New Retroscan - scans all formats!

Machine Design
59

Well, I am not so sure. It probably depends on what you are looking for.

Let me explain. The image on the Super-8 film is tiny - as far as I know, the camera frame is specified with 5.690 x 4.220 mm, whereas the slightly smaller projector frame features 5.430 x 4.010 mm as dimensions.

Now, imagine just the perfect optical image cast by the lens of the camera onto such a frame.

The resolution of this optical image will be limited in two ways: for large apertures, various lens defects are ruining the image, for smaller apertures, the image is going to be diffraction-limited. The keyword here is “Airy disk”. Put simply, the best focused spot of light a perfect lens is going to cast onto the film has a diameter of approximately

d [ in micrometer] =  f-stop

That means the image of something like a distant star (which would focus within classical optics onto a single point) will end up as a tiny disk (as the wave characteristics of light are taken into account).

Most lenses have their maximal sharpness around f/5.6 to f/8. Assuming such an f-stop for the moment, our image will be composed of tiny disks with a diameter of about 5 microns. That would be around 1140 x 840 disks placed side-by-side on the full camera’s frame dimension, which is slightly less than full HD-resolution.

Remember, that is assuming a perfect lens; certainly most of the zoom-lenses used at the time Super-8 was en vogue were not that perfect.

Next, consider the resolution of the Super-8 material by itself. I have found different data for Kodachrome, with numbers ranging from 53 lines/mm to 100 lines/mm. Taking the best value into account, we end up with only 569 x 422 pixel per camera frame…

So, in case you are interested in the film’s content (which is, the image as seen by the lens), I think, for the reasons elaborated above, that the Super-8 format does not exceed HD resolution or even reach HD resolution in most cases. Certainly not the old Super-8 material I have available for scanning.

However, if you want to capture the intrinsic properties of film grain, you might want to go even beyond 4k, as film grain has very fine, detailed textures.

Film grain, however, is not a structure related to what is filmed, but rather a structure related to the material and chemical processes used to develop it.

While film grain was primarily viewed as a nuisance in the days of Super-8, today it has turned into an aesthetic statement, often even added in post to grain-less digital material.

And of course, higher scan resolutions give you a lot more latitude for post-processing, which is an important advantage. So I do also scan at resolutions that exceed HD.

1 Like
60

Well aware of the dimensions, see this post.

SMPTE Recommended Practice Specification for Registration Test Film (for 8, and 16) specifies

“The rosette in the center shall indicate measurement from 60 to 240 lines per millimiter”
See RP19-1982 for 8mm, RP 20-1982 for 16 mm.

For clarity, these lines are not the dimensional unit lines.

@cpixip one cannot resolve/render 100 lines with 100 pixels.

Here is an actual DIY scan I made, suffering from youtube compression, and one can see the difference just by switching the youtube resolution to HD, look at the power lines and the increase details of the monument writings.

I know that 4K for 8mm is ongoing debate at Kinograph, count me on the side that more-is-more, And for 16mm, HD resolution is less than what the film can render…

1 Like
61

PS. Manufacturers typically expressed resolution in cycles/mm or lp/mm = line pair per mm.

Found this very detailed overview on the subject of film-lens resolution, will give it a detailed read at later time.

The MTF of Kodachrome at 30% is listed about 50 cycles/mm 2009 datasheet.

One important consideration in determining the cutoff of pixel resolution is that even for a lens-film low percentage response, these would still represent information and details in the picture (like the power lines or small-writing on the sculpture).

2 Likes
62

The main problem with the stock RUMkII is the light, not the camera. Building a better light is cheap and relatively easy, we should have a full write-up on how to improve that machine soon. There’s a few of us involved behind-the-scenes there. Changing the camera will also help, but changing the light is more important and less expensive.

Most 16mm prints are soft and low-resolution, but they can still scan a LOT better than off a stock RUMkII. If you get your hands on a TV print or a GOOD 16mm print then it’s a different story, they can be sharp and detailed - it just depends on how they were printed etc.

63

As a postscript to my earlier replies, here is a neg scan taken on the Mark 2 machine. The film was neg and learning how to expose correctly in the scanner and finesse it in DaVinci Resolve has been a mission.

There is some vertical jitter in the image which I have not corrected. That is to be expected with 35 year old film which has been less than ideally stored. The lightpin when kept clean and correctly focused upon the film is capable of acceptably steady register with good film.

I have done a mod on the machine whichw as to install a more powerful COB LED as recommended by another user.

One downside with that lamp is that it is a smaller area source and placement of the diffuser took some sorting out. Any falloff of the light towards the edges is massively amplified by a neg scan.

Roger has since also upgraded his machine with a new lamp which has a much more even spread of light and also a new camera.

I have also experimented very recently with a 4K camera. This requires the Spinnaker software to run it and it is nowhere near as simple to operate as the purposed software for the Mark 2.

Whilst it is nice to have that extra resolution from the camera and a little more dynamic range, for practicality and convenience in operating the machine, the reality is that the camera and software as provided is best for the average punter.

My PC is only capable of sustained recording with the 4K camera sensor image cropped to 2880 x 2160. Any more pixels into the bin and the buffer runs out after about 200ft of film.

I imagine that very many of the mom and pop shop users Roger provides to will have PCs incapable of sustained recording of more than 2K and some resistance to upgrading them.

Neg scan with original camera, new lamp, inverted and processed in DaVinci Resolve. No stabilisation.

Positive scan of old film with 4K cropped sensor, new lamp, lightly processed in DaVinci Resolve to recovery slightly faded red and blue channels. No stabilisation. Image shake is due to the camera operator and a small consumer tripod trembling under the weight of the camera and lens. The colour rendition is fairly faithful of the summer lighting conditions, the pastel colours of the vegetation and hard sky. The blue hue indoors is due to the Type 85B daylight correction filter having been removed in the quest for more light into the camera lens.

