Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Scanning film @4K for archiving, reissuing, and ultimate home theater

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Scanning film @4K for archiving, reissuing, and ultimate home theater (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Scanning film @4K for archiving, reissuing, and ultimate home theater

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 04-22-2004 07:09 AM

Leo
The point I see with a good quality 4k digital master is that it is accessible. This digital master has a high quality. The film can be archived and everyone is happy.

Someone else can scan the movies without doing to much cleaning up and then print to film for storage.

The concept is not owned by one man. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-22-2004 07:17 AM

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Someone else can scan the movies without doing to much cleaning up and then print to film for storage.

What is wrong with creating the preservation master photographically by continuous contact printing (assuming that the condition of the original doesn't rule that out)? It's much cheaper than scanning it, and because the emulsions of the original and duplicate are placed in physical contact with each other, this method should theoretically produce the highest definition duplicate possible.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 04-22-2004 08:38 AM

Nothing is wrong with that but that does not give you a source to produce
1 digital cinema file
2 hdtv
3 dvds and hd-dvd
I am not debating film for archive.

1 scan the OCN once and then save the negative
2 use the 4k DI as a base for all digital formats
3 print DI to a high quality duplication negative at any time.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-22-2004 10:11 AM

How would this process work on a negative that's considered "unprintable?" If the negative is not in good enough shape to run through a normal printer, it may be in good enough shape to run through this machine at 1 frame every four seconds. Or would the registration be so bad that it wouldn't be fixable?

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-22-2004 10:29 AM

Exactly, hence the rider 'assuming the condition of the original doesn't rule that out'. If it does, then there are a range of options, both analogue and digital. What is the best bet really depends on what sort of damage you're dealing with and how severe it is. These are described in a lot of detail on pp. 41-58 of the NFPF preservation guide (see link in my last but one post): in some cases, creating a new master digitally can be justified.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 04-22-2004 10:55 AM

Leo
You have a point but I guess a negative could have some kind of problem that is easier to work with when the negative has been converted to digital.

I am more thinking along the line of having the 4k digital master and then let the film orignal rest for a long time in the archive. This for newer films.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-22-2004 11:22 AM

At this week's NAB Convention in Las Vegas, BHP introduced a new wet gate printer head specifically designed to print shrunken originals:

http://www.rtico.com/bhp/shrink.html

quote:
Special " -2% " Wet Printing Head for
Copying Shrunken Archival Films

Chicago, IL - Increasingly, the world at large has become more concerned about the potential loss of some of the classic movies due to lack of proper storage and maintenance in past decades. With the growing global market for filmed entertainment brought on by a wider range of distribution systems, new and old products have been and will continue to be very much in demand to fill the pipeline.

One of the problems inherent in old movies is the fact that motion picture film will shrink over time. Therefore making prints from aged and shrunken negatives is a serious problem when raw print stock and shrunken sprocket holes do not line up right.

Recently BHP Inc., the leading maker of professional motion picture film printing systems, has undertaken the development of a 35mm wet printing head for restoration applications. This head is designed for use on films that have shrunk as much as 2%. With this head, the difference between the original film’s sprocket hole spacing and that of the raw film stock is cancelled out.

For details contact BHP headquarters.

http://www.rtico.com/bhp/

quote:
Motion Picture Printers

For years, BHP Inc. has been and continues to be the world's leading manufacturer
of Motion Picture Film printing equipment. Our products are used in film
laboratories the world over. Call us for information and a quotation.

BHP INC.

4700 Chase
Lincolnwood, Illinois, USA
Phone: 647-677-3000 Fax: 847-677-1311
E-Mail: sales@bhpinc.com

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 04-22-2004 12:59 PM

Mr Pytlak
Is this shrinkage of old films a problem when scanning as well as it "was" with printing before this announcement?

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-22-2004 01:07 PM

That looks like a contiuous contact head as well (presumably the space above the sprocket drum is where the user adds a light source) - if it is then I'd be interested to know how it's able to keep the source and destination stock in even, flat contact while in continuous motion, without frame line slippage. After all, if a source element was originally 1,000 feet and has shrunk 2%, then that makes a 20 foot difference in length between the source and destination stock. To achieve a good copy by continuous contact printing seems to me to be defying the laws of physics.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
You have a point but I guess a negative could have some kind of problem that is easier to work with when the negative has been converted to digital.

