Jump to content

Perry Paolantonio

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Perry Paolantonio last won the day on November 28 2018

Perry Paolantonio had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

81 Excellent

About Perry Paolantonio

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Boston, MA
  • My Gear
    Eclair ACL II, Pro8mm modded Max8 Beaulieu 4008
  • Specialties
    5k, 4k, UHD, 2k Film Scanning, Film Restoration, Blu-ray and DVD Authoring

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

12242 profile views
  1. Not sure where you're seeing any pricing on their site - it's not there, you need to talk to their sales rep to get that information. Tyler's pricing is basically correct - it varies depending on the options you get. We're about $180-$200k into our ScanStation 5 years on, once you factor in all the upgrades we've done over the years (adding gauges, audio formats, upgrading the camera, support packages, etc). I'm not aware of any used ScanStations for sale right now, and if there were, you'd be looking at a minimum of about 10x what your budget is. Maybe in 20+ years you might find a used one on ebay for $5k, like you can with old Ranks and other telecines now. maybe.
  2. There's no "technology" per se. On the Northlight, it's done by altering the color of the light going into the scanner with a physical filter. This eliminates the orange cast. The scanner is also calibrated to the density of the film, typically by looking at an area of unexposed film (frame line, or the area between perfs). On the ScanStation, the color of the light can be adjusted because it uses discrete R-G-B LEDs to create a white light source. So when you select Negative, you see a slightly bluer light than when you work with positive film. You could remove the orange digitally after, in photoshop. There are plenty of how-tos out there that cover this. If you have large batches, you might look into doing it with something like ImageMagick, which lets you script these sorts of color adjustments. But for desktop software, I'd agree with Rob - check to see if SilverFast works with that scanner. it's pretty widely used for connecting to old scanners, and may just do what you need when it scans.
  3. I think it'll be well worth your time to learn Resolve. It's actually not as steep a learning curve as you think - it's divided into different windows, and for your purposes you'd only use the Media window to load in files, the Edit window to set up a timeline, the Color window to do color work and the Deliver window to export. You can completely ignore Fairlight and Fusion. While it may see overwhelming, it's worth it, and there are a ton of videos out there on basic Resolve use. I'd highly recommend spending some time with it. Because... Working with 16 bit files is insane. The camera isn't 16bit, and those files are going to be impossible to deal with in a meaningful way. If you can manage to get a CinemaDNG RAW sequence out of the camera, it'll load up in Resolve, which will do the debayering, and a 4k 12bit CinemaDNG sequence requires about the same bandwidth as a 10 bit 2k DPX. That's more than 4x less data to have to store and move around. Believe me, 16bit isn't worth it. (and if you're making 8bit TIFFs, then you're losing a ton of color information from the get-go) I think trying to do any color correction in the scan doesn't make sense either, because you don't have proper monitoring or scopes. You're best off using a simple histogram to ensure you're not clipping or crushing anything in the scan, then deal with the color in the color/NLE system of your choice.
  4. This assumes you're talking about 16:9. If you're scanning film at 2k at the actual aspect ratio, the difference in size can be more than 100%: 1440x1080 (4:3 inside a 16:9 frame) = 1.5MP vs 2048x1556 (4:3 at 2k) = 3.186MP
  5. I was responding to your assertion that: Grading and image quality evaluation are different things. You don't need a 10 bit display to do color grading. If you're QCing the image quality you would see an advantage in a 10 bit display for sure. But the OP's question and your response to it are about color evaluation, for which you don't strictly need a 10 bit display.
  6. the quality of the output is more a function of the bit depth of the source footage, I believe, than about the processing inside the screen. If you have a monitor that's capable of displaying the whole color space, the only real downside of an 8-bit screen is banding because it just doesn't have enough colors available for simultaneous display. That's where Flanders excels - by dithering nicely so you don't really see that. Cheaper monitors meant for computer display won't bother with the hassle of adding dithering because they don't need to for 99.9% of their intended market. color space defines the parameters -- the range of available colors. bit depth defines the number of colors available for a pleasing display within that color space at any given time Will a 10 bit pipeline with a 10bit display look better than an 8bit pipeline with an 8bit display? Probably in some cases with certain types of footage, yes. But as long as both screens have a gamut big enough to display the standard color spaces we're concerned about, the question becomes: "do you mind seeing a bit of banding once in a while, knowing that it's likely just you hitting a limit of your display?" If so, get a Flanders or get a higher bit depth monitor. But it doesn't mean it can't be accurate within a given color space as long as that space is within its gamut. 10bit argument has become a bit of a religious one in some circles. It really depends on the end user's requirements whether it makes financial sense to step up to a significantly more expensive 10 bit screen for what usually amounts to a nominal improvement.
  7. With an 8 bit monitor, the screen can't show as many colors simultaneously, but this has nothing to do with the color space. All the colors you can show are still within the specified color space for that screen, there are just fewer of them on screen at the same time. The potential downside of this would be banding, where the screen has to average color values that are too similar to render smoothly as a gradient, resulting in areas where you might get the same colors over several pixels, causing a banding effect. Here's a great (simple) explanation of why 8 bit is fine for grading: https://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/clarifing-notions-10bit-gamut-32bpc-settings.12140/#post-121144 Flanders Scientific 8-bit screens are perfectly good for many grading scenarios. They also do some clever dithering to make banding artifacts pretty much disappear. I got a demo at NAB a few years ago from them with the same frame on both an 8 and a 10 bit screen of the same size, side by side. The differences were imperceptible. You could really only tell there was a variation if you brought up the onscreen color picker and went to the same screen coordinates to see the numeric difference in displayed color values. Their AM210, for example, can easily display Rec709, SMPTE-C and DCI P3. At $2000, it's not a bad price either, considering you get lifetime factory recalibrations, and it's highly capable in terms of inputs and tweaking.
