Why is this sound so bad with a Lasergraphics scanner?

[Robert Houllahan]

The linescan issue in the Spirit is a temporal scan issue not a horizontal one.

The Spirit scans the line x samples as the film moves past the aperture and "builds" the picture in the framestore in real time, the speed is governed by the encoder on the sprocket which is 4-800 lines per revolution and does not feed back into the frame store. So when there is frame instability like on a splice the velocity of the lines scanned jumps and you get the issues. In the later version of the Spirit 4K and Scannity there is some feedback to compensate for this.

As for new sound scanning.

The 8000 line / rev optical encoder used in these newer scanners allows for very detailed film velocity information to be mathematically combined with the horizintal picture scan info or (on the Xena) analog sound capture to create a audio signal that should be very accurate in pitch / stability.This method allows for the info to be processed for temporal variations in film velocity in a very high resolution and not just spit out to a framestore. The LG SS Optical sound reader is just doing a more detailed AEO like sound decoding, I am actually not sure it is a line scan as they may be using a area scan sensor to scan the sound areas Perry would know more about that.

We use the built in AEO Light audio on the two Scan Station machines I have and it also works fantastically well, Arri is using AEO in the Arriscan XT now.

I have not really had any pitch issues on any of the 8mm 16mm or 35mm films with sound we have scanned from either the Scan Station or Xena scanners.

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

I have not really had any pitch issues on any of the 8mm 16mm or 35mm films with sound we have scanned from either the Scan Station or Xena scanners.

I haven't had any either and I certainly haven't had any issues with AEO outside of seriously warped film. That's why I'm completely confused and perplexed why Perry said he always has issues. 

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

This method allows for the info to be processed for temporal variations in film velocity in a very high resolution and not just spit out to a framestore.

Very interesting. This is kind of an unusual feature. I assume it's a similar engine to the frame stabilization tricks they use. 

Thanks for the detailed explanation. 

[Perry Paolantonio]

17 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

The LG SS Optical sound reader is just doing a more detailed AEO like sound decoding, I am actually not sure it is a line scan as they may be using a area scan sensor to scan the sound areas Perry would know more about that.

Line scan camera, roughly 80k lines (samples) per second. 

The system is pretty clever: it tracks the edge of the film to compensate for any weave, while compiling the image of the track. This keeps the track centered. If you have a track that's printed way out of alignment, there's a tool you can use to manually specify the center (though it automatically gets it right 99% of the time so I don't know that we've used this more than once or twice). It also does grain removal before the waveform is converted to sound. Since most of the noise in an optical track is the film grain on the print, this actually extends the dynamic range quite a bit.

Most projectors and telecines used a low pass filter to lop off the high frequency sound, since it was primarily noise in the analog world. In fact, you can see in a spectrograph that even 16mm film, which is supposed to have a top end of about 6kHz, you'll have usable sound in the 12-16kHz range on some prints where a low pass wasn't applied in the mix.

We have scanned films with the grain removal on and off, and the spectrograph is identical for both (you can see there's high frequency sound), but the one without the grain removal is obscured by all the noise. The one without is nice and clear. It's really pretty impressive. 

 

13 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

17 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

I have not really had any pitch issues on any of the 8mm 16mm or 35mm films with sound we have scanned from either the Scan Station or Xena scanners. 

I haven't had any either and I certainly haven't had any issues with AEO outside of seriously warped film. That's why I'm completely confused and perplexed why Perry said he always has issues.

 

No, I never said I "always have issues."

What I did say is that we see this kind of wow and flutter a frequently because we scan a lot of these kinds of films, which were produced on a low budget and as Frank pointed out, the costs to do a remix were exorbitant. wow and flutter baked into prints of this kind of low-budget industrial/educational film is common. 

What Rob is saying here is that he's never had any pitch issues (not the same as warping), related to the scanner. I'm sure he's come across prints that sounded like the one above. 

