Simon Lucas

Are there places that could do 2k scans of short (6") strips of films?

You are saying I cannot rely on a flatbed for Super 8 tests. And I think this echos what someone else said, earlier. It seems like I have to work blind until I shoot a whole roll and have it professionally scanned. Are there any reliable ways of evaluating test footage?

These are both at 2400dpi. Image cropped. Here's the full uncropped file at 3.9Mb: http://www.studioshitless.com/tmp/super8/35-s8comparison2.jpg

Here's a crop of a 35mm neg scanned the same way. The sprockets are OK, are they not? Here's a Super 8 developer test strip with sprocket. Scanned the same way. The sprockets are indistinct. But am kidding myself that I can see grain/surface of the film? So, why would the sockets be out of focus on the Super 8 stock but Ok on the 35mm? The Super 8 stock is very flat on the glass. The 35mm does bow, but I taped the film holder down to flatten it. But - also even when I do not tape the 35mm down it seems to be pretty sharp.

Martin, thank-you for your suggestion. I got delayed sending the camera off. And as it will now go this week, I think it is a good idea to follow your suggestions before I send it.

Yes, I admit now, that they do on this scan. Odd, as the 35 mm scans I do are so crisp. It's scanned on an Epson 4490 flatbed. I place the emulsion flat on the glass and weight the strip with a small enlarger film plate. I don't know how to fix that. I tried all sorts of experiments with the scanner and found that emulsion on glass was sharper than any variations on film holder (when testing with 35mm). Would a more up to date scanner like the cost-effective v370 improve it? Of course, making final film footage I will get them scanned professionally, but I wanted to be sure that what I am shooting is the best result possible. I wonder whether that's the only issue with sharpness, though?

Here's an example by Carl:

Hi. I'm back from a break. I took some more footage yesterday. Outside in strong light. I used the split-prism to get the edges of these concrete letters sharp in the VF. The aperture was around f16. The camera was around 15m from the subject. I developed in Silvermax for 11m. Scanned at 2400ppi on a flat bed. The result of my scan sharpness is the same as when I scan 35m, using the same technique. The fact that the sprockets are sharp attest to this (in the none levelled versions). I have boosted the blacks here but applied no sharpening at this stage. Please look at the lower frame which has the correct exposure. Please note – I'm not comparing the sharpness or resolution of this frame (the lower one) to any other media except to other Super 8 examples that I have seen online (such as one of Carl's examples on vimeo), and my memory of shooting Super 8 a long time ago. Any thoughts, please?

Sorry - lots of new replies, but I can't look at them as I'm going on holiday. Will look when I get back. Thanks.

Carl, thanks for out input. I'm scanning at the same resolution and not blowing them to match their output size. At 4800dpi, a scanned frame of 35mm is approx 6800 pixels across , the equivalent super 8 is approx 1065 pixels I'm very clear on this. It's not about resolving power of the input materials or the digital resolution of the output materials, it's about lack of focus in the image.

Thanks for helping rule out diopter All my tests are close-ups at the moment, as I am judging exposure and development times - a small scene with a Stouffer step chart. Your comment about film-plane feels pertinent. It is true that I keep wondering why nothing feels sharp in the picture.

Josh, Carl, Anthony, Tyler, Andries. Thanks for all the suggestions, insights and comments. My thoughts on your comments. 1. Assessment of sharpness I am scanning test strips on a flatbed . I have some scans of 35mm Silvermax I can share that show a nice sharpness. I'm scanning the Super 8 in exactly the same way. 2. Shooting a whole preloaded film. I am putting this off. I can see it's the best way to rule out the refillable cart, but it's simply the cost. I guess I will have to! But I have footage shot on the Nizo using a Kodak colour film cartridge from two years ago, where the shots have varying degrees of sharpness. Not sure anything is that good. I can post some frames. This footage has been scanned professionally. 3. Focussing I am making use of the split screen (my favourite kind of focus aid) on the Nizo. I have set the diopter so I can remove my glasses whilst filming... QUESTIONS: If the diopter is set incorrectly - can that give out-of-focus results on the film plane? Or does the diopter adjustment just focus the eye on the focus screen? 4. A lot of my tests are done indoors with close-ups. I wonder if that is a factor... I'm going away for a one week break but am going to look into this when I get back. I'm delaying shooting a new film until I know I have this issue better resolved. I think I need to test both cameras with one cart, although one has to go away for repair first. Also, Andries's idea of checking both close-up and distance, and using a measuring tape will help.

