Going It Alone With S8 And A Flashscan

Ted Langdell · May 27, 2009

Thanks Ted. Kind of obvious once you know, and makes me feel foolish for asking! :D

Has anyone in London got a Series II available for hire? I might go take a looksee...

Here are UK flashscan users from a partial list received just recently. There may be more UK users.

London Widescreen Centre

Middlesbrough Northern Regional Film & Telev'n Archive, Univ. of Teesside 3 Units

Shoeburyness Essex In5 Broadcast Ltd

Spalding Lincolnshire Lincolnshire Film Archive

Weston Cheshire Images4life

York Yorkshire Film Archive, York St John University

The Archives likely don't take in private transfer business (you should ask), and you might ask whether In5's is for hire as it appears to be a production and equipment hire facility. OB in particular.

Tell them you saw it on Cinematography.com.

Ted

Mark Munte · May 27, 2009

I see the Hitachi HV-D30 is used for the FlashScan SD (at leat the MK I).

What camera is used on the FlashScan HD?

Mark Munte · August 28, 2009

Bringing this old post to live again...

I just got a test film scanned with a FlashScan HD.

Sorry to say, but the quality of the scan is terrible.

I'd say the FlashScan captures only half of the dynamic on the film.

Noise, no detail at all at shadows, blown up sky.

Sharpness is not bad, but not as good as it should be.

Colors are very good (3CCD!)

Also, Mr. Langdell, the information the FlashScan can do 1080 is not correct: the camera can output true 720p or SCALED 1080p. I got this information directly from a sales rep. at a fair in Germany.

Now, didn't you know that when you said it can do 1080p, or didn't you think it's important to mention?

Mark

Ted Langdell · August 29, 2009

Hi, Mark,

Thank you for taking the time to have some film transferred on the flashscanHD. Sorry to hear that your test scan results weren't all you'd have liked. Not knowing more about the circumstances of the transfer or the film used, and based only on your comments, it sounds like things weren't set up well prior to transferring your film.

I know the equipment can do quite well. I'd urge you to give it another test. Especially if you're considering a purchase.

Since you're in Germany, I can recommend a Berlin transfer house that has worked closely with the factory on the flashscanHD. That longtime flashscan owner (and now flashscanHD user recently transferred a prospective customer's film. I saw none of the problems you describe.

This was somewhat challenging amateur film to transfer, but was done using the auto color/auto level mode with parameters set up by someone who cares about how things look. That test film resulted in the purchase of a flashscanHD, which our US customer will use replace four lesser products that are projector-based.

As for what the flashscanHD outputs:

In my May 26 post replying in part to your question, I correctly stated that the unit outputs 576i, 720p and 1080i. That's 1080i, not 1080p.

The camera uses three 1/2" CMOS chips, and is native 720p. Why 720p? Several things, among them the cost and availability of suitable cameras. They need to be small, make excellent pictures and have the triggering and external control capability needed to be used with the flashscanHD concept.

The chosen camera runs 720p at 50 video fps, which allows silent film to be transferred at 50fps for a 1:1 capture at more than 3x the original shooting speed of the film.

1080 line cameras that meet the necessary criteria are either not available, or are considerably more expensive than the camera chosen for the flashscanHD.

Also consider whether one sees a significant difference in most 8mm or Super8 film if transferred at 1080... and whether that difference justifies the considerably higher cost of a native 1080 (i or p) three-chip camera that has what's needed for use on the flashscanHD.

Properly set up and operated, I think you'll find that a flashscanHD can extract high quality, HD moving pictures from a wide range of films at a per-foot cost that consumers can afford.

The camera chosen provides productivity features that allow transfer houses to get more film transferred in an hour, and so can keep their retail prices from escalating with a new equipment purchase.

Mark, if you want to take another look, MWA Nova is showing the flashscanHD and other equipment in stand 7.J31at IBC in Amsterdam Sept. 11-15. I anticipate there will be something new on the stand, as well.

The factory can supply a free exhibit registration code, good through the close of the show.

If you happen to be in Berlin between Sept. 28th and Oct. 3, I'd be happy to say hello, as I will be visiting the factory in the Charlottenburg district.

Again, Mark, give it another shot.

I hope this is helpful.

Ted

flashscan8.us

(US/Canadian distributor for MWA Nova)

Kent Kumpula · September 1, 2009

...I just got a test film scanned with a FlashScan HD...the quality of the scan is terrible....Noise, no detail at all at shadows, blown up sky.
Sharpness is not bad, but not as good as it should be.

