Tweet Save a film yourself. Maybe it's possible...

Well, let's to the point, digital cameras today easily get 18mega pixels, and the best models 24mega pixels ( http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/art ... leries.jpg" target="_blank ). That's a lot...
There are already HDs of 3 terrabites, and models of 2 terrabits for fair price.

Some less important films still fight to survive, as budget to the make a fine grain it's not always available.
I have saw many digital photos of nitrate film, and most just shooting a picture of the nitrate strip over a glass table with not great care, and the results was not bad.

Well, I think it's possible to adapt a old projector or old motion picture camera, just the gate and the wheel case, and place a digital camera direct in the right possition, maybe soldering a suport ofr it get very stable.

Modern cinematographic film scanners cost fortune, but I think it's possible to save a film in home, frame by frame, even it if take 2 weeks. to transfer.

Even a wet gate maybe could be possible fro the home made scanner, as it is just a closed gate container filled wit "perclore-something--" (I forgot now) and a precision glass on front and back to allow light to pass.
A button to move one frame at time and one for shoot a digital photo of the frame.


Ok, cal me crazy, but it's a idea.
The main problem I see it's about the dynamic range, as digital cameras CCD still have limitation to bright tones, and bright tends to explode in pure right sometimes. But there is a technic to avoid it, by combining a low expored image with a high exposure image, since a frame it's a static thing. such technic would help to get dark tones in shadow with more quality, in case of contrasting prints.



Remamber that about 20% of the the hand colored version of A Trip to The Moon was saved with digital camera.

And in the last case, just a glass with a homogen ligh source bellow, in a animation stand, that it's quite simple. With this and patience you can transfer a film to digital format.

Hey, many film institutions have students, and not much money. What about built such home made transfer devices and put the students working on it?

In order for this to happen, first the people in positions of leadership
at schools (or archives) thoroughly have to believe that it's not "hip"
to be elitist, or have unconscious needs to be seen as possessors of the
treasures. Even those who can be lucky enough to live by major
silent film festivals shouldn't think that merely reporting seeing a film
in any major way changes the overall obscurity of that film, or it's possible
re-disappearance in years to come.

Growing up in a nice area of Long Island, it was the worst insult
you could give someone there to call them a "snob." Now it seems
there is some cache by being seen as snobbish.

I sure didn't get the impression that George Eastman was a snob.

At first impression, it's a little odd to see his silent film archive to have all the restrictions
they do. I could be wrong.


--
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com

I know if there was an affordable way to digitize at home, I'd put the time in.

Is this just a more complicated way of whining about not being able to get everything you want on DVD?

Not, this time... but could be...

But digital cameras have their crap side, their trash side too, like the garbage dynamic range fort bright tones, the boosted look the bright tones get, like looking all pure white instead of shows a good range of tone.
That's why I said that would be necessary two sensor, using a spliter prism, like one for high exposure and one to low exposure, to create a goot dynamic range

I would like know how the brain washing works... cause propaganda make people stupid, make people forget the crap sides of technology.
Sometimes I think people are monkeys or dumb. They watch DVD on PC and do not complain about the washed out image, washed contrast and very dark shaddow, while on CRT TV image look glossy and we see nice tones in shadows. Try to adjust the contrast on the PC player software, and you kill all details in brgiht tones, making a flat pure white where should be many different tones.
Try to get the tones on shadows, again using the player software, and the dark and blacks looks like if you sprayed transparent white ink.

And people just think it's good cause marketing made their minds. The same with mp3, that it's worst than CD, and CD have inferior frequency compared to very goo vinyl.

What about the TV monitor, like the LED monitors that also work with TV signal. God sakes, a family member here sw side by side, the glossy image of good flat screen CRT TV, and the faded washed out image on a LED monitor TV, and could not adjust it after many tries, cause only would kill details from the bright tones or make black look grey. Even so he refused to accept that THE monmitor, in terms of contrast, was a crap to watch films.

And a digital sat signed TV in my contry, that have so,much channels compressed in a very small space, that looks like a youtube video, and faces get blurred for details like wrinkles. And people do not use to complain, because it's digitral and their monkey brains are programed to think digital it's good.

If you put a mono signal on a 5.1 system, people will think it's good just because they see many small speakers, looking like a modern thing.


Sometimes I feel like The Last Man on Earth, or The Last Sane Man on Earh, at least in terms of judge video.

Is this just a more complicated way of whining about not being able to get everything you want on DVD?