Early on I switched to a Leicina Special for my Super 8 tests and never seem to be able to get sharp images. Recently I have been running tests in Braun Professional. It seems to me that the same thing is happening. When I see other people's footage I'm jealous of the sharpness. Could it be another factor like the quality of the cartridge? I am using a Wittner refillable cartridge. In this I put short lengths of Pan-X to test development and other experiments. I see these people make a very sturdy looking refillable cartridge at quite a high price. Is it worth it? http://www.gkfilm.de/en/ Or do I need to check other factors, first? Am I just very bad at focussing?

Yes - either that, or circuits/components die. :) I'm going to ask a guy called Eckhard. I found his name on filmshooting.com, which I remembered that I have also been a member of last time I needed to talk about Leicinas.

My Leicina Super shows no sign of power. It was shooting. And then stopped. I checked the power window - no power - there had been earlier. Then checked the batteries with voltmeter. No zoom, no shutter, no auto-exposure. Checked batteries are seated and cleaned contacts. Any ideas please?

Phil – sorry if my reply was a bit blunt... At least your response made me go back to DaVinci and try again. This time I reduced the output fps to 1. I then queued up my clips, got one rendered but then it bombed my machine again. I have found that if I render the clips one by one at 1fps I can keep the CPU temp. to under 96 C. I also reduced the quality to proxy which may have helped. And that way I have managed to output three clips tonight without it bombing. So, at least I will be able to get my clips down to prores and be able do an edit. Feel much more positive after what seems like hours and days of trial and error! And Resolve does a good default job on reading the Cinema DNGs - so it is a huge step forward after my attempts with SG.

Phil, I know my post/question was long, but if you had read it you'd quickly see that I know it can be done in Da Vinci Resolve. I think it is known that that is the best and easiest solution, but I cannot use it on my MacBook Pro. Let me repeat, DaVinci Resolve melts my GPU. So I need a non-Resolve solution, please. Also, I'm not particularly interested in bashing the Swedish-designed/built Ikonoskop. I like it. It was/is a fine camera. I like the quality of what comes out of it. ;)

Lucky to have an Ikonoskop on loan but can't process the DNG footage. Going slightly mad trying to work up a simple workflow so I can just do some edits. My shots are all indoors with available light and gain turned up. They look great just opened up and tweaked a little in Photoshop. I used to using AE for editing and it does a great and easy job on the DNGs but too slow to use. 4+ hours to render 8 mins. So, trying to make Prores files: DaVinci Lite does a great job on the DNGs but it practically melts my 2009 MacBook Pro's GPU (GT 9600MT) causing system shutdown Speedgrade CS6 works fine on my Mac but the DNGS look awful, very dark, and red. Each clip needs special attention and once I have balanced the DNGS they then all have green shadows. The Speedgrade process seems too difficult for me. I read here about debayering but don't know if that is the problem or how to solve it. I also read that despite the Ikonoksop WB settings in SG6 it ignores all the camera metadata settings - which probably accounts for the darkness of the shots. Aside from that the SGcs6 output then seems to ignore all the grading applied (at the moment). My only practical solution is to make tifs which at least AE can use happily.Obviously then I'd have to switch out these proxies at the end for a final graded high quality render: 1. import each shot folder into Lightroom and output as tifs into separate shot folders for use in AE. Laborious workflow. 2. Do the same with photoshop using the Adobe RaW interface to process each image in each folder. Still slow and a bit Laborious but workable. What I'd really like is a solid and clear Speedgrade workflow that produces images as good as Photoshop/AE and can output all the clips as prores. Has anyone done this, please? I'm not clear how anyone without DaVinci can work with this footage in any practical sense. Is there a way? Thank-you.

There are two Canon timers on this site: http://super8exchange.com/ Another option is to could also find a remote for the 814E and build your own timer.

Stephen, not clear where you are but in the UK I used images4life. I arranged for them to do a set of transfers for a museum in London so we could use the footage in a new film. They did a good job. HD transfers of Super 8mm and 16mm with cleaning , grading by eye before transfer and used a laser-based sprocket-less system.

Jörg, Pan-X is a reversal stock and has been out for well over a year, so I've never thought them related, either.

Anyone heard any rumours about then the Adox reversal processing kit for their Super 8 film is going to surface? They announced it some time ago when they released the film.

The first batch of films is out now on ag photographic but does not include super 8.

Wittner seem to be getting 12m on a Single 8 cart using Orwo stock Retro-X / ORWO UN 54 Single-8 Kassette ca. 12m / 40 ft.

Are there any of the other Super 8 film stocks thinner such that it would fit more into the Single 8 cartridge?