Not my best Super 8 footage yet.

[Carl Looper]

I've just done a test where I did the following:

 

1. Find two frames that are the most different from each other in terms of the top right corner.

2. Rotate one image with respect to the other so that the visible right edges in each frame are parallel. On the two I found, I had to do a rotation of 0.24 degrees.

3. Translate one image up/down until the top/bottom edges of the perfs coincide.

4. Translate one image left/right until the camera mask edges coincide - we have to use the camera mask edge here because (unlike the scanner) we can't see the left edge of the film.

 

I then cut back and forth between the two frames and the registration was absolutely perfect. And I mean perfect (not just "Super8" perfect).

 

And that's with a wildly weaving perf in the filmstock.

 

C

Edited August 25, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Perry Paolantonio]

I'm a film guy and I want my camera negative to be perfect, not need cleanup work in post production. The format will never progress with an inherent problem like this existing and the only solution is transferring it to digital formats for stabilization. We need a stock and cameras which are made better and don't have these problems. Then anyone, anywhere who transfers Super 8 to digital or even blows it up to 16/35, won't see these problems ever again.

 

I wouldn't hold your breath on any changes to the stock. Kodak claims the stock is within the SMPTE spec for Super 8, which allows for this level of inconsistent perf placement -- something that's been baked into the format since the beginning (see my post above with a link to film from 1969 that has a slightly different irregular perf pattern). Do you really think they're going to bother spending resources on this at this stage of Super 8's life cycle? Remember, we're talking about Kodak here - not exactly known for their forward thinking...

 

My frustration is that fixing things digitally doesn't solve any problems. Re-inventing the format, doesn't either. The solution is simple, it's small scale and it's something that will keep the format exactly what it is today, without these problems.

There are two problems seen in the video at the beginning of this thread:

1) The perforation wiggles back and forth. Two or three months ago, the whole frame would have wiggled and the perf would have been stable. A software update from Lasergraphics now uses the edge of the film to stabilize the image while scanning. There is NO post-scan manipulation necessary to do this. The perf movement you see is there because the film edges are now stable. What you're getting here is a more accurate scan because it reflects the state of the actual film and the whacky perf positions from frame to frame -- the scan shows how the strip of film is constructed. Again, nothing needs to happen here other than selecting the type of optical registration you want, before initiating the scan. It's a real-time operation done while the film is being scanned. Since the perf will be cropped out anyway, all of this is kind of moot - it's behind the scenes stuff done by the scanner that just happens to be exposed if you overscan the way the film above was overscanned.

2) The rotational rocking motion: the source of this is unknown. But we've scanned film from 4-5 different Logmar cameras so far and have yet to see anything resembling that rotation. Carl is correct that the problem seems to be either:

A) something specific to that camera

-or-

B) something that was done AFTER the scan and before upload to Vimeo.

With the horizontal weave fixed IN THE SCANNER, in REALTIME, at this point, I don't think it matters that much that the perforations are imperfect. Other scanner manufacturers will probably implement a similar fix soon, and eventually this problem will just go away and we'll all have stable scans.

The rocking motion in this scan, though, is curious and I'd like to know more about where that came from. We've never seen it on our ScanStation and we've scanned hundreds of thousands of feet of S8 on that machine.

-perry

Edited August 25, 2015 by Perry Paolantonio

[Carl Looper]

I mentioned earlier that the rocking is due to either:

 

a. camera gate weave

b. something done after the scan.

 

But this is the case only if it's not the scanner.

 

I've subsequently elliminated camera gate weave so the actual options are:

 

a. post-scan weave (if it's not scanner weave), or indeed:

b. scanner weave

 

In a masked transfer (where you don't see the distracting perf) the weave in this clip isn't necessarily that bad (depending on where your aesthetics lie), but from a machine vision perspective it's nowhere near as perfect as it could be. For I'm getting pixel perfect alignment through a manual version of what a well oiled machine vision algorithm could do quite effortlessly in real time.

