of narrow rollers running in a bath of fairly concentrated wax in solvent, that transfer to the edges when the film passes over it. If you are doing just a small amount maybe you could apply car wax to the edge and buff it. Waxing the film's base side seems to do more good than waxing the emulsion side.



Don't forget about the orange mask of negatives. I tried to do something similar with 16mm and results were terrible. I could send you a sample if you want. It's total crap. Moreover, if you plan to develop negs (ECN-2) in a spiral tank, I suppose you'll be using c41 chemistry. That's OK, as long as you first bath it with borax and wipe the remjet layer with a sponge or something.
  • 0

#11 grantsmith

grantsmith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 09 November 2006 - 05:45 AM

thanks guys,

My 16mm color tests come out pretty good. The temperature seems to deal with the remjet - I only have to give it a very mild wash down. I don't seem to have the 'orange' problem. I use the camera negative effect and white balance on the 'screen'. Comes out quite nice, though obviously the whole thing is pretty far removed from a professional lab.

Looking forward to trying it with 35mm.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Abel Cine

CineLab

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio