David Grove

I was totally unaware of the reputation of any of the post houses. Very interesting. Regarding Mr. Montgomery's comment... Sounds like a god suggestion. I had been thinking that what I essentially want is a still photo for each frame (remember I only have 3240 frames). Hence, full color, 2MP data seemed like the way to go. Mr. Mongomery reminds me of other significant factors. After all, it isn't just the numbers that are important, is it? I will request info from Flying Spot. I suppose it really doesn't really matter that much, but somehow, I feel more comfortable with someone relatively nearby [only a thousand miles], as opposed to farther away [3500 miles]. That's not really very rational is it? :) Thank you. DG

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear, again. I did not actually order services from Pro8. I meant to say that, after trying to identify options, I selected Pro8. However, just to verify, I asked them again to confirm that they would be delivering 444 data files. That's when they said it would be 422 (after initially saying they could deliver 444). No money changed hands, and no services were provided. I was just bemoaning the fact that, had I not asked them a second time (after the initial quote), I would have sent them my film, and not received what they had initally quoted on. It would appear that Colorlab is the only house that can do 444 data files (at approximately 1024x768) for S8. If there are others, I would welcome the info. Thank you all, for your helpful comments. Regards, DG

This is frustrating I thought I was very clear when making inquiry about getting data files at 4:4:4, etc. I received a quote from Pro8mm (see earlier post), and decided to go with them. Just because I am paranoid, I asked them to confirm that the data was captured at 4:4:4, and not 4:2:2. They responded that the data I would be receiving would be 4:2:2. What do I have to do, how do I have to frame my inquiry, to make sure that a vendor is quoting what I am trying to buy? It makes me wonder. If a mainstream house like Pro8 is ambiguous in what they can supply, how do I know that any firm really means what they would seem, at first, to be saying? For instance, now I am wondering about whether I need to similarly double-check with Colorlab, which also represented that they could provide 444 data from S8. Is there any firm that I can be confident to supply 444 uncompressed data files from S8 (at approx. 1024x768)? Thank you. DG

Not planning on film out, but he primary display will be in our home theater, which uses a digital projector. Also: 1) I want to be able to create still prints of any frame. Consider that 1024x768 (S8 is approx. 4:3, right?) is less than 2 megapixels. How many folks today would consider still photography with <2 megapixels or limited color bandwidth? (Since there is only a single 50' reel, I am willing to get the whole thing done at high resolution.) 2) For viewing as a projected "film", I am willing to pay for the increased quality of the viewing experience of HD over SD. Regards, DG

I checked with Cinelicious. They offer 4:4:4, but only at SD. If I "bag it" on the higher resolution, I will check back with them. As of now, the options for 4:4:4 at higher than SD for S8 seem limited. Thank you, all. DG

Oooopps. I see that I expressed myself poorly. I meant to convey precisely what you state. By the (poor) use of "wondering", I meant to convey that I questioned the value of 1080p for my situation (33 yr old S8 film that was produced by hobbyist). I'm not clear then whether you are affirming significant benefit or not, regarding 1080p for the stock on which y0u experimented. Thank you, again, for your comments. DG

Thank you, Mr. Lovell. Regarding Cinelicious... it appears to me from their web site that they don't do native 4:4:4 color sampling. Maybe I'm being too anal about it, but that's what I have been shooting for. However, your comments about them sound tantalizing. I will make inquiry. Regarding your own facility.. that also sounds interesting. Do you expect to have new capability, soon? The higher resolution sounds nice, but I'm wondering whether going as high as 1080p for circa 1975 S8 might result in better resolution... of the grain. (Or would it be more accurate to use a phrase such as "dye clusters" rather than "grain"? Whatever the term, I'm thinking that 720 - 768 is the ballpark of optimum for my situation. If I'm wrong, I welcome being set straight.) DG

It's been a while, and I haven't followed through, but want to now. Th"is board has been a great source of information, and I thank everyone. Let me summarize my situation. I have a single 3" reel of S8 film, dating from 1975. It has 4 taped splices (from original editing), and aside from being projected maybe half dozen times in 1975, hasn't been shown or retensioned since then. It is of no commercial value, but priceless to me-- and, as may be expected, irreplaceable. I would like to get it scanned at a high definition (but I'm not necessarily wanting "HD video"), and then work with it myself with tools such as Virtualdub , AVISynth , etc. For maximum flexibility, both to create stills, as well as to be able to derive any form of video, I would like to have the scan as data (just a sequence of frames, such as dpx) files. Naturally, I want to avoid damage or loss. Specifically, I want data files as 10 bit, uncompressed (remember, only a single 50' reel), genuine (prefer not interpolated, although I acknowledge the difference is probably very, very slight) 4:4:4 color space, RGB, log files, delivered on a USB 2.0 drive that I will supply. I'd like resolution close to 1024 x 768, but subject to whatever may be required by the film medium itself, or the gate on the scanning equipment to permit I also want square pixels. Fling Spot in Seattle is probably the closest to me, but based on previous comments, I gather that their Thomson Shadow probably doesn't do uninterpolated 4:4:4. So, I contacted Pro8 (for their Millenium) and Colorlab (for their Nova). (I haven't found any actual, literal scanners that offer service for 8mm.) Pro8 estimates the job at $370. Colorlab at $511. Both include film preparation. This is a one time project, and I am happy to go with either facility. Are there any likely relative advantages or disadvantages that might guide my choice, other than price? Are there any other firms I should consult for quote? Any comments welcome. Thank you. Regards, DG

