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. gs George Sinos -------------------- www.GeorgesPhotos.net www.GeorgeSinos.com On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Malcolm Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Some months ago I asked a question about how best to transfer slides to > digital images. All is good with that, and the slow scanning transfer > continues. Probably for several years as time allows. > > However, I was asked the other day how to do this the other way, transfer a > digital image to a 35mm slide. As I still live in the 1970s and shoot film > and have slide shows etc, that rather appealed to me to have a go myself. A > look on-line showed there were companies out there who would do this, but I > want to be able to have a try at this from home without the need for further > expense in equipment. Obviously, companies aren't exactly up front on how > they achieve this, but I presume they are sent the images by e-mail, convert > them to a certain standard pixel image size, and have some way of mounting a > film camera to view the image in sort of dark room conditions to exclude > other light sources? > > If it were a picture or a document, it would be more straight forward to use > a duplicating stand with appropriate lighting. The only thing that came to > mind was taking a picture of the image on a computer screen in a darkened > room (image displayed at a size which would result in a full frame capture, > camera tripod mounted), but I want to ensure that a quality image remains a > quality image when transferred to film and projected (no pixels!). Those > companies doing this commercially are displaying the digital image on > something from which they take a film image; I just suspect that their > 'something' is considerably better than I have available at home. I have > tried doing the above with a digital camera+tripod/computer screen, just to > see how it comes out, and some results have been OK. I'm not aiming for OK, > I'm aiming for good as a minimum, and it must be repeatable time after time. > > Anyone tried this or is it just me....? I thought this was also a different, > although backwards technologically, method of keeping certain images stored. > > > Malcolm > > > > > -- > 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.
