Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Website looks good. Some beautiful images. I didn't have time to view everything, but I did sample things. I didn't like the photo of the church with burnt out clouds used for the color grading section. OK, burnt out clouds are hard to deal with, but you don't have to use it as a headline photo. Your 'about me' section was kind of hard to decipher. Maybe I'm too old and the wording appeals to the kids. But I like plain writing for an easy to understand message delivery. Website navigation was easy. Overall...nice job! Good luck!

eBay Photo - Fair Use

Now, you cine' people that are short on $$ for your low budget feature. Is it because of film cost? Is it because of the general production cost, irrespective of film? Or could you swing it OK if shot with digital? For me, excess money means freedom to acquire more of someone else's film for the Archive. The most $$ films I've seen on eBay, that I've missed, were about $1400 - $1600 for a small reel. And those very $$ reels can be counted on one hand. One was a home travel movie to 1920's China for about $1450. Another one was a student film made in the 1970's of the grindhouse area of Times Square for $1260. But for the most part, most of the higher priced films I missed were $200 - $500 range. And some were even $75. Now, I can buy a $75 film or a $200 film...I just can't buy them every day of the week. With a little bit of excess $$, one could buy most of the 16mm film shorts they desire that comes up on eBay. (But not 16mm feature films. Some features are highly sought out and may go for $2,000 or more. But, I'm not into feature films.) Here is the 200 foot 16mm student Times Square film that sold recently for $1260. eBay photo: Fair Use 200ft 16mm b&w home movies: SLEAZY TIMES SQUARE 1970 shot by NYU film student Hello. Up for sale is 200 feet of 16mm b&w home movies shot by a New York University film student in 1970. Excellent condition, no vinegar odor. The film comes mounted on a 400-foot reel and will be shipped in a metal canister. NOTE: This film has never been digitized. It is one-of-a-kind. Any rights I may have had as the previous owner I give to the winning bidder. The shooter was Craig Ellenbogen. In 1970 he shot the Special Effects for a short film titled: Item 72-D, The Adventures of Spa and Fon. The film starred a then unknown Herve Villechaize (Fantasy Island and The Man With the Golden Gun) as a mischievous extraterrestrial. Excellent footage of NYC. Those in the know will recognize some of the locations, but my guess is most of this film was shot in or around Times Square. One theater is showing a film titled, Tuck Me In, a tale about a woman willing to do anything to become a star. It starred Kim Pope. You’ll also see a porno shop with patrons, a place called Fascination, various storefront windows, a deli, a liquor store, beggars, a nefarious-looking dude in the window of what appears to be a gambling establishment, various neon signs and much more. Wow.

Motocross! That is something. Stay safe...the forum would miss your expertise.

Thanks Tyler! Finally finished the first page of this thread. Things got sidetracked with the Lasergraphics. But, I'm not too anal and a stickler for absolutes. Being underground, I'm flexible. The Lasergraphics conversation is interesting and educational. It is just that I don't have the time I need to digest it all. Anyway. Kinda confused with your post. I thought you said the audio capture suffers from wow and flutter? Or is it a synch issue and audio capture is fine? When you talk about aligning the audio, is it like this? When I convert a DVD to MP4 I sometimes get a gap in the audio as is shown above and I have to drag the audio to synch the audio with the lips. As far as the 8 bit? Do you see a material difference with the DPX / TIFF vs. AVI? Do you have sample images / video to show the difference? How is the scan audio with FilmFabriek if you just do a AVI scan? Is it OK or distorted? I did a lot of tests with bit depth with still images. Perry was the sponsor of it. He poo-pooed my 8 bit photography. Really not that much difference in 8 bit vs 16 bit BW and 24 bit vs 48 bit color. Hardly anything to speak of. You see a smidgeon in the shadows...ONLY a smidgeon but you have to study it. Internet Archive Search: Bit depth teoli But video may be different. With generational loss of working with dupes with video, there is a big change in color. Not so much with JPEG still images.

Gotta see the test photos for comparison. I use backlight with flatbed scanning once in a while. But on the whole, it does not look good. But you test! Bottom line is: the test says yes or no...not you me or Perry.

You should put up an audio scan with a Cintel vs ScanStation. The we could hear what this discussion is about. Talk is one thing, but seeing and hearing is another. But from what I gather from the discussion is that you think the Cintel offer better sound reproduction than the ScanStation. The Cintel would be a great scanner for me if it did warped and non-warped 16mm well. It is almost affordable and can be bought at B&H. And it would be nice if it worked with a PC. (Although I'd buy an Apple if the other issues were not there.) But I've been told the Cintel is no good for archival 16mm work and it only runs with Apple.