It really sounds as if you received a crappy transfer. Anyone can produce crap with whatever equipment they are allowed to use. Put the same person behind whatever top-of-the-line telecine equipment and I bet the results will be the same.

He either doesen´t care, or doesen´t know how to use the equipment. Or the FlashscanHD was perhaps defect, or something...

Do you think the clip with the dog looks bad too? http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=137

I transferred it with my FlashscanHD.

Mark Munte · September 1, 2009

Hi Kent,

can you post the last two samples unscaled, non post-processed, non compressed (or ProRes compressed) on your website?

The samples cannot really be analyzed as they are.

Kent Kumpula · September 1, 2009

can you post the last two samples unscaled, non post-processed, non compressed (or ProRes compressed) on your website?

The samples cannot really be analyzed as they are.

No, I can´t. If my memory serves me correctly the dog and the butterfly clips are 1280x720 (or they should be, if your screen resolution is big enough. I think.).

I don´t know where I would have them unscaled, non post-processed, non compressed. I made the clips to show my clients (99.98% home movies on 8mm) how my transfers would look. I don´t usually deliver the transfers unprocessed for people with old films.

You should be able to see that the shadows do have a little bit details and the highlights are not totally blown out. You should also be able to tell that the quality is not "terrible" (as you put it, from your bad transfer) without needing to analyze totally uncompressed and unprocessed frames.

I just linked to it to show you that the bad results you got are probably bad because the unit was not properly set, or the operator had a very badly calibrated monitor, or something.

Kent Kumpula · September 1, 2009

Here is another clip transferred by me with the FlashscanHD (not my film and not my postproduction), http://www.vimeo.com/5400948

Mark Munte · September 1, 2009

Yes, again a highly compressed "web" sample that does not allow an analysis of the quality.

I do see a problem with contrast here - absolute lack of detail in the shadows, at the same time blown up heights. I do not know the stock used, but I don't thing this is "all" that's on the film.

Is "not bad" good enough?

Kent Kumpula · September 2, 2009

Yes, again a highly compressed "web" sample that does not allow an analysis of the quality.

I do see a problem with contrast here - absolute lack of detail in the shadows, at the same time blown up heights. I do not know the stock used, but I don't thing this is "all" that's on the film.

The stock used in the Vimeo link is 100D. I think they added contrast in postproduction, the blacks are so black. (that is why I wrote that I didn´t do any postproduction, deliver crushed blacks is not something that I do). But then again the light/contrast on the scene was pretty extreme too. I think the results are pretty good, if you consider the available light.

There are not that many clips online that are transferred with a FlashscanHD yet (it has only been around like two months or so). And I think just about everyone who puts some kind of film online will edit, colorcorrect and postprocess it. Probably even compress it. Finding clinical tests online is not a easy task. I have SMPTE testfilms, but as far as colors and contrast go I have the dog clip and the butterfly clip. Where are the clinical testclips from a Thomson Shadow, or a Spirit? Or SMPTE testfilms from a Spirit? That would be interesting to see.

Where do you have clips from your terrible transfer by the way? It would be interesting to see what it looks like.

I still think you got a bad transfer. However, you will probably not get the same quality from a FlashscanHD as you would from a 2K Spirit (or whatever is considered the best machine in the world), I don´t think so. I wouldn´t expect it either, so it isn´t a surprise to me. The results will be very good, but obviously not as good as they would be from a machine that is ten times more expensive.

If you want the top-top-top-quality I guess you need to go to someone who has a 2K Spirit. But the price for that transfer will be pretty expensive if you compare it to the price for a transfer done with a FlashscanHD. Is it worth the extra money? Well it is for you to decide. If it was my money I would say that the small difference in the image is not worth the huge difference in price.

Just for the fun of it, what would it cost to transfer 120 meters super 8 as a supervised transfer at your favourite telecine facility? And what equipment do they use?

Kent Kumpula · September 3, 2009

Oh, I checked one of your earlier posts where you asked "Or, how much dynamic range should a CCD sensor have in order to capture ALL of the films contrast in one scanning step with a single exposure." ... this is simply put impossible, even for the absolutely best machines in the world. If it was possible the machine would be able to run totally unsupervised with no need for adjusting exposure or anything, for brightly lit scenes and very dark scenes.

Is your experience with the FlashscanHD transfer your first telecine transfer ever, and did you expect the digital version to contain ALL the latitude, details and information that is available on the filmoriginal? Then I am not surprised that you are disappointed, because this is simply put impossible. Your monitor and your TV cannot even show the whole contrastrange that is available on the filmoriginal, you do know this?

What monitor and equipment are you using for viewing the FlashscanHD transfer? And what format did you have the film transferred to?