Kent Kumpula

Sorry if this is considered "crossposting", because I wrote this on another filmshootingforum... But anyway, let me quote myself: Hi guys! I just wanted to share the fantastic scratch-removal capabilities of a new wetgate I installed on my FlashscanHD yesterday. I made a testclip from one of my own old super8 from 1977. OK, so it wasn´t all that scratched to begin with, but it was in the middle of the night and I was just finished with the installation of the wetgate, and I really wanted to see how it would perform... so I took a knife and ran the film back and forth in the scanner while scratching it up pretty bad. :mrgreen: Then I transferred it once without the wetgate and once with the wetgate, and I made a split-screen testfilm from the transfers. I made a webpage with info about the wetgate, sorry guys, but I haven´t had time to make the page in english yet. But you can check the testclip anyway, just click on the TV on the right side of the wegpage. If it doesen´t play, update your flash player. Page with the testclip: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/?page=668 Let me know what you think, it looks almost too good to be true!

If you are getting ProRes files, then yes you need to install Quicktime on your PC. The free version works just fine, there is no needd to pay for the pro-version of quicktime. Yes, with Quicktime installed you can do this.

I just thought I would point out that a PC can handle ProRes just fine. You cannot create new ProRes files after you are done with editing, because you need Final Cut to get the encoder (and for that... you need a mac). But you can still use and edit ProRes files on a PC if you have the latest version of Quicktime installed, because in that package you get a decoder for ProRes.

Clearly it sounds like someone who has no clue about what they are doing. A good thing that you are getting the money back (if they manage to send you the money...).

I´d say it depends on the projector. You cannot come to any kind of conclusion based on how much of the perforation is visible. All HD formats are 16:9,so any machine delivering HD transfers will deliver 16:9, because 16:9 is the only available HD standard. So that is not the problem. And as far as I can understand it he specifically asked for your option number 2, not loosing any parts of the image and having black bars on both sides of the image. But he received something in between the options 1 and 2, not quite zoomed in to fill the 16:9 area and not fully receiving the whole image area.

Because all old projectors that I know of have a gate and a pressure plate, and they are not as gentle with filmhandling (if you compare it with a proper telecine machine).

I´m also curious about what machine did the transfer. A re-built old projector or a proper telecine machine? If it was done on a old projector I wouldn´t send the film back for a retransfer, what if the projector would end up scratching your negative filmoriginals (they are quite sensitive and should not be run through a projector, IMHO). However, if the job was not done on a projector, there is no question you should send it back to them for a free re-transfer. They cut off parts of your film, parts you wanted included in the transfer. Anyone can make a mistake, they are after all humans too. The important thing is how they react when the error is pointed out and how they intend to correct the mistake.

Sorry for being late to this thread, but I have been up to my neck in work setting up verything in our new location. We needed more space for more employees, more equipment and all the huge piles of orders we receive! The last few months have been crazy... Enough offtopic rant, lets get back ontopic then! If you find the pricing from some companies as being too expensive, you could always look at sending your films to us for transfer. This is the latest negative transfer we did that I know I can find online (widened gate Beaulieu camera): We have special offer for new 8mm films (we mostly transfer old 8mm films), you can find prices and everything on this webpage, please read the requirements (prepare for telecine, and such): http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=999 Also, please note that if you write a high value for the shipment you will probably be charges with import fees when your footage comes in to EU (thia happends all the time to one guy in the US who keeps on declaring high values for his shipments to us...).

OK, I will answer my own question. Lets see if anyone disagrees with the following: There are two main reasons why anyone is shooting with super8 instead of 16mm, and those are... 1- It will cost less. The cameras are practically free and stock and telecine are a bit cheaper too. 2- To achieve the look of "old footage". To get a bit dirty/grainy and perhaps faded old footage, with tweaked colors to "look like old film". A new camera would cost so much money it would be no cheaper than 16mm. That is if the manufacturer doesen´t want to loose tons of money. Good luck on finding someone who wants to loose money on designing a new super8 camera. A new camera tweaked "for HD quality" still means a bit more grain than 16mm. With the addition of less image stability and more sensitivity to dust (dust particles look larger on 8mm film because you are looking at a smaller film area). If you want top-of-the-line quality, and you are prepared to pay thousands of dollars for a new camera... there is no reason to stick with 8mm film anymore. Go for 16mm. 8mm film is for lowbudget/nobudget productions that want to shoot on film.

There is absolutely no market to make a new camera super8 camera "with HD quality". What are the reasons to shoot with 8mm film, instead of 16mm film? Anyone?

I´d guess it can be telecined at just about any facility with proper Telecine equipment. This shouldn´t even be a issue, as long as you are not going to companies working with DIY solutions and no-budget telecine options. Because it is too complicated and expensive to modify/switch the viewfinder.

I made split screen clips from SMPTE testfilm, from regular 8, super 8 and 16mm film. SD transfers uprezzed to 720p, compares with the native 720p transfers. Comparing the SD transfer both with and without de-interlacing. With de-interlacing is more correct if you ask me, because that is what you will get if you feed a HDTV with a DVD. (The 16mm film is transferred to 1080p, not 720p). You can find the split-screen clips here: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=136 And you can find other HD transfer testclips here: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=137 , check the dog and the butterfly. All the above transfers are 720p transfers. I don´t believe that there is any point in transferring 8mm film to 1080p or higher, I believe that the optics on the super8 cameras have a "quality-roof" somewhere between SD and 720p (probably pretty close to 720p). IMHO, I don´t believe that there are any image details to gain from higher resolutions than 720p, only more (and sharper) grain.

If you are going to end up on Blu-ray you should get a HD transfer, instead of doing a uprez on a SD transfer. But just labeling the transfers as "One SD transfer with a Rank and one HD transfer frame by frame" doesen´t say much... Do both give custom colorcorrection? What is the frame by frame transfer based on, a old projector and and a 8 bit videocamera? What resolution is the HD transfer, is it square pixels or not, is it transferred with a single chip camera or not, 10 bit or 8 bit, and so on. You should ask for reference material from both companies so you can compare the results. Or better yet, send them one reel to transfer (the same reel to both companies) and then judge the difference from the transfers they provide.

I´d say they are a lot better than "OK", actually. You can check some of the music videos I have transferred from 8mm film here: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=134 And you have clips in HD resolution here: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=137 , check the clip with the dog and the butterfly. If those are not enough you can see more clips here: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=131 Something that is very interesting is the relativety between price and quality. Sure, if money is no problem get a Spirit transfer, I´m sure there will be some difference. But the big question is: Is the difference big enough to justify the extra cost? Most people I know will tell you it isn´t. But again, if money is not an issue, and if the image quality on the cluips I linked too is not good enouh... ?

Yeah, perhaps thee fault here is actually at Fotokem, and you are the ones taking all the beating. I never thought you would respond like that, and I was very surprised about this whole story. If the films were properly cleaned I can´t imagine where all the dirt would come from. It is more likely they received a bad cleaning at Fotokem than... a Telecine machine so dusty/dirty that the film would get hair and dirt in the amount described in this thread. Perhaps Fotokem even forgot to give the films a cleaning? I transferred negative films that were not cleaned, and they were pretty dirty. Mostly in the beginning and at the end of the reel. (this was by the was the way the client wanted the films, dirty). The words from one unhappy client should not be enough to ruin one companys reputation. Some people are impossible to please, and some people spread bad rumors if they are unhappy. And I have never heard things like this about Cinelicious earlier (that is why I was so surprised). Hopefully (and probably) this will end up as a one-time-thing. The client sure has the right to be unhappy in this case. But if Fotokem did a bad cleaning, they should be the target for this complain.