Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Retroscan has a 'clean crop' option for saving film scans. It takes a little crop all around to fine tune the scan from ragged edges. But it wont crop what you got out. You can get a frame by frame TIFF scan and clean up with Lightroom or Photoshop if it is that important to you. They got some crazy film restoration software that may do better, but the cost is astronomical. (from what I can tell.)

That is heavy duty. Had no idea.

If you are interested in learning about old time film handling here are a series of 16mm film I put up at the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/search.php?query=film handling 16mm teoli&and[]=mediatype%3A"movies" The AV Geeks had one of these projection films. They said they sell DVD's of the film for $10. I contacted then, they said it was a low res DVD and asked what I was using it for. I told them to put in my film archive and to watch. After I told them that, they would not reply to my emails and would not sell me a copy. Worked out OK for me. I got 6 projection films for next to nothing. ….F the Geeks.

Here are a few additional Retroscan tidbits. I scanned another 16mm film in JPG - BW 379 feet at 2048 x1536. (That is the max res for 4:3) The file size was 17.5 GB for 15,160 JPG files and took about 21 minutes to convert into single image files once it was scanned. (Maybe faster with better hardware. I got a $300 Walmart Computer.) The compressed AVI file for the 379 feet JPG scan was 7.05 GB. I don't know if it would have been any different in TIFF. I will have to do a TIFF scan sometimes to see what it produces. I expect it to be about 4 times bigger in space than JPG. I need to get more storage worked out. The Retroscan can scan in compressed and uncompressed AVI and QuickTime MOV in 4:3 and 16:9 JPEG, BMP, PNG and TIFF. So far just ran a few reels in JPG. I will have to see what it all means by testing different options. The specs on the Retroscan say 8BG RAM. My computer has 4GB RAM and seems to work OK. But have not tried giant reels and all the other scanning options as yet. I have not scanned any 8mm, will give it a try down the road.

Thanks. I don't read much, so didn't know. I just like looking at photos, but you don't always get the backstory details in the photos. A photo project in Paris put in a call for Notre Dame photos for a weekend photo spread. They said they got 1500 photos and used about 100. They used 3 of the 8 I sent in. Here are the links. https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/notre-dame-de-paris-the-classics-bb https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/notre-dame-de-paris-black-white/ https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/notre-dame-de-paris-colors-bb/ https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/notre-dame-de-paris-interior https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/notre-dame-de-paris-from-the-top-bb https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/notre-dame-de-paris-la-seine-bb/ https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/notre-dame-de-paris-the-night-bb/ A few are terrible, as far as low res garbage. I wonder what the rejects looked like? I hate low res images online. Sometimes unavoidable, but it better have some special importance to use low res crap.

I scanned a 16mm test roll on a Retroscan. Here is the video. After putting on YT it only looks so-so. Scanner produces more sharpness than you can get on YT. Although I don't know much about this, just learning the ropes. Maybe there are some tricks and coughing up some $$ to YT. Vimeo looked worse than YT, so I took it down. I don't like to sign my name to poop. This is all raw scans. No post processing. This is a frame from the end where the film was punched. (Kodachrome is 1941 vintage.) I didn't do any single frame focusing. Just ran the film through from an earlier test film. Then had to reduce it to put on the forum. I was surprised at the sharpness of the holes. Not flatbed scan quality, but still better than I thought I'd get from this unit. The scanner does not do clear edge film good. Had tons of trouble with clear edge film. Very jumpy. You have to buy a more $$ lasergate to read clear film. Hopefully get one in a few months. The camera sensor also had some artifacts that show up when you scan white leader. They don't show on images. Dirt on the sensor. But not from me, just how it came out of the factory shop. Disappointing. I like that it can export single file TIFF or JPG. If you got some interesting documentary / underground / historical / stag 16mm that you want scanned I will scan for free...but you share digital files with my archives. I have to like the film and it has to be short. 400 to 800 foot reels. (I got ADD and get bored scanning this stuff.) I prefer silent films. I would have to run sound films through a projector to capture the sound then marry to the film. I prefer not to run other people's films through the projector. But if it is something of interest I may do sound, but narrated sound only. I have some interesting narrated 'art student' films from the 40's. Girl goes in the woods, strips down, etc. The films say they are for art students only. I will work on one of those soon to see about the sound. Write direct if you want free scans...but Google my name and see my work first. Do you think your film will fit my likes? I don't mind home movies if they are interesting and time capsule material. And no harm in running them by me. You pay shipping both ways, other than that scans are free. If you want single image TIFF then you supply a hardrive or flash drive. Film is fascinating stuff! w1000w@aol.com