A film such as this is going to sound that way on any soundtrack reader because the problem was in the soundtrack before the print was struck. It's not related to shrinkage or warping in the film, it has to do with the way the track was made.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/25/2024 at 10:08 AM, Perry Paolantonio said:

The sound isn't bad on a scanstation, quite the contrary. It has one of the best optical track recording systems available.

Further into the film the sound is absolutely fine. The problem is the film.

What is the problem with the film that would cause this distortion?

[Perry Paolantonio]

1 minute ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

What is the problem with the film that would cause this distortion?

keep reading - it's explained in several posts further on.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/25/2024 at 4:27 PM, Robert Hart said:

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.

I was going to buy another copy of the film, but it was faded and passed on it. It would be interesting to see how sound varies with different prints.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/25/2024 at 4:32 PM, Perry Paolantonio said:

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. 

So, if you have an important film, do you scan it slower with the Lasergraphics to get the best scan you can, Perry?  

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/25/2024 at 6:53 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

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. 

That is terrible. Is FF ever going to fix it, Tyler?

I understand you like AEO-Lite. As a broke archivist I like it too. But when you got a sound scanner, it should perform as advertised. OK, it does not have to be top shelf, but nothing obvious for the average Joe, Jane or zir to complain about.  

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/25/2024 at 6:57 PM, Perry Paolantonio said:

It has absolutely nothing to do with the scanner. 

Don't know. If it was a bad print, wouldn't it be on all the prints, Perry? If I can find that faded print, it may be worth buying it just to see a 2nd sample of the sound. 

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/26/2024 at 9:18 AM, Perry Paolantonio said:

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. 

The Lasergraphics people have come a long way from their beginnings. Very impressive design.

Since you are in business, do scan companies generally run at high speeds that produce decent results and charge more for slow scans? Does the slow speed benefit sound only or does it affect the image quality, Perry?

Edited April 5 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/26/2024 at 1:26 PM, Frank Wylie said:

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...

Thanks Frank.

Good to see you are still around! 

 

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/27/2024 at 4:49 PM, Perry Paolantonio said:

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

 

It is not clickbait Perry. Internet Archive said a Lasergraphics Scanstation was used to digitize it and the sound is bad. Nothing clickbaitish about it.

I was wondering if there is a problem with the scanner, the operator or what. 

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:19 AM, Perry Paolantonio said:

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. 

 

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?)

 

 

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...

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. 

 

 

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. 

 

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.

 

Provocative thread titles? As I said before, my title is a straightforward question. It is not clickbait; it is not provocative...it is a factual question, Perry based on fact. The sound is bad and the scanner used was a LG...what is the problem? Now when you talk about the random guy with a garage full of Coronet films and projector...OK, I'm guilty as charged! 

Do you know why it takes me so long to get back to threads on the forums Perry? I'm busy with other things. I'd like to do better, but I can't. Post counts mean nothing to me, Perry. Whatever it is...is what it is. I'd see on the forums where people celebrate their 10,000th post. Humans seem predisposed to liking round numbers. It is not the number of posts...it is the quality of the posts that counts. 

I'd have to buy a scanner outright Perry. I'm not interested at all in scanning other people's films to pay for a scanner. I'm interested in scanning my own films, which total somewhere between 3 and 4 million feet...that is it. Although I did mention if I was rich, I'd have extra scanner for indie filmmakers to use to scan their films for free. (If it was not going to be a big hassle.)

I do not have the financial wherewith all to buy a scanner on time as my income varies greatly. Everyone does not buy a scanner to make money with it, Perry. I don't make a penny from any of the archival work I do or the photography I produce. I do it because it interests me and to donate and preserve the material for the historical record. My problem was I jumped into film preservation without a thought for the digitization cost. Every other area I work in is more or less affordable...except cine' film scanning. 

Anyway, I'm just trying to learn about it all, along with participating in the forum. As Dan Baxter mentioned, research can be tough if all you go by are Google searches. It seems many members here just read and don't contribute. I can't contribute in all areas, so I contribute where I can and ask questions as they pop up, Perry. I do like to get some extra bang for the buck with my posts, so I try to share some archival material or my social documentary photography with posts. Why not? It may be of interest to others. 

