Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Duplicate: Deleted

Lasergraphics support has been superlative... Started writing Lasergraphics around 2017 / 18 and numerous times after that...never the courtesy of a reply from Lasergraphics. Only years later one reply from their outside salesperson. That is shitty service no matter how you try to spin it, Perry.

That is all correct. On a rainy day you don't expect warm tones. But it would take that amount of warming to kinda fix the eyes. What should be done, if they like the cold look, is to just target the yes. But if much of the film has blue eyes and they don't make super-duper movie software that will just fix the eyes easily...it is not practical to do. Above is the image as-is with just the eyes desaturated and slightly whitened. The eyes are very blue. 100% desaturation was not enough. I needed 200%. In other worlds, the maximum desaturation adjustment in Lightroom 5 still didn't fix it. I had to target another spot of the eyes and do it all again. This is the image as-is with no adjustments. This is the image darker and desaturated a couple of notches. Nothing done to the eyes. It is just another way to make the eyes less obvious. But none of these grade's matter. It is what you can do with the movie software that matters not what can be done in Lightroom. Even if you got a film broken down into TIFF files, and you did it in Lightroom, it is very hard keeping things consistent from frame-to-frame hand-painting the eyes.

Hi Anzer, I never thought about contact lenses. Who knows? Sure, a blue, cold cast has its look. But I think you are going to have a hard time with it as everything looks blue. It is very easy to make the eyes white and leave it all blue...if you can retouch each frame. I could have made the eyes whiter, but I felt it is cheating if you can't do it with movie software easily. That was why I wondered if they had some special movie software that could do a large number of frames at once just targeting the eyes. If any of you make a movie and the whole thing is off color, and you just can't fix it in post...turn it B&W. It may not be what you wanted, but it is better than nothing.

In a case like this Perry, Barabra's paper was the foundation and should have been built upon and not destroyed. If the corrections were not made, you should have posted your own rebuttal to correct what needed correcting. But maybe that would cause too much friction? Although you could have reviewed it is such a way to bring out good points and add the corrections that were wrong. That is something I like about Robert H's replies. He is to the point and does not make things personal and leaves the digs out. That is why I say he is more levelheaded than you in his replies. In archival work we preserve history and don't destroy it Perry, whether that history is imperfect or not. I just looked over the paper quickly, but I didn't see she mentioned / thanked you in it for the revisions. Maybe she did and I just didn't see it. I'm not much for text, I like images. Credit should always be given so you know what / who was involved in the development. Although in my case, I always ask if people want credit for help. A lot of people don't want to be associated with me and come up in a Google search. It is OK with me if they don't, but I still give them the courtesy of asking.

Let's talk about the Retroscan for a moment. I think my model is the Universal. It is not their newest $10,000 model. I don't pay attention to models; I just use things. Mine cost about $6,000. I've only scanned maybe 100 films with it. I've used it to learn about scanning more so than actual scanning. I figure why scan 1,000 films twice if I get a 4K scanner. But, in the big picture, 2K or 4K is not the issue. And no sound is not the issue. I can get by with AEO Light if I must. Here are the main problems for me with the Retroscan... 1) There is a problem with clear edge films. They make a laser light pin gate for that, but the laser light does not work on warped film. So Retroscan should come out with some sort of tool that blackens the edge on one side of the film to read it better. Sounds crazy...huh. But no one has made a better suggestion for clear edge film. I guess blackening the edge of customers films would be an issue. But for me...no issue. Even though an archivist, there are tradeoffs. If a better scanner can never be had, then I must make do with the 2K Retroscan or not scan at all. If I don't scan, there is a risk that the films will be trashed if I kick off. So, I do the best I can with what I got. And a tool to blacken the edge would take care of the clear edge issue. (I bet Perry is laughing his ass off.) 2) A warped film gate with the original LED lights needs to be made. The Retroscan will run about anything through it. But it runs it as-is warped more or less. A warped gate probably won't work with the light pin gate unless the gate could hold the film very flat. The light pin gate works by reflecting and it can't reflect evenly off of warped film. And the warped gate does not have to be perfect. Just make the film75% - 85% better. Again, if the film is warped bad, even the LED's have trouble with it if black edged. Those are the 2 fixes I need for the Retroscan. Other than that, it is a great little machine for the money, as long as you feed it what it likes.

Can't you just test this all? No budget for it?

OP....what does the raw footage look like?

Perry had brought up how some archives fail to keep scanner operators and the scanner knowledge leaves with the operator. This would be useful to bring new operators up to speed. In another thread I suggested the scanner company give you some standardized duped archival film and a DVD instructional series, so the operator can check their scans by comparing them to the provided sample scan. That would be a welcome tool when buying a scanner. Or if we are talking Lasergraphics...since they don't even want to give out half-ass instructions...they could charge $695 for it.

...a specialized rewash and polishing processor. What type of chemicals are used? You should be posting before and after photos of your work. Sounds fascinating Robert. Thanks!

Is there a video on the FF wetgate? I can't picture someone dribbling liquid on the sponge. Seems archaic. Internet Archive Search: childbirth teoli One of these films has a doc dribbling ether on a rag or mask on the lady having a baby. He keeps dribbling it on throughout to keep her knocked out. FF wetgate reminds me of that!

They need to get rid of Windows. I hate it. Why can't Perry invent a substitute? Those problems you have with your computer sound bad. My old computer would probably blow up. I already run a house fan into it for extra air when I process video. It pumps out hot air like a blow dryer!

After 30 years in the darkroom, my lungs have had it. I don't want anything toxic. Wetgate scanning is the rage. But it hurts res.

I guess the only way to settle all this is to scan the same film on different machines. Then compare. The rest is opinion. No one talks much about the Arriscan. I guess it is a $300k machine?

