Flashscan 8 HD

[Sparky]

According to the guy I spoke to at IBC, MWA will be debuting an HD version of the Flashscan8 hopefully around mid-nextyear. If its anything like as popular as the current model (68 units in 1 1/2 years!(at 30,000 euros!!)) this is great news for us! I'm amazed at the quality the current units output in PAL- their HD unit should be really amazing. Hush-hush is that it will incorporate a new perf sensing unit utilising lasers so registration should be improved also- it's currently not great from what I've seen. Will you be buying one Kent?

Mark

[Daniel]

Based on my experience, the drift in the vertical framing (super-8) is something also usual when scanning or transfering in Spirit Datacine1 or transfering through Rank Cintel Ursa.

[Sparky]

I figure in the case of the Flashscan it's due to the continuous (non-intermittent) film flow and the sensing being done at the sprocket wheels a good few inches from the gate- is that the case with those others?

Mark

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

No, since there is no market for HD transfers.
All the new films I have transferred so far won´t even add up to a weeks work, really. And new films are the only real target for HD transfers.

Why not old films?

Well, to begin with almost nobody has a HDTV. Nobody has a Bluray player or a HDDVD. Or what format would I deliver the transferred films in? Also HD means 16x9 aspect ratio = either chopped off heads or black borders on both sides "wasting" resolution that is not used.

New transfers then?

As I already said the flow is waaay too low to justify such a purchase. Even if I did I am sure not everyone would even pay extra for a HD transfer. Most new films I get are nobudget first-time filmshooting kinda things. Again the 16x9 aspect ratio would introduce problems to guys who shot their first reel, not calculating that the top and bottom will be chopped off. Again, what would I deliver the HD files with? Bluray? A harddrive? What would people do with the HD transfers, make regular DVDs?

Nope, I don´t believe HD is a good destination for Super8 transfers. Definetly not old films that are not top-quality and not new films as long as the HD isn´t more of a standard.

Seriously, I don´t even know what resolution HD is, do you? I know there are a bunch of different resolutions and standards, but they don´t seem to be able to decide what resolution or standard to use. :roll:

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I figure in the case of the Flashscan it's due to the continuous (non-intermittent) film flow and the sensing being done at the sprocket wheels a good few inches from the gate-

Mark

Yes. But there is only "problems" with the image stability if you have bad splices. ;)

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

And I don´t get it, if you guys want top-of-the-line quality, great image stability and a "no grain image", why are you not shooting 16mm? :?

[super8man]

What I would love to see is SOFTWARE that can LOOK at an AVI file and perform dynamic pin registration by means of automatching frame lines and sprocket holes (assuming you over shoot the image leaving those items visible).

I am getting great quality transfers FOR MY USES but I sure would love a software solution that could actually see my film and align each frame with the next based on those gate hairs we all know and love. Imagine, those grubby gates now being completely useful as a fingerprint for pin registering each image taken in super 8 (or regular 8 for that matter).

[Sparky]

Blimey Kent- keep ur air on!
OK, no idea what resolution he meant by HD- lets suppose higher definition! I'm sure it will stil be 4:3 anyway :roll:
Maybe they'll offer an upgrade path?
Storage solutions as you well know are developing at an accellerating rate. Maxell were showing a prototype of a 200gig holographic optical drive!
I don't think my splices were that frequent- don't be so touchy! Film perfs are not and cannot be perfectly spaced- film stretches and shrinks and perf machines aren't that accurate, nor should they need to be.
If you can get more information out of super8, why not? I think that the flashscan as it stands does a fantastic job- really amazing. But from the SMPTE tests that have been shown, theres still a lot more information to be extracted.
Mark

[Sparky]

And don't forget this is from the horses mouth- I spoke to MWA when I first heard about the flashscan and questioned the limitations of PAL resolution. I was told that they had done tests with higher resolutions and decided that they could see no worthwhile benefit in going higher resolution. So I guess they must be under some market pressure to go HD as they didn't see that the increased costs were worth the improvement. And why would they bother developing a new registration sensor if there was no reason to?

Mark

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Blimey Kent- keep ur air on!
OK, no idea what resolution he meant by HD- lets suppose higher definition! I'm sure it will stil be 4:3 anyway

Isn´t all HD resolutions 16x9? I thought so.

Maybe they'll offer an upgrade path?
Storage solutions as you well know are developing at an accellerating rate. Maxell were showing a prototype of a 200gig holographic optical drive!

Yeah, making me (and probably others) less "hungry" for buying a Bluray player... next year I could get one that is holographic, and I can live with my DVDs for now. ;)

Or something like that...

If you can get more information out of super8, why not? I think that the flashscan as it stands does a fantastic job- really amazing. But from the SMPTE tests that have been shown, theres still a lot more information to be extracted.
Mark

Yes there is, from the test film. ;)

But is your films as sharp as the test film? Or better yet, what about films that are 30 years old, shot with a "not top of the line camera" (well, not a bad one, but just not top-quality)?

