Jump to content

Why is this sound so bad with a Lasergraphics scanner?


Recommended Posts

Life in a Medieval Town : Coronet Instructional Films : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

It said it was scanned with a Lasergraphics Scan Station. Sound is distorted at the beginning. I didn't listen to whole film, maybe more distortion, don't know. But it is very noticeable with the opening music. Is this what the sound is like with a FilmFabriek scanner that Tyler talked about?

Put up some distorted sound FilmFabriek users so we can hear the audio problems.

<><><><>

1%20Camel%20cigarette%201944%20D.D.Teoli

Ad 1944

Selection from Cigarette Advertising Archive - DDTJRAC

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end music too- in fact it's just the music. They did a transfer with severe wow and didn't do anything about it.

If it had been the print I think wow that bad would have been noticeable on the narration as well.

ISTR this would happen if you tried to transfer a wild source to mag with the recorder set to pilotone. The speed hunts up and down trying to match a non-existent sync pulse. But it's been.....quite a while.

Sad to think that the producers knew that the film was faulty and still sent it out. Money talks, and they didn't have enough. It's painful to listen to.

 

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not uncommon for wow and flutter to occur in syndicated music under commentary of 16mm documentary films. The fidelity of the commentary is really quite good for 16mm. Because wow and flutter occurred in film projectors as well, people may have cared less about it and let it through.

If you still have the film, perhaps take a scan of the image and soundtrack and use AEO Lite to reconstruct the sound track. That should tell you if the film's linear speed was not stable through the sound reproducer of the Lasergraphics machine.

Edited by Robert Hart
error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Robert Hart said:

If you still have the film, perhaps take a scan of the image and soundtrack and use AEO Lite to reconstruct the sound track. That should tell you if the film's linear speed was not stable through the sound reproducer of the Lasergraphics machine.

The lasergraphics optical reader works at any speed. The slower the better. It's actually a line array camera that takes about 80k samples per second (lines), so the slower the film is moving the more samples it's getting. The lines of image of the track are directly correlated with the resulting audio samples. If you scan at 60fps you can hear that the sound is worse (not wow and flutter, never wow and flutter), but it sounds like a recording done at a low sample rate. Reduced dynamic range, and you get a lot more noise. Lasergraphics recommends scanning at 24fps or slower for best results.

Most of our scanning is HDR at high resolutions which slows the scanner down to about 7.5fps, and the optical audio tracks sound great. That is, assuming they're not messed up in the mix like the one in this example. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Is this what the sound is like with a FilmFabriek scanner that Tyler talked about?

It's not distortion, it's the speed of the scanner fluctuating very slightly. Yes, this is what it sounds like and why I use AEO-Lite. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have no idea about the Lasergraphics machine, I think it would be interesting to just run that print on a well maintained projector with a calibrated optical soundhead (that has a flywheel) and record the output.

I have worked a lot with projectors in the past and I can tell that the effects observed here can easily occur if a bearing is damaged or something else is not right in the soundhead. Some soundheads are more problematic than others. 

Regarding the Lasergraphics soundhead: Did anyone ever scan a 3150 Hz measurement film to measure the amount of flutter? If not, that would be quite interesting!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Fabian Schreyer said:

Regarding the Lasergraphics soundhead: Did anyone ever scan a 3150 Hz measurement film to measure the amount of flutter? If not, that would be quite interesting!

I have not but I don't believe this would be a valid test. Wow and flutter are measurements of the speed at which the film is moving past the sound head at normal playback speed, and vary based on things like motor fluctuations, shrinkage, wobbly capstans, etc. It's about realtime analog sound reproduction. Those test films were meant to be run at 24fps in a projector. 

The ScanStation does not use a sound head like older telecines, or like the BMD Cintel, which are traditional photosensors that read the fluctuating light going through the film and turn it into a voltage. Those are absolutely susceptible to wow and flutter because they're captured in real time and they could have all the issues described above.

The scanstation is essentially doing what AEO-Light is doing, except with a dedicated camera and at significantly higher sample rates than you can get with a scan. It's also running the film over a special drum that flattens it, and they're performing alignment and centering of the soundtrack on the fly as it's capturing, to make sure you're getting all of the track and not just some of it. 

I can capture optical audio on our scanstation at any speed I can run the scanner. The slower it's run, the more samples are taken of the audio, and the better the sound quality. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)

The wow and flutter is most likely built into the stems of the pre-master mix and simply not worried about.