The bottom line is: If you're using an archival film scanner like the Lasergraphics machines, as much as is possible, you don't want the scanner affecting the image or the sound when capturing. Yes, that is right Perry. When digitizing you try to capture what is there, best you can in the raw scan. You can push buttons to offer a 'improved version' such as their color correction or doctor it in post. The raw scan is the foundation. But we got so far away from trying to fix the bad audio capture in the FF scanner with this thread. You mention telecine Perry. Anyone still using telecine in a serious way? I thought that was pretty much extinct, except for cheap $2500 eBay options.

Too bad they don't make a simple and affordable optical reader to extract the sound from films. Projectors fit the bill to extract sound good enough for me, but they also cause wear and tear, and many films can't be projected any longer. Almost all the films I get are very rough. So luckily for me I don't need to fine tune things that much trying to polish a turd to the n'th degree. A stock footage guy traded me some archival audio files for something. He used Cedar noise reduction on the files. The files were pretty impressive with hiss reduction. (But I'm no audio expert.) With all the $$ Lasergraphics charges I'm surprised they didn't wire in a Cedar machine into their high-end scanner. Their auto color correction for red films is impressive. Just too bad Lasergraphics is so shitty to deal with for responding to their emails. That says a lot about a company when they never respond. Now on another subject Dan, does Lasergraphics have a sales company and repairman in your country? If not, how much do they charge to fly someone there?

Jeeeesus...I don't know what it all means. Film work is sooo complex. I just need some half-ass decent 4K scans and to get the sound synched up similar as to how a projector with an exciter bulb would play sound. Originally, I thought to run the films through the projector and capture the sound, then marry audio to the films. But a lot of my films don't project well. So, I got AEO Light. But I'd like to make things easy on me and scan the film in one pass to do it all at once. Sure, people in business may have skewed views. Some are honest, some are not. And with more and more people getting into the get rich quick scanning biz, maybe some are not as honest as they could be while trying to grab an ever decreasing share of the film scanning pie. I don't have many delusions about gear / equipment. It comes under the auspices of...it is what it is. If I can get better gear, I will, if it fits my budget, space and time. But it usually always depends on the $$. $$ is stored energy. $$ buys space and time I guess the only way to get some settlement on this Lasergraphics sound issue is to hear audio samples comparing various scanners. Then people can decide which is more pleasing. But, more pleasing may not be the most complete reproduction. I think most people ordering scans want a decent sound and not something that need more audio doctoring. So pleasing is a big deal with me. But with archival work, being true to the original is also important. It just depends. It is a balancing act. Sometimes the original is such a mess you don't try bothering with keeping it true to its current condition. Even so, you need to do a good job recording it in its original state so you can 'work' on it. Attributed to Myers S.F. DDTJRC Ballerina Archive Maybe the deal with the Lasergraphics audio is this... You want to do audio work on your film...scan with the Lasergraphics to get a complete capture of the audio. You want a finished scan, that has pleasing audio, with no additional audio work...scan with something else. But I'm just guessing. Without audio sample comparisons to study it is all a crapshoot as to who is right. I'm about done for today. Got to get back to work. ...God, why couldn't FF just have made a proper audio capture on their scanner. It could have saved us all this hassle!

Nice report Perry...Thanks! Getting back to my earlier post...it would be nice to have the sound samples to hear. But... Would you say the Lasergraphics reproduces optical sound similar in quality to a projector or not Perry? That may be an issue than Dan B is referring to. Maybe the Lasergraphics is reproducing a lower 'perceived quality' sound as compared to projector? I would think the scanners job is to reproduce the experience as close as possible to the projected film. But it may be as you say Perry. The Lasergraphics scanner gets it all down, including the warts, and you have to remove them in post.

I don't understand Tyler. You have the same inconsistences in the film being scanned in all scanners. So the film's inconsistencies can't be blamed on the FF. Or are you saying the FF is not good at handling inconsistences in film as opposed to other scanners? What do you mean by capturing in 2 passes? I'd like a scanner that can scan in one pass. Is there an issue with scanning sound in one pass with the FF? I've had enough out of synch issues with my Russian post software. The synch gets out of whack many a time with MP4 conversions. But it is $75 software, not a $45K scanner.

