Your average inkjet can now print Super 8 / 16mm film

No doubt about it, vanilla inkjets seem to be garnering a whole lot of attention these days, and while the latest trick won't yield circuits or OLED displays, it could make filmmakers who long for days past quite excited. Jesse England has apparently discovered a fairly easy to automate process to print video frames onto transparency film. After discovering the dimensions for both Super 8 and 16-millimeter film, he simply made a template, arranged the filmstrip using Adobe's Premier and Photoshop, and printed it out on an everyday Epson inkjet. The noticeably manual task of punching out sprocket holes was still left to a hand-powered box cutter, but we're sure there are less tedious solutions just waiting to be implemented. As expected, the actual video quality was deemed "terrible," but the emotional impact was bittersweet indeed. Be sure to hit the read link for the whole low-down and to see a couple of video demonstrations to show you what the fuss is all about.

[Via BoingBoing]

[James @ Apr 30th 2007 7:59AM]

i wonder what film it was that he printed?....
haha a whole new world of piracy download the file and print off the movie
i like it

(first post)

[StolnSol @ Apr 30th 2007 8:45AM]

While I don't share his passion for the 'film' I do appreciate the work he put into this. We've all had moments when a lackluster project has come back to life with a thought of simplicity. I can wait till my light bulb switches on again.

[Shmoe @ Apr 30th 2007 8:39AM]

If the video quality was terrible, then what's the point? Waste of time.

[Crayola @ Apr 30th 2007 8:53AM]

That's an interesting idea, but even extending the format to 35mm, with 300ppi printer, we are talking about approx. 400x300 resolution...

One way of speeding up the tedious process of cutting holes for the sprockets could be to be a cutter for ring binders.

[Ignacio @ Apr 30th 2007 11:00AM]

"That's an interesting idea, but even extending the format to 35mm, with 300ppi printer, we are talking about approx. 400x300 resolution..."

I have an *old* Epson printer (Stylus Color 777, circa 2000-2001) and it has a max resolution of 2880x720. And that was a really inexpensive printer back then...

[Mike @ Apr 30th 2007 9:11AM]

Some people have WAY too much time on their hands...

[Chuckles McGee @ Apr 30th 2007 9:35AM]

could make an interesting film effect (as though premiere couldn't already do that...)

[Simon Tooke @ Apr 30th 2007 11:09AM]

The sprocket holes are crucial - if you do them by hand, there's absolutely no point to the rest of the exercise. It looks kind of cool, but I'd rather use a Final Cut plugin to simulate it. I'd have really been inpressed if the printed sound track worked.

[Crayola @ Apr 30th 2007 11:14AM]

Those often quoted numbers are dots per inch not pixel per inch. A monochromatic inkjet dot couldn't be more than 2 bit colour depth, hence the effective pixel per inch could be much less. Dedicated photo printers are quoted with pixel per inch. 300ppi is as good as prints on glossy magazine.

[PDubNYC @ Apr 30th 2007 11:02AM]

Thank god he "discovered" the dimensions for those top secret film types.

[Ignacio @ Apr 30th 2007 2:23PM]

You are right, I misread ppi as dpi.

[kadajawi @ Apr 30th 2007 11:18AM]

Hmm... he'd have to extend to 70mm... but I doubt many have a 70mm projector sitting around at home...

But cool idea and work, looks good too. I like the quality, pretty old school.

[Wii @ Apr 30th 2007 12:08PM]

I did this back in 2001 when I was working with a direct to film (i.e. paint on film) animation group called Crackpot Crafters. The only difference was that I then came up with a new process of doing it where you print onto injet temporary tattoo kits and xfer them onto prepunched film. Both have this silly grainy quality you're going for... if you like that sort of thing.

[t-bone @ Apr 30th 2007 12:32PM]

Wow! The quality sucked! I would like to see this done again in a couple years with a better printer. The idea is really cool.

[SeanMM @ Apr 30th 2007 12:50PM]

I don't mind the quality of the film, it's not the quality that he was going for. It's the process and with some tweaking he could make this project repeatable without a huge time loss. I'm imagining some sort of pizza cutter with a wheel full of sprocket cutters on one side and a film slicer on the other... Cut and punch at the same time.

Very cool.

[Chris Champion @ Apr 30th 2007 6:40PM]

1337~ that is so today, man. I mean with nonlinear video editing it takes SO much time to edit... the retro 8mm film is far superior.

wtf?

[Magnulus @ May 3rd 2007 7:49AM]

Interesting project. Quite cute. I'm just glad an "artist" didn't find out about this first. S/he would have achieved great acclaim in the art world by printing out digital movies (like star wars) and sticking on an explanation like the juxtaposition of the new digital trends and the old film techniques, etc etc. Snooty art critics would be standing around fondling their dyed goatees, saying things like "powerful" and "socially important" inbetween sipping their pretentious wine. Gleh.

So, yeah. I'm glad this guy is doing it instead.

[William @ Jun 22nd 2007 11:47PM]

Hi,
Being a novice involved in some important research I am hoping one of your regulars could tell me how I would be able to make a positive print from an old frame of 16mm film. There are only two frames of this very rare footage. One has a picture of two uniformed men. To identify the uniform etc I would guess I would need a 5*7
positive print. I have no specialist equipment and I'm wondering if a regular "Photo
Print/Developing" shop could do this with ease?

Thanks in Advance

William