Understand that these industrial films were churned-out by the mile from the late 40's to the late 1970's and were understood to be played back on classroom 16mm projectors.  Most of these projectors were lucky to even be cleaned, let alone serviced in their entire operational lives.

Most library music of the period came on either 78 or 33 rpm LPs and simply transferred to mag fullcoat without a lot of worry; it was wild sound, not sync.

I ran an 8 dubber Magnasync Selsyn Interlocked mixing system for 16mm sound mixes at Ohio State University and if you did not attach at least 30 to 40 feet of leader to the head of the mix, you could not be assured it would be totally stable by the time the sync pop hit the heads.

There are a lot of reasons the music could have wow and flutter, but not the narration...

Edited by Frank Wylie
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

It has absolutely nothing to do with the scanner. 

What are you talking about? 

Are you instantly defending LaserGraphics instead of listening to the damn audio and hearing the wow and flutter? That effect is caused by inconsistent speed, period. 

So yes, it would be the device that scanned the audio, which would cause the inconsistent speed. 

PERIOD. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

What are you talking about? 

Are you instantly defending LaserGraphics instead of listening to the damn audio and hearing the wow and flutter? That effect is caused by inconsistent speed, period. 

So yes, it would be the device that scanned the audio, which would cause the inconsistent speed. 

PERIOD. 

Please, Tyler. You have no idea what you're talking about here. 

If you took a moment to read what I'm saying instead of making assumptions about how a scanner you don't use every day works, you might understand what I'm saying. You claim that AEO Light doesn't introduce wow and flutter. I'm trying to explain to you that the method Lasergraphics uses is essentially the same as AEO Light. It's a digital image of the soundtrack that is converted to audio samples in basically the same way. It's not an analog reproduction system that works in real time and is susceptible to speed variations. That's just not how the Lasergraphics optical reader works. Trust me, I've been using it for 11 years and have talked extensively with Lasergraphics support about how it operates. 

The wow and flutter, as multiple people have pointed out, is baked into the film. It was mixed that way. This is incredibly common and we see it all the time. If you don't believe me, then listen to Frank Wylie, who I can guarantee knows more about this stuff and has probably handled more film than everyone else in this thread combined.

Or maybe listen to more than just the beginning of the film, because there is no wow in the later portions of the film, indicating the problem is not with the scanner. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

What are you talking about? 

Are you instantly defending LaserGraphics instead of listening to the damn audio and hearing the wow and flutter? That effect is caused by inconsistent speed, period. 

So yes, it would be the device that scanned the audio, which would cause the inconsistent speed. 

PERIOD. 

As I said, to my ear the narration is unaffected, only the music has the wow. So it's a problem with the source that's built in to the sound mix.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

As I said, to my ear the narration is unaffected, only the music has the wow. So it's a problem with the source that's built in to the sound mix.

That's what wow and flutter sounds like when the machine is only a few tenths of a FPS off. I know, our scanner does that as well. One could capture at a slower speed for sure, it may help, but I haven't tried that methodology yet since AEO-LITE works so perfectly. It does take more time, but we batch it overnight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

You claim that AEO Light doesn't introduce wow and flutter

Never once were those words stated. 

21 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

This is incredibly common and we see it all the time

Have you tried listening to the soundtrack with an optical reader? We have. Prints with zero issues on a 60hz Magnasync, are problematic on AEO. 

Film shrinks unevenly, especially at the head. 

The reason why digital tools struggle with some soundtracks, is simply due to micro shrinkage. You don't see it as much in the picture, but it's there in the soundtrack. 

21 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Or maybe listen to more than just the beginning of the film, because there is no wow in the later portions of the film, indicating the problem is not with the scanner. 

Your defending of Lasergraphics is kinda crazy. You act as if it's impervious to any issues. Everyone and everything is wrong besides the scanner. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

That's what wow and flutter sounds like when the machine is only a few tenths of a FPS off. I know, our scanner does that as well. One could capture at a slower speed for sure, it may help, but I haven't tried that methodology yet since AEO-LITE works so perfectly. It does take more time, but we batch it overnight. 

I'm sorry Tyler, if you can't be bothered to read what has already been explained here multiple times, I don't know what to say. Your FilmFabriek scanner is a prosumer-level scanner that works in a fundamentally different way than the Lasergraphics scanners do. You really can't compare them, and what I was saying about the speed at which we capture has nothing to do with your scanner. It was in reference to the ScanStation, which captures sound in a completely different way than your scanner does. 

Quote

Your defending of Lasergraphics is kinda crazy. You act as if it's impervious to any issues. Everyone and everything is wrong besides the scanner. 

