[Tig] RE: Oxberry scanners

Saiprasad sai at efxmagic.com
Wed Nov 29 03:02:05 GMT 2006

From: Saiprasad [mailto:sai at efxmagic.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:47 PM
To: 'cws at al.com.au'
Cc: 'Jason Crump'; 'tig at colorist.org'
Subject: RE: Oxberry scanners

That is very true Chris .. the manufacturers say they are selling us the
best scanners etc 
etc .. but would I buy a machine from a manufacturer who
says that he is selling me only the tools and not a solution 
 I doubt it.
But in all fairness, I get your  point and I agree. 

With regards to CV’s
  we have achieved some of our best results scanning at
full range. It seems to give us more room to play with it before degradation
sets it. just our perceptions perhaps.
sai at efxmagic.com

From: Chris Swinbanks [mailto:cws at al.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:38 PM
To: Saiprasad
Cc: 'Jason Crump'; tig at colorist.org
Subject: Re: Oxberry scanners

I never said it was easy....! The manufacturers only give you the tools to
get the job done, to various levels of competency.
But it is possible to get it very close. Takes a lot of experimenting and
understanding of the equipment and what they are meant to do, as well as
what they do do), the lab processes and how well they are controlled, trial
& error.
Sticking pretty close to the old Cineon dynamic range will always give you
you're best bet at outputting at most noteworthy facilities around the world
and getting an acceptable result.


Saiprasad wrote: 
Well with respect to colorimetry and faithfully translating the 'analog'
data off OCN and recording them out, I have yet to come across a scanner
manufacturer that will actually guarantee that. They all 'say' that we can
create Lut's and all that fancy talk which really means you need "color
scientist" to do some kind of magic. And even then, just scanning a
particular OCN emulsion and recording it straight out has never given us the
exact densities (after DMIN has been subtracted)when compared to the OCN. If
there is someone out there who has actually done that .. I'm sure he will
not be willing to share it. just goes to say that there is still a lot of
talk without any simple solution a manufacturer can provide. With new
emulsions , different labs, recorder drift, makes it harder if not

Having said that ... what most manufacturers do is just give us a standard
LUT and leave the rest to us operators to figure out. What most of us do is
try to capture as much of the dynamic range as possible and adjust the
images digitally so that when recorded they will look good on film. 

Most film recorders also provide you the ability to record a full range
cineon file as apposed to a 95-685 point setting. 

Coming to think of it, remember that all scanners are linear devices. So the
conversion to Log happens downstream. So you can set it up anyway you like.
Why not use more CV's to achieve a look instead of restricting it to 95-685
and leaving the rest for head room.

I think I have confused myself even more now than before ... ;-)

sai at efxmagic.com
p.s. I'm not upto speed on current developments. If there is something I am
missing, please please let me know.

Chris Swinbanks
Post Services
ph 02 9383 4860
mb 0418 411 499
Animal Logic Film
Bldg 54 Fox Studios Australia, 38 Driver Ave,
Moore Park NSW 2021 Australia
telephone: +61 2 9383 4800 fax: +61 2 9383 4801 cws at al.com.au

More information about the Tig mailing list