[HN Gopher] 3D Printed Film Video Camera
___________________________________________________________________
3D Printed Film Video Camera
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 107 points
Date : 2022-12-14 12:57 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (joshuabird.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (joshuabird.com)
| drcongo wrote:
| I absolutely love this, including the eventual output. However,
| the word "video" needs removing from almost every part of the
| article as it makes it really hard to parse given that "video" is
| an entirely different medium.
| GeompMankle wrote:
| It would be a film video camera if they developed the film in
| quasi-realtime and then fed it into a scanner or a flying spot
| mechanism to read out pixels or a video signal. I would donate
| to a gofundme that wanted to do such a crazy thing.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I can't find a reference now, but there was some kind of
| military radar control system, which painted real-time light
| on film, which was continuously developed and projected on
| large projectors. It wasn't exactly video, but vector
| graphics, updated with a new frame every few seconds if I
| recall. A really wondrous system, with a built in permanent
| record of what had been shown on screen. (I wonder if these
| projectors were the inspiration for the projectors in War
| Games.)
| dusted wrote:
| Actually, video comes from "to see" and "to hear" so it's only
| video when it has sound.. The word implies nothing about the
| medium..
|
| It's a moving picture camera that uses film as the recording
| medium.
| Clamchop wrote:
| Strict etymology is not the best way to understand a word.
|
| Video here makes sense in a few ways, particularly because
| it's all but certain that what will be viewed is a digital
| scan and not a projection and because the audience may be
| more familiar with the word. However, in a professional or
| technical context, video always refers to electronic movies
| and is not used when the medium is film. For example, when
| you say a movie was shot on video, then you are saying it was
| not recorded on film.
| kypro wrote:
| I think I'm being an idiot here, but what do you mean "video is
| an entirely different medium"?
|
| Isn't video a generic term for a picture with motion? Surely
| how that motion is captured is irrelevant so long as it's
| reproduced as a video?
|
| I understand extra steps were taken, but the output here is
| clearly a video?
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Apparently not, as I learn just now
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video
|
| > Video is an _electronic_ medium for the recording, copying,
| playback, broadcasting, and display of moving visual media
| [emphasis my own]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera
|
| > A video camera is an optical instrument that captures
| videos (as opposed to a movie camera, which records images on
| film).
| pavlov wrote:
| Yeah, "film video camera" is like saying "film DSLR camera".
| There's a built-in contradiction.
|
| I guess "film video" could be a real thing if some crazy person
| stored an analog video signal on an optical track on film.
|
| What the author has built is called a movie camera, as someone
| else already noted. (It's a great project, very impressive!)
| actionfromafar wrote:
| "Motion picture" is the more traditional term, but it's clunky
| and perhaps unknown to the writer.
| s1mon wrote:
| Or just call it a movie camera.
| jwong_ wrote:
| That was such an enjoyable read. I've always wanted to make a
| camera, and liked how they went into cost specifics for a lot of
| the processes.
|
| I'm surprised they were able to take it to the F1 races or into
| airplanes.
| 4RealFreedom wrote:
| "This brings us to about 16 seconds of video per roll of film, at
| a cost of ~$600 for 10 minutes." Expensive to use all the time
| but a great project.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Yep.. this was my second thought ... "niiice.. i want't this...
| " then immediately after "hmm.. this seems expensive"
| Finnucane wrote:
| Probably could have saved a few bucks on film using 100' bulk
| rolls instead of canisters, but then processing become
| difficult.
| dt3ft wrote:
| If you wonder what the girl was doing: rug tufting, using a
| tufting gun. I had to look it up :)
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Is there any technical reason that film rolls are so expensive in
| 2022? Or is it just non-economies of scale and/or oligopoly
| profits?
|
| Also, what would go well with this project is 3D printed film
| projector. Some of the parts already designed for the camera
| would go into the projector.
| jdalgetty wrote:
| amazing!
| marstall wrote:
| amazing project - but this is not video, right? just a pure film
| camera?
| hugs wrote:
| From the article: "A video is simply a bunch of images shown
| one after another fast enough to give the illusion of motion.
| So all we really have to do is take a bunch of photos."
|
| The project is a pure film camera that takes a bunch of photos.
|
| Edit: The disagreement hinges on the definition of "video".
| Merriam-Webster says a video is "a recording of an image or of
| moving images". I think the project counts as "video" as a non-
| professional would understand it. But reasonable people
| (especially film & video experts!) can disagree.
| marstall wrote:
| not an expert at all. dating myself I guess
| [deleted]
| brudgers wrote:
| On the build versus buy axis, there is the Lomokino
|
| https://microsites.lomography.com/lomokino/
|
| I have one.
|
| It's been pretty fun and certainly a different way of thinking
| about making pictures.
|
| It fits in a hoodie pocket so it makes a reasonable walk around.
|
| Scanning workflow requires some bespoke decisions.
|
| As would lab processing if I used it. I don't. I shoot it in B&W
| and develop in a tank.
| anfractuosity wrote:
| I'm curious about the B&W film you use, is that some form of
| positive B&W film, that can be projected?
|
| Edit: Just looked more at the camera, it looks like it takes a
| 35mm canister of film, interesting.
|
| So I guess normal B&W film?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Hmmm, a little googling suggests the Lomokino shoots only as
| fast as you crank (not 24 fps or anything cinemalike) and, even
| if you could run 24 fps on it, you'd get 4 to 6 seconds of film
| on a 35mm roll.
|
| This 3D printed camera is looking pretty good to me.
|
| Aside: love the Super-8 film used in the music video for the
| Pixies filk-like, "Andro Queen": https://youtu.be/10lyWR25_nQ
| brudgers wrote:
| I don't disagree. There are trade offs.
|
| For five minutes shopping and fifty bucks total investment
| you can have a working Lomokino arriving the week after next
| and be out making pictures fifteen minutes after that.
|
| What I think puts it on the same axis is a similar picture
| production workflow. There's not much difference between
| developing exposed film, digitizing the negatives, and
| compiling them into something that will render.
|
| Because that's most of the work, fewer frames has the
| advantage of making redoing steps easier when figuring out
| the workflow. The results are less good but easier to obtain.
|
| And if cinematography is a priority it might be better to get
| a film camera and run movie film through it.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| You're right regarding convenience of course.
|
| I see Kodak still sells Super 8 film at about $40 for 50
| ft. A vintage Super 8 camera can be had on eBay for a good
| deal (I picked up a Canon 310XL a few years back -- the
| same model I had as a teen -- looks like those though are
| about $300 in good condition).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-15 23:02 UTC)