From: Myron Ort (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jun 24 2008 - 08:52:10 PDT
Doesn't the Duplikin II mount to a Nikkon. If one had a Nikkon
digital camera that accepts the old analog lenses, why couldn't you
make your own digital shots?
There seems to be a Duplkin III and IV as well. Anyone know the
differences?
On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:05 AM, Chris Kennedy wrote:
> I found that a Duplikin is a quick and dirty way to get decent digital
> stills. Since most labs give you a disk of your 35mm film nowadays,
> you can
> shoot off a roll with the duplikan without really worrying about
> exposure
> too too much (I think the rule of thumb is to overexpose by two
> stops?) and
> then color correct on the computer. The digital stills I've
> finished with
> have been more than acceptable.
>
> Now, that doesn't really help you make slides unless you have
> access to a
> computer that prints to slide film. I've used one in the past and
> its pretty
> neat. Eventually I want to print some computer generated slides and
> layer
> them with film on an optical printer and see what happens.
>
> Good luck,
> Chris
>
>
> On 6/23/08 8:52 PM, "FRAMEWORKS automatic digest system"
> <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:51:31 -0700
>> From: Myron Ort <email suppressed>
>> Subject: Re: WTB Duplikin for 16mm to 35mm
>>
>> --Apple-Mail-2--290510075
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset=US-ASCII;
>> delsp=yes;
>> format=flowed
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but I'm attempting to make 35mm slides, though 120 would be
>>> nice option.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alain
>>>
>>
>> The Duplikin II is the only basic (and relatively inexpensive)
>> device I know of for making 35mm slides or negs. from 16mm frames.
>> It is what it is. Apparently it is not the ultimate way to make high
>> quality 16mm frame enlargements for print publication. Fred Camper
>> once described his alternate methods, maybe it is in Frameworks
>> archives. The Duplikin II seems to be a physically well made device
>> by Century Precision Optics and they do come up on eBay now and
>> then. I am wondering if the "lower quality" lens they used inside is
>> the primary reason that they are criticized or if there is something
>> inherently compromised in its very concept. Both the Cinelarger and
>> the Duplikin require some test roll experiments to get the exposure
>> zeroed in. These are the readily available devices and just like
>> comparing Bolex registration to Arriflex or Mitchell or
>> whatever.....well, we make art out of the tools we can get and the
>> ones that suit our working style or budget... not necessarily
>> worrying about certain levels of technical perfection all the time.
>> ( eg. close enough for avant garde film....).
>>
>> Myron Ort
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.