David Cunningham

Ditto what perry says.

Stay way from telecine/data cine these days anyhow. Too many fantastic high end modern technology options available.

I love my regular 16mm pageant projector and all my work prints and what's left of my e100d. Nothing compared to those amazing images! My super16 pageant is that much more awesome. Projecting super16 e100d is like watching heaven. Just beautiful. Even timed super16 v3 50d 7203 is pretty awesome.

In North America there is no better solution than the LaserGraphics ScanStation. Search these forums for gamma ray digital, ScanStation and LaserGraphics. You'll fine all the other threads including examples of the amazing results with the ScanStation at gamma ray digital.

It's not counter intuitive at all. Higher resolution scans of Super 8 are justified for exactly this reason. As the film becomes more grainy it's actually that much more important to properly resolve that grain so as not to "chunk it up" and alias it. It is true there is not 8K of information in the original source negatives for the Wizard of Oz. That is, as long as you are talking about the image. We need to not think about the image we are scanning but the material itself. The grain itself IS information. To properly scan film you need to properly scan the medium. In this case, the grain. Once you do that, you have a more accurate piece of information which can then be down sampled to your display format.

True. The reason. Dislike it (hate was a bad word) is the warping of otherwise strait lines like doorways, etc. it's just so distracting.

I hate anamorphic. Spherical super35 and 65mm (like the master) are the only way for me. I hate anamorphic distortion!

BTW.... Super16/Ultra16 negative would rarely need the HDR functionality from the Director at MetroPost. Normally the ScanStation at Gamma Ray Digital would be completely satisfactory. This particular footage will likely benefit from the very broad range of blackest black and whitest white. The snow is, of course, bright white and not blown out while the shrubs in the background are nearly black (very dark green) but all the detail is there. I did do another re-grade on this ScanStation footage which I will try to upload soon. I was able to pull lots of detail out of the shadows without mucking up the rest of the footage. The ScanStation is by far the best Super16 negative scanner I've used short of the Scanity and Director but it's a negligible difference. Where the Director really shines is prints and color reversal. Good prints or E100D reversal with a full range from brightest white to darkest black really needs that HDR to comes close to the projected image. It's still not quite as good as projected though.

Ok, last one. This is mine, Super16, Vision3 50D 7203, negative, 2K scan on LaserGraphics ScanStation at Gamma Ray Digital. Compression on youtube really kills it but when it looks good it looks great. This footage will soon be rescanned at 4k at MetroPost in HDR on the LaserGraphics Director and it will blow this away.

Here are a few examples.... This is Super16, but E100D (reversal). This is NOT negative and not the best export to online. But, it gives you a good idea of the quality of the Director at MetoPost: This is some Super16 negative on the Directory at MetroPost, but very bad export for online. Still, you get the idea of the quality: For some negative comparison... this is Super 8 on the LaserGraphics ScanStation. Again, Super 8... 1/4 the resolution of your Ultra16, but yet yields these great results: This is not mine, but an online friend of mine Justine Cary. I turned him on to MetroPost and the LaserGraphics Director and he has not locked back for his Super16 negative transfers: and here: Download the full resolution originals to get a really good idea of the quality. This too is NOT mine, but a great example of what negative looks like from Cinelicious coming off the Scanity. You can see it has a "look" to it that's different than the Director or ScanStation. I find the Director and ScanStation to be more "true" to what the work print of my Super16 negatives look like when projected. I find the Scanity looks more like what people expect for "the film look". Same guy, also Cinelicious Scanity: Hope this helps...

Oh. Any of the usuals in CA will process ultra 16. My favorite is FotoKem, especially for their great work prints. But Spectra Film and Video, Cinelicious, and Pro8mm are also options.

