From perry at gammaraydigital.com Sat Sep 5 21:10:01 2015 From: perry at gammaraydigital.com (Perry Paolantonio) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 16:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Tig] Northlight print filter question Message-ID: <6678A5BF-9823-4D78-B0C1-C37001CF15FF@gammaraydigital.com> Our Northlight 1 has the optional filter installed for scanning prints. The idea is that it mimics the density of neg stock, which is what the scanner is really set up for. The filter never seems to engage though, and I'm wondering if any of you happen to know if this is something that should just happen automatically when scanning positive stock or if something needs to be set somewhere to move it into position? We're getting blowout and some digital artifacting in the very thinnest areas on a print, which led me to investigate this. The filter is connected to a solenoid that swings it into position in the path above the lamp house but below the light pipe that goes up to the film, but the filter just sits there. Checked the only connection (from the solenoid to the back of one of the internal controllers), and it's all seated properly as far as I can tell. I see in the main northlight.cfg file, there's an entry for the filter: filterversion 2 # version of orange filter assy What I'm wondering is if this is engaged in a config file or something? Our scanner had two previous owners and I can't tell what in the config files was altered (though some stuff definitely was because there are notes and dates) and what was original. I've found a bunch of old config files, but no reference to this, so I'm not sure if the issue is a faulty solenoid or a software thing. Thanks! -perry --- Perry Paolantonio, Gamma Ray Digital, Inc. 6k Film Scanning - Blu-ray - DVD - Film Restoration t 617 379 0381 | www.gammaraydigital.com | Tw: @gammaraydigital | FB: www.facebook.com/gammaraydigital From jamworks at earthlink.net Tue Sep 15 21:19:58 2015 From: jamworks at earthlink.net (John A. Mozzer) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:19:58 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images Message-ID: <55F87D6E.4050103@earthlink.net> If you think this suggestion is off the wall, perhaps you can let me know. Would it make sense at all for someone, somewhere, to offer a service scanning still images on a film scanner, like the Lasergraphics Scan Station? The process would probably involve manually positioning shorts strips of 35mm film in the gate, one frame at a time. If such a service was available, I might be the first customer. If someone went into the business of providing such a service, how much do you think they would have to charge (i.e., per cut roll of film?) The price would have to be considerably less then drum scans ($50 and up per image) for it to make any sense. The resulting digital images should be 3500 to 5200 pixels per inch, RGB in the TIFF file format, purposely flat and intended to be brought into Photoshop. I believe the options for scanning still 35mm film images are rather limited, more than you might initially think. The Nikon Coolscan is popular among do-it-yourselfers, but I am under the impression it introduces too much noise when scanning above 2,000 pixels per inch. A crop of photo labs catering to photographers who shoot on film offer scanning on Noritsu equipment ($40 to $90 per cut roll). However, I've had tests done by several of those services, and find they are unable to turn off the Noritsu's default grain removal filter. Please let me know what you think. John A. Mozzer jamworks.smugmug.com From riza at silver.co.uk Tue Sep 15 21:29:29 2015 From: riza at silver.co.uk (Riza Pacalioglu) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:29:29 +0000 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: <55F87D6E.4050103@earthlink.net> References: <55F87D6E.4050103@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6D052A57-C4A7-417D-A674-A9C8EDE8A9A0@silver.co.uk> I'm letting you know :-) Riza Pacalioglu Producer, England http://ethem.co.uk > On 15 Sep 2015, at 21:22, John A. Mozzer via Tig wrote: > > If you think this suggestion is off the wall, perhaps you can let me know. > Would it make sense at all for someone, somewhere, to offer a service > scanning still images on a film scanner From tedlangdell at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 21:53:38 2015 From: tedlangdell at gmail.com (Ted Langdell) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:53:38 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: <55F87D6E.4050103@earthlink.net> References: <55F87D6E.4050103@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1A01682C-9177-4F8F-8E57-51AB8FAB4766@gmail.com> John, Several major challenges: Motion picture film scanners were NOT designed to handle strips. They were designed to handle LONG ROLLS of film under some amount of tension as part of moving the film and keeping it flat in the gate. Splicing the five-frame strips of film back into a roll poses some challenges re: Keeping the splice invisible at the frame lines at each end of the strip. Image dimensions are different: You?d need a special gate to handle the images produced by 35mm still cameras, and also to re-orient the sensor in a motion picture scanner 90-degrees to align the long-dimension to be parallel to film travel and the long dimension of the still image. Think