I compared HD (720x480) to 2K (1920x1080) on the same reel of movies at two different places a couple of years ago. Hard to see the difference with 8mm. If you're going to create movies afterward by editing using a video editing program, you can always uprez to 4K. SO I don't think it pays to buy 4K or even 2K, to begin with. I recommend you pay to convert the same reel at a couple of services and in a couple of resolutions especially if you have a lot of film to convert. Then you can compare before you decide how you want to do the whole conversionHD, 2K and 4K scans of Super 8mm and Regular 8mm film @ $25 to $35 per roll (plus media):
https://filmphotographystore.com/co...ts/film-scanning-services-super-8-regular-8mm
We use this very same scanner at our archive.
Nice. I never got to do that, because when I was in Photo/Cinema school, we only shot silent film. Videotape was going to replace everything, so all my synch-sound work was done in videotape.Thanks, Kino.
Digging around online I stumbled across a cool video:
I used Handbrake to sync the sound.
You might consider converting. There are a lot of good services out there.
What distribution of Linux are you running? What is your playback program? Are you running a low latency Kernel?The problems I have are only on my Linux desktop system -- I can view the very same YouTube video on my phone, tablet, or Fire Stick and it'll be in sync. Further, I don't have the option to adjust the sync on YouTube videos.
I've compared services in 2014 who provided 720x480 and HD 1080. 8mm film frame is so small, the data just isn't there to capture. Also, I'm not sure how they get 4K. Are they really scanning at 4K? Or are the scanning at a lower resolution and just uprezing for you? My 4k TV automatically uprezes 2K as does yours. Most TV programs are not 4K. Yet you can't tell the difference in most cases. And that's with modern high resolution cameras not little 8mm frames of film.While there are few resolution benefits for converting Regular 8mm to 4 or 2K, it does serve you well for modern video playback without having to upscale them with uncertain loss of information.
Yes, I know many people say they can scale up video from SD (standard definition) to HD, 2K or 4K, but unless you run it through some pretty expensive software and noise reduction, it looks pretty bad. Not only are you changing the resolution, you are remapping the color spaces (REC 601 to REC 709) and that can be problematic depending on your software.
http://www.glennchan.info/articles/technical/hd-versus-sd-color-space/hd-versus-sd-color-space.htm
I think you'd pay at least as much as my listed link prices for SD transfers, so why not just do the 2K or 4K and skip the extra hassle of converting?
It tops out at 6.5K because its scans film up to 70mm (double35mm) which would be valuable in such a large format film. You'd be able to capture such high resolution. However, that's not so with 8mm film. If you look at their sheet that you linked to, the right-hand column shows Personal resolution recommendation for 8mm at 1.2K or 1200. For comparison, 2K resolution is 1920 and 4K is 3840 bits wide. So you can see that you can't get much resolution out for 8mm, due to such small footprint film. This scanner uses the same transport. So higher rates are available as the film goes through the same transport area. But to set 8mm on 6.5K would only slow the process down and provide no additional resolution.Here's the scanner they use. http://www.lasergraphics.com/scanstation-features.html
Yes, it's true 4K . Lasergraphics makes up to 10K scanners; this one tops out at 6.5K.
If you want to argue about resolution, there are multiple YouTube and Film user boards where this debate rages on endlessly. I have no use or desire to debate it; I stated my suggestions above. Feel free to ignore them.
What distribution of Linux are you running? What is your playback program? Are you running a low latency Kernel?
Something quite odd must be going on with your system. I've been using Linux (Debian) as my main OS for about 15 years (longer as an adjunct), and have never had a a problem with audio sync. If you can handle CLI apt-get and dpkg, you can probably export a list of packages you have installed, which will make it easier to re-install after a wipe or getting a new machine. I've done it a few times, but don't remember the details.I'm using Ubuntu Mate, and I'm a slow updater; I'm still on 16.04.3 (or 16.04.5, don't recall offhand where to check system version), with HWE kernel version 4.15.0-126 generic. At present, I don't have sufficient impetus to give up a weekend of darkroom/photography time to do a complete clean reinstall, which seems to be the only reliable way to upgrade (and necessarily includes reinstalling hundreds of added packages, plus converting from repo to Snap for some, as was the case last time I upgraded GIMP). Last time I did it, it took me two days after the hardware rebuild was completed. And once done, I'd have to repeat the process for my laptop...
Single 8, which is Fuji's Super 8 system, which got a different cassette with longer film, is PET-based film. PET is not solvent gluable and thus tape has to be used.A question about splicing:
Tape or cement - is there any consensus?
If there enough gems on these reels I will probably do this so my relatives can have copies. Projecting them is great first time, but I think they'd like to be able to watch them on their own terms rather than mine eventually. Currently I'm seeing a minute of family and friends in the 1960s followed by two minutes of flowers, mountains or brass bands.
I'd keep the originals intact so you can project them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?