Jump to content

Best Scanning House


David Cunningham

Recommended Posts

Next stop for this roll of Super 8 is Video Conversion Experts and their MWA NOVA Flashscan2k+.

 

Next stop for the 16mm birthday roll is NoLo and their Arriscan. Stay tuned.

 

Dave, Video Conversion Experts can do 8, Super8, 9.5mm and 16mm on their flashtransfer Choice2K+™ which we usually just call the Choice2K+™.

 

I'll be in LA and the SF Bay Area later this month (May) doing demos with the16/35 Vario2K+™.

 

We introduced a the new frame-accurate "Timeline" feature at NAB. It's a software module applicable to either 2K+™ system—allows marking in-points, making adjustments to a bunch of parameters including black/gamma/white levels and color balances.

 

We had fun with this at NAB by really, really mucking up the color intentionally on a shot, and then watching it pop to properly graded it at the first frame of the next shot.

 

Ted

 

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

I think EFilm has Northlight and Arriscan scanners.

 

I think there are a couple of things to think about when looking at real Data scanners, the first is that DI quality scans cannot be done from a color camera system, i.e. all of the high end scanners use monochrome sensors in one way or another. There are two methods for scanning, line scan and area sensors, pin registered scanners either have a fixed monochrome area sensor or a tri linear ccd which moves across the film frame area sensors have multiple color flashes to make R,G,B and IR and a fixed sensor and fixed frame of film.

 

The second thing to think about is that there is no "best" technology or scanner, there are different approaches to achieving the same goal, a high quality DI grade scan of a film original. The Northlight-2 can probably make a scan which is indistinguishable from an Arriscan scan or a Director scan, etc. The guys in LA who designed our Xena scanner like area sensors for a number of reasons, and they are building a scanner for Imax and other 65mm work right now based on a monochrome sensor which is used in astronomy.

 

I think that any real DI capable scanner will produce noiseless high resolution and high dynamic range scans, the differences are more in the realm of cost and speed rather than in output.

 

-Rob-

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really excited about Cinelab's Xena machine. It is just like an Arri scanner, has pin registration, so should be pretty sharp. I have a 16mm role that I am going to send to Cinelab soon, pretty anxious to get the results already. I work with ultra 16 camera for now, so Cinelab is my choice of place, but am planning on working with Cinelab after s16 conversion. They are really helpful for budget minded people. Places like Cinelab, with reasonable rates, will keep film alive..

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Great news for Super 8 enthusiasts in the greater Boston area...

 

Gamma Ray Digital, http://www.gammaraydigital.com/ , has purchased and will soon have installed a LaserGraphics ScanStation and will be doing 2K Super 8 scans! Stand by for more ScanStation scan tests and further details. I'll be heading in to Boston to check it out and do some test scans once they are up-and-running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Super 8, believe it or not, really benefits from high resolution scans. HD and even 2K can't capture enough. Download these test we did a while back:

 

http://db.tt/5SlAVkbT

 

Or go to kinetta.com for samples.

 

if you get CNN-HD, try to see OUR NIXON this month, or in theaters in larger cities starting August 30th. About 70% of the footage is Super 8 shot by HR Haldeman and Dwight Chapin and John Erlichman, of Nixon's staff and later Watergate felons, all scanned at 3,3K, 12-bit.

 

Here's a piece about the scans:

 

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/dv/feature/airs-cnn-august-our-nixon/63162

 

While lot of the footage is badly shot, it looks great on a big big screen -- seen it at Lincoln Center and MoMA and on HDTV. A lot of the 16mm transfers which we didn't do, look far worse than the Super-8.

 

There's a new facility opening in NYC later this month that does Kinetta scans in all formats at 3.3K and soon 5K, as well as restoration, grading, and DCPs, with very artist-friendly prices.

 

Jeff Kreines

kinetta.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Just starting this thread back up as I have my scan test results from LaserGrahpics. This sample is a 2K scan of Super 8 on their new ScanStation, to be released in April.

