Andrew Wise

Memorylab do excellent scans, but most labs will only provide you a flat file unless you ask for something else. you’d need to take the footage into resolve and push the footage how you like.

I’m slowly improving my hand processing using a lomo tank, but the one thing that’s still visible are occasional water marks. also, hanging up to dry takes days. Does anyone have any suggestions? I’m doing the final rinse using distilled water with Kodak photoflo, but they still appear. My solutions are also made with distilled water. But I do rinse the film between steps with tap water. (Maybe this is bad?) I was thinking about making the tail end of a processing machine, the dryer. I was thinking about an acrylic enclosure with the standard long racks to transport the film within the cabinet, keeping it in the warm air for around 7 mins or so. I’m not processing much, only 100ft at max, so I could probably pull it into the enclosure with some leader already laced up, and once all the film was in the enclosure, it could move dead slowly within just to avoid sitting on the rollers for too long before entering the enclosure, I wanted to add an air knife to shoot off the water, particularly what’s held around the sprocket holes. This is always the source of water marks for me… I use some squeegee tongs, but water hides in the sprockets and then creeps out. I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for off the shelf air knives they’ve seen used in film processors? I have a nice quiet Chicago air compressor here i can hook it up to. Also, if you think my idea is way too over the top, and I should just buy a hanging film heater. You can say that too… I’m just a bit over excited to make things.

What’s the incentive to cross process it? I just don’t understand the appeal when we have such a variety of negative stocks. (I’m only very new to shooting film)

Thanks for all the input. I thought it was a very very long shot! I once scanned someone’s fathers 8mm where he had shot a variety of focus charts from some amateur photography magazine. I made me curious if someone had gone so far to shoot a Color chart. But you’re right, why would they think they needed to! i did manage to buy an it8 Kodachrome slide on eBay.

Thanks Richard. I did a google search using soft touch rollers and came across this site JJ Short but they appear to be rubber, and a pretty dated site. Silicone would be much nicer 🙂 the 3D printing doesn’t really leave the nicest surface even after sanding. I find on the loop where the edge of the emulsion is contacting the roller, if it tracks sideways slightly it will rub a slither of emulsion off. It’s far from the image area so not an issue, but just gets stuck on the mohair paint roller. I was hoping that I could use the soft touch rollers, but maybe they were not intended for touching the emulsion. Maybe I’d be best to find someone to make some up on a lathe with a very smooth surface.

It was E6, tetenal kit at home, so variable/depending on my skill lol

This was ektachrome BTW. I'll have to give vision3 another go

I've got it working close to where it should be, but still not perfect. I scanned something at a high gamma level of 2.4, then chose rec709 for all the 3 options. It still made it contrasty and a little saturated. But it's on the right track!

I've made a little jig for helping wipe off remjet after hand processing film in a lomo. The rollers I'm using are 3D printed, contacting the film by just the edge. But I'm curious about the foam rollers used in processing machines. They look like a shrunk down version of one of those foam rollers people use under their back, with all the little bumps. Or a paint roller designed to give texture. does anyone know of an off the shelf product I could cut down?

Oh I should probably specify I’m after the physical film itself so I can use it on my film scanner

Does anyone have any footage of a colorchecker shot on Kodachrome? Preferably on 16 or 8mm film 🙂 happy to pay or do some film scanning as a trade! thanks in advance

Who does this? I’d never just take a 3 inch reel out of the paper bag and put it on the scanner. You add leader, clean, fix crap splices, load it on a larger reel with larger hub diameter. What? This is a weird exaggeration. nobody gives me 1200ft Elmo reels full, you just didn’t read what I said. I take the variety of reels they give me - 3,5,7 inch reels and splice them together using leader to separate them. I load them on one of my 1200ft reels so I can run through a large batch in one sitting. It’s really not difficult to splice 3 inch reels together, I’m pretty quick at it. Yes I wet scan pretty much every home movie I scan. It’s very rare to get perfect, untouched film. They all have projector scratches and emulsion cracks with 8mm, I can run run wetgate at arpund 18fps if I have the AC on dehumidifier and have a strong fan blowing over the film path after the gate. otherwise it’s around 10-15fps It’s funny how I was just making a Joke about it always being a numbers show off, and you just double down on the number show lol that’s incredible you paid off the scanner with one job. You should have a few scanstations by now right? Why are you even bothering with the HDS This comment has superiority complex written all over it.