something like VistaVision which is a motion picture format that ran horizontally through the VistaVision camera and offered a wider horizontal image (like a 35mm still) than was available with standard 35mm motion picture photography using vertical film travel and four-perf height. There have been scanners developed to handle UNCUT still film on a relatively "high speed" yet high quality basis. Something in the frames-per-second rather than seconds-per-frame situation you may experience with some of the scanners mentioned. Note that another difference between the Noritsu and Nikon scanners and a Lasergraphics ScanStation or MWA Vario is the sensor type. The ScanStation and Vario use ?Area Sensors? which take a single picture of the image and after processing, output that as a file. The still scanners mentioned use Line Array sensors which scan the film a small ?strip? at a time and then reassemble the strips. Movement of the film carriage is by stepper motor a small increment at a time. The motion picture analogy would be the Bosch FDL 60/90/Quadra, Shadow, Spirit telecines and scanners which use Line Array sensors and digital technology to reassemble the ?lines? into a complete image. Continuous motion requires the use of timing sensors. Shrinkage or perf damage can cause problems with the reassembly. Hope this is helpful. Cheers, Ted Ted Langdell flashscan8.us Moving Image Tool and Technology Store iPhone: (530) 301-2931 (Preferred) Office: (530) 741-1212 ted at flashscan8.us Skype: TedLangdell See us at NAB 2016, April 18-21, Lower South Hall Booth SL14813. On Sep 15, 2015, at 1:19 PM, John A. Mozzer via Tig wrote: > Sohonet www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG. > ===== > > > > If you think this suggestion is off the wall, perhaps you can let me know. > Would it make sense at all for someone, somewhere, to offer a service > scanning still images on a film scanner, like the Lasergraphics Scan > Station? The process would probably involve manually positioning shorts > strips of 35mm film in the gate, one frame at a time. > If such a service was available, I might be the first customer. If someone > went into the business of providing such a service, how much do you think > they would have to charge (i.e., per cut roll of film?) The price would have > to be considerably less then drum scans ($50 and up per image) for it to > make any sense. The resulting digital images should be 3500 to 5200 pixels > per inch, RGB in the TIFF file format, purposely flat and intended to be > brought into Photoshop. > I believe the options for scanning still 35mm film images are rather > limited, more than you might initially think. The Nikon Coolscan is popular > among do-it-yourselfers, but I am under the impression it introduces too > much noise when scanning above 2,000 pixels per inch. A crop of photo labs > catering to photographers who shoot on film offer scanning on Noritsu > equipment ($40 to $90 per cut roll). However, I've had tests done by several > of those services, and find they are unable to turn off the Noritsu's > default grain removal filter. > Please let me know what you think. > John A. Mozzer > jamworks.smugmug.com > _______________________________________________ > http://colorist.org > To change subscription options, see http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig From peter_swinson at compuserve.com Tue Sep 15 23:49:11 2015 From: peter_swinson at compuserve.com (peter_swinson at compuserve.com) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:49:11 -0400 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images Message-ID: <14fd33293b5-5e1-28d6@webprd-a85.mail.aol.com> I "played" with a Nikon Coolscan at Rank Cintel in the 1990s, as we just wanted to look at the opposite function, using it to scan motion picture film. In its day it was very impressive.Howver we never pursued it as it was too slow. In the coolscan the film is held still while the light source and line array transversed the film, RGB +IR LED source on one side, Lens and Line array on the other. A single B/W array was used and the RGB LEDS fired alternately fast enough that a sequential RGB exposure occurred within a single line height of the scanned resolution. Adding a fourth IR scan at each line allowed dust to be detected, with color stock, and then removed in post processing. .The Coolscan could accept single frames, mounted or unmounted and strips of 35mm. As it used RGB LED light sources. the source color balance could be greatly controlled, brightness and exposure time to each color. We were impressed with its noise performance with negative, color and B/W but it was rather noisy when handling dense prints or reversals. I still have the device but have not used it for some years. Today I would have thought that modern digital cameras with their high dynamic ranges, with suitable backlit illumination of film could be setup to perform the desired task of capturing images from 35mm stills in a much faster fashion. While somewhat crude I have used this method, using the backlight parts of an old LCD screen as a light box with the camera mounted on a frame above the lightbox. I can photograph either individual frames or lay strips of film across the face of the light box and produced a "contact sheet", now there's a term those of the digital age will probably not of heard of before!. Agreed the light