Nah, it's just you. There are 4 people with many, many decades of experience in this thread telling you what the problem is but you don't seem to want to listen. 

And I'm not "defending" anyone. I'm correcting blatant bad information, which began with the clickbait-title of this thread, and is being spread by you. If you don't know how something works, please do yourself a favor and don't make wild guesses and assumptions about what's happening. 

I do this because I have to. Because people email me for quotes all the time and say "I saw this post on cinematography.com that said... (insert bad information here)." And I have to spend an hour or more of my time every morning explaining to customers what was incorrect about the post. I'd rather just nip it in the bud right here where it's happening. 

Quote

Me: "You claim that AEO Light doesn't introduce wow and flutter"

You: "Never once were those words stated. "

Please direct your attention to post #6 in this thread where you said: 

Quote

It's not distortion, it's the speed of the scanner fluctuating very slightly. Yes, this is what it sounds like and why I use AEO-Lite. 

So no, I guess technically you didn't use the words "wow and flutter." But you described wow and flutter in the context of a discussion of wow and flutter, and you certainly implied that AEO-Light doesn't do this so that's why you use it. 

Quote

Prints with zero issues on a 60hz Magnasync, are problematic on AEO. 

AEO-Light is working on a scanned frame and doesn't compensate for shrinkage, as far as I'm aware.

Once more: The Lasergraphics optical reader is a SECOND CAMERA - a line array sensor that compiles the image as it passes. It is aware of the speed at which the drum that is in contact with the film is moving and the scanner knows the level of shrinkage of the film. The wow and flutter you're claiming is happening in the scanner simply isn't possible because of the way the scanner's optical reader works.

But I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)

First off, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying, there is no evidence you're right. The only evidence I've seen is from something we experience; shrunken film. It's something most projectors DO NOT care about. So for me, I can go down stairs with the print post scan and throw it on a projector to figure out if the print is bad or not. I have yet to find a print, in my entire life, that was bad when projected on a good projector. 

9 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

But I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears. 

Second, I am listening. 

I've scanned thousands of educational films, as I use to work for an archive. 

The only scientific way to test a soundtrack is to play it back on a tuned/tested Magnasync. That's the only method that works. Until you do that, there is no discussion that can be had. 

Frank's example is not scientific, it's just some antidotal information based on some old unserviced high school and university gear. Doubt any of it was properly taken care of. None of the tachometers on the flatbeds at Emerson worked, so the motors free-for-all'd and the soundtracks blew. That's just one example. 

The other assumption that older record players and magnetic tape machines were bad, is also pretty ridiculous. I have a 1958 16mm mag recorder, it's all tubes and the damn thing runs at a perfect 24fps. I also have worked on turntables from that era and they also run perfectly, locked to the 60 cycles of the AC power. These issues aren't either of those. 

You claim that this happens all the time, but why aren't you buying a fully restored projector and testing the prints huh? Why are you defending LG, giving us spec sheets on how it can never be wrong, without even verifying! I'm flabbergasted from someone who preaches perfection on a daily basis and puts up arguments everywhere on the internet daily about how everyone else is shit, you haven't even bothered to do a true scientific test. 

I have done those tests, which is why I back up my "opinion" on the matter. 

 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Your defending of Lasergraphics is kinda crazy. You act as if it's impervious to any issues. Everyone and everything is wrong besides the scanner. 

Agreed. LG may make a better scanner, but they still have numerous issues really.

7 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

Your FilmFabriek scanner is a prosumer-level scanner that works in a fundamentally different way than the Lasergraphics scanners do.

No they don't. The FF HDS+ was originally designed for Archives, and since at least 2015 the LaserGraphics ScanStation is targeted at Archives primarily. FF expanded their market towards the film-enthusiasts. LG changing the name of the junior model from "ScanStation Personal" to "Archivist" should clearly demonstrate who they are targeting as their largest market.

They're both capstan-driven continuous motion bayer scanners with a full-spectrum LED light diffused and positioned to conceal visible base damage. They both use a similar imager.

I'd note something here, which is that most people do not understand what the film scanners are for. They have no idea what market each scanner was designed for and they find difficult to do proper research before purchasing one. This was a large reason why MovieStuff/Roger Evans sold so many scanners - he was at the top of Google if you searched to buy a film scanner, and you wouldn't even find Filmfabriek, Blackmagic, or Lasergraphics.