 

Stay tuned for locations/opportunities to use the ScanStation for your next Super 8 project!

 

 

 

I was surprised at the poor dynamic range of the clip, and the lack of shadow detail. For scanning prints and reversal original, one needs to be able to capture everything on the film without having to choose between not clipping the whites and capturing all of the shadow detail without compromise.

 

This has been a long-term goal of Kinetta's, as we deal with a lot of reversal original and with prints (often there is no original to be found in the archival world).

 

Here are some samples of scans of contrasty footage: http://kinetta.com/range.html

 

Here you can download actual frames from real scans at full res. The TIFFs take longer but are higher quality than the JPEGs.

http://kinetta.com/full-res-frame-downloads.html

 

Resolution and dynamic range are important -- as is gentle film handling. I am always amused when I see machines with 20+ rollers in their film path. Someone must get paid by the roller! ;-)

 

Jeff Kreines

kinetta.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

Although the ScanStation may be limited in its dynamic range ( I have not had enough experience yet to be sure), I don't see an issue with dynamic range in my reversal clip. The few spots where the white fence in the background is blown out or the bushes in the background are dark and muddy is actually the way the original film looks projected. This was a bright sunny day with Ektachrome 100D reversal which I intentionally under exposed about 1/3 to 2/3 to avoid blowing out bright highlights in my son's face, etc. So, some shadows are dark. The white fence in the background was literally brand-spankin new with the sun beating down on it. So, with even the best reversal out there, it was going to be blown out.

 

Now, when I get some Vision3 50D scanned on the ScanStation, then we'll see what dynamic range is all about.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

Here is what I think:

 

I think it is great that there are new scanners being built using color mask (Bayer, etc.) CCD imagers which allow for high speed scanning of motion picture film at reasonable cost and a total cost of machine ownership which should drive the cost of digitizing down some. I think this is the inevitable result of the "digital revolution" and really not anything different than we have seen in the realm of cameras with single chip imagers.

 

I think that one thing to keep in mind is that a color mask camera and it's "K's" are a entirely different thing than the original Cineon scan "K" in a Cineon data scan each color layer of the film is scanned at full resolution, i.e. a 2K scan is 2048x1556 for each R,G,B and in a color mask camera the ratio is 2:1:1 i.e. Green is 1024 and Red and Blue are 512 pixels. This is why the Alexa is really a HD resolution camera the rule of thumb is 2/3 of the color mask "K's" is about the real resolution of the imaging system.

 

We had a German made scanner on loan to test a few years ago that had realtime perf recognition and stabilization but only used a 2K Bayer area of the sensor for the image, it made nice scans from fresh low speed 35mm stock, however when I put more "interesting" film onto it with more grain the image quality really fell apart. I am sure the latest version of the Kinetta (7th revision Jeff?) makes a very good "real" 2K scan from it's 3.3K color camera, I think Lasergraphics maybe went a bit too far with advertising speed (I believe the Scan Station can goto 60fps) without having a super-sampled 2K image. Also i think that the Kinetta's super simple transport is pretty elegant and I am not sure why the scan station has such a complex film path, but I am sure it works well and also I think it has realtime image stabilization based on perf recognition.

 

All this said I don't think any color camera based scanner is a real substitute for a actual DI class scans system, when you look at systems like the Northlight-2 and the Imagica bigfoot with 8K Tri-Linear CCDs with much bigger pixels and higher S/N there is allot to be said for slower speed and oversampled extreme low noise. I don't think area sensor based systems have quite gotten to where they are the ultimate in image quality yet. We are looking at the KAI-29050 29MP 6600x4400 sensor in Monochrome for our pin registered scanner as a best quality DI area sensor for super-4K scans.

 

Finally I don't think the quality of scans can really be assessed unless you have a DCI Projector I think scans may look similar in a computer or broadcast environment but when projected big on a 1.2" 2K or 1.5" 4K DCI projector or a 70MM print what looks good on a lesser screen quickly falls apart. I think Boyle said recently on CML after seeing a 8K scan of a film from the 60's that the film business has made no progress in image quality in the digital era.