Well, you answer my question about cleaning film with alcohol. And I see why you know so much about computers. Too bad you don't run a scanner company, as I know you answer emails timely.

Well, I'm in no rush...mainly because I don't have the money. I hope FF fixes the issues if and when I get some money. Especially the sound. The scratching sounds terrible. Can't you easily move the camera on a LG? What does FPN issues mean?

Dust is not a big deal to me. It is a big deal for you scanners that are scanning new production films for filmmakers. A lot of the archival material I deal with has been duped and duped and duped. Dust is baked into the image. That is a benefit of archival material. It is pretty crappy to start with, you have some flexibility as per the discussion on polishing a turd.

Well, what are you paying Lasergraphics to talk to you Perry? Scanning 10,000 feet a day? You should, be retired Perry...skiing the slopes in St. Moritz in winter and in sailing in Bermuda in summers!

GPU perf registration? Does not having that produce subpar scans with warped film? What about film with clear vs black edges? Is there a problem either way? The Spirit 4K I have cost $2M in 2009 Wow! I could retire on that! (or half that amount.)

Isn't the Kinetta extinct? Or, at least you can't buy them...can you? The HDS+ looks like a beautiful machine. But I worry about your complaint about the sound reproduction. I'm thinking Lasergraphics came out with their cheap Archivist because they were figuring out there is not an endless supply of customers that can pay $100K - $150K for their high-priced machine. But am only speculating. Maybe Lasergraphics just wanted more of the lower end market? Maybe there is an endless supply of $150K scanner customers? I mean, Bezos came down from his space ride and gave $100 million each to 2 people to give away to charity. I'm not math wizard, but I think $200 million buys 4,000 of the cheap $50K Lasergraphics scanners. Too bad for Lasergraphics Bezos does not have hard-on for film scanning. But even if rich, don't know I'd buy a Lasergraphics. It is just that I have zero confidence in a company that never answers emails even after years of writing them. Just shitty service from Lasergraphics. They brought it on themselves. It is not like I'm asking them to type me a GD letter. <><><><> Looks like these permanent splices turned out to be not that permanent. Well, at least the Dupont's poly base held up! DDTJRAC

I'll have to catch up on Tyler's complaint to see if it was on the LG or FilmFabriek. I haven't read it as yet. I can say, for my films, I need ease of rewind to do timed scans as opposed to best light scans. Between the LG or FilmFabriek, which is easier to do rewinds with for timed scans? Some of the archival material has exposures all over the place...just terrible to work with. Best light scans won't work for many of the films and auto exposure won't work. All that can be done is to rewind problem areas of exposure and rescan. And if it needs a third or fourth run, you keep scanning that section until you think you have an acceptable scan. Does not have to be perfect...just pretty good. Get the details down as best as you can and perfect more in post. Projectors? Yes, they can be very hard of film. Photo: D.D.Teoli Jr.

Thanks Robert! You mentioned the FilmFabreik in comparison to the LG Archivist. What areas are lacking with the FilmFabriek Robert? Of the two, which would do better with warped film?

That is why you have an extensive DVD/s instructional set and an extensive manual Perry that comes with the scanner. This gives you a start. Then you work from there. You hopefully have input from other archive employees, and you put your heads together to come up with a useable scan. But it takes practice. To take it further, a scanning company could give you modern produced test film dupes of archival material to practice on and see how your scans compares to the scans they did on the DVD as a goal. (Or not in the case of Lasergraphics.) You know Perry, if you give the same film to 10 scanning companies you will get 10 different scans. So, a lot of scanning and post work is subjective to taste. That is why I said 'useable scan' above. You can perfect it more in post once you got the useable scan. Everything about film scanning I've learned has been through trial and error. It is tough going, there is no breast feeding with it. I'm just glad I had an extensive background in still photography. The other option Perry is for the archives to do nothing. The archive that has a few million feet of film and does not have a few millions of dollars to spend on scans has little choice if they want to digitize their films, Perry. They may have $100K to spend for a scanner and a budget for a $45k a year operator. Listen Perry, you know some archives with good scanners that are just sitting, tell them to loan me the scanner for a 5 years. I will scan all their films for free (but only the ones that interest me) and they share the digital output of these films with my Archive for noncommercial use. And as a bonus I will share all my own Archive's cine' scans with them. That is the best deal they will get if their scanner is just sitting and rotting away Perry.

Yes, that is what I'd like. A sharper, steadier scan of the turd. The Retorscan has stabilization issues with warped and clear edge films. You can use stabilization post processing, but it cuts off the image even if overscanned or it does weird things to the image like twist and turn it. Some of these films are really a mess with defects and warp. It is not just the Retroscan. If you get a flat film with black edges, the Retroscan does great. But the main problem is an old computer likes mine blows out hot air like a blow dryer if I try to do stabilization on video. I have to use a house fan to pump air into the computer to cool it down. So, along with a better cine' scanner...I need a better computer for turd polishing.

My main concern is not in the film cleaning qualities of alcohol, but in the long-term effects it has on film. Some of these cleaners' stink to high hell. Beside $$, you feel like you are getting fumigated along with the film. So, I can't say commercial cleaners are just some benign chemicals that are being used and may not have any long-term effects on film. Alcohol seems the most benign. If you want the deepest of hand-cleaning, then you use a slow drying cleaner, like Filmrenew. But sometimes you can get by with a fast cleaning of film that is not too filthy. The problem with a slow drying cleaner is it takes many, many passes on the rewind bench to dry the film. I know alcohol can clean film, no question about that, as I've used it a few times in the form of alcohol wipes. But only on a few inches of film at a time. Never have tried it on an entire reel. <><><><> ‘The Birth of the Beatniks’ 1945 DDTJRAC