So you saying that the HDS+ is just a "prosumer-level scanner" is really not helpful. You are technically right, but its largest market when it hit the market wasn't wealthy individuals it was archives and small companies focused on small-format film. It's priced far too high for most prosumers, they've designed the Pictor for the prosumer.

As far as how they work - they work pretty much the same way.

11 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

And I'm not "defending" anyone. I'm correcting blatant bad information, which began with the clickbait-title of this thread, and is being spread by you. If you don't know how something works, please do yourself a favor and don't make wild guesses and assumptions about what's happening. 

I do this because I have to. Because people email me for quotes all the time and say "I saw this post on cinematography.com that said... (insert bad information here)." And I have to spend an hour or more of my time every morning explaining to customers what was incorrect about the post. I'd rather just nip it in the bud right here where it's happening. 

Oh come on!

There's a reason that Mr Teoli is asking these questions - it's because doing research on commercial scanners is like you walking into a Ford dealership and asking them what's about their Ford compared to a similar looking Subaru.

I'll post more about what each commercial film scanner is actually designed for in the MovieStuff thread - because MovieStuff never would have sold half their scanners if their customers knew who the competition for what they wanted was.

And also speaking of disinformation, we have to contend all the information that Roger has dumped onto his website here. Do you notice something? He doesn't ever mention his competitors. It's all about him and MovieStuff - he even has the audacity to claim that he had a role in creating the mom-and-pop home movie scanning market - what absolute nonsense. It was Elmo that created it and Clive Tobin made the more "modern" ones in the mid-2000's. MovieStuff scanners (as limited as they are) were always frame-by-frame - they never went directly to NTSC or PAL which is what the home movie market needed at that time. Composite video out to be recorded directly to VHS and then later to DVD. Why anyone would use a Retro 8 over a similarly priced Tobin TVT-8 for that purpose is a complete mystery to me (and I mean back in 2012 when the Retro-8 was released). Oh and by the way, Clive Tobin was completely upfront about what his transfer units were for unlike Roger Evans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Frank's example is not scientific, it's just some antidotal information based on some old unserviced high school and university gear. Doubt any of it was properly taken care of. None of the tachometers on the flatbeds at Emerson worked, so the motors free-for-all'd and the soundtracks blew. That's just one example. 

Frank is not some random guy with a garage full of Coronet films and a portable B&H projector. He was the chief color timer at the Library of Congress for a long time before retiring recently. (Please correct me if I got your title wrong, @Frank Wylie!).

If there was anyone in this thread who people should pay attention to, it's him. Not you. 

 

Quote

You claim that this happens all the time, but why aren't you buying a fully restored projector and testing the prints huh?

Because it would be utterly irresponsible of me to project a shrunken print belonging to one of our clients. That's a terrible idea and we would never do that. If you're running your client's shrunken prints through a projector then you should really think twice. Projectors are unforgiving and shrunken film is often warped or cupped as well, so you run the risk of doing more than just sprocket damage - you could scratch it, or in extreme cases much worse. 

Also, we don't project film because it's unnecessary, due to the way our scanner captures sound. The problem exhibited in the film above is NOT in the scanner. I know this because I know how the optical sound reader in the scanner they used works. It is  fundamentally different than the optical sound reader in the FilmFabriek scanner, which 100% can exhibit wow and flutter as it's an analog sound reproduction system. (correct me if I'm wrong - the HDS+ uses a light and a photosensor like in a projector, or a Steenbeck, or a Rank, or a Spirit, or a Shadow, or any of a number of other devices with analog optical sound readers, no?)

 

 

Quote

First off, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying, there is no evidence you're right.

No, actually, that's not what you're saying. It's certainly not what you posted. If you mean something different then say what you mean the first time, please.

I just have to point out that this is a defense mechanism you have repeatedly used here on these forums and others when you're backed into a corner: denying you said something that is plainly available for anyone who cares to scroll through the thread to see, or slightly twisting what you say to make it seem like you never said it. That's fine but you did in fact say the problem is the scanner. Not that it might  be the scanner as you imply in that quote, but that it is the scanner. Again, quoting the same line I already referenced in my last reply, you said...

Quote

It's not distortion, it's the speed of the scanner fluctuating very slightly. 

(underline added)

Ergo, you are saying I'm wrong when I (and others) say it's the film, not the scanner. That is a pretty definitive statement you're making, and if you didn't mean it that way you should think again before you say such things. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I'm flabbergasted from someone who preaches perfection on a daily basis and puts up arguments everywhere on the internet daily about how everyone else is shit, you haven't even bothered to do a true scientific test. 