 

"Don't be so proud of this technological monster you have created, the ability to scan a quick color image pales in significance next to the power of the 65mm negative"

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

65MM is scanned on the Imagica Big Foot scanner at 8K x 12K because there is no other imager available (outside of gear like the Hubble) to put into a film scanner. The Imagica and the Northlight-2 use a Kodak (Trusense) 8K Tri-Linear CCD ( http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/linear/68-KLI-8023 ) which is swept across the film frame to make a 8K x 12K pass. There may be higher resolution area sensors but the cost is allot...

 

We are wanting to eventually get a KAI-29050 ( http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/interline-transfer-ccd/47-KAI-29050 ) based Area for the pin registered Xena. There are also a few Full Frame 1-tap CCD's (our current area sensor is a 4K 1-Tap 10micron CCD) like the KAF50100 which is huge and 50mp ( http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/full-frame-ccd/64-KAF-50100 ) that would run color film at 3sec/frame.

 

The 29050 6600x4400 sensor is about $20K I have not priced a 50100 sensor but I bet it's allot more expensive....

 

Imax of course has more potential resolution than 12K but what would you scan it with and where would you put all that data...

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I test and research, the more I feel that oversampling is extremely important. I really think even 4K Super 8 would be worth while for mastering and then final output to 1080p HD. Again, this is not because there is even 4K of photographic information on the film, but simply for sufficiently scanning the film itself (grain, texture, etc).

 

I have heard people say that youtube clips "look better" or "look cleaner" because of lower resolution and/or compression and I say BS! It looks terrible and muddy. Even my favorite Super 8 negative clips from weddings still disappoint sometimes because I can see where the grain should be sharper or digital added "noise". It's extremely frustrating.

 

Even my favorite reversal scan that I keep posting is giving me fits. Vimeo keeps squashing it in some weird way that adds lines that look like interlacing. It's driving me insane!

 

Sadly, I cannot display my favorite 2K and 1080p Super 8 scans in real Prores 444 on the web. <sigh>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To comment on my own rant about youtube and vimeo, I tried a 2K upload to youtube of the same film and event at "original" it pixelates... grrr! It's better than the vimeo version, but I think the compression just doesn't know how to deal with all the film grain so it squashes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I have no anamorphic lenses/lens attachments to play with. I'm a pretty short budget wise so lots of other things way ahead of picking up an anamorphic lens.

 

I'm more into spherical lenses anyhow. For example, I'd love to get me hands on a 2perf 35mm or even 3perf/super35. They're so hard to come by though. :(. I'll probably just end up renting one from rule at some point.

 

I again projected my favorite red sweatshirt 100d super 8 today and determined that even my favorite 2k scan of it definitely enhances the grain/noise for some reason. Grrr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with you David, one of my pet peeves is that my footage always has more noticeable noise and/ or grain on a digital transfer then I believe it should have.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love grain (Hell, that's one of the reasons I shoot film!). But I always felt every transfer house I've tried enhances it a bit, the insult to injury being that when you post it online it tends to do all kinds of wacky things due to compression. All footage transferred digitally also has those annoying blue dots/ fuzz. The faster films having it more noticeable then the slower ones obviously, over/ underexposing too much in certain conditions can cause it too. I'm always told that the blue noise is "Normal" to some extent, buy why isn't it in prints?

 

To prove to myself that I wasn't going crazy, last month I had 100ft of 16mm printed. Before that, I had the same footage transferred to HD. The prints where clean, no exaggerated grain and more important- not blue dots/ fuzz. The blacks where solid black. The digital footage had the same dynamic range and detail, but it had a lot more grain and that blue noise.

 

I'm working with a director now who wants a 2k-4k scan of super16mm, I still have been seeing some of the same issues you have (One 4k scan looked to me like super8!). At the moment I'd like to try out the XENA that Cinelab has, I actually thought the samples I've seen so far looked pretty good even after being compressed. Now I just have to film my own test.