source colorimetery leaves something to be desired but its a quick and dirty way to get quite acceptable images from old negs etc. cheers Peter From jamworks at earthlink.net Wed Sep 16 09:58:02 2015 From: jamworks at earthlink.net (John A. Mozzer) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:58:02 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images Message-ID: <55F92F1A.4090406@earthlink.net> Splicing the film would likely be a problem. The film rolls were often cut poorly by one hour photo labs during the 1980s and 90s. Often, there wouldn't be enough clear film for the splice. From richard at filmlight.ltd.uk Wed Sep 16 10:27:15 2015 From: richard at filmlight.ltd.uk (Richard Kirk) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:27:15 +0100 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5E95F51F-3CF4-4302-8D7E-09E54C21BE4E@filmlight.ltd.uk> Hi. I used to work with drum scanners at Crosfield electronics long before moving to film. So, speaking as someone (peditum antiquum) who has worked with both... The $50 per frame price for a drum scanner scan seems steep. These scanners could handle large format camera scans, so you could mount a short strip of film and scan the lot at once on a drum scanner. Indeed, we did wonder whether we could scan short sections of motion picture film by mounting them as a spiral on a drum. I would imagine someone with a drum scanner who chose to specialize in high-quality 35mm transfers might be able to bring that price down quite a bit for bulk. The drum scanners were typically built to handle reversal positive print film. A journalist would load their camera with slide film, and go out and shoot a few rolls at the football match. The film would be processed, and the frames to be scanned would be picked out on a light box. You could not do this with a negative (you could have made prints, but this would have meant more processing, and if you worked on a paper, then time was short. This meant that drum scanners were often built to handle prints with a density range of 0-4, and getting them to handle negatives with a density range of about 0-1.5 and a safelight filter that was different for each stock, was done as an afterthought. We could do it, and get good results, but it was not as easy as handling positive. Lastly, you may have trouble with the sprocket holes. Sprocket holes on negative and print stocks are not quite the same. This was necessary as you had to have a negative and a print located on the same pins when making a print exposure. This is probably not a fatal problem: if you can figure how to scan lots of short negative clips in a motion picture scanner, then you will doubtless overcome that too. But it is one more thing to do. Good luck with that. I think you are going to need it. Cheers. Richard Kirk --- FilmLight Ltd, Artists House, 14-15 Manette Street, London W1D 4AP Tel: +44 (0)20 7292 0400 Fax: +44 (0)20 7292 0401 From richard at filmlight.ltd.uk Wed Sep 16 10:53:43 2015 From: richard at filmlight.ltd.uk (Richard Kirk) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:53:43 +0100 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69DC26C9-FF15-450A-BA24-663A81948CC8@filmlight.ltd.uk> Hi. I have had second thoughts. This might be possible. Good drum scans of scratched original used to be done by mounting the originals under oil. You would attach the film to the drum using a patch of clear plastic with sticky tape around the edge. You would put a small amount of clear oil between the drum and the plastic, and roll the attachments against the drum, so everything stuck with a very thin layer of oil with no bubbles. Glycerine would probably work, and match the index of the film. Motion picture film scanners can take think-based slide film. They may be able to take your images as a oil-mount sandwich between two think layers of clear film base. You would probably have to build some clever apparatus for the actual mounting, but I would imagine it should be possible to make some continuous oil mount that would be flexible enough to handle as motion picture film. Cheers. Richard Kirk From jeffkreines at mindspring.com Wed Sep 16 20:46:44 2015 From: jeffkreines at mindspring.com (Jeff Kreines - Mindspring) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:46:44 -0500 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: <69DC26C9-FF15-450A-BA24-663A81948CC8@filmlight.ltd.uk> References: <69DC26C9-FF15-450A-BA24-663A81948CC8@filmlight.ltd.uk> Message-ID: <628CDA7B-2E73-4F1B-A6F1-BCDD83ED894D@mindspring.com> This is something that will not work at all with scanners with area-scan sensors, like your Lasergraphics ? since they will not handle 8-perf film. It would be much simpler just to build a custom still scanner using either a very good DSLR and ? essentially ? a slide copying attachment, or a machine vision camera. A cine film scanner and cut strips of film isn?t going to work ? and splicing together the film will overlap the image on both sides of each splice. Many people just use Epson flatbed scanners these days with film strips ? while it seems crazy they are quite pleased with the results, though it?s not a fast process. Jeff ?has a lot of still negs to scan, sometime in the next decade maybe" Kreines From rob at cinelab.com Wed Sep 16 21:17:00 2015 From: rob at cinelab.com (Robert Houllahan) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: <55F87D6E.4050103@earthlink.net> References: <55F87D6E.4050103@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <34F1AE11-2AAE-4C22-BF80-6DCF1EC65D3F@cinelab.com> We have a Imagica ImagerXE at Cinelab with a 8-Perf Vista Vision gate. We could probably run still film scans as we are processing 35mm ECN cartridges for still shooters now. One big issue with 35mm still carts as opposed to 35mm motion picture is that we tend to take more of the head and tail to splice them together to go into the Photomec 35mm ECN machine than a still lab would. I think that a roll of 35mm stills for scan could be built up and then scanned but the logistics of tracking the individual still carts anf files would be allot of work and we would probably have to charge ALLOT for the scans. I have also run 35mm 6-Perf (scientific only saw that once) and 8-Perf on our Area panel Dynamic-Perf Xena which just required building a 6-P or 8-P servo profile and calibration. The 35mm gat on that machine is 8-Perf aperture but the imager and lens did have falloff with the 8-Perf scan so not perfect. Probably best to get a Coolscan or similar for this kind of work. > If you think this suggestion is off the wall, yep Robert Houllahan Scans Colorist Workflow 35MM 16MM 8MM B&W/Color-Lab Scan HD 2K-5K 8MM 16MM 35MM www.cinelab.com rob at cinelab.com From kevs at finalcolor.com Wed Sep 16 23:20:48 2015 From: kevs at finalcolor.com (Kevin Shaw) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:20:48 +0100 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: <14fd33293b5-5e1-28d6@webprd-a85.mail.aol.com> References: <14fd33293b5-5e1-28d6@webprd-a85.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: Hi I still have a Nikon Coolscan and you can sometimes find them second hand. It does a great job, but the original Nikon driver was not so great and anyway is discontinued and won?t run under a modern OS. I know use a software called Silverlight to control it- bit pricey but does an amazing job even on Kodachrome. It can be set to do multi flash and includes decent restoration and balancing tools. I use it for slides, neg strips and I also have an APS adapter. Definitely recommend it. Max size 16bit tiffs come in over 100MB per frame. To add to Peters as usual excellent observations, the Nikon handles reversal very well - most film scanners I have used have trouble with anything that dense. Kevin Shaw : kevs at finalcolor.com colorist, instructor and consultant Click here to subscribe to the ICA newsletter and mailing list finalcolor: www.finalcolor.com ICA: www.icolorist.com twitter: www.twitter.com/kevscolor linkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/kevscolor ------------------ This message was sent by Kevin Shaw of Finalcolor Ltd. and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorised to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. It is believed, but not warranted, that this e-mail, including any attachments, is virus free. However, you should take full responsibility for virus checking. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------ On 15 Sep 2015, at 23:49, peter_swinson--- via Tig wrote: > Sohonet www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG. > ===== > > > I "played" with a Nikon Coolscan at Rank Cintel in the 1990s, as we just wanted to look at the opposite function, using it to scan motion picture film. In its day it was very impressive.Howver we never pursued it as it was too slow. > In the coolscan the film is held still while the light source and line array transversed the film, RGB +IR LED source on one side, Lens and Line array on the other. > A single B/W array was used and the RGB LEDS fired alternately fast enough that a sequential RGB exposure occurred within a single line height of the scanned resolution. > Adding a fourth IR scan at each line allowed dust to be detected, with color stock, and then removed in post processing. .The Coolscan could accept single frames, mounted or unmounted and strips of 35mm. As it used RGB LED light sources. the source color balance could be greatly controlled, brightness and exposure time to each color. We were impressed with its noise performance with negative, color and B/W but it was rather noisy when handling dense prints or reversals. > I still have the device but have not used it for some years. > Today I would have thought that modern digital cameras with their high dynamic ranges, with suitable backlit illumination of film could be setup to perform the desired task of capturing images from 35mm stills in a much faster fashion. > While somewhat crude I have used this method, using the backlight parts of an old LCD screen as a light box with the camera mounted on a frame above the lightbox. I can photograph either individual frames or lay strips of film across the face of the light box and produced a "contact sheet", now there's a term those of the digital age will probably not of heard of before!. Agreed the light source colorimetery leaves something to be desired but its a quick and dirty way to get quite acceptable images from old negs etc. > > cheers > > Peter > _______________________________________________ > http://colorist.org > To change subscription options, see http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig > From jamworks at earthlink.net Thu Sep 17 07:27:26 2015 From: jamworks at earthlink.net (John