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.

Wow, really surprising! I guess we are talking about Cinelicious here, and not Fotokem? Just want to make sure so the wrong company doesent "get the dirt in the face", so to speak...

Well then there is definetly a problem somewhere, either at Fotokem (for not cleaning the film good enough) or at the transfer place. A ultrasonically cleaned film should not be dirty. Sure, one or two (or extremely few and very small) particles will still somehow get in there. But not at the amount that has been descibed here. Ah, OK. Sorry, I thought that it was totally unsuperviced, as in a "unsupervised onelight" or something like that...

OK, so you got a unsupervised transfer. Nothing wrong with that, if the budget is tight that is perhaps all you can afford sometimes. Interesting. Did they do some cleaning, like ultrasonic cleaning of the film? If not... did anyone else do ultrasonic cleaning of the films? This is important, because if nobody gave the films a ultrasonic cleaning before the transfer then you will without doubt get some dust with the transfer. How much dust depends on a lot of things, and if this is a problem or not depends on what you expect. But you cannot expect to get a dust-free transfer without a proper ultrasonic cleaning. Perhaps the communication about this failed between you guys. Wait a minute here... Didn´t you just write you had a unsupervised transfer? As in a transfer that is not supervised during the whole transfer by telecine staff? If you indeed wanted (and received) a unsupervised transfer... could you please explain to me why you are upset about a scratch that was originated in your camera? You expected them to find the scratch and to report it, even when you ordered a unsupervised transfer?

If the source material is 35mm film... it feels crazy to transfer it to SD resolution. You should really consider getting some HD equipment.

I just found one... K40 transferred to 1080P, I guess. But I still think I can see interlace lines, so how can the images be Progressive? The image quality is not something I would boast with. You can find the clip on this webpage: http://www.mediacapture.fr/extrait/lecture.php?type=hd , click on the "Télécharger"-link at the bottom of the webpage. It looks more like a upscaled image to me, or perhaps like a intelaced image that is de-interlaced in a bad way? Look at the roofs in the beginning of the clip, and at the car. I dare anyone to find sharpness and fine details in these images. To have something to compare with, check the dog and the butterfly on these clips: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=137 (I know, a shameless link to my website... But I can´t stand to see those guys with their crap-clips!) On the leaflet you linked to they write HDV as the HD-format (but I don´t speak french, so perhaps I am missing some details on the leaflet).

I was actually in contact with CTM Debrie long before I purchased the FlashscanHD. They were very difficult to deal with, and they didn´t really understand much about formats, codecs, compression or image quality. I found this extremely shocking, as tthey seem to be a big company and have been in budiness quite long. I was interested in purchasing a unit from them, but wanted them to transfer a testclip for me... It looked horrible, had interlace lines and was compressed to hell. All in all, it took them months upon months, people quit the company, I was referred to new paople. I was quoted a price for buying a unit and then later when I called them and pushed them against a wall with questions... It turned out that they really hadn´t finished the RnD of the unit they wanted me to pay for. Anyway... I waited a few more months, and finally pulled my films back from them. The testclips they again showed me as "good results", as a reference for their unit... looked really bad. I don´t know if it was due to the unit still not being finished, but to me it felt like they had no idea what they were doing. If you are to get a transfer done with a Debrie 8mm HD unit, get a test-transfer before sending them big orders. I can´t get it out of my head that they showed so poor results when trying to sell me a very very expensive unit... Either they don´t have any "eye for quality", or... I don´t know. :blink: Just to make it clear, I am talking about the manufacturer CTM Debrie, not any company offering transfers.

Thanks! Yes, it is perfect for this specific use, we are very happy with it. We colorcorrect the old familyfilms in two steps, first in the FlashscanHD, and then after the transfer in NLE using MacPro workstations and Color. So we can tweak the often faded/twisted colors on a scene by scene base as it is needed... Then we render out new files to whatever format the client wants. Datafiles that they can edit with their computers, or just finished DVDs and/or Blu-rays. For clients with new films (pro and semipro) we don´t do any colorcorrection in NLE after the transfer, they want to do this themselves to get the "look" they want to achieve.

I work for my Company, Uppsala Bildteknik: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/ While not being the best filmscanner in the world if compared to scanners that can transfer larger filmformats we use a FlashscanHD that is the best 8mm filmscanner in the world. We mostly transfer old family films to DVD and Blu-ray, but we also receive newly exposed super8 films from around the world (we´ll be sending orders to Greece, UK and Australia today). They are all riding on a special offer we have for newly exposed 8mm films: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=999 You can find testclips from our work online here: http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/?page=112 , both complete musicvideos and clips from films as old as the -30´s.

Being the only one that can deliver a 2k transfer puts the prices in a hotspot for these transfers, no doubt about that. You are the only place that I know about that can actually (or will be able to) deliver a 2k transfer from super8. I have had people asking for a 2k once or twice myself, now I know where to send them in the future. :)

Wow, that sure is a premium priced transfer! That is like a price-span from €174 to €279 for each super8 reel! Have you made tests so you know it actually makes sense and brings up new image details (otherwise lost details) when going for a 2K transfer from a 8mm filmframe? I´m sure you have read earlier in this thread that I have doubts abotu the optical quality on super8 cameras. I don´t think they planned on such high resolutions when they made the optics.