Pro8mm New 5K Scanner

[Paul Thrussell]

Just got a newsletter from Pro8 saying that they're getting a new 5K scanner. Sounds from the description that it's a Scanstation. Nothing particularly interesting to me as I'd rather go through Frame Discreet, but some might be interested.

We are excited to announce we have a new film to digital scanner that will be installed this summer! Our new scanner will specialize in data scans which will allow for maximum amounts of raw information to be transferred to digital, a workflow that is becoming more and more desirable for modern film users who want "log" scans. Color and exposure correction, framing and stabilization will be done in post production by the user and set to whatever output format is desired.

With the new scanner Pro8mm will be expanding our services to include 4K and 5K output, log scanning, 35mm film scanning, Ultra 16mm support, full format over scanning and so much more! Direct encoding in ProRes to 2K, 4K and 5K will be available for easier workflow and high speed direct encoding for faster turn around on DPX projects.

There's also a link to a Logmar-shot film scanned with the new scanner: link.

[gammaraydigital]

For the record, that sample video was scanned by Gamma Ray Digital, on our 5k ScanStation. While it's obviously the filmmaker's prerogative how it's used, and I don't fault Friedemann at all for allowing them to use it (they are the sole US reseller for the camera, after all), I was a little taken aback to see Pro8mm implicitly showing it off as if it's their own scan.

The full version (with credits) is available on Logmar's DropBox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xyil3ps749esx ... k.mov?dl=0

Not cool.

-perry

[carllooper]

Just got a newsletter from Pro8 saying that they're getting a new 5K scanner. Sounds from the description that it's a Scanstation. Nothing particularly interesting to me as I'd rather go through Frame Discreet, but some might be interested.

Are not Frame Discrete using the very same technology: a 5K Scanstation?

Or did you mean you'd rather go through Frame Discrete for reasons other than the technology (which I'd fully understand as it's not all about the technology).

C

[Will2]

Interesting, I thought they were using a 4k Millennium which I've heard good things about since it uses tubes. Several colorists have told me they like the look of the Millennium over the Spirit, but I guess a Scanstation is providing better info or faster maybe.

[S8 Booster]

not 5K but still interesting compare: "Super-8 Telecine 2K comparative test - Millennium II vs Spirit DataCine SDC 2000"
http://vimeo.com/118129610

there is some discussion there vs 5K comparisation Scanstation etc.


shoot...

[Will2]

not 5K but still interesting compare: "Super-8 Telecine 2K comparative test - Millennium II vs Spirit DataCine SDC 2000"
http://vimeo.com/118129610
there is some discussion there vs 5K comparisation Scanstation etc.

This is probably more of a comparison between Spectra who actually gives a crap about their scans and Pro8mm which is completely hit or miss depending on the time of day. Unfortunately it's almost worthless due to the massive compression artifacts from the codec struggling with the film grain.

That being said, I like the Spirit better but I always have.

[Paul Thrussell]

Are not Frame Discrete using the very same technology: a 5K Scanstation?

Or did you mean you'd rather go through Frame Discrete for reasons other than the technology (which I'd fully understand as it's not all about the technology).

Sorry, yes, I mean for reasons other than the technology - Frame Discreet is in Canada so shipping is cheaper and faster for me, generally has lower prices, they're more catered to independent artists rather than commercial pro work, and I really respect Justin and his business. (Not that I don't respect Pro8mm, they're just the big Hollywood fish in the (admittedly small) Super 8 pond.)

[Will2]

(Not that I don't respect Pro8mm, they're just the big Hollywood fish in the (admittedly small) Super 8 pond.)

I'm not a Pro8mm basher, I've had really good results from them and really bad. I always say they have an "A" team and a "B" team and if you get the "B" team (maybe interns working over night?) you're screwed.

If you want Hollywood try Cinelicious, they have some amazing colorists and that's really what it comes down to more than equipment.

[slashmaster]

Being that 4k tv's are only now becoming available I wonder what 5k would be good for? Will there be tv's that still have the 2160p height but 5k wide? Are there any monitors like that?

[gammaraydigital]

Being that 4k tv's are only now becoming available I wonder what 5k would be good for? Will there be tv's that still have the 2160p height but 5k wide? Are there any monitors like that?

4k TVs have been out in the wild for a few years now. 8k is on the horizon. Does it make any sense? Maybe, maybenot. If your television is correctly sized for the room its in, and you're sitting the correct distance from it, (ie, you're not 3 feet from a 60" television), you shouldn't really be able to tell the difference between, say, HD and UHD (the consumer 4k standard). Get up close, though, and you will see a difference.

The production world is heading in the direction of more and more resolution, and that's probably a more realistic technological progression than 3D, so I would imagine we'll be looking at higher than 4k resolution screens that are affordable within the next 5-8 years. Manufacturers have to do something to get you to buy new TVs, after all.

5k isn't really a format most people scan to, to be honest. We offer it because the scanner can do it, but on a practical level, right now, scanning to 4k makes more sense because you have more software that can work with it. But you know, Resolve doesn't care about resolution, so we're getting to a point where if you have a fast enough computer, you can work with files scanned at 5k.

