As I currently camera-less, I'm consider low cost approaches to create motion pictures.

I wonder about shooting shorts sequences (3-10) seconds at 3 -5 fps with SLR and motordrive, then using twixtor to render 24fps.

Anyone try such a thing or idea about how to test before I drop funds on camera and a bunch of film?

No way dude, you will get better results even with a hi8 !!!! or now that you have a SLR camera, remove the lens, and build a Agus35 (serach the forum), and get a Hi8.. that will be better than your current plans... even cheaper, and you wont have to wait until they give you thepictures and scan each one.

Perhaps I need to clarify. I'm looking for an "experimental" look, not realistic interlaced motion capture. If it looks a little "weird", that a good thing, i.e. kind of like slow motion at normal speed...

you can do almost anything that you can imaging in post production, but your quality is 100% dependent of your footage.

It looks okay...I've experimented with the demo of Twixtor and gotten fair results with it (used a friend's digital still cam). Depending on the motion of the camera or subject you can get some instances of warping/slow flickering which is an interesting error/visual byproduct that looks like a cross between that slow shutter dv look or the look that Michel Gondry used for the Rolling Stones video (which I think he morphed from frame to frame). You can find workarounds though, I'm sure...I didn't spend much time on the experiment.

On the software side, Retimer is available for AE as well, but the best retiming plug-in is only available for Shake or the Discreet Product line (Kronos, a part of the Tinderbox Furnace suite I think)--Chris Cunningham used SLRs and Kronos to do the Orange commercial (if you haven't seen it, here's the link)--

http://www.glassworks.co.uk/large/Inferno_Orange_PM_Big.mov

That's with a $5000 plug-in though.

Since I'm getting a Holga for Christmas, I'm exploring options (creatively and technically) to make a film in a similar vein (only using a cheap image degrading camera!). I'm also planning a sequence (sort of) using home-made pinhole cameras. I'm probably going to utilize some DV as well, but I want to print each frame out and scan it back in at a larger resolution to see if that gives me an interesting look. Lots of tedious work will have to be done, I know!

The downside to this, is that I will have to convince some friends to sit in on pixilation experiments while I direct them in stop-motion, or come up with something engaging sans people.

Just sharing some info, sorry about your financial situation and the loss of your camera. Digital video is great, but it is not the only way to make pictures...I'm sure you'll find a way to get back into your passion.

Get the 2000. The Fischer-Price 2000, that is. Pixel Vision.
No one ever mentions this cam. It actually has
been used in a (I think) widely released movie.
I heard of a guy who bought one at a flea market for
$5 and sold it on scambay for $400! The Deluxe Kit
came with a 4" black-and-white field monitor. No way?
Way!

P.S. For those unfamiliar with this cam, it records
audio *and* video on regular audio cassette
tapes.

I've always wanted one of these but the only reliable place I can find to get one is MacJava (if they have any in stock) and they're charging up to 700 USD for it.

It was used in spots on a modern version of Hamlet (Ethan Hawke, Bill Murray) and Nadja (or something)...both by the same filmmaker.

I remember coming across a site a year or two ago that had a process that laid down moving images onto records, and they could play them back on their own engineered record player if I remember correctly.

Man, have you ever seen the footage from a 2000?
I can't believe they made that for kids. Eerie!
I believe some people have modified them to
record to miniDV tape and just use the 2000 as a head with like RCA-out connecters.
I one time posted a link to a music video shot with the 2000.

Is This (http://www.afterburner.0catch.com/download_files/takashi@yeti_web.mov) something like your thinking of? It was shot with an EOS 5 @ 5 fps then put into a PAL QT at 25fps. It's basically just a scanned sequence but it will give you an idea of the motion you can expect.

Adrian and Michael:

Thanks for the pointers & encouragement but both your links are not working...The FTP site appears to be down and the other does not allow hotlinking.

I've actually looked for a pixelvision before but they are quite expensive.

Stephen,

Obviously, yes, you're going to get quite an experimental look out of that.

You can experiment already, just take any old video footage you have, speed it up to 6x normal speed (which should give you 4 individual frames per second), then export that as a series of stills. Then re-import that sequence as a 4 fps file and run the Twixtor demo on it.