Agreed, there are some scenarios where the damage is so severe that digital restoration is either the best or the only way to create a viable preservation master. I'm simply suggesting that this should be the last resort, not the first. All of which is a totally different purpose from creating viewing copies, for which a high resolution scan offers all the benefits you outline.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-22-2004 01:11 PM

quote: Leo Enticknap
What is wrong with creating the preservation master photographically by continuous contact printing?

quote:
Nothing is wrong with that but that does not give you a source to produce
1 digital cinema file, 2 hdtv, 3 dvds and hd-dvd

I don't agree with this for a number of reasons.

First, others have mentioned how archival safety film (when properly stored) will last longer than any digital file storage media. That is a fact. The digital fans can bring up the color shifting and fading arguments against film all they want. At least the film still works. If you have something go wrong with your digital media, the whole damned file is toast!

Second, it really makes little sense to archive a film digitally when the analog original negative and archival safety interpositives and internegatives will do a better job, and do so more cheaply.

Third, it only makes sense to digitize a film if the resulting file will immediately be used for some kind of video presentation medium, such as a DVD release.

It is useless to digitize a movie in 2K or 4K format only to put the file away in storage. Why? You're not going to use that data for whatever video format is popular 20 or 30 years from now. You're going to take those analog film sources and digitize them using the scanning and video mastering equipment that is state-of-the-art in that age. You'll get much better results.

To use an analogy, just look video mastering 10 years ago. The first THX certified Laserdisc of "The Abyss" was given raves for its video quality. But 10 years later, the same techniques would get a grade of "F" for DVD release. The standards are so much higher now, only after a decade.

Those 4K scans Lowry is doing might be nice for current day film digital intermediate work. But they will be largely useless only a decade or two from now.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-22-2004 03:03 PM

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Is this shrinkage of old films a problem when scanning as well as it "was" with printing before this announcement?

There are pin-registered scanners that position the film with a full-fitting registration pin, much like an optical printer.

Even continuous scan telecines and datacines can be adjusted to properly handle and position shunken film.

In a continous contact printer, the original and raw stock are wrapped around a large sprocket, so the sprocket pitch and diameter need to be optimized for the pitch differential between the two films to avoid any slippage.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-22-2004 03:30 PM

Sorry, John, I was being a tad dense! Of course, the contact is in an arc, not flat, thus enabling a slight differential between the source and destination stock to offset the shrinkage. That's really clever, and the gain in definition by not needing to resort to optical printing must be very significant.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 04-22-2004 03:58 PM

Bobby H.

I am not saying a 4k will last forever but scanning a 35mm frame at higher and higher resolutions give diminishing returns. You always make the argument how cheap the studios are so now I make use of that point.

Would you say that scanning a 35mm frame at 8kx6k captures 99 percent of what is there? Downsizing this to 4k deals with sampling problems and gives a good working material. I would guess without knowing that this might be good enough for many many years. Later you can improve the release by better compression and higher bit rates if we talk digital. If we talk about creating new film copies we might talk about improved laser recorders used directly instead of going through a duplication negative to reach the release print.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-22-2004 04:26 PM

quote: Mattias Ohlson
I am not saying a 4k will last forever but scanning a 35mm frame at higher and higher resolutions give diminishing returns.

Yes, at some upper limit you will run out of detail in a film frame to scan. I don't think 4K truly reaches that limit. It will be some time before a film scanner can truly capture all the detail, color depth and contrast of a 35mm film frame.

That brings up the issue of limitations of current state-of-the-art film scanners. They don't represent any final state of film scanner development. Improvements will continue to happen in photomultiplier tube, CCD and CMOS technology for film scanners. That will continue to extend capabilities in resolution, contrast and color depth.

Give it a decade and the scanners Lowry is using will seem primitive by comparison. High end scanners 10 or 20 years from now will have much better image capture quality than systems currently in use. They'll also be faster, more economical and more adept at addressing presentation formats in use at that time.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Later you can improve the release by better compression and higher bit rates if we talk digital.

That's only if you start with a superior, analog film source. It is totally useless to try to interpolate and blow up a low rez videotape production to a higher resolution format. This is exactly why studios need to keep shooting major releases on film, not video. Improved scanning technology is also why film studios really need to consider shooting major features on 65mm instead of 35mm. Future-proof the investment in that film project.

[ 04-22-2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-22-2004 05:12 PM

quote: Mattias Ohlson
If we talk about creating new film copies we might talk about improved laser recorders used directly instead of going through a duplication negative to reach the release print.

Agreed. I presume that the current practice of outputting an interneg from the final digital version and thereafter striking release prints using a conventional high-speed continuous contact printer is for economic reasons. But if a viable system could be devised whereby you could 'burn' all the 35mm release prints directly from a digital intermediate, it could potentially take a lot of the consistency issues out of big print run releases which currently exist (unless more of these are caused in developing than printing).

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.