Scanning costs in Australia, it's getting a bit nuts out here.

[Orestes Roumeliotis]

For reference value this is how much scanning to 4k costs in Australia from Richard at Nanolab. For record keeping he uses a Lasergraphics ScanStation which will cost you about the same price as a small house at $175k. You have to recuperate your money somehow. I'm just thinking about the cost I just paid for 100ft of Super 8 footage though.

It's not a gripe about his business but just pointing it out. Even 2.5k scans in 4:3 are $100 a roll for scans + the cost of something like Vision 3 50D being something around $50 a cartridge. I don't really know how anyone does this regularly. ECN2 processing at home is basically impossible due to the consistent temperatures that is needed for ECN2.

I guess you could save some money by using Ektachrome and processing in E6 which is a little easier to do at home, or even something black and white like Tri-X or Double X but then you're very limited by the dynamic range limitations of slide film and all the other factors involved.

Don't get me wrong, Richard's game isn't serving every person, he's using a 6.5k scanner that is capable of putting out HDR footage for professionals, on 8, 16 and 35mm with a scanner like that.

Still, there aren't that many other choices out there when you want to output 4K for YouTube even with the end consumers expectations these days on a platform like that. Oh for the days when you could buy and develop film for less than $20

For what it's worth Nanolab is pretty much the only game in town for lab options in Australia, without sending film overseas, and running the risk of it going through a high powered X-Ray machine or CT scanner.... So you pay it, knowing full well how expensive it is.

I wonder how long these kinds of prices will be sustainable though for all but the 1% of die hard film users who pay the proce regardless?

At $around 240, for 100ft of film do people realise they're paying about $2.40 for every foot of footage? And that's after you buy them film 🤣

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hi!

Are these companies out of business?

http://www.dvdinfinity.com.au/

https://www.diskbank.com.au/

http://maxrescue.com.au/

https://www.memorylabfilm.com/

http://www.sublimevideoproductions.com.au/

[Orestes Roumeliotis]

Hi Joerg,

No in the majority of the cases they're not, but it's an apple's and lemons comparison. These companies usually focus on transfering film for personal viewing. A lab like Nanolab's focuses on cinema related stuff. Although looking at that list I think Memory Lab may be doing more cinema stuff these days. By definition of their names you can see what they traditionally focus on... "memories," "DVDs." This usually indicates lower quality film scans, a DVD type place will generally scan in 720p or 1080p which generally isn't good enough for further work.

Nanlab has always been focused on cinema first and foremost though.

[Gregory Oliver]

It's the cost of postage that eats you alive!

[David Strelitz]

What exactly are you filming that you consider needs such high end scanning?
I am somewhat bemused by your assertion that "1080p which generally isn't good enough for further work".
What are you using to destroy it?

[Nantawat Kittiwarakul]

What exactly are you filming that you consider needs such high end scanning?
I am somewhat bemused by your assertion that "1080p which generally isn't good enough for further work".
What are you using to destroy it?

EXACTLY!

NOT everyone would always need 4k 10 bit 4:4:4 HDR scan every time. In certain situations 720p, or even DVD quality, would already be considered overkill.

I'm doing my Nano-sized business here in Thailand. Although the output is limited at 1080p but NONE of my customer (ranging from old home movies to indie filmmakers) seems to consider this as a deal breaker. 4K scan might be occasionally asked, but most would agree to proceed at 1080p anyway. And I'm wondering if there'll be anyone here willing to pay $75 a roll for 4K scan (at that cost they'll get 5 rolls of 1080p scan from me instead).

If there's little demand for 4k scan at that price point in Australia, there is NONE in this country then.

[Winbert Hutahaean]

Say in 2030 the scanning capability has reached 8K, is there a point to scan that tiny cell with that high resolution?

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hello Winbert,

there are two points when it comes to scanning 8mm wide films:
a) the point where higher resolutions will not result in any additional details anymore
b) the point where higher resolutions will not result in a „better“ grain structure anymore.

There are several hefty debates about point „a“ as this depends on the filmstock, lens, camera and even the cameraman. Most people would say that this point is reached at 720p.
Point „b“ is also a depending on the filmstock, but in general, it’s save to say that this point is reached at 3k.

So everything beyond 3k is most likely completely useless. (In fact, 4K is only chosen as most telecine devices only offer 1080p, 2K and 4K. So there is no 3K.)

