It's cool to see that people are still interested in this media, and trying to fix a number of problems. There are a couple things about this proposal that are admirable, such as switching to dimmable LEDs and open-source/3D printable parts.
I also liked the bit about not trying to reinvent the wheel ("We believe that especially the central mechanical elements of the old projectors – claw mechanism, shutter wheel and film transport - are in most cases so well engineered that a new development here would be a waste of time and energy.") But what follows is an extensive list of new specs that would make the project vastly more complex.
16mm/35mm is already fading, with a finite population of prints that dwindles every year as film deteriorates or reels are lost/destroyed. Some of the technical features ("Manual vario-speed from < 1 to 30 FPS") are a niche within a niche. Really, how many artists or experimental studios are there who want to play back a 16mm print at .75 FPS? Who would watch them?
This project would be far more realistic if such features were scaled back and the focus was on getting a bare-bones, open source projector that works with 16mm optical film (the majority of existing stock) as well as some of the low-hanging fruit on the list. I think is doable. Low cost, simple plastic film projectors were once a thing with another type of film (Super 8, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_film)
If hard stuff is added to the list, at least focus on practicality for a wider range of people, such as a tool to safely evaluate print quality before playback at normal speeds or some sort of print cleaning mechanism for reels that have been sitting in someone's basement for 30 years.
moonshinefe · 7h ago
Thanks for sharing. I was a projectionist at a local theater in my 20s, and I have very fond memories of working with the older machines. There was something so satisfying working them on Summer nights in the booth alone.
The move to digital projectors everywhere was very shortly after I left.
Always cool to see people help keep the medium alive.
PaulHoule · 4h ago
Circa 1990 I was on the movie committee of the student council at my undergrad school and had the job of periodically checking out a 16mm projector from the library and lugging it across campus to the student union building where we'd show a movie every Friday. I remember showing Rebel Without a Cause. We had a video projector in the same room though and had found it was cheaper to get a license to show VHS tapes which was a lot easier on the projectionist although it was much worse quality.
luckystarr · 3h ago
Interesting that the film material had better color retention than the old projectors. I never thought about it before and assumed that the washed out colors of old 16mm projections came from bad recordings.
p3_1080 · 45m ago
The pink tint of the left-hand projections near the bottom of the article is actually the film print itself shifting colors due to (relatively mild, in this particular case) vinegar syndrome, which can happen when film prints are stored over long periods in relatively warm (unrefrigerated) conditions. This color shift is all down to the individual film print and really has nothing to do with a given projector itself — but until this project I believe there haven't been film projectors that can compensate for color-shifting on-the-fly (projectionist and programmer in a space that regularly screened 16mm & 35mm prints for about a decade). Now, instead of throwing one's hands up when trying to project a color-shifted print, films can be projected and possibly preserved/digitized in something closer to their original state. For the film preservation field, this project feels quite important and could signal a major shift in the way the field operates.
sho_hn · 6h ago
Super awesome project. As an embedded engineer who grew up in the arthouse/program cinemas of Berlin, I wish I had heard about this two years ago. Would have loved to help out.
M4rkJW · 7h ago
Neat stuff! I have a ton of 8mm and some 16mm film to archive, perhaps this is a good first step towards an open-source film scanner.
8mm film scanners are so common they're available at Walmart.
There are lots of DIY film scanners described on Youtube. They don't have to run fast and they don't need a pull-down mechanism, so they're simple devices.
DidYaWipe · 48m ago
And they typically suck. It's a different story if you want to properly scan 8mm from edge to edge and get TIFFs (or similar) for each frame.
gwbas1c · 3h ago
Curious: Why do they need to support all those different frame rates?
luckystarr · 3h ago
Some films were recorded with a lower frame rate due to some reason. As for variable and standstill, I think this would only be needed when investigating a recording in detail. Not sure if they really need it. Perhaps they just want it to cover more use cases.
sockboy · 3h ago
From what I gather, projecting preserves the viewing experience which is part of the film's value, not just the image. Plus, sound extraction and timing sync can be simpler with a projector. Scanners capture detail but might miss some nuances that make film unique.
neckro23 · 2h ago
Silent films used several different speeds. The rest are for telecines.
sandworm101 · 5h ago
Be careful about using AOI cpu coolers for other purposes. They are enclosed units subject to evaporation and air infiltration. Fluid levels will drop over time and refilling is difficult. Also, be wary of orientation. You want to make sure that the inevitable bubbles are not repeatedly drawn into the pump. So you want to position the radiator with the in/our ports lower, giving a low-turbulence chamber towards the top of the radiator for bubbles to accumulate.
Opinions differ, but 800+watts through a 2-fan radiator, in an already hot environment, is likely not enough. If this was an 800-watt CPU I would be going with either some wickedly powerful fans or 2x as much radiator.
the_third_wave · 5h ago
One thing seems odd: it takes an 800W LED to double the light output of a 250W halogen bulb. Normally LED is far more efficient than halogen so I wonder why the opposite is true for this project.
ethan_smith · 1m ago
The discrepancy likely stems from projector-specific optical constraints - while LEDs are more efficient at converting electricity to light, they emit omnidirectionally requiring complex collimation systems that lose significant light, whereas halogen bulbs with parabolic reflectors can direct most of their output through the projection path.