Should be an exact approximation of the look you're contemplating, but with no bux out of pocket, so you can test it and see if it would be satisfactory.

Barry:

I had the same thought this morning as I've got plenty of DVX100 24p to mess with.

Twixtor test was interesting at just 1fps to 24fps - though I'm still learning how to use the plugin (don't understand Twixtor Pro yet).

The links are working now:

Adrian, that's what I want to capture but then I want software (e.g. Twixtor) to interpolate the frames inbetween. Action shots are probably not ideal though).

Michael:

Cunningham's ad is very cool, though that's no what I'm trying to get.

I'm just wondering what frame rate I want to pay for 4, 6 or 10 fps...

Here's a HD Windows Media 9 file from a test I did. I used my wife's Canon Powershot A70 digital still cam, auto mode, handhelp continous shot at approx 2 frames per second (it started at 2.2 then tailed off). Shots were 2048 X 1536 jpg.

I then applied Twixtor 2 fps to 24fps conversion and output a uncompressed AVI at 1080p.

Then used Windows Media encoder to create this file. Intriguing results and I think 4-8 fps with a SLR would give great results (for my experimental needs

Twixtor Test (www.sevensmilingsharks.com/media/twixtor.wmv)

I didn't understand at what your were getting at, and then it finally hit me. A very cool idea, but you'd be so limited in what you wanted to do. Maybe like Stephen said, if you can get a few more fps then it would look really nice.

True, lots & lots of limitations but remember, there are some bonusus. Film Res (2K or 4K) resolution at Hi8 prices. 35mm glass, sharpness and DOF.

It's not what you would want to shoot dialog heavy comedies but for experimental and expressive "art" pieces, it's an intriguing possibility.

And I'm financially limited. And limitation is a great movitator for creativity.

Sorry Stephen, I can't view the file (on a mac, I've tried installing WM and VLC player, neither would open the file). The results you get are dependent on which mode you're using in Twixtor (Blend mode is all I can remember at the moment, there are a few others that are a bit more render-intensive). And obviously, the more fps you have going into the software (the more pictures you shoot) the smoother your motion will be.

I believe the clip that Adrian posted didn't utilize any time remapping plug-ins, it was basically done using Quicktime's own framerate conversion (similar to AE's posterize time), so if that's more of the look you're going for (choppier), try a test by creating a comp at 29.97 or 25fps (NTSC or PAL), and apply posterize time to the frame rate that suits you. Obviously, you wouldn't be creating any new frames with this technique (basically duping existing frames to the extended frame rate), but it might be a look/style you could use as well along side the results you're getting with Twixtor. Something to juxtapose, perhaps.

Michael:

Sorry it won't view. It's a Windows Media 9 file - thought the Mac WM could play those. What error do you get?

It plays on my Mac with Microsoft WMP 9. It can be downloaded from Microsofts site and Version Tracker.

Only thing about exporting DV footage at a higher frame rate and then reimporting it to retime is that the motion in the frame is spatially accurate (or something like that).

ie. the linearity is still there, as opposed to capturing with an SLR, in which case you would introduce other combined factors such as camera movement + unnatural subject movement (if the subject acts like a stop-motion character) + frames captured at different intervals (thus removing the even spacing of the motions).

I have been thinking of something similar to this as well.

Interesting thread!!


,Frank

Thought I'd post a couple of links of other people who have built
their own devices to capture images with, because it is interesting
to see what can be done with around-the-house items.

These guys are capturing images with flatbed scanners.
I know this isn't fast enough, obviously, to capture a movie
with (in real time, anyway), but maybe they'll generate some
ideas.

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-demo-scanner-cam.html

http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html

,Frank

Interesting stuff. I've suggested to Chris Hurd that we create an "alternative imagery" forum as the ideas are spreading.

It's very late and I've just finished rendering, so excuse the fogginess, but this is very exciting...

See this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18214) for background...

After obtaining a Elan 7e and 3 primes and re-learning 35mm still (it's been about 12 years since I shot 35mm still or film of anykind), I was ready to hastily shoot one 36 exposure roll.

So, what we have here is a Elan 7e on a table tripod, 36 frames expose at approx 3.5 fps via built-in Elan motordrive.