 

On a personal level, this issue also makes it hard for me to sell film as an option. Many other directors/ small crews see the muddy images and snowstorm grain compression when they look at samples on vimeo and Youtube, and get scared away. Btw, I've always enjoyed projected color reversal better then the telecine or scanned versions :) (Although, some of the homemade scanner experiments on vimeo are pretty damned close).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with you David, one of my pet peeves is that my footage always has more noticeable noise and/ or grain on a digital transfer then I believe it should have.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love grain (Hell, that's one of the reasons I shoot film!). But I always felt every transfer house I've tried enhances it a bit, the insult to injury being that when you post it online it tends to do all kinds of wacky things due to compression. All footage transferred digitally also has those annoying blue dots/ fuzz. The faster films having it more noticeable then the slower ones obviously, over/ underexposing too much in certain conditions can cause it too. I'm always told that the blue noise is "Normal" to some extent, buy why isn't it in prints?

 

To prove to myself that I wasn't going crazy, last month I had 100ft of 16mm printed. Before that, I had the same footage transferred to HD. The prints where clean, no exaggerated grain and more important- not blue dots/ fuzz. The blacks where solid black. The digital footage had the same dynamic range and detail, but it had a lot more grain and that blue noise.

 

I'm working with a director now who wants a 2k-4k scan of super16mm, I still have been seeing some of the same issues you have (One 4k scan looked to me like super8!). At the moment I'd like to try out the XENA that Cinelab has, I actually thought the samples I've seen so far looked pretty good even after being compressed. Now I just have to film my own test.

 

On a personal level, this issue also makes it hard for me to sell film as an option. Many other directors/ small crews see the muddy images and snowstorm grain compression when they look at samples on vimeo and Youtube, and get scared away. Btw, I've always enjoyed projected color reversal better then the telecine or scanned versions :) (Although, some of the homemade scanner experiments on vimeo are pretty damned close).

 

 

I know! The blue noise in the shadows drives me crazy! I even started a thread about it a few months back.

 

It's horrible in Vision3 500T and I've tried the Spirit at Spectra, Millenium at Pro8mm, Scan Station at LaserGraphics itself, XENA at Cinelab and Y-Front at many places. They all have it pretty much equally as bad. The one I've seen with the least of it thus far is the Director from LaserGraphics at MetroPost. I can't personally afford to test the Scanity at Cinelicious right now. But, I'm going to give the Spirit 2K Datacine at Video and Film Solutions a shot at it next.

 

I think the reason the Director at MetroPost looks better is because of the multiflash HDR function. Rather than try to push the image details, it actually takes multiple different exposures.

 

Most of the Vision3 500T I've had printed looks amazingly sharp, grain free and certainly blue noise free.

 

Cinelab also has the HDR/MultiFlash function available. So, that will likely help.

 

<sigh> I would go back to all photochemical if I could still share it with people outside my home. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you should mention The Director, that's one of the scanners we're going to sample.

 

I'm also curious what the big "Hollywood/ Independent" films I've seen on the big digital projection /DVD/ Blue-ray, do in order to solve this issue.

 

Yes, they have a bigger budget, but I'm just curious about the workflow.

 

If they use heavy de-graining tools, what tools? What did they use to get rid of the excessive grain, but retain the picture sharpness?

 

What do they use to get rid of the blue fuzz? Does the Dust busting take care of that?

 

How come the colorists and staff can't tell me how either, from any of these places?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

We just got a software update which enables HDR (multiple flashes) on the Xena and I have a B&W Reversal feature scanning right now which will be the first test.

 

I don't think we will have a 8mm gate for the pin registered camera, it would be nice but it is near impossible to find a 8mm Oxberry gate.

 

And here is a MV that a friend of mine made that we scanned and I graded:

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2013/08/08/206706276/vikings-choice-stunning-high-aurad-video-reminds-us-that-snails-are-a-real-thing

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...