Now I understand a little better how the Shadow works, thank you. 1440 should be almost perfect for S8 because that makes for a 4:3 aspect ratio, like the S8 film medium, rught? Actually, I'm not certain that 1080p is really ideal for S8. I really have absolutely no experience in this, but speculating just from general film medium properties... I think film might resolve 80 - 90 line pairs per millimeter, so maybe 720p is just about right. Higher res sampling would make for better imaging of grain, though, wouldn't it? :) I was just wondering if I could capture more of the complete frame. I don't think it is really critical, just sort of, "Why lose data, if I don't have to?" kind of thinking. I think Flying Spot (the company, not the technology) has flying spot scanners, but I guess they don't use them for S8, huh? Which means, effectively, that those particular pieces of equipment are not available for S8, right? Where do I find this kind of equipment? Do you know of any firms that might use them for S8 transfers? I have checked with several firms mentioned favorably on the board, but, so far, I have found only two saying they offer 4:4:4 color sampling for S8 film. That would be Flying Spot in Seattle, and ColorLab in the DC area. And, it would appear now, that since Flying Spot uses the Shadow for S8, their data may be interpolated. Hey, I don't dismiss that out of hand-- interpolation techniques can be pretty sophisticated, Still, at the end of the day, it is sort of like "creation ex nihilo". :) Are there any other known firms to offer 4:4:4 sampling for S8? Thank you. DG

Folks, I hope that, as a new forum member, I am not being too presumptious in starting this new thread. I'd just like to break out the original topic from the original thread, which has changed direction to be a critique of some sample frames from a member's efforts. No disrespect intended. I repeat immediately below my last post from the previous thread. IF color sampling is at full bandwidth (4:4:4), THEN aren't RGB and YUV mathematically equivalent? I was thinking that (again, at full color bandwidth) RGB vs. YUV didn't matter with full color bandwidth. But, I welcome being set straight, if I am misunderstanding this stuff. For the same bit depth, would I more accurately preserve the dynamic range by using log? I guess it would be easier to work with linear-- if only to save the LU step. I was looking at the Thomson Shadow manual (I found it online), and I think I see in it that the Shadow can produce 16 bit linear RGBK (total of 64 bits per pixel) (by the way, what is "K"? "K" seemed also to be referred to as "Key"). Maybe 16 bit linear is sufficient for dynamic range of S8 film stock from 1975. It probably would be a litle more convenient. The only downside might be disk space. But, I have only 3 minutes of film, and disk space is cheap. Rob, might you expand a little, please? What is it about the Shadow that might "edge out" other more high-end telecines? Is it the resolution or something else? I got the impression that the Shadow used a single line CCD array. I could easily be way off the mark, here. Do you know if the Shadow can capture all the way to the sprocket holes, or does the gate block off some of the frame image? By casual inspection of the manual (found online), I also got the impression that, if one operates in data mode, one could specify the resolution. Thus, I could specify a resolution consistent with the actual aspect ratio of the S8 medium. Perhaps, that is what you were getting at in you remark above. Unless I am totally missing it here. Thank you for any further comments. DG

IF color sampling is at full bandwidth (4:4:4), THEN aren't RGB and YUV mathematically equivalent? I was thinking that (again, at full color bandwidth) RGB vs. YUV didn't matter with full color bandwidth. But, I welcome being set straight, if I am misunderstanding this stuff. For the same bit depth, would I more accurately preserve the dynamic range by using log? I guess it would be easier to work with linear-- if only to save the LU step. I was looking at the Thomson Shadow manual (I found it online), and I think I see in it that the Shadow can produce 16 bit linear RGBK (total of 64 bits per pixel) (by the way, what is "K"? "K" seemed also to be referred to as "Key"). Maybe 16 bit linear is sufficient for dynamic range of S8 film stock from 1975. It probably would be a litle more convenient. The only downside might be disk space. But, I have only 3 minutes of film, and disk space is cheap. Rob, might you expand a little, please? What is it about the Shadow that might "edge out" other more high-end telecines? Is it the resolution or something else? I got the impression that the Shadow used a single line CCD array. I could easily be way off the mark, here. Do you know if the Shadow can capture all the way to the sprocket holes, or does the gate block off some of the frame image? By casual inspection of the manual (found online), I also got the impression that, if one operates in data mode, one could specify the resolution. Thus, I could specify a resolution consistent with the actual aspect ratio of the S8 medium. Perhaps, that is what you were getting at in you remark above. Unless I am totally missing it here. Thank you for any further comments. DG

