Daniel Siddall

I don't understand how what you wrote answered the question that was asked or in any way helped the person who asked the question. All you did was poop all over it.

Anyone who hold a film reel in his hands is aware that there are thousands upon thousands of frames to be scanned. Most of us are undaunted by this and want to find a solution. Like the asker, I too would like a pro-sumer solution for feeding and scanning 16mm and 8mm films. The asker wondered if such a product existed. He did not ask to be lectured on your opinion of the absurdity of such an undertaking.

I do not believe such an item exists. It is unfortunate because there is a vast market for such an item. They have scanners for picture film, why not movies? Come on guys!

-Daniel

For 24 fps material, that's 14,400 individual frames you'd have to scan just for ten minutes of footage.

Even if you only took ten seconds to scan each frame individually by hand, it would take 40 hours -- basically two days straight -- to scan that ten minutes of footage.

I agree. It's preposterous. The market exists....maybe those of us who would use a device like this need to make some noise and make sure it is known that this is a niche that someone could make some money on.

Any ideas where to start?

Why do all of these tutorials have you scan across the scanner instead of up-and-down? I don't understand it. I scan up-and-down, capturing 20 frames per scan. I have three different films side-by-side so I am capturing 60 frames per scan. I get crisp, clear, stable results in 1080p.

So.....why are we told to scan sideways?

A better flatbed will fix this problem. Instead of scanning at low numbers and then using interpolation to get your frame size, you need to scan at higher resolutions, 9600 being a good starting point. If your flatbed scanner cannot scan at this resolution, it's time for a new scanner.

Also, using Photoshop is way too tedious. There are software solutions that automate this process. Cine-to-Vid comes to mind.

If you use a flatbed you can get about 15 frames in one scan, and cut them in photoshop. Also a very long job.

But a flatbed will give you troubles with sharpness because 16mm needs so much enlargement, even for SD.

I cannot help but notice that instead of answering the question that was asked, you pointed out the folly of even asking such a question. How is that helpful?

To answer the question, right now there is no consumer-grade unit that allows you to feed film in and scan it frame-by-frame. I also wish there was. Most folks either use Telecine (expensive) or the DIY solution, flatbed scanning and software to assemble.

Best of luck.

For 24 fps material, that's 14,400 individual frames you'd have to scan just for ten minutes of footage.

Even if you only took ten seconds to scan each frame individually by hand, it would take 40 hours -- basically two days straight -- to scan that ten minutes of footage.