You realise the length of the film path was designed that way for the wetgate right? Or was did you think it was another terrible design fault? The long film path allows the isopropyl alcohol to evaporate before it reaches the take up reel. I have no issues lacing the HDS, it takes a second. I’m actually slower lacing up my Pictor because there’s a tighter weave and the dancer arm I have to hold. I keep a long length of leader on my 1200ft Elmo reels ready for the scanner. The leader is not an issue. the Pictor cannot scan as fast while using the wetgate due to the short film path, only about 1/3rd the speed. Although I have thought about adding a little arm bolted on the table with another roller on it to extend the film path to assist with drying. I’m charging more than others scanning home movies, and my customers are very happy with how they look. I hate the whole numbers game you constantly play making it sound you’re incredibly busy at top of your game, but I’ll participate- I’ve paid off my HDS in less than 12 months only scanning home movies, charging 60-80c per ft. I can whip through small 3 inch reels by doing what Perry also does, splicing them in order; but changing the Kodak leader to plain white leader so the ink doesn’t run when wetgate scanning, and loading them up on the Elmo 1200ft reel. I then return them to brand new 400ft reels in a can when I’m done. Customers are very happy with this. the old plastic 8mm Kodak reels are going powdery, and the small core is not good to store the film on. What archives are projecting old home movies? Statements like this make it sound like you’re too good for home movies, it’s bottomfeeder business. I don’t know why I keep replying to these stupid comments, but I guess on this forum it’s who has the most contribution points hey

Haha it does sound that way! I think the other HDS owners are too busy working scanning film to come on a forum to try convince strangers I upgraded to the HDS from a moviestuff mkii, so in my eyes the HDS is incredible value for such a powerful and simple to use scanner, with a great imager and strobed RGB light source. I haven’t used a more expensive scanner, so I can’t compare. But just looking at the price, would one say it’s about half the cost of an Lasergraphics archivist (happy to be corrected, I’m not 100% sure on the price) i primarily scan a lot of 8mm home movies, which I love doing. The HDS is perfect for this job, and I always assumed this is what the machine was designed to do. I think scanning neg was just an extra option they added. And they barely advertise it. They really push saving old film if you see the website. even if the stabilisation is not rock solid like a Lasergraphics, it really doesn’t bother me. The home movies are all hand held running around the backyard chasing the dog. They need a global stabilisation of the image area, not a rock solid stable perf. If I wanted to scan more neg for current filmmakers, I’d save up more and get a Lasergraphics for sure! Sure, the scanner could be better, people love to boost their appeared intelligence by picking at everything and how they could designed it better, but they’d do that with any scanner. It’s not fair to bash the HDS because you wanted a Lasergraphics but only had half the money to spend

The scratching was on the base side in the centre of the image. It was very very fine. I rescanned with the wetgate to make it disappear, then stopped using it. on my 16mm gate, the wear is more exaggerated where the edges of the film run

This thread gives me the pip. To backup FilmFabriek, I think Tyler is over exaggerating the stability “issue”, and is quite bipolar on what expectations he has for stability from the machine. See the video linked on the opening link of this video, my super 8 scan. 8mm will show the worst stability because it’s so small of course. I’ll upload an overscan of 16mm so you can see it’s much less noticeable on a larger format. I didn’t have any problems with scratching from my gate until about 6 months of use scanning a lot each week. I’d worn down the nickel coating on the gate, so I had to take it to a local shop to be plated. I decided to chrome plate it which was a bit difficult due to the increased thickness of the chrome, but it turned out fine. the steady gate does not have a groove for the film, the whole width of the film is in contact with the metal. It’s very important the film is clean to avoid debris sticking there. I’ve been using the gate with the chrome plating for about 8 months now, it’s all going well, there is some sign of wear in the chrome, but no pitting or scratching. I’ll have to look at redoing it again soon. I have a 2nd gate as a backup for that time. to be fair, this is wear and tear, and it’s up to the operator to monitor the condition of the scanner frequently for any wear. I assume this would be the case for most scanners, cleaning machines and film processing machines. The steady gate works well for me. Unless it’s crazy warped film. I just overscan even more than normal to allow it to wiggle around and then stabilise in post. I just realised Tyler seems to be referring to using the old gate design, which does not provide any lateral pressure to keep the film from moving horizontally in the gate. But does have a groove to keep the image area suspended in the air, keeping the edges of the film in contact with the gate

Hi all, i'm chasing a pressure plate for a K3 camera, ideally in Australia 🙂 Thanks!

Lol what?!? your opinion is jumping all over the place, you were just saying earlier how much work you are doing modifying the machine, and how it needs to be better, but now you’re saying otherwise. sometimes I feel like you just have to disagree with anyone’s comments/opinions just to appear more knowledgeable.

