"sounds like an interesting problem" and "just for fun" sound like great reasons to me. Kinda describes model railroading too. gs George Sinos -------------------- www.GeorgesPhotos.net www.GeorgeSinos.com
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:53 AM, John Francis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:06:33PM +0100, Malcolm Smith wrote: >> Matthew Hunt wrote: >> >> > My understanding was that commercial film recorders didn't work by >> > projecting an image and photographing it, but rather by directly >> > exposing dots onto the film using tiny sources of light. Think of how >> > an inkjet printer head sprays tiny dots of ink, then imagine it >> > spraying drops of light instead. >> > >> > But I never looked into the technology very much; I could be mistaken, >> > or multiple techniques might be used. >> >> George Sinos wrote: >> >> > Matthew is correct. They called them "flim recorders." The film was >> > exposed by colored lasers. Cost a lot and finicky to setup. All the >> > disadvantages of film with even more inconvenience and expense. We used >> > them at work before digital projectors became ubiquitous. >> > >> > I am curious why you may want to do this. Digital projectors are in the >> > $300 range and are much better than slide projectors ever were. >> > Considering the cost of film and processing, a projector would quickly >> > pay for itself. >> >> Thanks. >> >> I assumed the more sophisticated (and more expensive) companies used a more >> professional method. I know little about film recorders and I'm sure what >> little I heard was connected to Polaroid film, but I've never had to find >> out detail about them. I've seen such a range of prices and I'm sure that >> one at the very lowest price range implied copying by the methods I want to >> try. > > While later film recorders may well have used lasers, that's not how the > original models worked. Back in the 1980s I had access to a film recorder > where I worked (Apollo); we used it to make slides for images that we were > submitting to SIGGRAPH. > > Inside was a small monochrome high-resolution CRT, and a rotating filter > wheel. > Each of the three colours would be exposed in turn (the camera shutter would > be > open for the whole time). We had multiple interchangeable "backs" for the > unit; > one with a modified 35mm SLR camera, two Polaroid backs (one 4x5, one 8x10), > and even an Oxberry animation camera (basically a 35mm movie camera). > > The Polaroid backs were single-frame only, but the SLR had a motor drive, so > you could expose an entire roll of film sequentially. The movie camera, of > course, also had motorized film advance. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