Yes, don't know the date. Think they built the spire late 1800's. Didn't know they added the window.

That is what they should do 8K with. At least you could have manageable files. It is not like you could project on the big screen. But it should give you a better Q image. They should make a little 8K mini scanner...if it is feasible. 8 needs all the help it can get.

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection The Getty Museum Uncategorized albumen print

He makes a good case for it. I've tried bare drives with varied results. I gave up on them for now. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bare drives are safe for storage FALSE! Those caddies for drives were made for technicians to easily mount drives and to clone and dupe several drives at a time. However, I’m seeing them pop up more and more on editor’s desks. Ways to destroy drives This is crazy! Bare drives are not floppy disks. You can destroy the drives in many ways. You can shock it, drop it, get it dirty, and wear the connector. The first issue, scariest, most damaging and easiest to do is, ESD or electrostatic discharge. And don’t tell me you ground yourself before every touch. Maybe you ground yourself before you remove it from the bag, but then you move about the room, you roll your desk chair, you pick up static. And for the record, just touching metal isn’t good enough, you have to touch grounded metal, so the metal legs of your desk ain’t going to do it. The second is a no-brainer, you can drop it. Now maybe you’re saying, “but I can drop an enclosed drive too!” Yes, but even the most basic of drive enclosures have some form of shock buffer and if they don’t then you should not trust your sensitive data on those either. The most overlooked is finger oils. Touching the circuit board of a drive with your bare hands is going to transfer oil to it. This oil can break down the drive’s components, but more likely will become a bonding agent for dust buildup that will insulate components and cause them to eventually heat up and fail. In addition, your finger oils can create electrical connections between components. Lastly, that hard drive connector was never made to withstand many inserts. It was meant to be connected a few times. It’s not USB. The more you use it, the more it wears, the cheaper the drive, the fewer times it can be connected. “But Vince, we always have another backup.” This one is laughable. How long will it take for you to access that backup? I’ve been to facilities where that backup bare drive is safely stored offsite and a cut need to go out tonight. You’ve just shocked your bare drive and now you have to spend a few hours of time retrieving the backup. A team of AE’s editors and producers are on the clock for those few hours of retrieval. Now I know you’re saying “bare drives are cheap and convenient, and I don’t have to keep all those power supplies around.” So you’re going to start acting like a technician and stand on an antistatic mat, with an ESD wrist strap and wear ESD gloves. Plus you’ll keep isopropyl alcohol on hand just in case. But even if you did that, drives out of enclosures are still more susceptible to vibration and the drives little vent holes are more likely to attract dust and dirt. That’s right enclosures have vibration dampening and obviously provide a further barrier to dirt. Bottom line, handling a bare drive is akin to Russian roulette. https://5thingsseries.com/post-myths-vol-2/

Some of these scanners are much bigger than what you think...

Very creative stuff! https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-lost-strange-dizzying-websites-contemporary-artists (May take some time to load the animated photos.)

Very nice! I was wondering what it would produce. Liked the sand dunes and all the lighting variables. Should have explored more with the sun see-through of her dress. And some nudes. The ending was kinda abrupt on the 2nd film. Maybe that was intended?

Fascinating stuff! https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-forgotten-women-hand-painted-first-color-films

OP, just do what you like, what looks good to you. Too hard trying to second guess things.