A. Mozzer) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:27:26 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images Message-ID: <55FA5D4E.90708@earthlink.net> Thanks. I have read all of your comments with great interest. I am going to put the idea of digitizing 35mm film stills with a motion picture film scanner behind me. Like Peter Swinson, I have thought using a DSLR camera would be an ideal way to digitize 35mm film stills. I don't want to do it myself, though, and have been waiting for someone to set up a business doing it that way. Please search dpbestflow.org and camera-scanning if you are interested in watching a video on setting up a such a camera scanning system. From just.love.film at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 13:40:20 2015 From: just.love.film at gmail.com (justin lovell) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:40:20 -0400 Subject: [Tig] Tig Digest, Vol 378, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually this is possible with the lasergraphics scanner. However they would need to modify the software for the 8 perf movement. And it would have to scan the image as two frames and be stitched together in post. (because of the sensor size and the image being horizontal not vertical). Justin Lovell Cinematographer // Assoc. CSC WWW.JUSTINLOVELL.COM WWW.FRAMEDISCREET.COM 8/16/35..5k scans 416.901.5332 m.416.803.1101 twitter/insta: @justin_lovell ?sent with tpyos from my moible From marc at takelent-film.de Thu Sep 17 18:22:51 2015 From: marc at takelent-film.de (Marc Roessler) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:22:51 +0200 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: References: <14fd33293b5-5e1-28d6@webprd-a85.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: <47F77673-CC74-4B26-ABB1-BB3A1AEDA57C@takelent-film.de> I?m really surprised people are so comfortable with the Coolscan and Silverfast. I own both of these myself. Silverfast is a joke, and the results are nowhere near what you can with an ARRISCAN (for example). Resolution wise it does quite well, but getting proper color rendition is a pain. It?s most noticeable when comparing 7219 scanned on an ARRISCAN with Cinestill 800 (which is 5219 minus the Rem-Jet) scanned with Coolscan/Silverfast: the latitude is not there, the color rendition is not there, and the 16mm looks better overall also concerning grain structure and tonality. You can try to nudge the scans a bit with Silverfast, but the color controls are so coarse it?s very difficult. I also have not seen any reasonable workflow yet which gives you decent images out of the box. Scanning 35mm still film should be no issue on an Arri, a friend of mine did it. Of course you for each image from the neg you?ll have to stitch two scanned images (Super35 full frame) together aftwards. But if you manage to do that in the DPX 10 bit log domain, a whole new world opens up. Calibrated scans, where you can drag the neg up and down a few stops without it completely falling apart! I?ve tried some of the ?professional? still scan services, including drum scans, and compared to what any decent motion picture scanner delivers they all suck, suck, suck. For several Euros per scanned image, mind you. For anyone who has ever shot 16 or even 35 and had it scanned on a motion picture scanner, the still-scanned 35mm frames from still cameras (Vistavision frame sizes! Keep that in mind!) should come as a shock. So, I I think there absolutely is a market for properly calibrated, high dynamic range scans, as long as they come with a proper workflow (i.e. little tweaking required afterwards). The big issue probably is getting slim splices not extending into the image area too much, and keeping the negative clean enough even when handled in these short lengths. Just my 2 Cts. All the best, Marc (DoP/Engineer, Southern Germany.. no, not working at Arri ;) From jamworks at earthlink.net Fri Sep 18 19:00:22 2015 From: jamworks at earthlink.net (John A. Mozzer) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:00:22 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images Message-ID: <55FC5136.9010103@earthlink.net> Thank you, Marc Roessler. I am also surprised people are pleased with the Nikon Coolscan. I don't have any experience using it myself. However, in 2009, I read Scanning Negatives and Slides by Sascha Steinhoff, and was taken aback by his recommendation not to scan at its full optical resolution. He wrote: "Hands-on Tip: With Small Formats, Determine Output Size First. If the scanner automatically scales the image, the film grain will often look more pleasing than that produced from a high-resolution scan down-sampled to the desired size in an image editor afterwards. This effect is very pronounced with Nikon scanners." He also wrote: "Here is a very simple trick to improve image quality: set the scan resolution to the optical resolution and then scale to 50%. This effect cannot be reproduced afterwards in an image editor; it has to be done during scanning. It is due to the effect that scanning in full resolution produces more noise than scanning with a lower resolution. If you just scale down the scan afterwards, the noise is still there; at least in subjective matter, it gets even more visible through scaling. The best practice is to scan the slide at the same resolution you want to use later. If you scan primarily for archiving purposes, 