What we find is that there are two common scenarios where people want 5k:

1) Film archives - they want to capture as much as possible at the highest resolution possible, to future-proof the scan. So it makes sense to scan at 5k, because they're not going to play those files directly, they're going to make derivative files in standard resolutions from them.

2) People who want lots of overscan. You can get a true 4k picture area, along with lots of overscan in case you want the look of the frame edges, or if you want to use the frame or film edges to do some post processing (like stabilization), by scanning at 5k. Then when you crop the film inside the frame lines, you're getting a 4k or higher resolution scan of the picture area, depending on how you have it set up.

-perry

[carllooper]

Being that 4k tv's are only now becoming available I wonder what 5k would be good for? Will there be tv's that still have the 2160p height but 5k wide? Are there any monitors like that?

As a rule (but often ignored), input material should be scanned at a sampling rate at least twice that of the output signal in order to suppress aliasing in a result. So if wanting to exploit a 4K screen to it's maximum advantage, one should in fact scan film at 8K before down converting it for output to 4K.

So when sampling at 5K the result should eventually be re-sampled to 2.5K. It will be sharper than a native 2.5K scan.

In scanning film it doesn't hurt to scan at whatever the highest rate you can achieve, regardless of target. There is a phenomena called "grain aliasing" (look it up - it's a thing as they say) where any digital sampling of film produces a "pseudo-grain" in the result. In perhaps more correct terminology one can say the result is grainier than the source.

In order to suppress such additional graininess one should scan film at higher definitions.

THEORY

What does this mean in terms of a film's information capacity?

Some say the image stops at some sort of threshold: eg. 35mm image = 4K, where the practice of scanning 35mm at 8K is simply to "resolve the grain" and suppress grain aliasing (suppress the pseudo-grain), ie. that this extra work has nothing to do with the image.

However graininess is not the same thing as the individual 'grains' in the film. It is noise. Whether it is native graininess or pseudo-graininess it's the same thing: noise. Now this graininess or noise can be defined negatively as: not a signal. A signal is information. Noise is the absence of such information. It is "information" of sorts but one that cancels out to zero. Zero information. Which is the same as saying "absence, or lack of information". Now if increasing the definition of a scan, reduces grain/noise, there must be a corresponding increase in the information content, which we can otherwise express as an increase in the visibility of the original image. Which is what happens.

There is more information in the result - although not necessarily twice as much - diminishing returns as they say.

Nevertheless, this additional information is a signal. It is additional components of the image that have been unlocked.

In other words, increasing sampling rates, beyond nominal thresholds, has everything to do with the image. If Super8 scanned at 5K establishes a minimum information capacity of 2.5K for Super8 film (taking into account Nyquist limits), then the minimum information capacity for 35mm of the same stock would be roughly 4X such: ie. 10K (and requiring a 20K scan to extract it).

In other words the proper way of expressing film's information capacity in digital terms is to say film is "at least X" rather than "at most X".

One of the nice things about working in small gauge formats is being able to test and/or exploit these things ahead of the larger gauge formats doing so. To be on the "cutting edge" of such so to speak.

C

ps. the noise in film is not entirely zero information since it would require an infinite sum to properly cancel out. So a zero signal description of it is an idealisation. In practice (which is what really matters) graininess is even stranger than the physical expression of zero. And a motive (amongst others) for exploring or exploiting grain (or any other form of "noise") in a work, as much as any signal.

[jamworks]

4k TVs have been out in the wild for a few years now. 8k is on the horizon.

Better yet, Rec. 2020 is on the horizon, a new television standard not only for higher display resolution, but also high dynamic range and a wider color gamut. Most of us must be digitally remastering our films in the Rec. 709 space. I am really excited to find out what Rec. 2020 may offer for remastering and displaying our films.

[Will2]

I'm sitting by the neighborhood pool trying to imagine what it would be like if my eyes worked like digital cameras or even film for that matter. I can see the bright sky and clouds and shady areas under trees without adjusting my exposure. In life it seems completely natural. On the screen it would be very strange I think.

[carllooper]

I'm sitting by the neighborhood pool trying to imagine what it would be like if my eyes worked like digital cameras or even film for that matter. I can see the bright sky and clouds and shady areas under trees without adjusting my exposure. In life it seems completely natural. On the screen it would be very strange I think.

It's like when we move our eyes around a scene in the real world - we don't get sea sick doing so. But if we moved a camera around in the same way as our eyes moved around, the result on screen would be awful (except in experimental film of course).

C

[nikonr10]

I'm sitting by the neighborhood pool trying to imagine what it would be like if my eyes worked like digital cameras or even film for that matter. I can see the bright sky and clouds and shady areas under trees without adjusting my exposure. In life it seems completely natural. On the screen it would be very strange I think.

It's like when we move our eyes around a scene in the real world - we don't get sea sick doing so. But if we moved a camera around in the same way as our eyes moved around, the result on screen would be awful (except in experimental film of course).

C

There say the eye sees outside of the mind ! It's only when we think !
For me it s that REM like in dreams