Why choosing resolutions beyond 3K/4K?
A) Some telecine devices are adding artifacts (sensor noise, debayering, …). These are usually less annoying at higher resolutions.
B) When combining the 8mm-film with 35mm-film, then you might want to have the same scanning resolution for all input formats (to avoid upscaling in the software).
C) There are some defects (scratches, shrunken film, damaged perforation holes, faded colors, …) that can be fixed more easily at higher resolutions. (But this is only something for professional film restorators working on important films like the Zapruder movie.)
D) Some UHD-TVs completely suck when it comes to upscaling SD, 720p or 1080p. Whether this will change on newer TVs, smartphones or beamers, is unknown. So it might be the video-playback-device that might enforce scans at higher resolutions.
D) And of course, Kodak might’ve drastically improved their filmstocks by then.

[Brian Fretwell]

Yes, it is always better to scan at a higher resolution than the final viewing file especially when using compression. That was the way with later DVD releases of 35mm films those scanned at HD were better than those at SD .

[Graham Sinden]

One advantage of scanning at a high rate is that you can overscan the picture area and when you crop the picture to what you want or zoom in, still get very good resolution.

[Orestes Roumeliotis]

Hello Winbert,

there are two points when it comes to scanning 8mm wide films:
a) the point where higher resolutions will not result in any additional details anymore
b) the point where higher resolutions will not result in a „better“ grain structure anymore.

There are several hefty debates about point „a“ as this depends on the filmstock, lens, camera and even the cameraman. Most people would say that this point is reached at 720p.
Point „b“ is also a depending on the filmstock, but in general, it’s save to say that this point is reached at 3k.

So everything beyond 3k is most likely completely useless. (In fact, 4K is only chosen as most telecine devices only offer 1080p, 2K and 4K. So there is no 3K.)

Why choosing resolutions beyond 3K/4K?
A) Some telecine devices are adding artifacts (sensor noise, debayering, …). These are usually less annoying at higher resolutions.
B) When combining the 8mm-film with 35mm-film, then you might want to have the same scanning resolution for all input formats (to avoid upscaling in the software).
C) There are some defects (scratches, shrunken film, damaged perforation holes, faded colors, …) that can be fixed more easily at higher resolutions. (But this is only something for professional film restorators working on important films like the Zapruder movie.)
D) Some UHD-TVs completely suck when it comes to upscaling SD, 720p or 1080p. Whether this will change on newer TVs, smartphones or beamers, is unknown. So it might be the video-playback-device that might enforce scans at higher resolutions.
D) And of course, Kodak might’ve drastically improved their filmstocks by then.

Jorge, first of all your information is outdated, there is way more lines than 720p if you see some of the stuff going up even on YouTube from 8mm scanned at 4K. I've heard the 720 lines (how many scan lines there are on a screen which means in this case 720 lines in total, as compared to 720i which would be interlaced to get to that number) but those numbers I've heard are now at least 20 years old. The real numbers on non-outdated 1980s era telecines are much more than that, probably at least 1080p if not 1440p just as a visual reference, when I'm looking at it by eye, not by actual measurements.

Secondly, we're not talking about Telecine anymore, that stuff is way outdated. The person I have sent my scans off to be done at 2.5k (due to overscan as I want to see the whole frame on a new (to me) camera results in a 4K scan with a 2.5k inner crop with sprocket holes and the film gate displayed.

The Lasergraphics scan station Richard now owns is capable of 6.5k and HDR. Although to see the real results on a scanner like that you have to use 35mm film, but still, there are other advantages. The resolution achieved is way more than that with a Lasergraphics scanner, and then there is the extra added bonus for anyone who has scanned at home. For something to be "HDR" it has to at least be 10bit+ and is generally considered to be 12bit as the standard of "Dolby Vision" as opposed to Samsung's HDR10.

With an 8bit scan you pretty much get what you get without any real latitude to change anything. Richard now uploads full 12bit H.264 scans which means you have way more latitude for colour correction in grading which is the real reason for HDR TVs and monitors, not just "pretty colours" but making it way more easy to grade than what film traditionally would be.

Actually I have a "mini drum scanner" at home for film that can do the same frame by frame scanning as a Lasergraphics, at a much slower rate of course, called a Nikon Coolscan. If you see the latitude it can give you to actually edit in post most people would defecate in their pants by the comparison of what in this case a 14bit or 16bit scan can give you vs an 8bit one. I mean photo scanners and film scanners are apple's and oranges but you get the point... It does the same thing... You can automate it to scan each frame on a roll of 35mm... it just does it at a much slower rate...

Coming back to motion picture film just for comparison sake, the difference between a 12bit scan and an 8bit scan is immense. 8bit gives 16,777,216 colors or "16million" colours traditionally speaking. by comparison 12bit gives you 68,719,476,736 colors. Not only is it the extra colours that count, it's the extra bit depth when you're grading, which means there is far more room to colour correct, or do whatever grading that you choose to do in film, and less chance of out of gamut related issues, especially "banding" when grading which is common with 8bit editing.