2000 dpi is a good compromise." I asked Sascha for clarification by email. Sascha wrote in an email dated Oct 19, 2009, " . . . the described effect depends very much on the scanner. my example was nikon. as every scanner has its own characteristique the effect my not be given with other scanners." From kevs at finalcolor.com Fri Sep 18 20:07:16 2015 From: kevs at finalcolor.com (Kevin Shaw) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:07:16 +0100 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: <47F77673-CC74-4B26-ABB1-BB3A1AEDA57C@takelent-film.de> References: <14fd33293b5-5e1-28d6@webprd-a85.mail.aol.com> <47F77673-CC74-4B26-ABB1-BB3A1AEDA57C@takelent-film.de> Message-ID: <56E1B344-925B-4961-AA98-18A839D8A333@finalcolor.com> Marc I am talking about Kodachrome not negative, and stitching frames is not what I would call in your words "a proper workflow (i.e. little tweaking required afterwards).? John, actually I agree with Sascha on this, but the issue is resolved with Silverfast software. I do exactly as he describes In the end everyone should do what they are comfortable with, for me Coolscan/Silverfast works well on slides. Others may have a different solution At work we have a DFT Scanity it can scan vista vision (8perf) as one frame but it won?t handle the density of Kodachrome. Best Kevin Kevin Shaw : kevs at finalcolor.com colorist, instructor and consultant Click here to subscribe to the ICA newsletter and mailing list finalcolor: www.finalcolor.com ICA: www.icolorist.com twitter: www.twitter.com/kevscolor linkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/kevscolor ------------------ This message was sent by Kevin Shaw of Finalcolor Ltd. and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorised to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. It is believed, but not warranted, that this e-mail, including any attachments, is virus free. However, you should take full responsibility for virus checking. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------ From marc at takelent-film.de Fri Sep 18 21:02:12 2015 From: marc at takelent-film.de (Marc Roessler) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:02:12 +0200 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: <56E1B344-925B-4961-AA98-18A839D8A333@finalcolor.com> References: <14fd33293b5-5e1-28d6@webprd-a85.mail.aol.com> <47F77673-CC74-4B26-ABB1-BB3A1AEDA57C@takelent-film.de> <56E1B344-925B-4961-AA98-18A839D8A333@finalcolor.com> Message-ID: <1F57671F-DB56-4F27-8692-793B7CD5BC10@takelent-film.de> Kevin, I (inexcusably) missed the Kodachrome part, sorry. In fact I don?t have any experience with Kodakchrome on motion picture scanners. Reversal is somewhat OK to scan on the Coolscan in my experience (compared to neg), but it doesn?t simply ?fall into place? either. Just to clarify, when I was talking about stitching, I was of course talking about automatic stitching, i.e. either the scanner is stable enough so automatic ?blind? stitching is would be possible, or using pattern recognition (on the grain maybe?). Even if stitching would need to be done human-assisted (using proper software..) I?d still take it any day over the Coolscan+Silverfast combination. Sorry if I came across a bit grumpy in my previous mail. It?s just that I?ve been so fed up with exactly this problem for years and years now, and nobody has any solution other than what boils down to ?depending on your still scanner and still film, just tweak and push and shove until it looks somewhat like what you would have expected, or maybe choose a different negative profile that suits the particular image best?. All the best, Marc (DoP/Engineer, Southern Germany) From jdhouston at earthlink.net Sun Sep 20 16:30:36 2015 From: jdhouston at earthlink.net (Jim Houston) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 08:30:36 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Using Film Scanners for Still 35mm Images In-Reply-To: <47F77673-CC74-4B26-ABB1-BB3A1AEDA57C@takelent-film.de> References: <14fd33293b5-5e1-28d6@webprd-a85.mail.aol.com> <47F77673-CC74-4B26-ABB1-BB3A1AEDA57C@takelent-film.de> Message-ID: <486031D7-131C-442C-B55C-6633DF8AD0FD@earthlink.net> Well, keep in mind that the base dyes on film negative stocks are actually different than still films, and the spectral response of film scanners have usually been optimized for Kodak MP products. This is the largest single reason why film scanners do a better job with the color. Also, you want ?flare-less? scans and film scanners use designs that reduce flare from the film whereas flat-beds and drum scanners have nothing for that. Drum scanners do a great job on print materials, and large format transparency. Film prints, not so much. It is possible to get good scans from a Coolscan or using Silverfast but it is a *lot* of work not part of the standard setups. Still cameras could be used in an HDR exposure setup to get good results from film prints with a variable light source. But most still cameras have insufficient precision needing a minimum of 14-15 bits per channel for film negatives. Most film scanners have a Vistavision option but they are expensive and rarely purchased anymore. Jim Houston Starwatcher Digital Pasadena, CA > On Sep 17, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Marc Roessler via Tig wrote: > > I?ve tried some of the ?professional? still scan services, including