Print

Print


The problem is that the resulting image will be limited by the resolution of
the monitor. You may have to pay more for a very high quality, large monitor
than you would for a good scanner.

Jerry Hartke

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Roth
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:42 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Scanner for 8mm film frames - is there such an
> 'animal'?
> 
> Thanks for all your advice, everyone.
> I'll need to read it a few times.
> 
> I pray for the day when a film editing machine can attach to a computer
> and we can see the image on the monitor, then take a snap shot.
> If anyone knows of such an animal, please let me know.
> 
> Regards,
> Ben
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Scanner for 8mm film frames - is there such an
> 'animal'?
> 
> I agree with Richard about minimal quality. However, like Ben, I found
> images of long-dead relatives that only existed on 8mm films. I had good
> luck working from a DVD transfer my brother had done. I simply played the
> DVD on my computer and paused and frame-by-frame advanced until I had my
> favorite image from the sequence. Then I did a screen shot (control-print
> screen) and pasted that into Photoshop. I ended up with a 72DPI of a full-
> screen with the player running at 2x magnification.
> This then ended up with about a 4x6 print at 144dpi. Non-ideal but good
> enough to clearly see the person (it was a closeup of her face). If it
> were a few people standing together, I doubt you'd be able to make out
> exactly who they are from the 4x6. The color wasn't very good on the
> 1950's vintage 8mm, but I was able to correct it somewhat in Photoshop. I
> decided the image looked better as a grayscale.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Scanner for 8mm film frames - is there such an
> 'animal'?
> 
> 
> > Hello, Ben,
> >
> > Don offers an excellent suggestion, but I'd like to suggest that the
> image quality from 8 mm will
> > be marginal at best. The area of 8 mm is about 1/4 of 16 mm. The 16mm
> film frame was scanned at
> > 9600 dpi on the Epson V700. The resultant TIF is 3930 x 2511 pixels
> ((9.9 MP). I did confirm that
> > the focus was soft with a loupe. 4800 dpi clearly showed jaggies before
> the optical resolution
> > fell off. My son Robert and I sat there looking at different scanning
> resolutions starting at 2400
> > dpi. We both felt that 9600 was the first one that was really good. He
> was surprised I didn't take
> > the next step, but that involves interpolation, I think, so we left it
> at close to 10 MP for the
> > image. He did a great job of cropping each frame (they were different
> effective heights. This
> > appears to have been a commercial film strip, not part of a movie. I
> never knew there were 16 mm
> > film strips!
> >
> > Remember, with the macro approach you will be way above 1:1 which is why
> normal "macro" or "micro"
> > lenses which go to 1:1 will not provide the required magnification which
> is why all the fuss that
> > Don described is necessary.
> >
> > Wikipedia indicates that the frame size of regular 8 mm film is 4.8 x
> 3.5 mm, so it is a bit
> > larger than 1/8 of an inch (3.175 mm)--every millimetre counts!
> >
> > The aspect ratio of 8 mm is about 1.37 while both full-frame and APS-
> sized digital SLR sensors
> > have an aspect ratio of about 1.5.
> >
> > That means that height will control the magnification (if you don't want
> to crop top and bottom).
> >
> > With full-frame 35 mm image sensors (36 x 24 mm) you will need
> magnification approximately 6.8 X.
> > With an APS-sized sensor (Nikon DX) size of 24 x 16 mm, you will need
> about 4.5 X magnification.
> > This is achievable with a macro setup. When I went digital, I sold my
> bellows and slide copier
> > attachment and then ended up buying another fixed slide copy attachment
> (no bellows) later, which
> > I have not used except for proof-of-concept (or more correctly
> determining the
> > annoyance-of-concept for my scale of project).
> >
> > If you just went 1:1, you would end up with about 0.5 MP (about 875 x
> 583 pixels) in a 24 MP
> > full-frame DSLR and 0.76 MP (about 1072 x 715 pixels) in a 16 MP DX-
> sized (APS) DSLR. These may be
> > barely adequate, but I think I'd want more, so I'm afraid you're stuck
> with bellows or at least
> > extension tubes. You will be in the manual everything domain, so make
> certain you can use your
> > DSLR and lens in fully manual mode. You will want to stop down, but not
> too far or diffraction
> > losses will reduce your sharpness. Reversing a lens, especially a wide-
> angle lens--will get you
> > closer to what you need.
> >
> > On the other hand, a good flatbed with transparent material adapter as
> Jerry suggested and I did
> > with the 16 mm is easier to use and faster to set up. At 9600 dpi your
> frame would work out to
> > about 1814 x 1322 pixels or 2.4 MP which might be satisfactory. The
> Epson actually was
> > interpolating at 9600 dpi (in one direction) which is possibly part of
> the softness. It's native
> > resolution on the glass is 4800 x 9600 dpi while the V-500 is 6400 x
> 9600 dpi. So, for your
> > application, the V-500 or V-600 which are priced at under $200 here in
> Canada are less than the
> > cost of a bellows alone, let alone all to other pieces you need to make
> macro work, so you might
> > want to give it a try. I don't want to tell you all the Nikon rings and
> things I have for fooling
> > around with macro.
> >
> > The individual frames will be less pleasing than looking at the
> projected movie because, in the
> > movie, the grain is random and tends to average out from frame to frame
> whereas that does not
> > happen when you grab an individual frame. Also, with an individual
> frame, you will probably end up
> > looking at it for longer and at greater magnification than the moving-
> image version...and people
> > will expect more resolution from a still than from a movie.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > On 2012-09-20 9:00 AM, James Roth wrote:
> >> Greetings, all!
> >>
> >> First, thank you all for advising me on the baking of the 1/4-inch
> audiotape which had become
> >> sticky over the years.
> >> The tapes now play perfectly.
> >>
> >> I have many feet of regular, old 8mm film and I'd love to be able to
> scan certain individual
> >> frames of it, but they are so small (about 1/8-inch square).
> >> Does anyone know of a scanner that could handle such a minute picture?
> >> Perhaps  there's a film editor that can snap a frame with the push of a
> button.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ben Roth
> >> FAU/RSA
> >
> > --
> > Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> > Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> > http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> > Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
> >