 

The requisite algorithms are not in terms of the voodoo required for image stabilisation (as in After Effects, etc) but in terms of basic machine vision techniques. For the only thing that needs to be tracked is the left edge of the film and the vertical shift in the perf. No "content aware" voodoo. Just doing exactly what a film projector does. Nothing more. No reinvention of the wheel here.

 

And one would have pixel perfect alignment.

For me, I'm not that concerned with the scanner - I can write my own algorithms if it turns out it's in the scanner. More important to me was verifying whether the issue was in the camera. Because if it was in the camera, the software task would be a lot more involved (camera mask tracking or indeed in some cases: content tracking - and possibly requiring artist assist in some cases - handheld night time shoot). But the issue is not in the camera. And so the software task is a million times simpler.

 

C

Edited August 25, 2015 by Carl Looper

[David Cunningham]

For me this all goes back to an argument I've had a bunch of times on this forum about Super 8...

 

Stop trying to make an intentionally high fault tolerant and inherently flawed format a professional standard. When Kodak designed this system the designed it to be simple, fast and cheap. Someone once argued with me for many days that regular 8mm would have to be inferior to Super 8... because why would Kodak develop a lesser system... and of course, my answer was they DID just that with the trade off being ease of use.

 

For me, part of the format is it's imperfections. The concept of Super 8 jitter and graininess have been part of the format since inception. The fact that the center of the image and the edge of the image are never perfectly in focus together because of the lack of a proper pressure plate and inherent curve of the film has ALWAYS been there. It's part of the charm and the look.

 

If you want perfectly registered/stable and sharp film footage, use a good 16mm camera. Super 8 was meant for home movies... there is no reason to try and make it better. That's the charm we're going for. If inexpensive (and decent so I exclude AGFA) color reversal was still available I would only use that for my wedding films. Sadly, it's not so I have to use negative even though the "look" is not quite right. It's all we have left to offer these days.

 

Anyhow... that's my rant for today. :)

[Tyler Purcell]

I wouldn't hold your breath on any changes to the stock.

There are many companies who cut their own stock and still have these problems (more about this below)

 

A) something specific to that camera

 

-or-

 

B) something that was done AFTER the scan and before upload to Vimeo.

Here are some examples which are not from the same camera and all have the same problem.

 

 

https://vimeo.com/groups/super8/videos/87243287

 

Now… with that said… I haven't been able to find very many scans of other cameras where the entire frame is in the scan. Most people crop it out, so comparing to other cameras has been hard. I've done some comparing, but other cameras have such horrible registration issues, it's almost impossible to figure out if it's just registration.

[Perry Paolantonio]

Here are some examples which are not from the same camera and all have the same problem.

 

https://vimeo.com/groups/super8/videos/87243287

 

 

I personally scanned both of these examples. These are the ones I mentioned above, posted by Friedemann Wachsmuth. Both were shot on the Logmar, both scanned on our ScanStation - the first one you link to was scanned on the newer 5k version of the scanner, the second one, which is about a year older, was done on our old 2k scanner (same machine, different sensors). In both cases, Friedemann post-stabilized the image. In both cases, the scans were done before Lasergraphics released a software update that fixes horizontal registration, which is why he did the post-scan stabilization.

 

Neither scan exhibits any rocking until they're stabilized in software later. What you are seeing on those Vimeo clips is not what the scan looked like.

 

That said, that stabilization step is no longer necessary because it's now done during the scan using the horizontal lines of the perf to do vertical registration and the left (perf-side) edge for horizontal registration.

 

There is *no* rocking problem we're aware of in the scanner, which means this issue is either something to do with the camera (maybe the edge guide wasn't engaged?) or something that Pro8mm or Moises did after the scan was complete. But I can assure you that there is no rocking of the image in the scan itself. This issue is a red herring, in my opinion.

 

-perry

[Tyler Purcell]

Stop trying to make an intentionally high fault tolerant and inherently flawed format a professional standard.

When companies make multi-thousnd dollar cameras for a format that's "inherently flawed" it really riles me up. It's like making a DV camera with a 1080p HD CMOS sensor, what's the point?