Putting aside I've never said that about anyone, the reason you probably have that impression is because, again, someone needs to correct bad information when it's posted. If not, it lingers forever and becomes "common knowledge," even if it's wrong. So yeah, I'm doing this a lot. I don't like it. It's exhausting and frustrating. But the need for it is just going to get even greater as the generation of people who really lived and breathed analog film every day in labs and post facilities and archives, disappears. I've set aside time every morning to do this, while I have my coffee. I'd love it if others would join me because it makes me really tired and discouraged. 

This phenomenon isn't just about film, it happens with any area of interest where there's a closed feedback loop of people regurgitating bad information. It's just the way it is but the cycle has to be broken somehow.

On a practical level, it costs us time and money and potentially lost business because these kinds of garbage clickbait threads eventually wind up high in google searches. I'm telling you this from experience. We get a lot of work from people who read stuff here, and a lot of people email for quotes, repeating bad information they read on this very forum. I spend a significant amount of my time responding to that and explaining to potential customers what's wrong with what they read and why. Too much time. Time I could be using to do more productive stuff. But it's a fact of life at this point and now just part of my day. 

 

4 hours ago, Dan Baxter said:

There's a reason that Mr Teoli is asking these questions - it's because doing research on commercial scanners is like you walking into a Ford dealership and asking them what's about their Ford compared to a similar looking Subaru.

I'm not so sure about that. Dan has been starting these provocative threads for several years now. I don't believe he has any plans to buy a "big boy" scanner (as he likes to call them), as many people have explained to him ways of making the ownership of one of these scanners possible (leasing, selling some services on the side to cover payments, etc). Honestly it feels it feels more like it's about getting post counts up, for whatever reason. Kind of like Tyler's 7400 posts here. Kind of amazing he has time to do any work with that kind of volume.

Certainly helps the SEO of cinematography.com though!

Anyway, coffee cup is empty. back to work.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

 

I'm not so sure about that. Dan has been starting these provocative threads for several years now. I don't believe he has any plans to buy a "big boy" scanner (as he likes to call them), as many people have explained to him ways of making the ownership of one of these scanners possible (leasing, selling some services on the side to cover payments, etc).

Neither do the vendors believe Daniel Teoli is going to purchase one, that's why they stopped replying to his hundreds of questions. I wish people here would also stop replying to his clickbaity threads.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

Neither do the vendors believe Daniel Teoli is going to purchase one, that's why they stopped replying to his hundreds of questions. I wish people here would also stop replying to his clickbaity threads.

Of course not and he should stop asking them questions. However, the vendors could put out better information to begin with IMO. I'm not trying to bash the vendors at all, but how many people here remember that the Blackmagic Cintel for example was squarely designed as a way to bring film up to 40 years old to online streaming platforms?

What happened with MovieStuff is their "scanners" were originally designed for amateurs and archives. They were not designed for the home movie market, Elmos were designed for that and available since the 1980's and Tobin Cinema Systems prolonged it with their range starting in 2005 or so:

"Replaces Elmo Transvideo. These were discontinued years ago, and back in 1991 we were thinking of developing a replacement, but it didn't seem like the market was there. Now, with used Elmo TRV machines in questionable condition selling on Ebay auction site for up to $5,600, with most spare parts no longer available, perhaps now is the time! (We understand Elmo won't be making more as they have destroyed all the tooling.) No slaving over a hot computer for hours with this method... just plug into any DVD, DV, VHS or other video recorder and monitor, and transfer in real time as if copying a tape or disc. No computer, no extra computer programs to learn, no tricky field and imaging lens alignments by the operator needed, no darkened room. Designed for continuous use in your high-volume transfer lab. Productivity is about four times as great as with computer-dependent methods."

Completely accurate and clear information for the customer. With most of the commercial scanners today unless you know exactly where to find the information it's hard to know what each scanner is designed for and whether it's suitable for the purpose the customer wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

. (Please correct me if I got your title wrong, @Frank Wylie!)

 "Chief Timer" if you want be exact.

 

 

 

I'll just make a few clarifications on my statements and then leave this thread alone;  I don't have a horse in this race anyway.

As to the distortion being built into the mix, I stand by that possibility.  Industrial/Classroom film making was a huge industry with intense pressure to produce product at a reasonable price point, so standards were sometimes rather lax by necessity.

