Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 26, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted March 26, 2021 Hi folks. Apologies for the vast image, but can anyone tell what this was scanned on just by looking at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Perera Posted March 29, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 whats the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 29, 2021 Author Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 44 minutes ago, Stephen Perera said: whats the answer? I have no idea, that's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Frank Wylie Posted March 29, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 Not being flippant, but why are you trying to determine this? Do you just like/not like the quality or ??? Used to be scanning out to the edge of the film was an unusual characteristic; more in line with an archival-purposed scanner, but now I am unsure if this is a unique quality with among the latest generation of motion picture film scanners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Sekanina Posted March 29, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 with the hair trapped and squished in-between the perfs, this looks like a flatbed scan of a few frames to me, not a typical film scan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 29, 2021 Author Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 42 minutes ago, Frank Wylie said: Used to be scanning out to the edge of the film was an unusual characteristic; more in line with an archival-purposed scanner, but now I am unsure if this is a unique quality with among the latest generation of motion picture film scanners. That's my confusion. I could see including a bit of a sprocket hole, but the whole width of a standard 16 print?! And yes, this is from a sequence. It's animation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Frank Wylie Posted March 29, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 Yes, this is a selling point for archival scanners. Curators want to see everything; out to the edge of the film to capture edge codes and even inked sync numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Perera Posted March 29, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 looks like a Captain Scarlet or Thunderbirds character to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 29, 2021 Author Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 Terra 4 hours ago, Stephen Perera said: looks like a Captain Scarlet or Thunderbirds character to me Close. Terrahawks. I'm just trying to figure out why it was scanned that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Frank Wylie Posted March 29, 2021 Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2021 What's funny is a Curator who asks for a 4K scan and wants to see the entire area of the film, but still thinks they are getting a 4K program image. No amount of explanation will seem to convince them otherwise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 (edited) OP... Probably a flatbed scanner or shot off a light box with a camera. See tons of it on eBay. 16MM FEATURE: "FOR THE LOVE OF BENJI" (1977) - Joe Camp - family classic | eBay 16mm Feature Film Movie - King Richard and the Crusaders (1954) IB Rex Harrison | eBay 16mm Feature Film Movie - The Daughter of Rosie O'Grady (1950) - IB - June Haver | eBay Edited March 29, 2021 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 2 hours ago, Frank Wylie said: What's funny is a Curator who asks for a 4K scan and wants to see the entire area of the film, but still thinks they are getting a 4K program image. No amount of explanation will seem to convince them otherwise... You have to look at it more like megapixels. A 4K scan has a certain amount of resolution and you are getting that resolution, just not the full 4K width. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 2 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said: Terra Close. Terrahawks. I'm just trying to figure out why it was scanned that way. If it a few frame clip, it is easier to scan bits of it on the flatbed scanner or light box that run it though a scanner to extract samples. I didn't read this whole thread. If the entire film was scanned like that then maybe they wanted to be 'artsy.' If you use AEO Light to extract the sound you have to scan the optical track as well, but not much else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Frank Wylie said: Yes, this is a selling point for archival scanners. Curators want to see everything; out to the edge of the film to capture edge codes and even inked sync numbers. Yes, there is important info on the edges. Amazon.com: Physical Characteristics of Early Films as Aids to Identification: New expanded Edition (9782960029697): Bolt-Wellens, Camille: Books Here is a piece of damaged film from a 1931 stag film called 'The Radio Man.' I scanned it on the flatbed scanner. Download and magnifier OP. Or click on it and scroll it up sized. nsfw Broken 16mm Film D.D. Teoli Jr. A.C. : Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Edited March 29, 2021 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 (edited) Here is a scan I did on a flatbed scanner. I just put it up for you...even has a hair! Flatbed Scan Of 16mm Fujicolor Cine' Film D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Click on it to see full res. Edited March 29, 2021 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted March 30, 2021 Site Sponsor Share Posted March 30, 2021 Hard to tell without seeing the overscan of the scanner gate, which is cropped in this pic. Has to be a newer machine which can image the full or most of the film gauge width so a Kinetta or Xena (full width) or a Scan Station (almost the full width) with our Xena I can scan the full 16mm width at 6464 pixels for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Paolantonio Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 (edited) On 3/29/2021 at 1:13 PM, Frank Wylie said: What's funny is a Curator who asks for a 4K scan and wants to see the entire area of the film, but still thinks they are getting a 4K program image. No amount of explanation will seem to convince them otherwise... A while back, we ended up doing a blog post on this, in part because of the issue you raise, but also because some other ScanStation 6.5k owners were saying they'd do 6.5k of the *frame* -- that'd mean they're scaling up from the native 4.8k (for the full aperture of the