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/28/2024 at 11:33 AM, 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.

It is no problem if you don't want to reply, David. But this is a discussion forum, and questions or discussion should stand on their own and not be based on prejudice about the person. Everyone can't pull out $70K or $125K of their pocket and buy a scanner on demand. 

David, when I do a Google image search for you, I see you have a pitiful online representation. Sure, it does not say everything about it...but it says a lot.

david sekanina - Google Search

Google image search these David...

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

...and don't forget to ad Jr. to my name, David.

My work is an open book. Although the Google searches only show a fraction of what it really is. Here, these are some of the institutions that have my work in their collections. 

Public Collections: Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

I have photograph(s) and/ or limited edition hand-printed artist’s books at the following institutions:

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, California

Rhode Island School of Design – Fleet Library Special Collections, Rhode Island

Oxford Bodleian Library – Special Collections U.K.

Toronto University – Thomas Fischer Rare Book Library, Canada

British Library – Special Collections, U.K.

Rutgers University – Special Collections Library, New Jersey

Columbia University – Avery Fine Arts Library Special Collections, New York

Art Center College of Design – Fogg Library Special Collections, California

Brown University – Special Collections Art Library, Rhode Island

University of California Berkeley – Special Collections Art Library, California

Mennello Museum of Art, Florida

The Art Museum at The University of Kentucky, Kentucky (a)

Mead Art Museum – Amherst College, Massachusetts

Victoria and Albert Museum – National Art Library Special Collections, U.K.

NYU – Fales Library Special Collections, New York

Amherst College – Special Collections Library, Massachusetts

Stanford University – Special Collections Art & Architecture Library, California

Shanghai Duolun Museum of Modern Art, China

Allen Memorial Museum – Oberlin College, Ohio

University of Exeter – Bill Douglas Centre, U.K.

Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center – Vassar College, New York

Flint Institute of Art, Michigan

Noyes Museum of Art – Stockton College, New Jersey

RISD Museum, Rhode Island

California State Library Sacramento – Special Collections, California

International Center of Photography – Special Collections Library, New York

Fashion Institute of Technology – Marcus Library Special Collections, New York

Wright State University – Special Collections Dept of Art and History, Ohio

American Motorcycle Museum – Pinkerton, Ohio

National University of Singapore Art Museum, Singapore

Colby Museum of Art – Colby College, Maine

The Kinsey Institute, Indiana

University of Southern California – One Archives, California

Bibliotheque Kandinsky Special Collections – Centre Pompidou, France

Tweed Museum of Art – University of Minnesota, Minnesota

San Antonio Museum of Art, Texas

Spencer Museum of Art – University of Kansas, Kansas

Yale University – Haas Art Library Special Collections, Connecticut

UCLA – Charles E. Young Research Library Special Collections, California

UCONN – Thomas J. Dodd Research Center Special Collections, Connecticut

Brooklyn Museum Library – Special Collections, New York

Muscarelle Museum of Art – College of William and Mary, Virginia

The National Library of Sweden – Special Collections, Sweden

Museum of Fine Art Houston – Hirsch Library Special Collections, Texas

The University of Chicago – Special Collections Library, Illinois

The University of California Santa Barbara – Special Collections, California

Smithsonian American Art Museum Library – Special Collections, Washington D.C.

Corcoran Gallery College of Art – Special Collections, Washington D.C.