64

Does anyone own a Moviestuff Mark II 4K machine? I cannot find any review for it so curious if any has been delivered at all. I paid for mine a year ago but have not received it. Roger said supply issues so the long delay.

65

Possibly, Bowling Green State University received one in May of 2023.

However you need to be a student there to get more information.
I have been waiting for order completion, over a year now also.

66

Nice to know he’s actually fulfilling orders. Let’s hope he won’t run away with the money. It’s a huge chunk of change.

67

Not so sure about that. He has NOT returned any of my calls or correspondence in 2 months.

68

I know for a fact that the latest model has shipped to at least some buyers because I’ve talked with people who’ve received them. I also know that the build quality is sub-par even by their usual standards as Moviestuff have been unable to source all their usual parts so a brand new $12,000 Retroscan Universal MkII with the newer 2K camera that they call “4K” can break down in as little as two or three weeks. Build quality being worse than normal has been a problem ever since the very start of the pandemic. I don’t know for sure if the RetroScan 8162K has been delivered to anyone.

There’s a rumour that Moviestuff lost most of their staff during the pandemic and so now it’s basically a one-man operation. If this rumour is true, then coupled with difficulty in acquiring the correct parts it could help explain the very long delays in delivering on orders.

Delays are not that unusual for made-to-order things like this, but waiting over a year is outrageous. Would suggest pushing for a refund.

69

I too suspect it’s a one man operation since he moved to a new location. I will ask for a refund if I don’t get it soon in 2024. Question is will he refund.

70

He will try not to, and as it’s been longer than 6 months you’ll likely have a difficult time getting a bank to reverse it.

Roger has an account here, he should just come and answer these questions directly instead of letting people gossip. Anyway if I am going to hypothesise then I’d say it looks like the end of MovieStuff to me. Every company folds at some point, the RTI collapse was also sudden and unexpected.

71

There are a lot of people (on the Facebook moviestuff owners group) waiting for their orders to ship unfortunately, and plenty of people waiting for the 2.5K (marketed as 4K) upgrade kits to ship.
What size film formats do you want to scan? if it’s just 8mm, I’d be going for the filmfabriek Pictor. it is a price jump, but it’s also a huge jump in quality.

1 Like
72

8mm and 16mm. I need both. 35mm is nice plus for moviestuff scanner.

73

What Andy said above. Buy a Pictor and live without 16mm for a while until the next FF scanner comes out or until they make a 16mm Pictor. If you can’t afford a Pictor then purchase a refurbished Tobin, they only cost $3.5K. Yes they are not frame-by-frame, but really the stock standard you get off the Retroscan isn’t all that much better anyway.

To make the Retroscan actually work correctly and produce professional quality you’ll end up spending USD $20K+ not including the cost of the host computer.

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but I can confidently say that at least 90% of MovieStuff customers have never heard of their main competitors and don’t do their research before purchasing one. But that being said, MOST people that buy the Retroscans are happy with them, which leads you to getting people talking about how great their scanners are rather than a critical pros-and-cons comparing to other hobbyist-budget scanners.

74

If you are considering professional and paid for this job, I think it is crucial to carefully calculate your business plan.
The purchase price of the scanner remains very high for the equipment received. You also need to add accessories sold at a high price, the computer, and plan for future updates of paid software, even considering the replacement of the camera. Add up the total and calculate how many films you will need to digitize to repay your purchase.
And at this point, we are not even talking about your salary or any potential store expenses.
Unless you are working for subsidized institutions, it is not commercially feasible.
I am always skeptical when I see these companies offering this equipment at such prices.
How many entrepreneurs have lost money?
Unless you are working for subsidized institutions, this is not easy feasible.
And at this price, people doing it for pleasure alone must not allow these companies to make enough sales.
Self-manufacturing is the only way forward in my opinion… long live this forum!

1 Like
75

You’d be surprised. Some people do buy them just for their own hobby use. Though going from the previous sub-$5K price-point to what they cost now does narrow that.

Well the equipment cost shouldn’t be the main barrier if you’re delivering a service. There are commercial scanning companies that still use 10+ year-old scanners that produce difficult to grade scans which they then spend hours colour grading, when they could invest in a new scanner and cut down on the post-scan workload for delivery.

That being said, most entrepreneurs think the quality is fantastic, and they would think the same about any other scanner as they’ll always be able to point to something else that’s worse or at the very least give a reason why (“for me the quality is fantastic because the alternative is …”).

76

Now there’s a strange commercial notion.
For me, on the contrary, it’s the place to start.

77

I’m surprised no other manufacturer is producing an all-in-one machine like moviestuff. I don’t think it’s a patent or design/engineerinng issue. Maybe costs or market issue.

78

Okay allow me to illustrate and you may understand where I’m coming from. Alice owns a Lasergraphics ScanStation and has spent USD $200,000 to date on the cost of the scanner. Bob owns a Blackmagic Cintel C-Drive scanner and has spent USD $40,000 to date on the cost of his scanner. Bob says to Alice that she wasted her money because his scanner produces scans that are just as good quality. Alice disagrees, but says that even if quality were the same her scanner produces a deliverable format directly most of the time whereas the Blackmagic scanner only produces .CRI and requires additional workload to produce the same deliverable format for the client, and she says that alone would justify the increased cost for her even if quality were the same.

Charlie chimes in and says that he just gives all his clients the .CRIs and they don’t complain.

Dave gets quotes for a scanning job from Alice, Bob and Charlie and out of the three Alice has the most competitive rate so he goes with Alice.