frame) for 16mm. And that would be dishonest. Also, all kids of wrong if you're doing archival scans. https://www.gammaraydigital.com/blog/lasergraphics-scanstation-65k-maximum-resolutions Quote You have to look at it more like megapixels. A 4K scan has a certain amount of resolution and you are getting that resolution, just not the full 4K width. @Daniel D. Teoli Jr. - what Frank is saying here is that some people think they're getting a 4k scan of the image when they order a 4k scan with full overscan. The resulting file is 4k, but because of the stuff outside the (film) frame, the frame is actually much smaller. In the case of the link above, with the ScanStation 6.5k and standard 16mm film, you get 4.8k for the film frame, within a 6.5k file. That means about 74% of the width of the file is the film frame, the rest is the stuff outside the frame. If you were to do a 4k scan (a 4k *file* that is), the full aperture area would be about 3k. Edited May 10, 2021 by Perry Paolantonio 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson Feakes Posted June 10, 2021 Share Posted June 10, 2021 On 5/11/2021 at 4:57 AM, Perry Paolantonio said: A while back, we ended up doing a blog post on this, in part because of the issue you raise, but also because some other ScanStation 6.5k owners were saying they'd do 6.5k of the *frame* -- that'd mean they're scaling up from the native 4.8k (for the full aperture of the frame) for 16mm. And that would be dishonest. Also, all kids of wrong if you're doing archival scans. https://www.gammaraydigital.com/blog/lasergraphics-scanstation-65k-maximum-resolutions Is this blog post still available Perry? Appears to be unavailable to public on your website. Very keen to give it a read. I'm currently trying to find the easiest way to calculate overscan pixel resolution to maintain a 4k frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Paolantonio Posted June 10, 2021 Share Posted June 10, 2021 9 minutes ago, Jameson Feakes said: Is this blog post still available Perry? Appears to be unavailable to public on your website. Very keen to give it a read. I'm currently trying to find the easiest way to calculate overscan pixel resolution to maintain a 4k frame. hmm. we've had some really weird issues with our server the past few days. Let me look into it. It should be there, but I'm not sure why it's getting that error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Paolantonio Posted June 10, 2021 Share Posted June 10, 2021 32 minutes ago, Jameson Feakes said: Is this blog post still available Perry? Appears to be unavailable to public on your website. Very keen to give it a read. I'm currently trying to find the easiest way to calculate overscan pixel resolution to maintain a 4k frame. Ok, should be up and running now. Sorry about that - looks like the permissions on the site got all messed up but I've given it a swift kick and now it's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson Feakes Posted June 10, 2021 Share Posted June 10, 2021 13 minutes ago, Perry Paolantonio said: Ok, should be up and running now. Sorry about that - looks like the permissions on the site got all messed up but I've given it a swift kick and now it's back. Thanks for that, working for me now. Have some questions around it if that's okay? I know we're moving quite far from the original thread topic however. Started working with a 6.5k ScanStation recently so it's great to have some reading from someone who's worked with them from day one. Planning on forwarding this post on to archive clients as it explains this misconception very clearly. When you provide a cropped-to-frame scan for clients are you using those pixel resolutions that are shown in the blog post (e.g. 4894x3528 for a std 16mm scan)? What bothers me about ScanStation's software is that it doesn't seem to intuitively change the resolution when manually adjusting the frame size of a cropped scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Paolantonio Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 On 6/9/2021 at 10:45 PM, Jameson Feakes said: Planning on forwarding this post on to archive clients as it explains this misconception very clearly. Thanks, feel free to link to it! We posted this originally because there are some ScanStation services that are (or maybe were, not sure) offering 6.5k scans of the film frame, which means they're scaling up. We had to explain to several customers that those other services weren't able to do something we couldn't do (we certainly could, but won't), they were just doing something you shouldn't do! On 6/9/2021 at 10:45 PM, Jameson Feakes said: When you provide a cropped-to-frame scan for clients are you using those pixel resolutions that are shown in the blog post (e.g. 4894x3528 for a std 16mm scan)? What bothers me about ScanStation's software is that it doesn't seem to intuitively change the resolution when manually adjusting the frame size of a cropped scan. Make sure the Aspect Ratio pulldown is set to Unlocked manually enter the desired output file size (say, 4096x3112) Change the Aspect Ratio pulldown to "Locked to Image Size" Drag a corner of the marquee around the image to the crop you want This will automatically scale the image to the output file size you manually entered, maintaining that aspect ratio. There is a trick, too - the default editing tool for the scanner will scale things to fit based on Lasergraphics best guess at what you want. For more control, and to see the actual resolution, hold down the Ctrl key when you click the Edit button. This enables a hidden checkbox (which long ago was there by default but it was deemed too confusing by lasergraphics) called "Track film/file size". If you check this box and follow the steps above, when you get to the last step (dragging the size of the marquee), the image size fields will change with the scale of the marquee. So if you want to maintain the max resolution of the file but add some overscan, for example, you'd do this: Load the film in 6.5k mode (assuming 16mm) Hold down Ctrl while clicking the Edit button under the Output Presets Make sure the Aspect Ratio is set to Unlocked Change the preset to Full Aperture Change the Aspect Ratio to "Locked to Image Size" Now when you drag the marquee around, the full aperture of the frame will be the max supported for the mode you're loaded into (4.8k for 6.5k mode) and going larger on the marquee means you're just adding some stuff to the outside of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now