Advice needed from current Retro-8 users

[milesandjules]

I think its about 3 gigs per 50 foot roll for uncompressed. Im just using a 2tb 7200rpm sata for capture. Need solid state or raid for editing uncompressed i believe.

[Tscan]

I have a 1TB RAID for capture and 500GB system drive. I just archived a years worth of image seq files onto a 1TB external that is almost full, then i have a 2TB empty drive ready to go.

[jrcasey1960]

Agree with above estimates. I edit uncompressed AVI files from a SATA 7200 drive without any huge problems, but Premiere uses my GPU to aid with playback.

[Tscan]

Agree with above estimates. I edit uncompressed AVI files from a SATA 7200 drive without any huge problems, but Premiere uses my GPU to aid with playback.

Same here almost, I export the image sequence files (uncompressed JPEG) to my system drive (STAT 7200) and edit there. timeline playback is pretty smooth until i apply some noise or grain reduction.

[Craig05]

Wow, thanks for the great feedback on my question. I will be receiving my MovieStuff scanner pretty soon and I like to pre-visualize my workflow / computer setup needs.

I do have a couple follow-up questions regarding noise and grain reduction on the MovieStuff scanner. This question is directed towards the need for decent quality noise & grain reduction for a workflow that involves a large volume of footage. I probably will be exporting uncompressed JPEGs as an image sequence. Therefore I am looking for insight on using a workflow / settings that provide "good enough" quality without spending hours tweaking shots (which might be done for films requiring a full restoration). Here are my two questions:

1. Does the MoveStuff software have decent quality noise & grain reduction capabilities? If so, what are your recommended software settings to achieve the noise & grain reduction using the MovieStuff software?

2. I am also interested in Roger's statement of using Photoshop…

"Now, I've been experimenting with using Adobe Photoshop's Smart Sharpen tool and it's pretty amazing. I transfer with maximum grain reduction and then run the images as a batch process through Photoshop using the Smart Sharpen filter. Settings may vary but the Smart Sharpen noise reduction and sharpening tool is easy to use and has produced some pretty amazing images. If you know how to batch process in Photoshop, then just export your movies from RetroScan as numbered image sequences to run through Photoshop. If you can capture uncompressed and then output as PNG files, you will stay uncompressed and get the best results, though you will use a ton of hard drive space. Exporting as JPEGs also works just great and saves a lot of space. Once I get a few "universal" settings in Smart Sharpen worked out, I will put them in the instructions for all Retro users because it is fast and looks "

Has anyone experimented with using Photoshop for grain & noise reduction? If so, any "universal" settings advice?

Thanks.
Craig

[jrcasey1960]

Craig:

I haven't yet tried Roger's suggestion regarding Photoshop.

I generally use the Neat Video noise reduction plugin for grain reduction. Much of your decisions on what or how much to use will be a matter of personal taste. The RetroscanHD software includes 2 levels of grain reduction ("light" and "heavy"). Roger explained more about their use in the posts above. For my taste, I detected some decrease in image sharpness using those tools. The Neat Video plugin will smooth out the grain to varying degrees based on your settings. I generally use the lightest settings possible, as there is some trade off with artifacting. Sharpness of the image itself is preserved. In terms of batch processing, I generally develop a "noise profile" for the various stocks I'm scanning (Ektachrome 160, Kodachrome 40, etc) that I can generally apply to any reel. Using a plugin such as Neat Video is rather processing-intensive and takes some time even on faster computers, depending on the length of your film.

You will likely be better off trying different methodologies at first and see what works best for your expectations. The Neat Video plugin is offered as a trial version and I would suggest downloading and trying that first. Personally, I like the interface for After Effects best (note that they sell it as separate plugins for Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop, and other programs). I would also try the native grain reduction settings in the Retroscan HD software and see how you like those. Some people like the look of the raw scans without any image processing at all.

[milesandjules]

Yep i have had some luck with native noise reduction filter in after effects...it probably only drops it by 20% for really grainy stuff ..which is a good thing.

[Craig05]

Great... thanks for the insight & advice. I noticed on another tread on this forum some film restoration software called "Film 9" which has been developed by some French guys. Looks interesting. I will run some tests next month to see how easy / effective it is. Here is the weblink to the French version of the website: http://letransfert.soforums.com/t809-FI ... -Films.htm

[Paul Thrussell]

How tightly do you guys set your tension clips? The regular Retro-8 manual isn't very specific on this, so I checked the Pro instructions and they do mention that it should be firm but not so tight that the film is hard to pull through. I might be overthinking this, but how hard to pull through is too hard to pull through? I find that unless there's a small amount of effort required to pull the film by hand through the gate that it tends to not lay flat, but at the same time when I do have a fair bit of tension like that sometimes the clip will vibrate which seems to cause a bit of blurring. I seem to be getting better at finding a happy medium, but I'm curious as to what others have to say on the subject.