Added to this, the propensity for exactitude in presentation and audience critical response is now orders of magnitude ABOVE what a typical client/sponsor/viewer had in the era in which the film was made.  Digital delivery and exhibition has (IMHO) both spoiled and given modern audiences an unrealistic expectation of just how mainstream industrial media was produced and consumed.

This why I brought up the point about poorly serviced 16mm projectors.  The producers/clients knew where their material would eventually wind up be exhibited and they factored that into their thought process.  it wasn't desired, but some slippage could be tolerated to finish the project.

The standards for production were never intended to be poor, it's just that I think that when push-came-to-shove, a budget-stressed client would overlook a lot of problems that would be considered a deal breaker now.  Remixing a track in a physical dubber system that could cost a thousand dollars an hour (1960/70's dollars mind you) could blow an entire budget.

Anyone who has recorded a sustained piano note on non-digital equipment knows it is one of the most severe tests of transport stability an analog recorder can face.

As to the statement that implied that I ran a junky, unserviced mixing system;  you don't know what you are talking about and probably only have experience with stand-alone mag transport units.  Selsyn systems are physically interlocked and have resonances that can be communicated back through the drive shafts to the system as a whole.

So, unless you take super critical care in editing your mag fullcoat, any other track that has a poorly made splice can send a ripple back through the system and cause speed distortions on other dubbers.

Also, I would like to point out that the narration COULD have equal distortion, but you probably will NOT hear it unless the person breaks into song; then you would hear it.

Anyway, believe it or don't:  I could really care less.

Edited by Frank Wylie
refomat
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
17 hours ago, Frank Wylie said:

So, unless you take super critical care in editing your mag fullcoat, any other track that has a poorly made splice can send a ripple back through the system and cause speed distortions on other dubbers.

So every soundtrack should be bad then, because nobody ever actually cared about the full coat splices. Most people would yank them off the flatbed and throw them right onto the dubber for low budget productions. 

Again, explain to us "layman" (I've used plenty of dubbers) how a locked dubbing system, can change speed (slip) due to splices. These are sprocketed machines, that run in an interlocked mode. If you stopped the roll of film on the supply, it would snap immediately due to the sprocket drive. So you're talking about the little tiny slop allowed by the tensioners before and after the heads? A bad splice can get caught on a head and for a brief moment, cause that system to sway slightly, but it goes away almost immediately. In fact, some dubbers (I don't know the ones you mentioned) don't even have that system at all. They are hard rollers across the entire pickup path. 

I'd just like to know. I've worked in plenty of dubbing rooms, I've never once had anyone explain or demonstrate what you're discussing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

oh boy.

Real new scanners do not rely on the crystal locked frame rate of the film to correlate the sound like legacy telecine.

So if you look at how sound heads are setup on the LG or Xena or DFT/Sondor machines there is a very high res optical encoder drum at the sound reader, this drum will typically have a 8,000 line/rotation encoder that drives sampling the magnetic or optical sound. This frees the scanner to run at any scan frame rate and have the sound be resolved to the resultant required playback speed.

The LG machines use a line scan to basically do a high res picture of the optical track and decode it in the same manor that AEO Light works, but with higher accuracy as it has a known number of hundreds of thousands or millions of film velocity samples per second. The Xena uses a 8000 line encoder and a A/D in a National Instruments high res digitizer card. Not sure how the Sondor on the Scannity or Polar DFT machines works but I think it is similar to the LG system.

So there is really no actual technical way for wow or flutter to be introduced on these new scanners because the physical scanning speed is irrelevant to the resulting playback speed of the sound or picture.

The playback sound speed is done in math with vastly more sampling in time and visual representation per film frame than are necessary or have ever been available before.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 3/29/2024 at 9:35 PM, Robert Houllahan said:

So there is really no actual technical way for wow or flutter to be introduced on these new scanners because the physical scanning speed is irrelevant to the resulting playback speed of the sound or picture.

But like a line scanner on a Spirit for instance, warped film leaves a "wavy" appearance as it's being scanned. So if you're line scanning optical sound track, that effect would also be a problem. Sometimes you get this with AEO as well, but it actually turns into a 24 per second pulse noise, because the frames don't quite align with one another. You don't get wow and flutter, but you do get other symptoms of warped film. 

Nobody has yet to explain HOW a line scanner, which clearly has issues with warped film with image, won't have any issues with warped film on a soundtrack. 

Also, I have never once heard via projector, the issue that Perry has said happens constantly for him. Heck, AEO doesn't appear to have it either. Have you heard it? You've got optical readers in a rack somewhere, have had a bad soundtrack and tried to play it back on another device to see if it's the scanner? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...