thorr

There are rumors of two possible titles:

- Return of the Sith

- Rise of the Jedi.

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/star-wars-episode-vii-titles-revealed/

I like "Rise of the Jedi" better.  Here are a few more ideas of my own (some not so serious):

Real ideas:

- A New Enemy

- War of the Droids

- Balance of the Force

Not so serious:

- An Old Hope

- The Old Fogies Strike Back

- Wrath of the Younglings

- The Fate of Jar Jar

poita said:

Remember that often a 2K or 4K scan includes the sprockets and soundtrack areas of the film so the final resolution can be considerably less.

Makes sense, but I was saying that if the final resolution was 4K for the film area that remained in the final product, it is possible there would not be much if any appreciable difference with the additional resolution because there is only so much resolution to begin with.

Even on a print that won't resolve 4K, it is better to scan in 4K, it gives you finer control when stabilising footage etc. as you can adjust at a pixel level, so you get twice as fine an adjustment without having to resort to sub-pixel alignments which lose detail in the resampling process.

The same with repairing damage, the torn area of the film is resolved at twice the detail allowing any warps or movements of part of a frame to be done without resampling, or if you do have to resample you get a better result.

It is also easier to discern what is grain and what is dirt and other crud.

So there are advantages to scanning at a higher resolution even if the print isn't the sharpest.

Good thoughts, and I totally agree with all of the above.  My post was simply defending the sharpness of the sample image because I don't know that it would look much sharper at 4K scanning.  I know this first hand with the trailer I am working on.

I respectfully disagree that they are soft.  If you ignore the "softness" of the movie, and look more closely at the fine details of the image, it is very sharp.  There is some print damage on the frame and you can see it clearly.  I don't think a 4K, 10K or whatever is going to get much more out of it.  It is what it is.

I remember thinking Yoda had a big mustache on his chin the first time I saw that scene and it freaked me out.  It looks the same in the small version of that pic.

I got it!  I built my rig with the flash, and I am fully satisfied with the results!  Ignore the crap I posted above with the backlight.  ;-)  The stars show up when there are bright areas too.  Here are some samples:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/64lqdc

http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hpu8j

Now, I can fly through the scanning process! :-)

Played around a little more.  I tried using the transparency adapter backlight from my old Epson 1640SU scanner with my camera instead of using the flash.  Eventually I will probably want to use the flash, but I need to build a rig for it because there is no other way.  At least with this backlight, I can figure out the best lens and distance and focus, etc. because I can use live view and see it instead of taking a picture in the dark that gets lit up only when the flash goes off and checking the focus after the picture is taken.  What a pain that is!

I adjusted the color/levels with Photoshop, so it is probably a bit too bright, but the results are similar.  The idea is to save tons of time eventually because it is close enough to the scanner in quality.  The scanner adds its own artifacts, so before saying it is better, look closely and see if you really see any more detail (aside from blown out highlights from my adjustments). 

http://www.sendspace.com/file/277ica

Another idea I had is to use the transparency backlight adapter with my new scanner which would allow me to scan a lot of frames in one pass.  Then I would just crop each of them to files quickly manually or automatically.  That may be the ultimate solution, but I haven't tried it yet.

team_negative1:  Looks really great!  I am curious about your improved optics.  Are you still using a camera, or are you using a scanner now?

poita, this is VERY exciting!  Will this have a wet gate capability?

Finally got a little time to play with this and so far it looks like in order to get the best results, I would need to do HDR / AEB techniques because I can't get scenes like the Death Star explosion to have bright stars and not have an overblown explosion (no pun intended).  The dynamic range of the shot isn't there without it.  It's a bit frustrating at this point.  If anyone has any settings they recommend for the flash and/or camera to try, I am all ears.