 

I don't think super 8 is intentionally flawed and the minor flaws it has, are easy to fix. Logmar fixes MOST of them, but they can't fix the cutting of the stock, that's down to the manufacturer.

 

My issue is that people spend money assuming they're getting the best quality possible and they aren't. My beef has nothing to do with buying a used camera on ebay for $100 and running some film through it. My beef has to do with people spending thousands on a "better" camera and it having lots of other flaws.

[Tyler Purcell]

Neither scan exhibits any rocking until they're stabilized in software later.

So wait… your contemplating it's a problem introduced post scan?

 

The original posters clip has the same problem… so… could they have used the same post processing? (seems unlikely)

Honestly, I don't think it's something done after the scan because it doesn't effect the perf. You'd see the same rocking motion with the perf, but you don't.

 

Maybe it's a red herring, but it's absolutely a game stopper in my opinion.

[Perry Paolantonio]

So wait… your contemplating it's a problem introduced post scan?

 

There's no contemplation or guessing here. I personally scanned the film you used as examples, on the scanner that's sitting 10 feet away from me right now. There is no rocking in the original scan, that appeared after it was post-scan stabilized. At least for the earlier example, the fact that it was stabilized was brought up by Friedemann, who shot the film, in the comments on that vimeo clip.

 

The original posters clip has the same problem… so… could they have used the same post processing? (seems unlikely)

Honestly, I don't think it's something done after the scan because it doesn't effect the perf. You'd see the same rocking motion with the perf, but you don't.

 

Why is that so hard to imagine? I think it was done in either Motion or After Effects, which are commonly available tools.

 

 

Maybe it's a red herring, but it's absolutely a game stopper in my opinion.

Doesn't that seem a bit premature, since we don't know what caused this?

Seriously, I'm pretty sure since we got the ScanStation a couple years ago, we've scanned well over 400,000 feet of film on it, in 8mm, Super 8 and 16mm. These three films we're talking about are the *only* ones I've ever seen this rocking motion on.

-perry

[Tyler Purcell]

The only correlation is the camera. That's why I'm guessing, that's where the problem lies.

 

The film needed "stabilization" according to Friedemann, so if it were perfect on the scanner, he wouldn't have needed to use it.

[Perry Paolantonio]

The film needed "stabilization" according to Friedemann, so if it were perfect on the scanner, he wouldn't have needed to use it.

 

Ok, Sorry if I seem a little snippy here, but have you actually read any of this thread?

 

The two examples Friedemann posted are from BEFORE Lasergraphics updated the scanner software - the earlier one is from over a year ago, the newer one from May of this year. The scanner update, which was literally released in the last few weeks, does the stabilization in the scanner. This is NO LONGER AN ISSUE, and the videos you're using as reference are "old" in the sense that they were scanned before this addition to the ScanStation software, and would have required a post-scan stabilization pass to correct for the perf alignment issue.

 

We didn't scan the clip Moises posted at the beginning of this thread, Pro8mm did, so they'd have to provide detail on the workflow on their end, I can't say what happened there. But it sure looks like the same rocking motion we see in Friedemann's clip so it seems likely to me that a similar stabilization pass was made that caused this, at some point after the scan and before the video went up on Vimeo.

 

As I've said repeatedly, we've never seen this rocking motion in our scans, and it is definitely NOT in the original scans we did for Friedemann, or in scans we've done for any other Logmar owners.

 

-perry

[Tyler Purcell]

I know you think it's a software/digital glitch, but unless I'm not understanding how the software works, we'd see the same issues with the perf and we don't.

 

If you can post some other good scan's of Super 8, I'd love to see them.

[Carl Looper]

There is no issue in the camera.

 

The rocking we see in the scan / post scan is completely artificial. It is not being physically induced by the film rocking/twisting in the camera gate.

 

I've already proved this to myself, and anyone else can prove it to themselves by following the same test as previously posted.