My assumption has always been the laser by it's own limitations just doesn't have a fine enough resolution to detect the edge of the film within a small enough tolerance to make the perf perfectly stable in the vertical axis. But this isn't a design flaw of the scanner, it's just how it is with the laser/light source! the moviestuff with the red light reflective sensor is the same. This is why other scanners eventually settled with using computer stabilisation from the images received. What Perry says here is what I agree with. The pictor scanner by FilmFabriek has excellent sprocket registration. the sprocket idler wheel triggers the camera to capture a wide overscan with the fame pretty close to where it needs to be, and then the software locks onto the sprocket hole to stabilise it perfectly in real time as you scan. It works really well! I'd make a wild guess that at some stage the HDS will benefit from a paid firmware/software update to add the same stabilisation which I'd be very keen to jump on

huh? I was talking about super 8, the video linked is super 8, and the link I shared uploaded by Nicki Coyle is super 8. I made no mention of 16mm? To be honest, I have no idea how the machines at Kodak perforate the film, I've never been there or spoken to one of their workers. I'd only read that info about the super 8 perforations online somewhere, presumably a comment by a psudoexpert on a forum I guessed the design of the gate was chosen to cause the film to track in one direction. the rollers above and below the gate are on a slight angle to (what I assume) cause the film to want to track in one direction. Here's a video of some 16mm original camera positive running, pushed against the two bearings causing them to spin. But you're right, I have had film just do it's own thing regardless of the rollers. I now own two gates of each format, so I can send one away to be re chrome plated as I need to while I continue using the other. no issue with scratching with the chrome plating. On my little filmfabriek Pictor I also own, the gate has two little springy arms sticking out pushing the film hard against one edge of the gate. it works really well, just not that great for very badly warped 8mm as it wants to jump out. They have a new gate with no springs probably to fix that

That's my video, the 2nd video linked. I did scan it on my HDS after i shot that film. The registration isn't terrible, and you don't judge a scans stability by the sproket hole. The sproket hole naturally wiggles from left to right because at kodak when they punch the holes out, they aren't a uniform distance from the edge. The scanner gate keeps the film running flush with one side of the film, so the film itself is tracking perfectly - when i overscan even futher to see the edge of the film you can see it's rock solid. The vertical registration on the HDS isn't perfect, but it's damn close, maybe 95% there. But keep in mind the sproket hole is not what you should be stabilising film to. the camera you shot it on will have movement as the film was flopping around in the cartridge. Take a look at this great scan on a scanstation, still the same left/right wiggle with the sproket hole, but it's more stable vertically than the HDS. The exposed frame is still moving around. Phoenix film resotration suite has a really nice feature called frame lock, that looks at overscaned film and works out what's the actual exposed frame of the image based on the black border, and locks onto that. so the sproket hole will be going wild all over the place while the frame is solid. https://filmworkz.com/dvo/dvo-frame-lock/ I've tried it, and it works very well! just need a decent overscan, something where the 5K camera will really help with for a 4k export.

It’s the 40mm APO-Componon f2.8 I think Schneider have renamed the product line pyrite Why would you want a longer optical path? And longer focal length? I’m really not sure it would improve the design. larger scanners like a scanstation use an APS-C or larger sized sensor. They would need a longer extension between the sensor and lens. Just like on the HDS when you scan 4K you spin the extension tube to move the lens away as you’ve essentially increased the size of the sensor used. But it reduces the amount of light too.

It does scan out of the box in colour. the light source on the scanner is made up of red, green and blue LEDs. When they are all on, you get white light. The bayer filter on a camera sensor has red, green and blue filters. The idea is that the LEDs will match what the bayer filter on the camera, so you can saturate every photosite with light on the sensor totally. Cameras dynamic range is dependant on a few things (a lot that goes over my head so i won't pretend i understand), and having the RGB to saturate each channel on the camera is important for that. The LED design was made by frank vine - cine2digits, you can read about his design here. He's a very bright guy, and did a great job with it. http://www.cine2digits.co.uk/ in the software there are dials to adjust the intensity of each channel, and there is also an automatic function for positive film where it adjusts each channel to keep the white point just under clipping. It actually works really well. i'm a huge fan of it compared to the moviestuff software that used an average automatic exposure with a slider for exposure compensation. It would overexpose highlights if most of the scene was dark. The FF auto expososure does have limitatations, if it's a birthday party and someone is blowing out candles, it will prevent the candle from clipping, but the other parts of the scene would be too under exposed. So i will click to to manual, and scroll the exposure up manually. Also if someone is doing a pan over the ocean or grass with no white elements, it would tend to bring the scene up too much. My scanning method would be a mix of auto and manual. That's almost unbeliveable! I would have accepted that offer in a heartbeat. Incredibly generous. I'm very happy with my Filmfabriek scanners, i own both the HDS+ and the pictor. I'd buy more if i had more work and need. I mostly scan positive 8mm move movies, and occasionally 16 and 8mm negative shot by filmmakers and hobbiests today on fresh film. I've managed to work out the negative scanning side of the software, and i can colour balance the scene in 30 sec now. Even easier if they shoot a grey card.

There is no element in there, the glass you’re seeing is just the protruding rear element from the lens itself. the adapter is just a metal ring to take the v mount lens to an m42 threaded mount 🙂 there are no additional elements added to the HDS, it’s just LENS > v mount/M42 > generic M42 helicoid > M42/Cmount > camera

Have you considered updating to the recent paid software update? They have added waveform and vectorscope. I haven’t updated my HDS, but my Pictor has the most recent paid update with the new scopes 🙂