Re: WTB Duplikin for 16mm to 35mm

From: Chris Kennedy (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jun 24 2008 - 01:05:15 PDT

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,

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>.