Scanned on my Epson 2450 Perfection, roughly aligned due to scanner error and trimmed to HD rez, desaturated and put in order.

Brought into After Effects 6 as Photoshop sequence, interpret footage as 3fps. Use Twixtor standard in 24fps timeline which gives 12 seconds.

Thus 36 frames are turned into 216 frames. Rendered as 1920X1080 quicktime, animation compressor. Brought into Vegas 4 and rendered out as WM9 HD 24p 720 file.

Download here (http://www.sevensmilingsharks.com/media/motiontest.wmv) - it's about 8 MB and you will Windows Media 9 capable player and reasonably fast CPU to play.

I'm excited. I was getting discouraged as scanning manually and relearning old stuff and this new stuff was difficult, but damn, it works.

Using Twixtor Pro and/or ReTimer HD, better footage, more accurate scanning method, and I think the results will be even more stunning.

I'm going to research scanning services vs. high-end scanner.

Obviously, this technique has very limited use (takes are limited, sound sync not really possible), but for my short, experimental films that most people see projected on large screens, it rocks.

Wow! Nice footage!

I have thought about the possiblility of doing something like this, and your approach is pretty much how I invisioned it. I get the jerky artifacts problem a lot with Twixtor, and have found that I get the best results with 'Detect conflicting motion' checked, motion vectors set to 'Best', and Motion Sensitivity set below 100% (more like 80% or lower, depending on the spacing of the motion). Also, if you have the Pro version, you can use masks, but that is painstaking. Actually, if you don't use motion vectors, you won't have that jerking problem, but then you'll have blended, soft & ghosty frames.

This would be very practical for shooting, say, only background footage (like with lots of trees, etc), because I think that's where you can really tell whether or not it's DV or film - on those small details.

I have done something similar with a single scanned 35mm picture with grain applied to it, and it was ok. However, with multiple stills blended in Twixtor you can get the swaying of trees, motion of water, etc, and have all that high detail.

Thanks for posting this!

,Frank

Frank:

I figured someone must have had the same idea though I couldn't find anyone who had posted results anywhere.

Glad you liked it. I kind of like the motion artifacts, I reduced them somewhat for this clip, but by sliding the frames around you can get a real underwater, mirage kind of look.

I agree that its may have all sort of interesting uses, including background plates, more natural 3D textures etc.

The wildest part is that the file I posted is a highly compressed Windows Media that was cropped by over 50% before compression to make HD frame size. The original scans were at 2400 dpi, so the original images are 3064 X 1960 pixels at 48-bit color depth.

I could output this directly as 2K or even 4K (with a suitable scan) film files and print to 35mm motion picture film, probably pretty cheaply.

I've downloaded the ReTimer plugin demo, so I'm going to render a comparison with it to see which I want to purchase. I've contacted both companies about some kind of "pioneer" discount...

I'll post the ReTimer clip in the next couple of days.

Yeah, with a scanner at that resolution, you can get some nice images!

I have had experience with ReTimer as well. Be prepared for a noticeably longer render time. They do have an intuitive motion mask tool that comes with ReTimer which allows you to paint different parts of the images shades of green and red to show ReTimer which direction the elements in the image are going. I have gotten some excellent results with this. Really nice plugin.

I'm having trouble with ReTimer. At standard settings outlined in documentation, I end up with Ghosting and very jerky motion.

Do you have to use the motion mask to get good results?

Now all you need is a big back like they use on the high school yearbook shoots and away you go.

I actually considered going this way but my only options were an old Nikon F3 or Canon A1 or Olympus OM series. These big backs are very hard to find - I could only find the Nikon model which is a collector't item and goes for over $800.

Plus, you have to find the custom loader and load bulk film and then no one develops these babies anymore that I'm aware of.

Medium format cameras offer the option (the school yearbook thing), but not with motordrives capable of at least 3-4 fps. Not that I could find.

Supposedly DX encoding in modern cams support 72 exposure roles and Minolta had some kind of 100 exposure role for some Maxxum models, but I couldn't find much info.

If this pans out, I've toyed around with what it would take to build a custom loader that would take regular bulk film, but it may just be too complicated.