 

Of course, if one does not fully appreciate geometry and some basic physics, or otherwise can't be stuffed doing the test, or would like a relaxing documentary on the subject instead, then one wil remain unconvinced.

 

Nevertheless, the issue is in the machine vision algorithms used in the scanner software and/or some other post scan software.

 

Carl

Edited August 25, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Perry Paolantonio]

 

 

I know you think it's a software/digital glitch, but unless I'm not understanding how the software works, we'd see the same issues with the perf and we don't.

 

Actually, I never said it was definitely a software glitch. It could also be something in the camera.

 

You're saying that if the rocking was introduced in stabilization then it should also affect the perf? It's really hard to tell on Vimeo since you can't frame through the film or download the file to load up in a desktop application, but pausing it in full screen mode, then playing and pausing quickly, it sure looks to me like the perf's right edge is parallel with the frame's left edge (even though the distance between them changes from frame to frame). That would indicate that it's moving in sync with the rocking motion.

 

I'll see if I can get permission to post footage shot on a logmar. I believe we're expecting some to arrive in the next week or so. At the moment, I don't have any scans of footage shot on that camera that includes the perfs.

 

-perry

[Carl Looper]

I know you think it's a software/digital glitch, but unless I'm not understanding how the software works, we'd see the same issues with the perf and we don't.

 

If you can post some other good scan's of Super 8, I'd love to see them.

 

 

In Wachsmuth's 2nd test (showing a perf) the perf is rocking in sync with the camera mask. However it is difficult to appreciate this at the location of the perf, in the same way as it is difficult to appreciate the rocking of the camera mask edge, immediately adjacent to the perf. This is because the perf and adjacent mask are closer to the centre of rotation, where the rocking will exhibit a correspondingly smaller magnitude. And at the centre of rotation there would be no rocking at all.

 

C

Edited August 25, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

For me this all goes back to an argument I've had a bunch of times on this forum about Super 8...

 

Stop trying to make an intentionally high fault tolerant and inherently flawed format a professional standard. When Kodak designed this system the designed it to be simple, fast and cheap. Someone once argued with me for many days that regular 8mm would have to be inferior to Super 8... because why would Kodak develop a lesser system... and of course, my answer was they DID just that with the trade off being ease of use.

 

For me, part of the format is it's imperfections. The concept of Super 8 jitter and graininess have been part of the format since inception. The fact that the center of the image and the edge of the image are never perfectly in focus together because of the lack of a proper pressure plate and inherent curve of the film has ALWAYS been there. It's part of the charm and the look.

 

If you want perfectly registered/stable and sharp film footage, use a good 16mm camera. Super 8 was meant for home movies... there is no reason to try and make it better. That's the charm we're going for. If inexpensive (and decent so I exclude AGFA) color reversal was still available I would only use that for my wedding films. Sadly, it's not so I have to use negative even though the "look" is not quite right. It's all we have left to offer these days.

 

Anyhow... that's my rant for today. :)

 

A "high fault tolerent format" is the complete opposite of an "inherently faulty format".

 

The jitter occuring in the scans is software induced. If you like this jitter (and it's not a bad jitter at all) it is nevertheless nothing to do with the charm of Super8. It is the charm of the software.

 

16mm was also meant for home movies. Doesn't mean we have to conform to such a meaning. Nothing wrong with home movies - I love them. Be they shot on 8mm, Super8, 16mm, or indeed 35mm - one of my favourite filmmakers makes home movies on 35mm. Literally. In his back yard with the kids. Down at the pool. All lovingly photographed.

 

 

C

Edited August 25, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Craig Janeway]

The Logmar camera look like a fine working camera, but not sure why there's accumulated materal around the edge of the frame? The scanning process uses from what I can see a method to counter how it transports film via software. Everyone is assuming the edge of the frame is what we are seeing in the scan, but it's not. The perf is showing us the frame edge moving with the perf. The software is showing stable image in frame with moving perf, and to me, these look like two different videos, one of the edge like an effect, and the center video the one made to look like film. In my mind, neither are Super8, but video made to look like Super8.