drum scans, and compared to what any decent motion picture scanner delivers they all suck, suck, suck. From tedlangdell at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 16:55:47 2015 From: tedlangdell at gmail.com (Ted Langdell) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:55:47 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Preferred color of PTRs? Message-ID: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> Many on this list have used SanLab or FXSYS diamond-etched, microgrooved PTRs on your telecines, scanners or lab equipment. I?m curious to know what color preference seemed/s to be the most requested, and why? To keep the clutter down on the TIG, please reply off-list to ted at flashscan8.us unless Rob?s OK with on-list replies. I?ll tally the results next Saturday and with his permission, (OK Rob?) post the information. You may remember that they were available in: Black (called Purple) Blue Green Orange Yellow Tacky Red Thanks and cheers from golden-grassy Northern California. (RGB values for that color?) Ted Ted Langdell flashscan8.us Moving Image Tool and Technology Store iPhone: (530) 301-2931 (Preferred) Office: (530) 741-1212 ted at flashscan8.us Skype: TedLangdell See us at NAB 2016, April 18-21, Lower South Hall Booth SL14813. From rob at colorist.org Sat Sep 26 18:32:18 2015 From: rob at colorist.org (Rob Lingelbach) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Tig] Preferred color of PTRs? In-Reply-To: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> References: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On Sep 26, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Ted Langdell via Tig wrote: > > I?m curious to know what color preference seemed/s to be the most requested, and why? > > To keep the clutter down on the TIG, please reply off-list to ted at flashscan8.us unless Rob?s OK with on-list replies. > > I?ll tally the results next Saturday and with his permission, (OK Rob?) post the information. Sure, Ted and others, post any followups to the group. I don?t recall ever having the choice of color. We did tend to have different colors for different film gauges and possibly for different stocks (print, neg). ? Rob Lingelbach http://colorist.org/robhome.html rob at colorist.org From rob at cinelab.com Sat Sep 26 18:42:12 2015 From: rob at cinelab.com (Robert Houllahan) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 13:42:12 -0400 Subject: [Tig] Preferred color of PTRs? In-Reply-To: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> References: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2A11BBA9-AB11-4864-A371-065FD613368D@cinelab.com> Green and Blue I am sure that Jeff Kreines want?s red ones? Can you send me a price list we definitely need some PTRs If FXSYS still in business? > On Sep 26, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Ted Langdell via Tig wrote: > > Sohonet www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG. > ===== > > > Many on this list have used SanLab or FXSYS diamond-etched, microgrooved PTRs on your telecines, scanners or lab equipment. > > I?m curious to know what color preference seemed/s to be the most requested, and why? > > To keep the clutter down on the TIG, please reply off-list to ted at flashscan8.us unless Rob?s OK with on-list replies. > > I?ll tally the results next Saturday and with his permission, (OK Rob?) post the information. > > You may remember that they were available in: > > Black (called Purple) > Blue > Green > Orange > Yellow > Tacky Red > > Thanks and cheers from golden-grassy Northern California. (RGB values for that color?) > > Ted > > Ted Langdell > flashscan8.us Moving Image Tool and Technology Store > iPhone: (530) 301-2931 (Preferred) > Office: (530) 741-1212 > ted at flashscan8.us > Skype: TedLangdell > > See us at NAB 2016, April 18-21, Lower South Hall Booth SL14813. > > _______________________________________________ > http://colorist.org > To change subscription options, see http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig > Robert Houllahan Scans Colorist Workflow 35MM 16MM 8MM B&W/Color-Lab Scan HD 2K-5K 8MM 16MM 35MM www.cinelab.com rob at cinelab.com From tedlangdell at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 18:56:55 2015 From: tedlangdell at gmail.com (Ted Langdell) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:56:55 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Preferred color of PTRs? In-Reply-To: <2A11BBA9-AB11-4864-A371-065FD613368D@cinelab.com> References: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> <2A11BBA9-AB11-4864-A371-065FD613368D@cinelab.com> Message-ID: <9EC811A2-1652-450C-BC55-661C32F112E8@gmail.com> Hi, Rob (H), Thanks for helping with the color preference poll. Yes, FXSYS is still in business. See details here: http://www.flashscan8.us/fxsys-particle-transfer-rollers-for-scanners-processors-and-bench-based-cleaning/ Graham Collett?s Visible Sprockets in the UK is about to be re-appointed a dealer for the UK and European market after an absence. Pricing is being updated, and we?ll send info to anyone on request. Please advise what size(s) you may need: IE: 1.5? x 35mm, 3? x 35mm, 1.5 x 70mm? or 3? x 70mm. Ted Ted Langdell tedlangdell at gmail.com (530) 301-2931 On Sep 26, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Robert Houllahan wrote: > Green and Blue > > I am sure that Jeff Kreines