Film recorders

thomasgeorge · #1 03-02-2002, 06:47 AM

John, do you do any work with film transfer devices? I was wondering how the negatives come out from this process as regards prints or scans made from them. Thanks, Tom

john_opitz · #2 03-03-2002, 01:42 PM

Speaking of film recorders only. Never done the video to film thing(I'm a stills guy. Shoot only film for media......ie...print work). Yes, The prints came out good. Going from film to digital,for retouching and outputing the file to a negative again. Now everything is done on Cd's. Which there seems a debate on the output, film vs. cd's thing. I hear very little about film recorders being used for that purpose now, as far as for photography. Everything thing seems to go from digital cameras' to a CD. Other words. Everything is a digital file. Not getting in deep about the science about it. But the digital input/output is a lot of less grief, than film. Than again, film is not going to leave us tomorrow or next year either. Film is a different look than digital. For better or worse. And, again, not getting deep into that.....film vs. digital. There's (my thing) no need you "have" to go digital. Example: Wedding guys?! Why "must" they go digital. I know there are advantages and slight disadvantages to it(don't do weddings anymore). But the bride and groom are going on their honeymoon after, for about 2 weeks(depends). You don't need the prints "right" away. My stand on it. I can go either way. But not, I "must" use digital. Unless........"thats" what they want.
You notice how I got from film recorders to weddings here?!
But on film recorders,on the quality that depends.......... on the"quality" of the film recorder and everything else in the workflow your using. But I find the "all digital" workflow works better(unless you have to work from negatives to output to film again). It's just like,it's better to scan the negative(if the negative was properly exposed) than to scan the print, because if the print(and not getting deep into it) has a cast to it or it was printed too light or too dark. That's going to affect your output.
All this depends on the type of equipment you have also.ie.... an off the shelf flatbed vs. a flextight, film scanner,ect.ect.

thomasgeorge · #3 03-04-2002, 06:58 AM

Thanks for the input John. The local Photographer is doing more and more shoots with a combination of traditional and digital and it seems to be working out well.... I was wondering about the film recorders, esp. in the 120/220 and 4x5 formats, as I have been approached to come up with a scheme to archive historic prints and the idea occured to me that a high res scan touched up in Photoshop then transfered to one of the above formats at about 4 to 8 k would make a great copy negative ( something the customers are absolute about) then burning copys of the raw scan, retouched scan, re formatted for print and reformatted for web scan, to CD for a public access archive. It seems from what I have read that scanning at hi bit/ hi res, then retouching and transfering might possibly be the way to go. Have you heard of anyone who has done this type of retouch/transfer? Any thoughts you have would be deeply appreciated. Thanks Tom

john_opitz · #4 03-04-2002, 01:49 PM

O.k. Then.

Phenoix hardware engine and film recorder information

At the above site(the lnk is where you can get the book on "everything you need to know about film recorders". You have to get it by snail mail though. It's free). Is where they also have a hardware engine for your existing film recorder. If that's not a help to you, they still have some go info. on using film recorders. Like that book. They will even send you samples from your ftp.files. At no charge. On the recorders quality. Since the way your talking, your not looking for the desktop type. Their located in my neck of the woods,N.J. Before I moved to Gods' Country,Texas.

thomasgeorge · #5 03-04-2002, 01:55 PM

Thanks again. The help is much appreciated. Tom

john_opitz · #6 03-04-2002, 02:08 PM

Also, your better to go the 4x5 route instead of 120. That's what I use to do. But then again. Film changed. Got better. Never did 120. Always 4x5.

thomasgeorge · #7 03-04-2002, 03:54 PM

Glad you mentioned that..I was leaning towards the 4x5, mainly due to consideration that there might be less film waste if the number of unexposed frames exceeded the number of photos to be scanned and then transfered. The devices I have investigated thus far are mind numbingly expensive but the potential is there, especially if working with Historical Societies which have grants awarded them for preservation, making copy negatives, etc. of their photographic collections...just have to see what develops. Thanks again..Tom

john_opitz · #8 03-04-2002, 07:51 PM

No biggie. Thought that's what it's for. Funny. How things in this field change fast. Not too long ago. Digital equip........ie.....film and flatbed scanners,pro cameras went for a lot of dough.Film recorders were cheap compared to all that(I think). Now it's the opposite.

thomasgeorge · #9 03-05-2002, 05:14 AM

Agree on that. The film recorder seems to be a pretty good example of how the traditional photographic and digital domains can over lap and be of mutual value...the ability to grab a photo, retouch it, transfer that to film as a negative for archival storage and keep a digital copy for print, web, etc. plus the ability to scan the copy negative to get a print, sure seems to blend the two diciplines in a most advantageous way! Just wish the cost of the darn things wasnt more than a new 4wd PU....Tom

Doug Nelson · #10 05-07-2002, 10:30 PM

I thought this deserved a thread of its own, so I split it off from a Work/Jobs thread and moved it here.