 

The argument to project this footage is a valid one. I suggest shooting footage with the Logmar camera, and then project on a screen and take a video off the screen and show how the footage projects, and then scan it, and show how it looks scanned. Be sure to show projector to verify projection of film when making the demo video of the film projection. Just looking at grain and any jitter present that is different than the scan footage. I submit that scanning is where we lose the charm of Super8, and projection is where we'll see it. If scanning loses this charm of Super8, then we need to find another way to get the footage into digital, one that can record the fullness of Super8 (any film really).

Edited August 25, 2015 by Craig Janeway

[Carl Looper]

The Logmar camera look like a fine working camera, but not sure why there's accumulated materal around the edge of the frame? The scanning process uses from what I can see a method to counter how it transports film via software. Everyone is assuming the edge of the frame is what we are seeing in the scan, but it's not. The perf is showing us the frame edge moving with the perf. The software is showing stable image in frame with moving perf, and to me, these look like two different videos, one of the edge like an effect, and the center video the one made to look like film. In my mind, neither are Super8, but video made to look like Super8.

 

The argument to project this footage is a valid one. I suggest shooting footage with the Logmar camera, and then project on a screen and take a video off the screen and show how the footage projects, and then scan it, and show how it looks scanned. Be sure to show projector to verify projection of film when making the demo video of the film projection. Just looking at grain and any jitter present that is different than the scan footage. I submit that scanning is where we lose the charm of Super8, and projection is where we'll see it. If scanning loses this charm of Super8, then we need to find another way to get the footage into digital, one that can record the fullness of Super8 (any film really).

 

The accumulated material around the frame is due to the gate not being cleaned. Nothing to do with the camera.

 

Contemporary scanners use software registration. They like to call it "optical pin registration" which sounds better than "software registration". But it is software registration, and means the scanner can be re-programmed. Earlier demos of the Logmar did not use the scanner's native software, but used third party software, because the scanner software (at that time) was locking onto the perf when it should have been (and is now) locking onto the edge of the film.

 

The sideways registration of film has never been registered by the perf. It's only scanner software developers (and many others besides) that were under that mistaken impression. Now if a perf didn't weave as wildly as this batch of Supr8 film did, nobody would ever notice the error made by the software developers. They would find the tiny left/right jitter as part of the charm of Super8 when in fact it is entirely the charm of a software error.

 

But they would not have found it quite so "charming" had the same software error been applied to the wildly weaving perf of this particlar batch of Super8 film. They'd be finding it very wrong indeed.

 

It is only when a batch of Super8, with a particularly wild weave was found, that scanner developers realised the problem - at first blaming the filmstock. Either way it didn't really matter because they could go back and reprogram the scanner. They reprogrammed the scanner to use the edge of the film which resolved the error. This is the genius of modern scanner technology - it is programmable.

 

The image is now properly sideways registered.

 

If by "edge of the frame" one means the white line down the right side of the scan, then this is the edge of the film. The right edge of the film. The fact that it is bellowing with respect to the camera mask is due to the width of the film being variable - created during the slitting of the film. The left edge of the film (which we can not see) is not bellowing left/right with respect to the camera mask. This is because film in the camera is hard locked to the camera gate by the left edge of the film. The right edge is allowed to vary in the gate. The fact that the perf is weaving in sync with the right edge of the film is due to the fact that the film perforator must have been aligned to the right edge. Had it been aligned to the left edge we would not have such a wildly weaving perf and we would not have discovered the error in the scanner software.

 

We'd be watching micro-jitter and marvelling at a software error and calling it the charm of Super8.

 

And don't get me started on grain. The grain we see in a scan is greater than the grain we see in projected Super8, due to a process called grain aliasing. By increasing the resolution of a scan the grain in the scan will move back towards the grain of film, as it is in a film projector.

 

So if you prefer to see grainier scans you are once again not in admiration of the charms of Super8 but an artifact of scanning.

