Flashscan 8 HD

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:43 am

mattias wrote:Kent, i think you're wrong. A lot of people have hdtv's already...... /matt

And how many of these have Bluray players? ;)

Post by **Sparky** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:15 am

Daniel asked

What SMPTE test are you referring ? Thanks.

There's a thread here with examples of various members trial scans of the SMPTE test film: viewtopic.php?t=13425&highlight=smpte
and a more condensed version here:
viewtopic.php?t=14622
Mark

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:44 am

Better is better, isn't it? I mean, why bother going to a 3CCD SD pickup if a 1CCD camera would do the trick? Obviously, if everyone from the 30s-70s shot their Kodachrome with fill lighting, makeup, low contrast wardrobe on overcast days outside, then most any 1CCD camcorder could copy that footage pretty easily. But because many home movies have bad contrast, bad exposure, are questionable in quality, etc, the truth is that the worse the source material, the better the video camera needs to be to copy the footage to digital, which is why people use 3CCD pickups instead of a 1CCD, if they really want quality.

Similarly, one can debate HD resolution until the cows come home and make the argument about how people won't want it, it isn't worth it, etc; but all science and resolution charts aside, transferring to HD simply "looks better" than SD, based on our in-house tests. The image is crisper, more vibrant and has better color and contrast. To what degree marketing hype is driving the desire for HD is a valid question but we get about a dozen calls a week asking about equipment for HD telecine of 8mm and 16mm film. I am convinced there is a firm market there and that, as the price of HDTVs drop, the demand for HD material will increase, even for home movie telecine. There's still a whole lotta home movie material out there to transfer.

Roger

YouTube · Post by **Andreas Wideroe** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:49 am

Sparky wrote: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

Interesting. Did you talk to Justin? (the salesguy)

We had a long demonstration of the Flashscan on IBC and Kai told us they had no immidiate plans for an HD version.

The Flashscan is a really nice machine, but lacks features and fixes compared to the bigger telecine machines.

/Andreas

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:05 am

MovieStuff wrote:Better is better, isn't it?

It depends, if you cannot tell any difference, is it still better?

MovieStuff wrote:I mean, why bother going to a 3CCD SD pickup if a 1CCD camera would do the trick?

Ehhh, because it is noticeably better with 3CCD?
It sounds almost as if you are not thinking. Wake up Roger. ;)

Post by **Sparky** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:47 am

Andreas asked

Interesting. Did you talk to Justin? (the salesguy)

Not sure Andreas. It was in the closing minutes of the show and I was dashing around trying to see some of it. I think it probably was their sales guy as he claimed to not be an expert and the experts had disappeared. Maybe he was just taking matters into his own hands- fed up with being asked all day if they were going to do an HD version ;-)

BTW sorry I missed your post- would have been very nice to meet you. I was stuck on a stand all day everyday so didn't have a lot of spare time. Did you see anything interesting at the show?

Mark

Post by **mattias** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:00 am

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

eh, why not? they have hd resolution and hd inputs, what more do you need?

/matt

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:33 am

mattias wrote:what more do you need?

/matt

Read this: http://www.dvdforum.nu/forum/index.asp? ... 9&forum=25 (it is in swedish)

By the way there is actually something that is called "HD Ready" that IS prepared for HD for real. It got a bit confusing... In swedish "FÃƒÂ¶rberedd fÃƒÂ¶r HD" (as in prepared for HD) or "Klar fÃƒÂ¶r HD" (as in ready fo HD) is NOT real HD screens, that was what I was talking about. It got weird in the translation....

HD Ready is a trademark that they pay a licens fee to use, and it is actually real HD. But Ready for HD doesenÃ‚Â´t mean that the screens are HD screens... :?

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:37 am

Just what the world needs, more HD confusion... :roll: :lol:

Post by **Ericus** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:52 am

There was an article in small format 2/2006 about flashSCAN.

"The flashSCAN camera already offers higher resolution than PAL is capable of reproducing. Future HDV signal will be accessible through the firewire interface". He (Frank Ortwein) doubts that even higher resolution makes sense for Super8. "We have built a high definition (HD) system for a customer of ours which does not scan in real-time, running at just 7 frames/sec. Its price was a princely Ã¢â€šÂ¬ 46 000. But at such high resolution the format comes up against limiting factors. The film grain, hair and very scratch become extremely noticeable." Ortwein considers the lower resolution of the HDV standard to be a good compromise."

I have a WorkPrinter with a very good 3CCD camera and even now the resolution it produces is too high

, if possible. Every hair and scratch is very noticeable. How about then with HD?

Post by aj » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:24 pm

super8man wrote: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).

There was once a post here about a german guy in canada who built/used a flatbed scanner with autofeeder for s8 and who used software to find the perf holes... Should be in my stored links. I'll check these out later on the computer where these are stored. I didn't reproduce the set-up

BTW I thought the Flashscan were only some Euro 18.000

Post by **VideoFred** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:30 pm

Ericus wrote:
I have a WorkPrinter with a very good 3CCD camera and even now the resolution it produces is too high , if possible. Every hair and scratch is very noticeable. How about then with HD?

This is more a matter of the used backlight principle.
The more diffusion, the less scratches you will notice.
And focussing... You can focus in a way the hair is less visible.

Fred.

Post by **Ericus** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:52 pm

VideoFred wrote:
Ericus wrote:
I have a WorkPrinter with a very good 3CCD camera and even now the resolution it produces is too high , if possible. Every hair and scratch is very noticeable. How about then with HD?
This is more a matter of the used backlight principle.
The more diffusion, the less scratches you will notice.
And focussing... You can focus in a way the hair is less visible.

Fred.

Hi Fred,
I did not mean that the result is not good, it is, but I meant that the quality is already good, you donÃ‚Â´t need HD to get super results from Super8.

I donÃ‚Â´t want to make the results of my transfers worse by focusing it even slightly off, when you use a video projector and big screen, it shows clearly that the picture is not focused right.

Super8 is grainy, let it show 8)

Post by **VideoFred** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:15 pm

Ericus wrote:
Hi Fred,
I did not mean that the result is not good, it is, but I meant that the quality is already good, you donÃ‚Â´t need HD to get super results from Super8.

I agree

I donÃ‚Â´t want to make the results of my transfers worse by focusing it even slightly off, when you use a video projector and big screen, it shows clearly that the picture is not focused right.

Super8 is grainy, let it show 8)

Yes, but if the hair is on the front side, it is out of focus compared with the film plane. Just a littte focussing can improve this a little bit . If it is on the back side, then it drops a black shadow. But no hair at all is better

Fred.

Post by **Ludwig Draser** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:43 pm

Hello .
Thats a very interesting thing. For amateurs and normal users there will be no interest at the moment. But we have a lot of production companies who are asking for HD telecine from their S8 material . A lot of productions and documentations are produced in HD and they need also their material in HD .
At the moment more than 50 5 of companies are asking for that and it grows from day to day. With normal Rank or Spirit its not possible at the moment, perhaps they can do it, but the prices are then astronomical.
Kindly regards
ludwig Draser

Filmshooting

Flashscan 8 HD

Re: Flashscan 8 HD