Eventually, I hope a digital still camera can shoot at 4fps continously (miniRAID :) but

There are possible ways aroung this, as i am working on a similar idea/project.
Nikon D1-D10 can transfer files wirelessly to a computer and frame rate I belive is dependent on resolution of image.

Also check out the Kodak cams too...

These are expensive though.

The only Nikon I know of is the D2H that does high speed. Keep me posted on what you find.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25208

It does 40 frames at high speed and has a wireless transmitter but the body is $3200 (elan body cost me $350).

However, I'm not going to drop that kind of money (which I don't have right now) on a digital still cam until it will do 250 frames or so continuous.

Stephen: I have gotten acceptable results before without using the motion mask. If your footage is really jerky, and the motions are spaced out quite a bit, then it's harder on the plugin to do the proper interpolations because it has to 'stretch' farther to find the correct pixels. In this case, you basically have to guide it and show it what the elements in the image are doing, via motion masks.

If the movements don't change as much between frames, then it should work fine automatically.

What sort of footage are you running through it?


,Frank

Has anyone tried this with a digital camera? Something like the Canon 10D can shoot at up to 9 fps, if I recall correctly, and as a bonus, can record direct to a computer hard drive. As a digital SLR it offers the same DOF as its film counterpart, and dynamic range approximates that of film. As a plus, you wouldn't have to scan -- just pull it straight into your editing program.

Hmmm. I think I may try this.

Frank:

The footage is the exact same as the Twixtor test I posted above.

Paul:

Digicam's barf on the data rate required to continously store the films. I looked at digital cameras first and other than the D2H which shoots 40 frames, the rest can only shoot just a few, and many lower the rez and lose features to shoot that way.

I tried to find someone shooting canons or nikons straight to a computer, but evidently continous shooting over firewire presents problems as well.

If you find anyone able to do, that would definetly offer some advantages though I suspect would still cost thousands more.

I did find that my local camera store scans 36 exposeres at 3000 dpi and hi-color (they are checking the bit depth) for $9 a roll with a volume discount. They also offer 4000 dpi for $2 each or negotiable volume rates.

I'll play around with my 10D this weekend. What kind of speed are you looking at? I know 40 fps isn't possible, but I'm certain it can do 3.5 fps.

Cool:

I'm looking for 4 fps for at least frames.

Here's my latest experiment. I did not shoot this clip, but did process it into DV-rez video.

What cam do you think shot this? I sure Chris will award the winner a brace of CineAlta's...

Note: This file is almost 50 MB!!!

http://www.sevensmilingsharks.com/media/surfer.avi

Gotta be a PAL lol

Nope, not PAL.

Optura PI?

Nope. But an excellent guess. The footage is 30 frames per second progressive.

Though funny thing about your guess is 4 months ago, while looking for a cheap replacement for my DVX100, I found an immaculate Optura PI on ebay which I bought. The seller had deep remorse about getting rid of iit and was a really nice guy to boot, so I sold it back to him. Great little cam and have not seen a similar deal. (The deal was cam, wide and tele adaptors, 3 batteries, filter kit etc. in almost new condition for $500).

dv953?
GL2?

Frank G. was the closest:

It's a Canon digital still camera processed in Vegas 4:

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/s1is/index.html

Pretty amazing.

It shoots 640x480 VGA 30fps progressive which I converted to 720X480 29.97 DV progressive in Vegas.

It's amazing how good it looks. I think the quality CCD and electronics in the still camera and the true progressive capture equal a nice image. It also shows how much interlaced image capture and DV codec capture compromises image quality.

its kinda jerky, why didnt you leave it at 30p?

The jerkiness is mostly from the high shutter speed (probably 1/500th or more) on handheld used in the original footage. If they used a ND filter and slower shutter speed, it would had better motion blur. Since it's not interlaced, high shutter speed and progressive equals jerkiness.

The 29.97 is just the default NTSC. I was trying to disguise it :)

Stephen, here's your ND filter for the camera. It works with just about all the digital point & shoot cameras. The kit doesn't have an ND filter, just buy an "A" series Cokin ND.

I don't have the camera - just got the footage off a review site.

buy a dv camera man... thats a beatiful digital camera.. that records video.. but how much time you can get recorded ??

but it really amazed me how 2 technologies are mergin... dv cameras takes pictures.. and digital cameras takes video... how beatiful.