want?s red ones? > > Can you send me a price list we definitely need some PTRs > > If FXSYS still in business? > > >> On Sep 26, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Ted Langdell via Tig wrote: >> >> Sohonet www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG. >> ===== >> >> >> Many on this list have used SanLab or FXSYS diamond-etched, microgrooved PTRs on your telecines, scanners or lab equipment. >> >> I?m curious to know what color preference seemed/s to be the most requested, and why? >> >> To keep the clutter down on the TIG, please reply off-list to ted at flashscan8.us unless Rob?s OK with on-list replies. >> >> I?ll tally the results next Saturday and with his permission, (OK Rob?) post the information. >> >> You may remember that they were available in: >> >> Black (called Purple) >> Blue >> Green >> Orange >> Yellow >> Tacky Red >> >> Thanks and cheers from golden-grassy Northern California. (RGB values for that color?) >> >> Ted >> >> Ted Langdell >> flashscan8.us Moving Image Tool and Technology Store >> iPhone: (530) 301-2931 (Preferred) >> Office: (530) 741-1212 >> ted at flashscan8.us >> Skype: TedLangdell >> >> See us at NAB 2016, April 18-21, Lower South Hall Booth SL14813. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://colorist.org >> To change subscription options, see http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig >> > > Robert Houllahan > Scans Colorist Workflow > 35MM 16MM 8MM B&W/Color-Lab > Scan HD 2K-5K 8MM 16MM 35MM > www.cinelab.com > rob at cinelab.com > > From jeffkreines at mindspring.com Sat Sep 26 19:28:26 2015 From: jeffkreines at mindspring.com (Jeff Kreines - Mindspring) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 13:28:26 -0500 Subject: [Tig] Preferred color of PTRs? In-Reply-To: <2A11BBA9-AB11-4864-A371-065FD613368D@cinelab.com> References: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> <2A11BBA9-AB11-4864-A371-065FD613368D@cinelab.com> Message-ID: <8B36AE1C-B3E6-433B-BDF2-D49C872528B4@mindspring.com> > On Sep 26, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Robert Houllahan via Tig wrote: > > I am sure that Jeff Kreines want?s red ones? Actually I like the Blue ones? you need a little contrast with the red Kinetta! Best, Jeff Kreines Kinetta From jeffkreines at mindspring.com Sat Sep 26 19:28:26 2015 From: jeffkreines at mindspring.com (Jeff Kreines - Mindspring) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 13:28:26 -0500 Subject: [Tig] Preferred color of PTRs? In-Reply-To: <2A11BBA9-AB11-4864-A371-065FD613368D@cinelab.com> References: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> <2A11BBA9-AB11-4864-A371-065FD613368D@cinelab.com> Message-ID: <8B36AE1C-B3E6-433B-BDF2-D49C872528B4@mindspring.com> > On Sep 26, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Robert Houllahan via Tig wrote: > > I am sure that Jeff Kreines want?s red ones? Actually I like the Blue ones? you need a little contrast with the red Kinetta! Best, Jeff Kreines Kinetta From tedlangdell at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 19:47:24 2015 From: tedlangdell at gmail.com (Ted Langdell) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:47:24 -0700 Subject: [Tig] Preferred color of PTRs? In-Reply-To: References: <9317D541-0EC3-4A6F-9FA6-3D5DD83F04F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Rob (L)! One way colors have been useful is to rotate usage among three sets of four PTRs in different colors. Black, Blue, Green for example. One color (set) can be on the machine, another ready to go and a third just washed and drying in a dust-free environment. The colors help keep track of status. Otherwise, one can use a Sharpie to mark set numbers on the outside edge of the metal core when first put in service. Multiple sets have also been helpful when a facility may be transferring magnetic striped material. The oxide can build up on the rollers, and over time may cause a discoloration in spite of frequent washing per FXSYS directions. (We don?t recommend cleaning PTRs with packing or other tape! The sticky material on the tape can adhere to the PTRs and then be transferred to your film.) A set or two can be reserved for mag-stripe projects, keeping other PTRs free from visible ?tracks.? Hope this is helpful. Ted Ted Langdell flashscan8.us tedlangdell at gmail.com (530) 301-2931 On Sep 26, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Rob Lingelbach via Tig wrote: > Sohonet www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG. > ===== > > > >> On Sep 26, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Ted Langdell via Tig wrote: >> >> I?m curious to know what color preference seemed/s to be the most requested, and why? >> >> To keep the clutter down on the TIG, please reply off-list to ted at flashscan8.us unless Rob?s OK with on-list replies. >> >> I?ll tally the results next Saturday and with his permission, (OK Rob?) post the information. > > Sure, Ted and others, post any followups to the group. > > I don?t recall ever having the choice of color. We did tend to have different colors for different film gauges and possibly for different stocks (print, neg). > > ? > Rob Lingelbach http://colorist.org/robhome.html > rob at colorist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > http://colorist.org > To change subscription options, see http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig