Filmshooting

kent, what lens does the flashscan hd use? I have no idea. btw kent, as others have pointed out, there are too many things except transfer quality going on in your comparison. I´m just comparing a SD transfer to a HD transfer, simple as that. And as long as the SD looks better, then it looks bet...

...spacial integration preserves the temporal integration of film grain, resulting in the same kind of perceived increase in sharpness... Hah, you guys know how to go into details... I just know a HD transfer looks better on a big HDTV if compared to a SD transfer. So by that I come to the conclusi...

...but in the last one what I mean is subsampling 4:4:4 not 4:2:2 or whatever miniDV is. MiniDV is not even 4:2:2, it is 4:2:0. But if you are going for a 4:4:4 you need to stick to the absolute highest end telecines, and plan for extreme colorcorrections I guess. Not even the FlashscanHD has 4:4:4...

Or, if you just forget about the resolution for a minute... was there something in the first transfer that was bad in like colors/grading/exposure settings? If it was, then a new transfer would probably give you a better starting point for a new version. If not, then a new HD transfer would give you...

Cool thing, but the price is all crazy (if you ask me).

I don´t think it "puts" a audio track on the film, but it plays back the existing audio track (at least that is the way I understand it).

So cool! I didn´t even know Steenbeck was still in business!
Commag = magnetic audiotrack.

Good for you Roger! Must be so friggin fun to attend book signings... hat´s off for you.

Ah, I didn´t know about the I-frames only H.264... But as you say, the recording devices usually boast about how many hours they can fit in a 8 GB CF-card (or whatever). With more hours as "a good feature"... :roll:

Furthermore, DV is all I-frames and H-264 is not. 1 hour of DV in NTSC is 13.64 GB, and in ProRes HQ that would be 32.51 GB. Should give an idea about the difference in compression, but I you cannot just look at the filesize either. It depends on how efficient the codec is. If you want to read more ...

If you´d tell me what resolution and framerate the file is in I can calculate the filesize for you.

ProRes is by the way a fantastic codec. ProRes HQ is what we use for all our captures and intermediate files.

And yes, H.264 is more compressed.

And as far as Super 8 to HD transfers go, is it possible to transfer the full frame and then crop the 16:9 region that you want on the PC, or do you have to select that first optically and then only get that portion transferred to your PC? Well of course you could do the crop in your PC, but the im...

Motion is obviously not as smooth as with material shot with 25 fps. But if you are going for a HD transfer and your material is shot with 18fps the motion will be more smooth if transferred to 50p, compared to a transfer to a 25fps based video standard.

Dedicating reels is what I am planing to do... at one end of the rewinder. At the other end I am going to use whatever client reels I receive, so dedicating both reels used with the rewinders is sadly impossible. Perhaps buying a used rewinder and having it modified is cheaper, but then again skille...

I am on the hunt for motorised rewinds for 8mm film. The only place I could find any is Urbanski Film... And in order to get a rewind modified to accept regular 8 film... " When you order your NEW 16mm Neumade rewinds we can modify them to also accept regular 8 (standard 8) reels... for this mo...