Update: I might have the Aperture set too small.  I will play with it more this weekend.  Here is an interesting article that might help.  http://petapixel.com/2012/05/18/how-to-scan-film-negatives-with-a-dslr/

Thanks for your feedback.  It was a proof of concept hand held shot.  I have a million different variables that can be tweaked to dial it in.  I think once I get it set up right with the flash and the best lens on a tripod along with the right exposure, the camera will look better.  Time will tell.  As of now, I am not planning to start over again and redo everything, so most likely it will be half and half camera and scanner.  I spent a lot of time post processing the scanner stuff and don't want to start over completely.

Thanks a lot poita.  I took some test shots and I agree that the Flash should provide better results.  I did some research and gave it lots of thought so far, and here is my current plan...

I am going to do something like this: http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Slide%20Macro%20Setup.jpg

I will get one of these to detach the flash from my camera: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002Z3H36O/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A17PX87GQZ7MWI

and one of these diffusers to put on the flash: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Y0CXX0/ref=gno_cart_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

And I will mount (maybe with superglue) the slide holder to the diffuser.  You can see my slide holder on the left of the scanner in this picture: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2elxhep&s=7

I have two tripods, so I will mount the flash to one, and the camera to the other.  Once I get it lined up, I will use my remote trigger to take the pictures. 

I may also put a tube made from posterboard or a paper towel tube between the lens and the film to block out the surrounding light and keep them stable when I slide the film through.  I first need to figure out which lens is best and what the distance will be.

poita said:

The camera is a better way to go. If you have a flash head (A Strobe) it will give better results frame to frame than that light source. It will also freeze any motion in the frame and give you a really sharp picture.

An old non-digital 35mm camera can be cannibalised to make a film gate, good SLR bodies are basically free these days and a great source for parts.

Thanks for the suggestions.  Can you explain the flash head idea further?  I have a Canon Speedlite flash, but I am not sure how it would be used.  Would I bounce flash it off a white surface, or disconnect it from the camera body somehow and fire it directly through the film into the lens?

I think the light source I have is pretty good and will hopefully be consistent. It has lots of LED's in it evenly spaced, and placed far enough away becomes out of focus so you don't see any of the individual LED's.  I always do a full scene from start to finish before taking a break, so it should stay consistent for short spurts I think.  I will know after I build the rig to run the film through how well it performs.  The brightness is adjustable, but as long as I leave it alone for an entire scene, it should stay the same hopefully.

I am also interested in the 35mm camera film gate idea.  Do you have a link or any suggestions about how to go about that?  I have my own ideas what I plan to build, but it may or may not work well.  I will know after I try it.  I plan to work on it this weekend.

Thanks again!

Got my camera stuff and started experimenting.  I haven't built a rig yet, so this is for demonstration purposes only at this point.  I have lots of settings I can play with (aperature, brightness of back light, shutter speed, lens used, etc.).

Here is a comparison of the scanner method vs. the camera method.  In my opinion, the camera method is much sharper (one of the things that bugged me about the scanner method).  I didn't clean the dust off the frame and you can see how sharp it is.  Keep in mind the objects in the frame are in motion so they look blurry.

Note, I have already photoshop'd these to adjust levels, etc.  The camera version needed less adjustments.

The camera version was done with some playing around with different camera settings.  I haven't gotten it perfect yet.

Scanner:

http://i43.tinypic.com/qywdpf.png

Camera:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2isji44.png

Original image files (after photoshop):

http://www.sendspace.com/file/oaa5he

The potential here is huge because I could fly through the scanning process once I get the camera settings where I want them and build a stable environment to advance the frames.

I have a new method I am going to try.  I have some headaches with my current method that I am sick of dealing with and I don't really want to discuss, and I am cautiously optimistic that my new method might produce equal or better results much faster.

I am going to buy some extension tubes for my Canon 5D Mark II DSL.  This will allow me to do the macro photography that I need.  I have a variety of lenses I can try to get the best results.  Currently, I think I will use my 35mm F/1.4 lens because when combined with a 28 mm extension tube, it will give me 0.98 x magnification at a distance of 140 mm which would put it just out in front of the lens.  I am not sure if it will focus that close though, so I will experiment once I get the tubes.