  8. Resolve is far superior to Premiere. Also, if you're familiar with FCP 7, it's about as close as you'll get to that these days. It's a solid editing system and the color correction tools are hard to beat. Fusion and Fairlight are dicey at this point - they're relatively recent integrations into the application, but if you stick primarily to the edit and color windows, it's a good choice. Get yourself a really good GPU (GTX1070 at minimum) and you'll have a good system for color correction. For editing you don't need the GPU power so much.
  9. Very cool. If you want, PM me, and I can share some code with you for controlling an Arduino from custom software. When I was using an arduino to control an Imagica 3000V film scanner that I gutted, I built a custom app using Xojo (RealBasic). The camera had a companion control board and an API for taking the images, and my software would send commands to the Arduino as simple human-readable phrases over a USB serial connection. Such as "Advance1Frame". The arduino basically just listens for incoming commands, does its thing and returns a response. It should work with any software that can communicate over serial connections. In my setup, there were stepper motors and a ton of sensors, but the basic idea would be the same for yours, with some modifications. I'm in the midst of another film scanner build right now and got a 100W RGB LED COB to experiment with. Can't wait to see how bright that thing is. It's a monster.
  10. I haven't looked too closely at these. High CRI (high 90s if you can find them) is best, because you know you'll get more consistent results. You can also get RGB models that let you control the channels separately, but in one neat package. You can then mix your own white from that. As for color temp, it probably doesn't matter a ton as long as you're calibrating your camera to it and there's enough light to get through the densest film. With white light and enough diffusion you can just point the light at the film and stick the diffusion between, then with the camera look for hot spots (adjust the exposure time way down and stop the lens down as well. This will reveal hot spots. If you see these, then maybe use an integrating sphere of some kind - could be the mirror that was used int he projector, or something similar - A box with mirrored surfaces on the inside works - the light bounces around in there and you get better diffusion. Also look into holographic diffusers (which may be easier) - you can get a small piece of it online and use it in line with your regular photo diffusion material.
  11. Take a look at this sort of thing for your light source: http://www.cob-led.com/What-is-cob-LED-chips-on-board.html
  12. One thing to look at is that there are some super bright LEDs you can get now that are about a half inch in diameter - they're a lot simpler than an array. With most machine vision cameras, there's a trigger interface, so you can send a pulse to the camera and have it trigger a preset exposure setting. You can also tie this into your LED, so that when you pulse the LED it sends a signal to the camera, and the camera snaps the image. Also, with a machine vision camera, you should have some software that lets you create a profile that can be uploaded to the camera. So you could do your basic calibration that way, in that software, then load that profile to the camera. So when you snap an image it uses those settings by default unless you override. The camera you chose has an old firewire interface, so it may be a bit funky to work with, but they were pretty common 8-10 years ago. Not as fast as modern interfaces (CameraLink, 10GbE, or even USB3), but it should work. AlliedVision is still around, though you may have a hard time getting support for one that old. As for the settings, you really just need to experiment, because it'll depend on the intensity and color balance of your light source, as well as how much light is impeded by the film once you have that in place. You really do need a crazy bright source of light to get the most out of the film. The f/stop on the lens will also come into play. The camera maker may recommend a specific one, but you may also need to play with that to see what you can do.
  13. You might be able to do this in hardware with something custom, but the easier way is in software. Assuming you have individual control over each color in the LED, you'd want to calibrate the scanner before scanning: with no film loaded, you'd take an image with only red light, sample some pixels and average their color value, then adjust to get it to where you need it. Then do the same with Green and Blue. This will require knowing what the RGB values need to be, and writing some software to do the analysis. Adjusting the amount of each color channel is a matter of changing the PWM frequency, assuming you're using PWM for that. Take a look at OpenCV. If you're writing your control software (on the computer, not the arduino) in most common programming languages, there's a way to integrate OpenCV, and it will handle most of the basic image manipulation stuff you'd need to do. That said, for something like calibration, you could just do it in your control software, by analyzing captured images. So once you've done this, you know the light coming through is white. Honestly, though, if you're using white light, you might be better off just using a very powerful white LED, doing the same measurements to figure out the exact color balance of the image, and then adjusting that color with a LUT that gets applied to all the captured frames before they're written to disk.
  14. I think what you'll likely find with the Samsung is that it doesn't have the lifespan you need. Even with an electronic shutter, it's a consumer grade sensor in that camera, and it will likely fail after a few hundred thousand frames. Considering a 50' reel of Super 8 is 3600 frames, you're only talking 50-60 reels before you start looking at the end of the camera's usable lifespan. Based on your link, are you making the decision not to use the machine vision camera because of the image quality of the scanned file? Because what I'm seeing from the Point Grey camera is essentially what we see from our ScanStation with a flat scan. It will require a bit of color correction, but generally has more to work with. If you're scanning to JPG on the Samsung, you're only getting an 8 bit image as well. Not sure what the sensor is in that, and what's actually recording with RAW. Do those RAW files open up easily in something like Resolve?
  15. If you can fit one into the projector somewhere, take a look at these: http://www.ia.omron.com/products/category/sensors/photomicro-sensors/slot-type/index.html They're very inexpensive and simple to use. Just put it in a place where the shutter blade just triggers it (or stops triggering it, however you want to set it up), when the shutter is open at the gate. They're really inexpensive too - like $3-$4 USD. It's basically just an optical switch. With something like this you don't need to modify the shutter to make holes, you can just let the leading or trailing edge of the shutter blade be the trigger.
  • Create New...