Animats · 5h ago
The LED lamp system they built looks like it was designed by an overclocker.
sandworm101 · 5h ago
An 800w LED is not as perfect a point source. They are loosing lots of light that isn't focusable. See how in the comparison picture that there is insane light bleed out the side from the LED projector. The older projector benefits from a hundred years of optimization of how to focus a lightbulb into an image. The LED rig is starting from scratch with a source that isn't meant for focus onto an image.
yapyap · 4h ago
Question: the blogpost mentions archivists needing 16mm projectors. Now I assume they would use these projectors to archive 16mm film but how / why?
Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive?
At least thats what I’m extracting from the blog with my fair but limited knowledge, if someone could enlighten me it’d be greatly appreciated!
gwbas1c · 3h ago
> Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive?
It's a different experience: When viewing film, the picture flickers and shakes. Film grain is substantially different than pixels.
As much as I enjoy modern digital formats, it's important to appreciate the goal of preserving viewing film.
DidYaWipe · 38m ago
He asked why a projector is relevant for archiving, not viewing.
The only answer I can imagine is for viewing newly-discovered film to determine its content and condition, in order to decide whether it's worth scanning.
sublinear · 3h ago
If it's to be archived it's going to end up encoded as pixels.
I think the question was more about the capture of fine detail. A scanner will digitize much more image detail than any capture of the projector output. Although, reading the article it seems an emphasis was placed on color accuracy. I'm not sure if a scanner is necessarily as good at that.
cameron_b · 1h ago
There are some scanners good at that but not at the scope of a 2 hour film.
The other factor is that a projector is the first part of allowing others to view films, and getting the light source nailed down could open the doors to making new prints of those films - a different path to archiving.
charcircuit · 1h ago
>the picture flickers and shakes
This can be emulated with a post processing effect.
>Film grain is substantially different than pixels.
The grain can be recorded at a high enough resolution that the human eye will be unable to tell the difference when it's being projected.
sublinear · 3h ago
I don't know much either, and this is all way before my time, but I'm going to guess that getting sound off the film (if it has it) has got to be one of the reasons.
The other being that just operating a suitable projector as intended is the simplest and most accurate way regarding timing compared to finding or writing software to handle scans. I'd think they'd want to do both.
DidYaWipe · 37m ago
The sound retrieval is a good point. I don't think of sound on old movies.
It's cool to see that people are still interested in this media, and trying to fix a number of problems. There are a couple things about this proposal that are admirable, such as switching to dimmable LEDs and open-source/3D printable parts.
I also liked the bit about not trying to reinvent the wheel ("We believe that especially the central mechanical elements of the old projectors – claw mechanism, shutter wheel and film transport - are in most cases so well engineered that a new development here would be a waste of time and energy.") But what follows is an extensive list of new specs that would make the project vastly more complex.
16mm/35mm is already fading, with a finite population of prints that dwindles every year as film deteriorates or reels are lost/destroyed. Some of the technical features ("Manual vario-speed from < 1 to 30 FPS") are a niche within a niche. Really, how many artists or experimental studios are there who want to play back a 16mm print at .75 FPS? Who would watch them?
This project would be far more realistic if such features were scaled back and the focus was on getting a bare-bones, open source projector that works with 16mm optical film (the majority of existing stock) as well as some of the low-hanging fruit on the list. I think is doable. Low cost, simple plastic film projectors were once a thing with another type of film (Super 8, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_film)
If hard stuff is added to the list, at least focus on practicality for a wider range of people, such as a tool to safely evaluate print quality before playback at normal speeds or some sort of print cleaning mechanism for reels that have been sitting in someone's basement for 30 years.
The move to digital projectors everywhere was very shortly after I left.
Always cool to see people help keep the medium alive.
Opinions differ, but 800+watts through a 2-fan radiator, in an already hot environment, is likely not enough. If this was an 800-watt CPU I would be going with either some wickedly powerful fans or 2x as much radiator.
Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive?
At least thats what I’m extracting from the blog with my fair but limited knowledge, if someone could enlighten me it’d be greatly appreciated!
It's a different experience: When viewing film, the picture flickers and shakes. Film grain is substantially different than pixels.
As much as I enjoy modern digital formats, it's important to appreciate the goal of preserving viewing film.
The only answer I can imagine is for viewing newly-discovered film to determine its content and condition, in order to decide whether it's worth scanning.
I think the question was more about the capture of fine detail. A scanner will digitize much more image detail than any capture of the projector output. Although, reading the article it seems an emphasis was placed on color accuracy. I'm not sure if a scanner is necessarily as good at that.
The other factor is that a projector is the first part of allowing others to view films, and getting the light source nailed down could open the doors to making new prints of those films - a different path to archiving.
This can be emulated with a post processing effect.
>Film grain is substantially different than pixels.
The grain can be recorded at a high enough resolution that the human eye will be unable to tell the difference when it's being projected.
The other being that just operating a suitable projector as intended is the simplest and most accurate way regarding timing compared to finding or writing software to handle scans. I'd think they'd want to do both.