 

C

Edited August 25, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Craig Janeway]

 

The accumulated material around the frame is due to the gate not being cleaned. Nothing to do with the camera.

 

Contemporary scanners use software registration. They like to call it "optical pin registration" which sounds better than "software registration". But it is software registration, and means the scanner can be re-programmed. Earlier demos of the Logmar did not use the scanner's native software, but used third party software, because the scanner software (at that time) was locking onto the perf when it should have been (and is now) locking onto the edge of the film.

 

The sideways registration of film has never been registered by the perf. It's only scanner software developers (and many others besides) that were under that mistaken impression. Now if a perf didn't weave as wildly as this batch of Supr8 film did, nobody would ever notice the error made by the software developers. They would find the tiny left/right jitter as part of the charm of Super8 when in fact it is entirely the charm of a software error.

 

But they would not have found it quite so "charming" had the same software error been applied to the wildly weaving perf of this particlar batch of Super8 film. They'd be finding it very wrong indeed.

 

It is only when a batch of Super8, with a particularly wild weave was found, that scanner developers realised the problem - at first blaming the filmstock. Either way it didn't really matter because they could go back and reprogram the scanner. They reprogrammed the scanner to use the edge of the film which resolved the error. This is the genius of modern scanner technology - it is programmable.

 

The image is now properly sideways registered.

 

If by "edge of the frame" one means the white line down the right side of the scan, then this is the edge of the film. The right edge of the film. The fact that it is bellowing with respect to the camera mask is due to the width of the film being variable - created during the slitting of the film. The left edge of the film (which we can not see) is not bellowing left/right with respect to the camera mask. This is because film in the camera is hard locked to the camera gate by the left edge of the film. The right edge is allowed to vary in the gate. The fact that the perf is weaving in sync with the right edge of the film is due to the fact that the film perforator must have been aligned to the right edge. Had it been aligned to the left edge we would not have such a wildly weaving perf and we would not have discovered the error in the scanner software.

 

We'd be watching micro-jitter and marvelling at a software error and calling it the charm of Super8.

 

And don't get me started on grain. The grain we see in a scan is greater than the grain we see in projected Super8, due to a process called grain aliasing. By increasing the resolution of a scan the grain in the scan will move back towards the grain of film, as it is in a film projector.

 

So if you prefer to see grainier scans you are once again not in admiration of the charms of Super8 but an artifact of scanning.

 

C

I get it now. So the thread is about how a bad batch of Super8 helped scanner software developers improve the scanning process. I'm still not getting how the debris is present around the frame of the video? This is from the scanner, not the camera, correct? Also, the grain looks simulated to me. Is the software creating additional grain in a repeating pattern unrelated to gradient density of the film as well? Just eyeballing the playback, one gets the sense of a rythmic repeating pattern of both the perf and the grain, and honestly the footage/scan looks unnatural to my eyes.

[Carl Looper]

I get it now. So the thread is about how a bad batch of Super8 helped scanner software developers improve the scanning process. I'm still not getting how the debris is present around the frame of the video? This is from the scanner, not the camera, correct? Also, the grain looks simulated to me. Is the software creating additional grain in a repeating pattern unrelated to gradient density of the film as well? Just eyeballing the playback, one gets the sense of a rythmic repeating pattern of both the perf and the grain, and honestly the footage/scan looks unnatural to my eyes.

 

The accumulated material is in the camera, not the scanner. The camera gate hadn't been cleaned prior to shooting.

 

The grain is not simulated. It is not video with a fake film look if that's what you're entertaining. It is a scan of real film. And it looks like it as well.

 

I cant see what you are talking about regarding grain. There will be video compression artifacts that create weird sorts of motions (if you look closely enough) but that's nothing to do with the scan - that's to do with the compression required to get it up on public screens.

 

If by "unnatural" is meant a steering of this discussion towards some conspiracy theory then I'm outa here.

