Congrats on the expanding business, Jeff! Your statements have been validated and represent my current methodology with both Super 8 and UltraPan8 film. I utilize the custom over-scanned services of engineer John Gledhill at bitworks.org here in Toronto and the amount of information extracted from the typical frame is inspiring.
Any updates on your efforts regarding a more affordable desktop version of the Kinetta? NIcholas On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Jeff Kreines <jeffkrei...@mindspring.com> wrote: > Forgive me for reposting something from 3 months ago, but I think it is > important to think about scanning resolution vs. output resolution. Small > formats actually benefit more than formats like 35mm from high resolution > scanning, because they have a much higher amount of grain in a frame, and if > that grain isn't resolved, it looks quite mushy. Remember, grain is the > soul of the emulsion. > > A couple of recent films with a large amount of Super-8 footage that are > headed for (probably digital) theatrical releases had their S8 footage > scanned on a Kinetta Archival Scanner. "Ricky on Leacock" was scanned at > As'Image in Paris, and "Our Nixon" will be scanned this month at the Nixon > Library in glorious Yorba Linda, California. These are all being scanned at > 12-bit, 3296 x 2472 resolution (or overscanned inside of that res). > > The scanner has the ability to capture the full dynamic range of reversal > original or prints, as well as negative stock. It can handle extremely > damaged film without having to repair perfs before scanning. No sprockets, > and the ability to frame the image as desired, like an optical printer. It > also has an extremely bright but cool light source that is great for dealing > with underexposed footage without adding any electronic noise. > > While many of these scanners are in archives and not available for public > use, there are a few that are available to anyone. One is at As'Image in > Paris (thanks, Pip, for that!), Shai Drori in Israel is getting his shipped > this week, and VTC in San Francisco is getting their machine this month. > There will also be a machine available for rent in Boston in a few weeks. > > There is a big difference between scanners, telecines, and projector-based > "film chains." Scanners capture data at high bit-depth and resolution, and > the files are usable for anything from 4K digital cinema masters to web > videos (and everything else in between. Telecines are video-centric, and > the files are captured to tape or disk in SD or HD video formats. This > means silent footage has either repeated or blended frames when converted to > 23.976 or 25 or 29.97 fps. Film chains are typically a video camera and > projector wedded in an unholy alliance. > > OK, the old note, with links to frames at various resolutions, follows. > > Jeff Kreines > Kinetta > jeff@kinetta > > Disclaimer: I designed and build Kinetta scanners. > > ________________ > > There is a common belief -- which, like a lot of common wisdom should be > looked at skeptically -- that small format film lacks enough useful > "information" to require scanning at resolutions greater than pillarboxed > HD (1080 x 1440) or cropped HD (1080 x 1920). Some feel that for Super-8 > and 8mm, NTSC, PAL, and 720P are, in the words of an engineer I know, "good > enough." > > But I don't think anyone really tested this properly -- they just said what > seemed logical enough to them. It's fine to say "that looks pretty good at > 1080 x 1440" but those who say this probably did not try scanning the same > film at higher resolutions to see if there was an appreciable difference. > > I did some simple tests, and honestly was quite surprised at the results. > Even when the final release format is HD or less, the advantages of high > resolution scans are obvious. > > I put together a little PDF you can download, with both Super-8 and grainy > 16mm samples scanned at different resolutions. It was written in response > to a report by the Swiss group Memoriav, which was doing tests of small > format (for them this includes 16mm) scanning. > > Here's a link: > > http://db.tt/iriz5nyY > > Here are links to full-res TIFFs of the files used -- zoom in on them and > see what you are losing with lower resolution scans. Note that the files > are mostly over 20MB each, so don't try this on your cell phone. > > http://db.tt/8cw0YUXU > > http://db.tt/xizfMgLq > > http://db.tt/VvwuPSog > > http://db.tt/LR0Phcy2 > > http://db.tt/BofN5ls8 > > http://db.tt/aPXrsxAf > > http://db.tt/JSC7Vf2C > > http://db.tt/SGYbJiWb > > http://db.tt/X1flduqJ > > Let me know what you think. > > Jeff Kreines > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