This is the general idea, but I will build my own rig with this concept:

http://www.johnamon.com/2010/08/how-to-copy-35mm-film-with-dslr-camera/

I am going to try using this as a back light.  The brightness is adjustable. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004TJ6JH6/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

These are the tubes I will get: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Y60DZO/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This is the wireless remote shutter I will get: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0049HCSM8/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I did a test shot with my 135mm lens with a 1.4 and 2.0x extender on it handheld with my monitor showing a white page as a back light and it worked as a proof of concept.

The hardest part will be making the holder for the film to slide through.  Until I know exactly how far from the lens it needs to be, I can't really plan for it.  I am thinking I might be able to use a lens hood somehow but not sure.

Update: just had another idea for the mount.  Most of my lenses have a 72mm filter size.  I bought a 72-77mm step up ring.  I can superglue this to a block of wood.  I would cut a hole through the wood and mount my two 35mm film sliders from my scanner rig on both sides of the hole on the other side of the wood.  Then I can just slide the film through the sliders and see the whole frame including the sprocket holes.  I just need to get the depth right.  If I can set the lens to F/22, then I get more depth of field which will help.

Sorry, no real progress.  It's time consuming and I haven't spent much time on it lately.  I will get it done one of these days.  This weekend I tried a different approach out of curiosity.  I tried taking a picture of the frame with my camera, but my lenses aren't macro and the resolution would be too low.  It would be great if I could scan each frame quicker that way, but it won't happen.

This is where I am at (starting at the end and going backwards).

http://www.sendspace.com/file/5jfpy3

jero32 said:

 

I recall team negative saying that they also tried stabilizing film using the sprocket holes, but this did not work perfectly due to the film actually having some gate weave of its own IN the film. Might be a similair case.

 

I know exactly what you are talking about.  In the trailer I am working on, some of the scenes have the gate weave in the film.  However, it moves fluidly from one frame to the next.  In the video at the link, it is really jumpy at times and fluid at others.  In one of the scenes that had gate weave in my version, I was able to fix it because it was a stationary scene.  I first lined it up with the sprocket holes, and then did a second pass with elements in the scene and it stabilized it.

Here is my quick and dirty first attempt.  I did it at half the bit rate of the original and it is noticeable.  I rerendered at full bit rate and it looks better, but I need to go to bed, so here is the half bit rate version. 

http://we.tl/i5QF1gc8hn

Yuck compared to the original. So much detail lost.

Very very cool!  Their image stabilization is nowhere near as good as what I am getting with Adobe After Effects on my trailer project, but their hardware is awesome, and the sound thing is neat.  I wonder if someone can make the hardware and sell them for people who don't have 3D printer access. 

Looks really really great!  I am wondering about the thin strips at the top and bottom that you can sometimes see stuff in.  It would probably be best to crop that in the final version.  Since it is moving slightly, I guess the bottom one is ok, but the top one could be cropped a bit more.

I am sure this has probably been discussed already, but how about putting a small atmosphere that looks like a haze or fog around the big asteroid that they go inside of.  That would help explain how they survive when they get out of the Millenium Falcon and walk around without space suits. 

Just got to 8:00 into it and it reminds me of Monkey Island 2 music.  If you haven't played that game you missed out.

timdiggerm you are on a roll, LOL

Rogue Squadrion II: Rebel Leader on the Gamecube was my absolute favorite. 

A close second is the original Rogue Squadron on the PC.

Third is the Star Wars Arcade game with the vector graphics - but only if played on the actual arcade game with the real controller.  Using MAME with a mouse just isn't the same.

Fourth is Battlefront on the PC (didn't like Battlefront 2 that much)

Fifth is Rogue Squadron III on the Gamecube.  Just never got into it as much as Rogue Squadron II.  I am currently replaying Rogue Squadron II and it is still very fun and challenging.