Hi James, My personal experience with super16 (pretty much the same format as ultra 16) is that Cinelicious using their Scanity and MetroPost (NYC) using their LaserGraphics Director are pretty much right on par with each other. But, MteroPost in considerably cheaper and I just like the look of the scans off the Director. I would say go with 4K. There is little reason to go with 2K other than digital distribution in 2K since it's so similar in size and ration to HD. A 4K scan is going to give you a nicer grain structure over HD/2K. There isn't quite 4K worth in "resolution" in ultra 16. But, the higher scan resolution will give you the appearance of a sharper image especially with more grain stocks such as 7219 500T. Lastly, if possible go with Prores 4444 or DPX even if you are looking to have the grading done at scan time vs on your own. The 4444 just gives you more wiggle room and adjustment options. It's usually ok to settle for 10-bit but 16-bit is technically better. If you don't want to spend the higher cost of 4K at Cinelicious or even MetroPost the next best option is Perry at Gamma Ray Digital. He uses a LaserGraphics ScanStation which is amazing. You can get a super4K scan which is a 5K scan down sampled to 4K. It's excellent quality at reasonable prices. I have all my super16 scanned with Perry right out of processing. If I really like the footage or its especially "dynamic" with very dark shadow details and very bright highlight details I send it to MetroPost for a rescan at HDR (multi flash) to get all that detail with as little noise as possible. M That's my schpeal for the day. :)

Last post. I promise. Based on your photo I'm 99% sure that 160g you have is the newer em-26.

FYI. If it's the old em--25 160g some places like spectra will process as color but at a very high cost. It's not e6 compatible at all as I understand.

Again. If the e160g is the newer em-26 you can process it as e6 with decent results. Here is an example. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J1JsQAr3bsU

Likely the only thing You will find with the new Ferania film is better colts and higher contrast. It may actually be even grainier if the old 3M spec sheets are what we end up getting. This all assumes Ferrania even comes through. They are struggling to get this done right now. I would not be shocked if they just disappeared all of a sudden. The initial funding is gone. Now they're searching for more.

Kinda but more importantly you are accurately resolving the whole film grain. As the grain gets larger lower resolution scans tend to make it look more chunky due to grain aliasing. This softens the image and kind blocks up the grain.

Newer K40 from the 2000s can actually be a retry decent b&w film. Color reversal options are pretty much nil except the crappy Agfa 200D. But color negative and b&w negative and reversal super 8 are very prevail lent and easy to obtain. There is really no need to shoot old color negative or b&w.

That should be remjet. Damn auto correct on an iPhone!

The type G can definitely be processed color. Plattsburgh photographic can do it. If it's the em-26 version you can even process it as E6 with mixed results. (it does have a rennet backing that would need to be removed first. ). EM - 25 can be done color but it's more expensive, harder, less like E6 and older so even less likely to not be junk.

I agree. I love everything about this camera but would almost never use any of its features other than the transport and when available the 200ft magazine. Very rarely do I ever have any desire to sync audio with my super 8 and when I do, external sources are more than sufficient. After the magazine and transport the only other thing I could see as an advantage for me is the video tap... But a version with just a regular optical viewfinder would be nice. Again, not to take down an amazing camera with amazing features. It's a work of art and amazing engineering. It's just too much for me and most other super 8 users I know.

For proper grain reproduction I find the smaller the gauge the more it maters. For example, I have found a remarkable increase in the perceived sharpness of an image from both super16 and super 8 even as high as 5K. There is certainly not enough "resolution" in either format to justify this high resolution a scan. However, properly resolved grain becomes that much more important when that much more of the image is grain. These days I actually overscan my super 8 and super16 at 5K which is immediately down sampled to 2K. I edit and reframe my image at this resolution and output to 1080P. I find little thing like distant street signs, grass and leaves on trees just appear a bit sharper when scanned this way.

Interesting... yeah, sorry about the 140ft 400ft typo. The examples I see online are pretty good with the Phoenix although I cannot tell if the dynamic range is not very good or if the footage was purposely graded at high contrast. I also notice all the examples I can find are reversal not negative. I'd be curious to see the results with negative.

I wish i could afford one of these cameras. If my wedding business does well this summer I may have to invest, especially for the 400Ft magazine.

Ditto what everyone else has said. I would question if it's even a "scan" at all or actually a telecine such as a Spirit or Shadow. There is not a major advantage to scanning Super16 at 2K unless you plan to crop your own footage (when you would get an overscan with the perf, etc) or plan to distribute/project at 2K. If it will be online or Blu-Ray/DVD, there really is no worthwhile difference. Now 4K on the other hand... that's a major difference and even worthwhile if you plan to release even in just HD because of the finer grain resolution/resolving that will help make the down-converted image appear that much sharper. $140USD is pretty expensive for a scan of 140FT of Super16 in what becomes HD. I suspect it's actually a graded telecine situation not a flat frame-by-frame scan.