Jump to content


Photo

Scanning still frames for a film


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Eugene Lehnert

Eugene Lehnert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 25 April 2012 - 01:30 PM

I have some stills on negative film that I want to use in a film shot with the RED. How can I scan the negative as a Log DPX or EXR file?
  • 0

#2 Eugene Lehnert

Eugene Lehnert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:45 PM

I'm looking at flatbed scanners that can scan at a 48-bit depth. Does anyone use a particular flatbed scanner for film work?
  • 0

#3 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:13 PM

how many frames? You should contact your local lab and have them scan it on a drum scanner if they can. 48 bit tiff would do fine. You can convert it to a DPX frame if you need to.
  • 0

#4 Eugene Lehnert

Eugene Lehnert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 26 April 2012 - 09:57 AM

What is the big difference between a drum scanner and a flatbed scanner?

I need to scan about 400-500 still images. I was looking at Duggal in NY but Yelp does not have a lot of good reviews of their work.

Edited by Eugene Lehnert, 26 April 2012 - 09:58 AM.

  • 0

#5 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:08 PM

At that volume, it might be a better idea to buy a dedicated film scanner. I picked up a canon FS4000u for 300 bucks on ebay. Not quite as good as a newer Nikon, but not a bad scanner at all. It suits my needs nicely. Here are some on ebay. not a fast scanner, so if speed is of the essence, you may need to look else where. If you can swing a few more buck, definitely go for a newer Nikon Coolscan, like the 4000 for 9000. Drum scanning that much could get quite costly. You probably would get a deal, it is just that drum scanning needs to be baby sat a bit, so labor costs. Difference between flatbed and drum, is pretty much night and day. I am assuming you are scanning off of negative film, not prints. In either case, the drum scan can scan at a much higher resolution and can has a much higher dynamic range. Some flatbeds can do rather well with printed material and also do an acceptable job with slide film, but negative film can be a bit trickier. This is because the imager in a flat bed is designed to see positive material. Here is a link to a virtual drum scanner, not quite sure what that means, but the listing gives you the specs of what a drum scanner can do.
  • 0

#6 Eugene Lehnert

Eugene Lehnert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 27 April 2012 - 09:55 AM

We actually haven't shot the stills yet and I wanted to shoot with negative to have the extra latitude but maybe I'll shoot some tests with reversal film as well and do some test scans to see how they come out.



At that volume, it might be a better idea to buy a dedicated film scanner. I picked up a canon FS4000u for 300 bucks on ebay. Not quite as good as a newer Nikon, but not a bad scanner at all. It suits my needs nicely. Here are some on ebay. not a fast scanner, so if speed is of the essence, you may need to look else where. If you can swing a few more buck, definitely go for a newer Nikon Coolscan, like the 4000 for 9000. Drum scanning that much could get quite costly. You probably would get a deal, it is just that drum scanning needs to be baby sat a bit, so labor costs. Difference between flatbed and drum, is pretty much night and day. I am assuming you are scanning off of negative film, not prints. In either case, the drum scan can scan at a much higher resolution and can has a much higher dynamic range. Some flatbeds can do rather well with printed material and also do an acceptable job with slide film, but negative film can be a bit trickier. This is because the imager in a flat bed is designed to see positive material. Here is a link to a virtual drum scanner, not quite sure what that means, but the listing gives you the specs of what a drum scanner can do.


  • 0

#7 Eugene Lehnert

Eugene Lehnert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:43 PM

It looks like I can rent this scanner: Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED Film Scanner. I'll give that a try.

Thanks.
  • 0

#8 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 April 2012 - 04:53 AM

I was just working on this same problem not long ago.
You can use software called Vuescan that outputs to RAW which off course is not real RAW but it does leave you with a undefined color space and then you could batch convert say in Photoshop to 32-bit EXR
  • 0

#9 Oliver Hadlow Martin

Oliver Hadlow Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • UK

Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:37 AM

Vue scan with the canon FS4000u scanner is great, and I got just as good (and sometimes better) results than the negatives I sent off for drum scanning (I don't know if that's just because I could take more care for my prints but I was disappointed with a lot of the drum scans I got back).




And if you are shooting it for mix with RED you probably would want to shoot on digital anyway and just meter your scene so it comes within the latitude that you want. Why not shoot the stills on the red or composite some stills through a DSLR carmera? Seems an awful lot of hassle to be shooting film these days and finding a good lab and then scanning them all, removing the dust, scratches etc etc. Shooting digital RAW would be a much easier and quicker method in my opinion.


  • 0

#10 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:53 AM

That Nikon scanner is arguably the best scanner out there for 35mm still, with out spending 10k. The Canon FS4000 and Vuescan is a great combo, it is what I use. Why anyone would shoot 35mm film is for look. I shot and still shoot with a DSLR for people, but when I show them what I can do with say Portra 160 or 400 or Fuji 160 or 400, the opinion is unanimous. It can be a hassle with all the work involved, that is why for the volume stated, having the lab do it could be the way to go. 14 rolls of film won't break the bank for P&T. You could get it all processed and put on CD for review for under 100 and then scan selects as needed.
  • 0

#11 Eugene Lehnert

Eugene Lehnert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:29 AM

Yeah. It's totally for the true authentic film look. The stills are going to be shot Film Noir style so I want to use good old fashioned film. I'd use film on everything if I had the budget. Maybe one day.

Thanks everyone.

That Nikon scanner is arguably the best scanner out there for 35mm still, with out spending 10k. The Canon FS4000 and Vuescan is a great combo, it is what I use. Why anyone would shoot 35mm film is for look. I shot and still shoot with a DSLR for people, but when I show them what I can do with say Portra 160 or 400 or Fuji 160 or 400, the opinion is unanimous. It can be a hassle with all the work involved, that is why for the volume stated, having the lab do it could be the way to go. 14 rolls of film won't break the bank for P&T. You could get it all processed and put on CD for review for under 100 and then scan selects as needed.


  • 0

#12 Thomas Andersen

Thomas Andersen

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Student

Posted 26 May 2012 - 08:09 AM

It looks like I can rent this scanner: Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED Film Scanner. I'll give that a try.

Thanks.


Yea this is also what I'd do if I was in your situation :-)
  • 0

#13 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 28 May 2012 - 10:08 PM

I used to deal with drum scans everyday in my work. Great for print work or large format but not really needed for your application. That Nikon scanner with modern scanning software would do a really good job.
  • 0

#14 Charles Zuzak

Charles Zuzak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:37 PM

It's really a pity that the Nikon CoolScan 9000 is still the most modern/advanced film scanner for consumer/prosumers. It came out in what--2005?

On the other hand, you can shell out ~$20K for an Hasselblad FlexTight X5, which in my opinion, is the highest resolution film scanner I've seen. Unfortunately, it doesn't have an IR LED or Kodak ICE for automatic dust removal. However, the resolution is generally high enough that dust particles appear fine enough to be corrected in PS with no harm.
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CineTape

Technodolly

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Opal