 

C

Edited August 26, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Craig Janeway]

Just an example of stabalization or "Steady" and what grain should look like with Super8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnxRUUEUOTA

[Craig Janeway]

 

I personally scanned both of these examples. These are the ones I mentioned above, posted by Friedemann Wachsmuth. Both were shot on the Logmar, both scanned on our ScanStation - the first one you link to was scanned on the newer 5k version of the scanner, the second one, which is about a year older, was done on our old 2k scanner (same machine, different sensors). In both cases, Friedemann post-stabilized the image. In both cases, the scans were done before Lasergraphics released a software update that fixes horizontal registration, which is why he did the post-scan stabilization.

 

Neither scan exhibits any rocking until they're stabilized in software later. What you are seeing on those Vimeo clips is not what the scan looked like.

 

That said, that stabilization step is no longer necessary because it's now done during the scan using the horizontal lines of the perf to do vertical registration and the left (perf-side) edge for horizontal registration.

 

There is *no* rocking problem we're aware of in the scanner, which means this issue is either something to do with the camera (maybe the edge guide wasn't engaged?) or something that Pro8mm or Moises did after the scan was complete. But I can assure you that there is no rocking of the image in the scan itself. This issue is a red herring, in my opinion.

 

-perry

Just trying to catch up on this tread and understand it better. Your scans look really good to me. So, what's the take away from this thread? Scanning has improved? Super8 quality depends on the batch of film? Or, we need a better camera to shoot Super8?

[Carl Looper]

Just an example of stabalization or "Steady" and what grain should look like with Super8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnxRUUEUOTA

 

Ah I see. You want less grain.

 

The stabilisation done in your clip is not done by the scanning stage, but by a second step in which the scan is re-stabilised in third party software - due to limitations in the scanner. We're trying to avoid having to do that because it takes a lot of time, and doesn't always work with all possible shots.

 

Your clip has also had the grain cleaned up - which is a software process. In the clip at the head of this post the grain hasn't been cleaned up.

 

Where is this discussion going? Are you mounting an argument that what we're seeing in Moises clip did not originate on Super8?

 

Are you trying to suggest that it's video that's been faked to look like "Super8", but hasn't done a good job of it?

 

That's it, isn't it? Oh my god.

 

C

Edited August 26, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Just trying to catch up on this tread and understand it better. Your scans look really good to me. So, what's the take away from this thread? Scanning has improved? Super8 quality depends on the batch of film? Or, we need a better camera to shoot Super8?

 

The scan demonstrates the following:

 

1. That perf weave in Super8 film doesn't matter. The image stays put regardless, because the perf in Super8 film is not used to sideways register the image.

2. The image does, however, rock a little (rotate a little) and it is this rocking which is a bone of contention - what is causing it?

 

We are currently at a juncture where we are caught between maintaining good PR, dismissing it as unresolvable, or actually resolving the issue. I favour the last option.

 

C

Edited August 26, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Craig Janeway]

 

Ah I see. You want less grain.

 

The stabilisation done in your clip is not done by the scanning stage, but by a second step in which the scan is re-stabilised in third party software - due to limitations in the scanner. We're trying to avoid having to do that because it takes a lot of time, and doesn't always work with all possible shots.

 

Your clip has also had the grain cleaned up - which is a software process. In the clip at the head of this post the grain hasn't been cleaned up.

 

Where is this discussion going? Are you mounting an argument that what we're seeing in Moises clip did not originate on Super8?

 

Are you trying to suggest that it's video that's been faked to look like "Super8", but hasn't done a good job of it?

 

That's it, isn't it? Oh my god.

 

C

Right, so scanning has evloved to do the stabalization at scan time and has been improved upon with the update. Yes I was thinking grain was needing some clean up on the OP first post. How much of that is noise versus actual grain? I like grain, but scanning seems to add a bunch of white specs? Like out of place pixels. I recall my film projecting and looking not so noisy. Is there a way for software to show you what is grain and what is sensor noise? Or a way to test scan one way and see actual grain and then compare? I guess I'm asking how does software deal with "cleaning up grain" and why can't the scanner scan it better?

Edited August 26, 2015 by Craig Janeway