11–20 of 39 posts
Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive?
At least thats what I’m extracting from the blog with my fair but limited knowledge, if someone could enlighten me it’d be greatly appreciated!
Question: the blogpost mentions archivists needing 16mm projectors. Now I assume they would use these projectors to archive 16mm film but how / why? Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive? At least thats what I’m extracting from the blog with my fair but limited knowledge, if someone could enlighten me it’d be greatly appreciated!
The other being that just operating a suitable projector as intended is the simplest and most accurate way regarding timing compared to finding or writing software to handle scans. I'd think they'd want to do both.
Question: the blogpost mentions archivists needing 16mm projectors. Now I assume they would use these projectors to archive 16mm film but how / why? Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive? At least thats what I’m extracting from the blog with my fair but limited knowledge, if someone could enlighten me it’d be greatly appreciated!
It's a different experience: When viewing film, the picture flickers and shakes. Film grain is substantially different than pixels.
As much as I enjoy modern digital formats, it's important to appreciate the goal of preserving viewing film.
Question: the blogpost mentions archivists needing 16mm projectors. Now I assume they would use these projectors to archive 16mm film but how / why? Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive? At least thats what I’m extracting from the blog with my fair but limited knowledge, if someone could enlighten me it’d be greatly appreciated!
> Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive? It's a different experience: When viewing film, the picture flickers and shakes. Film grain is substantially different than pixels. As much as I enjoy modern digital formats, it's important to appreciate the goal of preserving viewing film.
I think the question was more about the capture of fine detail. A scanner will digitize much more image detail than any capture of the projector output. Although, reading the article it seems an emphasis was placed on color accuracy. I'm not sure if a scanner is necessarily as good at that.
Curious: Why do they need to support all those different frame rates?
Curious: Why do they need to support all those different frame rates?
Some films were recorded with a lower frame rate due to some reason. As for variable and standstill, I think this would only be needed when investigating a recording in detail. Not sure if they really need it. Perhaps they just want it to cover more use cases.
Curious: Why do they need to support all those different frame rates?
Question: the blogpost mentions archivists needing 16mm projectors. Now I assume they would use these projectors to archive 16mm film but how / why? Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive? At least thats what I’m extracting from the blog with my fair but limited knowledge, if someone could enlighten me it’d be greatly appreciated!
> Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive? It's a different experience: When viewing film, the picture flickers and shakes. Film grain is substantially different than pixels. As much as I enjoy modern digital formats, it's important to appreciate the goal of preserving viewing film.
This can be emulated with a post processing effect.
>Film grain is substantially different than pixels.
The grain can be recorded at a high enough resolution that the human eye will be unable to tell the difference when it's being projected.