You got some sound samples Andrew? Let's hear them. Some people are very picky, maybe the sound with the FF is OK, just don't know. All I'm looking for is decent, undistorted sound reproduction mainly of people talking. On another, but still related topic with the FF, how is their software? Is it easy to use? Does it offer adjustments to the sound reproduction that would help?

Flywheels? How is it a cheap projector, with no flyweels, can reproduce the sound and not cost $45k? That is what I don't get Tyler. What does FF have to do to fix the sound problem?? Can it be fixed by the user? Maybe if you send a sound sample to FF they can understand the problem. Which is terrifying in itself...that a company can't understand a simple problem like that. And speaking of sound samples, put the defective FF sound sample up at the I.A. for us to hear. (If it has not already been posted here. Still trying to catch up.)

Yes, side by side tests are the best Dan. It takes out the personal prejudices of being a fanboy. But the tests must be honest and not skewed because of personal likes or dislikes. Ego can be a problem. People get attached to their 'thing' and it must be the best or their ego gets hurt. if their 'thing' gets attacked, it is an attack on them personally, as their 'thing' is an extension of them. I talked with Perry ages ago about putting up actual moving image sample scans of his work to show this or that service he offered. But you know Perry, he is set in his ways. He won't do it, he only likes still photo samples from the scans, which look the worst, as compared to the moving image scans which smooths things out. That is why I sent in a post a while back about Perry regarding 'divorcing the ego' from your work or it can skew your thinking. Now, I don't know who is telling the truth with this Lasergraphics subject. But I hope to dig deeper into this thread. I just started to inventory my film Archive on the computer on Friday. I'm up to #307 out of thousands of films that need to be inventoried. So not much time for forums...but I hope to get a few posts done. <><><><> Selection from Eastman Kodak Archive DDTJRAC

OK, thanks John! Do you have any history to add with the can about Cine' Lab NY?

Whenever the lotto is exploding you sometimes see threads on forums asking what you would do with the $$. Irrespective of the lotto, that is a good practice to do once in a while, to see where you are at with your life if money was no object. For me...I'd be doing the same things I'm doing now. Just more of it, on a higher level, making things easier for myself and buying some help. But, one thing about being rich, you can only live 'so cushy' of a life and be healthy. Rich or poor, we all come under natural law. <><><><> Selection from Whoop Whoop project 2014 D.D.Teoli Jr.

Full coverage: Magna Tech MD 636 B 6 Channel 16mm/35mm Magnetic Film Dubber Telecine Follower eBay Archive D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Do they make optical sound readers like this?

Thanks Charles! Always great to have someone in the know. And it was from an educational print. Dan

Cine' Lab 16mm Film Can Selection from Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Reel & Can Archive Photo: D.D.Teoli Jr.

Photos: D.D. Teoli Jr. It has a sandy texture / coating on the outside. If it was marketed to curb V.S....it does not work that well. What is the scoop?

Looks like the trend for online photo downloads is WEBP files. I just got introduced to them over the last few weeks. They don't show up at the I.A. for preview or can be used with the photo viewer on Windows. Hopefully they get up to date with the software and I.A.. If not, I won't bother archiving memes any longer. I've got a huge archive of memes from various online forums. Somewhere about 5,000 memes at the I.A.. Almost all are political based one way or another. Maybe if you got a new version of Lightroom you can bulk convert to jpeg. Lightroom 5 won't do anything with them. They have online WEBP converters, but I wont use anything online. Can't risk my computer to scams. You can convert them to jpeg with Paint...one by one. But I can't fool with thousands of files like that. Of course, this won't affect many of you, will it? But as an archivist, with a huge archive of material archived off the internet, it is a big pain to me.

So how did this flooded Bronica finally end up?

The Shaolin Temple 1982 was a groundbreaking film from China / Hong Kong filmed at the Shaolin Temple. Clips include scenes from the famous '4 seasons' training, steel whip, 3 section staff and others. Too much to tell you here, Wiki has a big writeup for the film. Clips From The Shaolin Temple 1982 : D.D.Teoli Jr. A.C. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

If anyone wants some super cheap stock footage or just wants bulk 16mm processed film, now is the time. Alpha Blue Archives put up a ton of bulk 16mm lots on eBay. I only put up 2 examples. Some films going for $2 - $3.50 per can in bulk lots as Buy-it-Now. All types of material. As an example, the top lot of 18 films is $2.77 per film. A can or reel cost more than that. I would have jumped on it, but am shutting down the film Archive to new acquisitions. Too much hassle scanning film.