Also, in the end I chose to scan with overscan. The overscan also allows me to choose what I want from the frame, and what I want to crop. At 4K these days from a modern scanner you're probably actually getting somewhere closer to 1440p from the actual frame at that rate in terms of the actual lines displayed. So, at least as good as standard definition Bluray.

Mind you, these scanners are worth about as much as some people's houses. But the Reason why I chose Richard/Callum (they work together now as I hear between Memory Lab and Nanolab from someone closer to the ground I spoke to) is because they're not doing Telecine scans anymore, but actually using full cinema grade scanners.

There's a massive step up in technology, and if you haven't seen it, you may want to see how absolutely insane 8mm scans can look. If you didn't know anything you would say this was at least 16mm and that it would be acceptable to make a full feature length movie if you had about $1.2million to buy the film and have it developed at today's prices for about 90minutes run time at 24fps.

But on the other hand that's the argument though as to why you would bother because once you have a digital camera, the footage is free. On the flip side though, here's a beautiful candy red Beaulieu 7008 with a C mount lens mastered in 6.5k and uploaded to YouTube in 4K to deal with the compression issues. With footage from some guy doing things most people can't afford because he owns Pro 8 which is one of the biggest labs in the world bar none for 8mm film and so this footage looks better than most people can afford at the same time.

If you applied some noise reduction, most modern cinema goers wouldn't complain about paying whatever it is (something in the order of $15 a ticket these days) to see such quality content in a feature length movie, in fact they did, it was called Once Upon a Time in Hollywood where Tarantino used a whole bunch of 8mm footage for his B roll, movie shots to take the glaze off the other footage he used, and to create the effect of "outtake" footage in that movie when they were showing the failures of "Rick Dalton's" life as a struggling "western" movie actor.

Mind you, this footage was scanned at 6.5k and down sampled to 4K which means it's filling every line possible for 4K you could get out of 8mm film with something like that scanner I was talking about with one of the best camera/lens combinations you could use to do so. Yes you too can take the news reel footage of Ted Bundy from the 1970s, and scan it on one of these things to achieve results like this.

[Orestes Roumeliotis]

One advantage of scanning at a high rate is that you can overscan the picture area and when you crop the picture to what you want or zoom in, still get very good resolution.

Actually this is Exactly what I've done. I've gone for an overscan for my last scan because of three factors.

1. These are new (to me cameras)
2. With new cameras you always want to check the gate and internals of the camera so that you can see that the camera is not full of dust/hairs, etc.
3. Overscaning allows you to get a good look at the entire frame and choose what you want to crop. Sometimes you don't want to crop anything and leave the sprocket holes, and the general shape of the gate, etc, which is one of the things with Super Eight that gives it its look. Or you want to crop to a specific aspect ratio.... 4:3, 16:9. 1.85:1, 2.39:1 or even 1:1 all of these examples were used in the movie I mentioned above. E.G. Once Upon a Time in Holywood that used all these different aspect ratios because it was, at it's very least, a montage on cinema, hence its name.

"Once Upon a Time in Holywood: We did it this way."Although most people don't care they did it that way, so they dropped the second part of the title off.

Scanning at a higher resolution also allows you to do all of that because you're scanning in as many lines as you can. If you scan at 1080p for something like YouTube below your video may well be destroyed by the compression algorithm of YouTube, let alone leaving you with no room to crop anything as an aesthetic choice for framing, let alone colour aesthetics which I went into a bit of a rant above about.

Then there is the general aesthetics of 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p resolution matters when you're recording/scanning as you're literally fitting more in the screen. It's not just more detail, it's more actual screen area that you are using every time you manage to fill one of those lines, making the frame size not only look more detailed, but also bigger in general in terms of the screen space you're actually filling. It's a bit like the analogy of using a crummy 480 CRT TV from the 1990s, vs a modern 40inch 2160p screen of today, even if it's only a 40inch screen you will see there is a bigger picture and more detail within the frame from the resolution you're gaining. Of course this is less of a fixed thing with TV screens today, but its definitely still a thing if you're watching on any kind of true monitor, even the one on your laptop, or paired with your computer. More lines = a bigger frame, and also more detail if you can fill those lines.

Who am I kidding, by the time you actually want to fill all of those lines you might as well just get out the bare minimum which is a Panasonic GH5 or Sony FX6 if you want a camcorder style camera, but yeah, that's digital and one of the reasons why I shoot film, in spite of the costs, is because digital sucks... It's cold, sterile, and clinical... but once you digitise the same rules still do apply.

[Rodney Bourke]

Hi Orestes sounds like you shoot Super 8 professionally,
like this New film on Super 8, "Dead Community Guild"

https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/vbb/f...hot-on-super-8

There is another Super 8 Lab in Sydney NSW, who does Processing & Scanning in HD & UHD,
you may want to do a Test with them.

https://rewindphotolab.com.au/