Rob, Thank you for your comments. First, might you say whether Cinelab yet offers the type of hi-def, full color bandwidth S8 xfer I seek? I believe your firm was actually the very first firm I contacted, but you (with integrity and graciousness) suggested that, at that time, Flying Spot FIlm Transfer in Seattle might possibly be more suited to what I am trying to do, as well as more conveniently located to me (since I am in Alaska). I certainly thank you for your previous help, as well as your current comments, and would be pleased to patronize your firm if there is a "fit".. I am not familiar with DPX, but, from a cursory search, I see that DPX is an industry standard file specification for interchange of frame images. It also appears that it is well and openly documented, so I would anticipate no problem for me to be able to use data in that form. In their most recent email, FSFT did, in fact suggest that either DPX or TIFF might be used for deliverable, rather than mov file. If I used DPX, would I expect to receive 3240 individual files (from 3 minutes running time of S8 at 18 fps)? Would TIFF be the same? Is ther any reason to choose one over the other? At the end of the day, the actual film frame data itself would be equivalent in either DPX or TIFF (or even MOV), right? I mean if frame data is produced at a certain resolution, color sampling, and bit depth, the only difference among the delivery alternatives is the packaging (file structure), right? Thank you. Regards, DG

How serendipitous to find this board and thread. I am not a current 8mm hobbyist. But I recently (re)discovered a reel of Super 8mm film that I did for a school project over 30 years ago. I want to digitize it, and dabble with it using AVIsynth, Virtualdub, etc. I also want to be able to extract the best stills possible. To me, all this points to a hi-def, progressive, uncompressed 4:4:4 telecine transfer. I had no idea whether anyone offered this. There are a lot of transfer services, but I am looking for ultra quality, and figure that, for a single 50' reel, I just might indulge myself, if I can find a vendor. I have searched, but, so far, have found only two domestic (USA) candidates: Flying Spot in Seattle (www.fsft.com) and Colorlab in the Washington, D.C. area (www.colorlab.com). I have had some preliminary interaction with both of them, but, haven't heard any comments from a customer about either's progressive, hi-def Super 8 telecine service. Both use very fancy and expensive equipment (Rank, etc.) , and charge hundreds of dollars per hour for their S8 hi-def services. Flying Spot has a "standby" rate, if you don't need a definite, speedy time committment from them. Both are industry-oriented (as opposed to home or hobbyist). I don't say that perjoratively, just informationaly. Just today, I received further communication from Flying Spot, and was disappointed in their message. They told me that they CANNOT provide progressive hi-def digitization at 18 fps. They said they needed to run their equipment at 24 fps to produce progressive scan product with Super 8mm film. Now, I want primarily a "data" product (big avi or mov file), not a video or MPEG2, etc. compressed DVD product; and, therefore, progressive is absolutely a prerequisite. I guess I understand about zero regarding film technology. I really don't know why it matters how fast their machine scans the frames. I have X number of frames on a 3" 50' reel of film, and I want X number of progressive, full color-space (4:4:4) RGB (or YUV), 8 (or 10) bit, uncompressed (or lossless codec) frames delivered as data in an avi or mov file. My (obviously limited) thinking leads me to the conclusion that whether the film is scanned at 18 or 24 (or even 1 or 100) frames per second, I'd still get the same sequence of digitized frames. The bits don't know or care how fast they were produced. Nevertheless, Flying Spot tells me that if I want progressive, they need to run their scanner at 24 fps. I suppose that the speed they run at would effect the header data (metadata), and would embed the frame rate in the file so that, upon playback, the player would know how fast to display the frames. That could explain why I need to care about their (the folks doing the digitization) speed. Perhaps, I could edit the header data to change the (embedded) frame rate information from 24 to 18, and then I would have exactly what I want. Alternatively, ColorLab appears to be much more flexible regarding deliverable products (they will deliver avi or mov-- Flying Spot will deliver only mov-- and are flexible on other factors, such as codec, linear or log, delivery medium, etc.). They are also somewhat more expensive than Flying Spot. I don't know for sure, but think they can produce precisely what I want, without any tweaking from me after I receive the deliverable. Does anyone actually have any direct experience with either of these firms (or any other, for that matter) in digitizing Super 8 to progressive, hi-def digital data? Thank you for any comments. Regards, DG