I don´t think that old films have that much more information to extract, seriously. OK, sometimes I get films that are just gorgeous, fantastic! But when compressed to a DVD, can you really tell the difference between a HD scan and a SD scan from Super8? I doubt it. Sure, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

More importantly, from a bit more grainy not perfectly exposed or focused images, lets call it "the medium quality" (as in your average home movie Super8 shooter), can you tell the difference between a HD transfer and a SD transfer and go "wow, HD is great!". I doubt it. Maybe you could tell the difference if you had them both side-by-side and compared, but I don´t think the difference would be big enough to notice otherwise.

Not worth to buy new equipment if you "cant tell the difference". ;)
And not as long as nobody can handle it, or know what format to use, what to make of the HD transfers.

I am afraid that the HD chase is going to be like the resolution-hunt in digital still image cameras. Almost nobody needs or has any use for resolutions above 5 megapixel, still the hunt for resolution goes on, manufacturers go up in resolution and people follow and buy cameras with tiny optics but hey "it has 8 megapixel!". :roll:

Whats the use for those megapixels? Whats the use for HD? If there is no need for it, it seems like a ghost hunt... 8)

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

So I guess they must be under some market pressure to go HD as they didn't see that the increased costs were worth the improvement.

I told you so! Read the message above. It is a "ghost hunt for pixels", a selling point. "wow, now with higher resolution". Like the still image cameras... 8)

And why would they bother developing a new registration sensor if there was no reason to?

Mark

Well I guess they could have improved it, perhaps there is no "bump" for bad splices anymore? Great if there isn´t.

And of course, it is also a reason to go with the new HD scanner, they need as many selling leverages as possible. ;)

[Daniel]

Hello,

OK, no idea what resolution he meant by HD- lets suppose higher definition! I'm sure it will stil be 4:3 anyway

Well by definition HD video have a 16/9 image aspect ratio.
The C.I.F (Common Image Format) specification (ITU, year 1999) have an image size of 1920 x 1080 pixels.
The problem with an HD transfer is that you have to crop the super-8 image to 16/9 or leave pillar-box on the side of the image and get a final image of aprox 1436 x 1080 pixels.

But from the SMPTE tests that have been shown, theres still a lot more information to be extracted.

I agree with that, from my own experience with last generation colour negative post-produced on 2K RGB 10 bits Log workflow.
What SMPTE test are you referring ? Thanks.

But there is only "problems" with the image stability if you have bad splices.

Of course I beleive that splices may affect but on what I have observed, the drift is anyway inherent.

And I don´t get it, if you guys want top-of-the-line quality, great image stability and a "no grain image, why are you not shooting 16mm?"

Because super-8 does have a true quality/photo potential that can be used creatively with skills and digital post-production technology.
Of course, for high resolution, Super-16 or 35mm is the way to go! And for true high res : IMAX. (just imagine the vision2 50D or 100T in IMAX format).

Regards,
Daniel

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Because super-8 does have a true quality/photo potential that can be used creatively with skills and digital post-production technology.
Of course, for high resolution, Super-16 or 35mm is the way to go!

Regards,
Daniel

Yeah, the way I see Super8 is:

-- It is the format for old films, old home movies.
-- It is the format to use if you want the look of a "old film", for music videos and such.
-- It is the format to use if you want to learn to shoot with film cameras, since it is cheaper than 16mm.

When/if you master the "art of shooting with filmcameras" and you are making serious projects and want great quality, go 16mm. If you want cheap, low- or no-bugdget film use Super8 (but don´t expect 16mm quality). And of course if you want the look of old films, go with Super8.

If you want "grainless HD quality" (whatever that is exactly), don´t go Super8.

[mattias]

Kent, i think you're wrong. A lot of people have hdtv's already, and in only a couple of years that will be close to 100%. How many sd tv's do you find in today's ads from siba or onoff? And it won't be long before you'll spend most of your time panning and scanning and delivering on some hddvd format. Whether this will make the world a better place is debatable, but it's the way it will be. /matt

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Kent, i think you're wrong. A lot of people have hdtv's already, and in only a couple of years that will be close to 100%. How many sd tv's do you find in today's ads from siba or onoff? And it won't be long before you'll spend most of your time panning and scanning and delivering on some hddvd format. Whether this will make the world a better place is debatable, but it's the way it will be. /matt

Sure, a lot of people have HD-ready HDTVs. But it is not the same as "true HDTVs". ;)

But sure, in time it will be the standard I guess. But I still don´t think it will make old Super8 films look a lot better. Perhaps a tiny bit, but not much.

Panning and scanning? Nah, black bars on both sides is the way to go. Wasting resolution, but getting the whole image transferred. Wouldn´t want your old grandmother outside the picture, would you? ;)

And a important thing is that the HDTVs will still be able to show SD DVDs. I wonder what the difference would be from a "average quality" Super8 on a specific HD screen if transferred to both HD and to SD. It sure would be interesting to see. I think it would be less noticeable than what the "resolution hunters" are hoping for.