The University of the Arts – Special Collections Library, Pennsylvania

Reed College Library – Special Collections, Oregon

The Art Institute of Chicago School of Art – Flaxman Special Collections, Illinois

Ringling College of Art And Design – Special Collections Library, Florida

The Newberry – Special Collections, Illinois

New School Archives & Special Collections, New York

Cranbrook Academy of Art – Special Collections Library, Michigan

San Francisco Public Library – Special Collections, California

Maryland Institute College of Art – Decker Special Collections, Maryland

National Library of South Africa – Special Collections, Pretoria, South Africa

Bard College – Stevenson Library Special Collections, New York

University of Pennsylvania – Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Pennsylvania

University California Santa Cruz – McHenry Library Special Collections, California

SCAD Savannah – Special Collections, Georgia

The National Vietnam War Museum, Texas (a)

Mills College Library – Special Collections, California

Colby Library – Special Collections, Maine

University of Nevada Reno – Special Collections, Nevada

Northwestern University – McCormick Special Collections, Illinois

Boston Public Library – Special Collections, Massachusetts

University of Iowa – Martin Rare Book Special Collections, Iowa

University of Tulsa – McFarlin Special Collections, Oklahoma

Oberlin College – Mudd Center Special Collections, Ohio

New York Public Library – Special Collections, New York

Harvard Radcliffe Institute – Schlesinger Special Collections, Massachusetts

DePaul – Richardson Special Collections, Illinois

West Virginia and Regional History Center, West Virginia

UIC – Health Science Library Special Collections, Illinois

Center for Popular Music, Tennessee

University of Colorado – Anschutz Special Collections, Colorado

Cleveland Museum of Art – Ingalls Special Collections, Ohio

University of Kentucky – Special Collections, Kentucky

Dwight Anderson Memorial Music Library, Kentucky

Trinity College Watkinson – Special Collections, Connecticut

Cushing / Whitney Medical Library Yale Special Collections, Connecticut

The Archives of Appalachia, Tennessee

Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / German National Library Special Collections, Germany

Harwood Museum of Art – University of New Mexico, New Mexico

University of London – Special Collections Senate Library, U.K.

National Library of Scotland – Special Collections, Scotland

Center for Creative Photography – Special Collections, Arizona

Bibliothèque Nationale de Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Jaffe Center for Book Arts, Florida

The University of Memphis – Music Branch, Tennessee

Southern Oregon University Hannon Library Special Collections, Oregon

The College of William & Mary Earl Gregg Swem Library, Virginia

Middlebury – Special Collections Library, Vermont

University of South Carolina – Irvin Rare Books aSpecial Collections, South Carolina

University of Colorado Boulder – Special Collections Library, Colorado

NCSU Libraries – Special Collections, North Carolina

University Michigan – Joseph A. Labadie Collection Special Collections Library, Michigan

University of Victoria – McPherson Library Special Collections, Victoria, B.C. Canada

Arizona State University – Special Collections Library, Arizona

Bryn Mawr College – Special Collections Library, Pennsylvania

USC – Doheny Memorial Library Special Collections, California

University of Rochester – Rush Rhees Library Special Collections, New York

Wake Forest University – ZSR Special Collections, North Carolina

Reading Public Museum, Pennsylvania

College of the Holy Cross , Massachusetts (b)

University of Illinois at Chicago Daley Special Collections, Illinois

Minnesota Center for Book Arts, Minnesota

George Washington University – Gelman Special Collections, Washington D.C.

Boston College – Burns Library Special Collections, Massachusetts

Auburn University – Draughon Library Special Collections, Alabama

Openbare Bibliotheek Special Collections, Amsterdam, Netherlands

University of Illinois at Chicago – Daley Library Special Collections, Illinois

State Library of Victoria Special Collections, Melbourne, Australia

Ohio State University – Rare Books & Manuscripts Library, Ohio

National Archives Netherlands, De Haag, Netherlands

University of Amsterdam Special Collections, Netherlands

Rijksmuseum – Research Library, Netherlands

University of Maryland – Baltimore County Special Collections, Maryland

Tate Museum Research Library Special Collections, London, England

Cornell University Library Rare Books, Manuscripts and Archives, New York

University of Pittsburgh Art Gallery, Pennsylvania

James Madison University Special Collections, Virginia

Bowdoin College Special Collections, Maine

Widener University Special Collections, Pennsylvania

University of South Florida Special Collections, Florida

Amon Carter Museum Conservation Lab, Texas

Princeton University Firestone Library Special Collections, New Jersey

Library of Congress Special Collections, Washington, D.C

Image Permanence Institute Rochester Institute of Technology, New York

University of Pittsburgh Medical School Special Collections, Pennsylvania

Metropolitan Museum of Art Conservation Lab, New York

University of Houston Special Collections, Texas

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 3/28/2024 at 6:36 PM, Dan Baxter said:

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.

Film scanning is a somewhat blind area to work in, unless you can get 'hands on' experience. I was talking to an old gal down the street, complaining about having to buy things on Amazon just 'to look at them.' In the old days you could go and see...but not anymore. It is worse with cine' scanners since they are so $$. 

The $$ is the issue, Dan. So, in the meantime, I try to learn as much as I can.

Got to get back to work. I had high hopes of getting caught up, but just too much 'stuff' here. 

 

Edited April 5 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[David Sekanina]

2 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

It is no problem if you don't want to reply, David. But this is a discussion forum, and questions or discussion should stand on their own and not be based on prejudice about the person. Everyone can't pull out $70K or $125K of their pocket and buy a scanner on demand. 

David, when I do a Google image search for you, I see you have a pitiful online representation. Sure, it does not say everything about it...but it says a lot.

Well Junior,  I did reply to your thread and sent you the link to the sub 400€ Raspberry Pi 16mm film scanner, that outperforms the Moviestuff scanner by a lot, and if you would be really interested in the topic, you'd be all over this project and building one yourself. I did not see that. Hence me questioning your motives.

Concerning how much my work shows up on google image search, I don't care much and don't understand why I should 🤷‍♂️

But your list of institutions that have a collection of your archival work is truly impressive. I myself, could never make sense of your curation and selection process.

Edited April 5 by David Sekanina

[Dan Baxter]

On 4/6/2024 at 2:36 AM, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Film scanning is a somewhat blind area to work in, unless you can get 'hands on' experience. I was talking to an old gal down the street, complaining about having to buy things on Amazon just 'to look at them.' In the old days you could go and see...but not anymore. It is worse with cine' scanners since they are so $$. 

Well, scanners are generally speaking professional machines. You can't expect to just browse a showroom floor like you can with TVs. Professional equipment for any profession isn't easy to find accessible public ingormation on, so I'd say film scanners are more approachable really and the dealers like Gencom should be able to give advice on the differences etc.

As for being expensive, I don't really agree with you. The Hydra film cleaner is USD $50,000. The Blackmagic Cintel is $32,000 and the Filmfabriek HDS+ is about $40,000. An Archivist from LaserGraphics isn't that much more.

MovieStuff scanners like yours have so many problems really. I get that you want a good quality consumer grade scanner. The issue there is that it's not that hard to build your own scanner for under $5,000, so once the price for one goes above $5,000 there are very few consumers left who would buy one.

A lot, and I do mean a *lot*, of the people that purchased MovieStuff scanners were just buying them for their own projects (like yours), however they could have saved their money and spent a fraction getting their film transferred commercially. Part of the issue is that a lot didn't know where they can get professional work as traditionally comercial scanning was entirely closed to consumers, and there are still so many "consumer scanning" places using the old "consumer-grade" tech (MovieStuff, Tobin, Elmo).

On 4/6/2024 at 1:27 AM, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Since you are in business, do scan companies generally run at high speeds that produce decent results and charge more for slow scans? Does the slow speed benefit sound only or does it affect the image quality, Perry?

I feel like this has been explained a few times. When doing volume archiving and the quality is not essential ScanStations can go as fast as 60fps. The settings for professional work basically make the scanner run at 15fps or 7.5fps max, but you can manually set the speed lower still if the film needs it/will benefit.

If you had an Archivist scanner you'd probably want to run it at 30fps all the time direct to 2K Prores, and you'd get through 10x the volume of film you're getting through with a retroscan.

[Tim Gillett]

It's already been said by Frank Wylie that music especially some types of music is far more revealing than speech, of audio wow.

