Re: [Frameworks] digitizing 8mm and S8 mm
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
Re: [Frameworks] digitizing 8mm and S8 mm
several labs here in LA keeping super 8 alive -- Spectra, Yale, and Pro8mm. also, Brodsky Treadway in Massachusetts are cool people. On Mar 4, 2012, at 7:43 PM, ev petrol epetr...@yahoo.com wrote: hey folks i'm passing on a query from a friend in Brazil (sorry if it's been asked lots of times before - but maybe there are new options out there?): I would be very grateful if you could please suggest me the best labs you know and trust, for digitizing 8mm and S8 mm. Surely i mean labs in NYc but if you know any other options in Europe, those would be welcome too, and i appreciate that. cheers moira www.moiratierney.net ___ 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
Re: [Frameworks] digitizing 8mm and S8 mm
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