That's why in the film Daniel linked to, the wow only "appears" at the beginning and closing minutes of the film.  But only because the music only appears at the beginning and the end of the film.  The wow still there right through the film but since most of the film is mere voice the wow not nearly as perceptible to  human listening.

Anyone truly familiar with traditional sound movie projectors knows that sound movie film projector design presented a basic mechanical problem. The requirements for projection of the picture and for sound in terms of film  speed were almost completely opposite. The picture had to be stop/start/stop/start while for sound the film had to travel at a very smooth and unwavering speed.  

To help with this, most projectors had a jockey wheel system whose function was to somewhat isolate the speed  flywheel system from the wild stop/start variations in film speed necessary at the film gate.  This system was not perfect. It was a tradeoff. It reduced flutter (fast speed variations) while unfortunately introducing new slow speed variations  (wow). What we hear in the sample soundtrack above is classic wow that we might hear in a traditional film projector, or even telecine chain. Depending on the state of maintenance of the projector or telecine, the wow could vary in its intensity.

Re the LG  I understand from Perry the 80,000 samples per second frequency avoids the AEO's far more crude "sampling" of say a mere 24 samples (frames) per second so avoids inter frame timing issues within the optical track (recurrent clicks and pops), but it doesnt in itself control for film speed anomolies. Apparently the LG  has a system of very accurately measuring or controlling film speed at the sound line sensor, which indeed it must have to avoid time base errors in the sound track. 

But again, anyone familiar with older motion picture sound projectors, and even some commercial film transfers knows the characteristic "sound" of audio wow whether baked into a film sound track, or introduced in the digitisation process. 

As an aside Roger's little sound module unit which sensed the speed of the film via the flashes of light from the projector's film gate only achieved long term speed synchronisation  when picture scan and sound scan were united on the editing timeline. It could reduce or remove some wow  introduced by playback on a standard film projector but only wow  upstream of the jockey wheel, not downstream of it at the sound head.

 

 

 

Edited April 10 by Tim Gillett

[Tim Gillett]

I'm into audio, let's say. Assuming the audio wow problem in the above soundtrack music is "printed in" can it be fixed? Have a listen to the files. This is the short outro music only.

Edited April 10 by Tim Gillett

[Tyler Purcell]

22 hours ago, Tim Gillett said:

I'm into audio, let's say. Assuming the audio wow problem in the above soundtrack music is "printed in" can it be fixed? Have a listen to the files. This is the short outro music only.

What software did you use to fix this? 

[Tim Gillett]

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

What software did you use to fix this? 

Hi Tyler, it's  Celemony Capstan. It's been around for some years. Note it only works on some sources. Speech isnt one of them.  It's not cheap to purchase but can be rented.

[Tyler Purcell]

10 hours ago, Tim Gillett said:

Hi Tyler, it's  Celemony Capstan. It's been around for some years. Note it only works on some sources. Speech isnt one of them.  It's not cheap to purchase but can be rented.

Ahh yea, I did look at that, doesn't run on Apple silicon or our new PC Ryzen PC lol 

So we can't even run it on any system we have according to their documentation. Have you tried it on Apple Silicon or AMD CPU's with Windows 11? If it works, I will for sure start using it because it appears to be a good tool. 

[Tim Gillett]

3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Ahh yea, I did look at that, doesn't run on Apple silicon or our new PC Ryzen PC lol 

So we can't even run it on any system we have according to their documentation. Have you tried it on Apple Silicon or AMD CPU's with Windows 11? If it works, I will for sure start using it because it appears to be a good tool. 

 

I've only used the free trial version of Capstan on Win 10  which I used to process the above sample. Other products I know of are Cedar Respeed, and Izotope RX since version 8 I think. I guess you'd need to look up the manufacturer's notes for compatible OS's.

There's also of course Plangent Process but it requires special equipment, skills and a steady audio or bias tone printed into the source material as a speed reference. 

Edited April 11 by Tim Gillett

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Tim Gillett said:

Izotope RX

Oh I have the entire Izotope RX suite. I didn't know that was a function, they never made it very clear. 

Thanks!