Also, has anyone experienced the LED light source turning off momentarily during scanning? I was going to call Roger about this, but I've been putting it off because I've only ever been able to duplicate the issue a few times with one specific reel (which seems quite odd) and there's no point in pestering him if it's not really a recurring problem. ("Um, hi, I have this issue that I can't really demonstrate, and I have no idea what I want to do about it!" :lol: ) I'm wondering if something about that reel is momentarily triggering the automatic stop feature - it's a Tuscan brand reel with "clips" (for lack of a better word) that keep the film wind even but also tend to add some tension when the film is fed off the reel.

[Paul Thrussell]

I'm wondering if something about that reel is momentarily triggering the automatic stop feature - it's a Tuscan brand reel with "clips" (for lack of a better word) that keep the film wind even but also tend to add some tension when the film is fed off the reel.

I tried running that reel again just now, got halfway through and was starting to wonder if what happened before was a fluke, but then I heard the motor sort of speed up and then settle into a normal speed (the same sort of sound it makes when you first start it up) and I looked over and the light was off for a moment and then came back on. I'm assuming that this is indeed likely related to the automatic stop being activated for a split second, probably due to the reel.

[sigr]

I would like to suggest that we do a test of the various post processing tools and associated settings in a way in which everyone that wants to can participate. We can then jointly decide which result is the best. This could be done by someone posting a short down-loadable Retro-8 clip scanned with agreed-to settings. Each of us could then put this clip through their favourite (or other?) post processing tool and post back either the entire clip or a specific frame by number. At that point we could vote and rate each method/tool to see if a “best choice” emerges. This may not work because of subjectivity and favouritism, but would it be worth a try?

[MovieStuff]

Paul, if you need assistance, call me and we can go over any problems you might be having.

Roger

[Craig05]

sigr wrote: I would like to suggest that we do a test of the various post processing tools and associated settings in a way in which everyone that wants to can participate. We can then jointly decide which result is the best. This could be done by someone posting a short down-loadable Retro-8 clip scanned with agreed-to settings. Each of us could then put this clip through their favourite (or other?) post processing tool and post back either the entire clip or a specific frame by number. At that point we could vote and rate each method/tool to see if a “best choice” emerges. This may not work because of subjectivity and favouritism, but would it be worth a try?

Great idea. Likely software to test would be Neat Video, Film 9 and Roger's suggested Adobe Photoshop's Smart Sharpen tool workflow... any others?

[Tscan]

sigr wrote: I would like to suggest that we do a test of the various post processing tools and associated settings in a way in which everyone that wants to can participate. We can then jointly decide which result is the best. This could be done by someone posting a short down-loadable Retro-8 clip scanned with agreed-to settings. Each of us could then put this clip through their favourite (or other?) post processing tool and post back either the entire clip or a specific frame by number. At that point we could vote and rate each method/tool to see if a “best choice” emerges. This may not work because of subjectivity and favouritism, but would it be worth a try?

Great idea. Likely software to test would be Neat Video, Film 9 and Roger's suggested Adobe Photoshop's Smart Sharpen tool workflow... any others?

I've tried all three methods and they all work well but your preference and skills may differ. The best method i've used is making Neat Video calibration targets filmed with each stock, sometimes twice in different conditions. Then i will load the profile to the appropriate stock. I find that 100% is too much grain reduction, so i back it down to 65% then apply about 15-20% sharpening. That usually leaves a subtle crisp grain palate that looks the way I like.
http://www.neatimage.com/testtarget.html

[jrcasey1960]

Boy, what a tough challenge! I've been asking some of these same questions all along and no one could really provide any clear answers. I then had to start experimenting on my own, which is not my preferred way to work (I like cookbook approaches!). Often, you'll come across a tip from someone and it works great for a particular shot and fails miserably for others.

Brightness issues are the toughest for me. If you scan at a certain level to protect the highlights, some shots are going to be dark and require you to pull up the luminance in post. Unfortunately, when you pull the luminance up on dark scenes it also pulls the grain/noise up. If you had a LOT of time to do your transfers, I know that some folks do 2 or 3 scans at different exposure levels and then choose which scenes come out best. Lately, I've been taking darker scenes in Premiere and doing screen layers (sometimes as many as 4!) to bring the luminance up before I do noise reduction. Otherwise, if I bring the luminance of darker noise reduced scenes up during color correction, all of that grain that was "hidden" from the noise reduction plugin pops out--hence the need to bring luminance up BEFORE noise reduction in some cases. I found that bringing the gamma up within the RetroscanHD software doesn't help that much with darker scenes because you're just going to take it back down during color correction/contrast adjustments!

Auto Levels can be useful for bringing brightness up, but can be problematic for many home movies where exposure varies wildly within the same scene.

I want to "second" the question about the tension clip. I really don't understand the instructions, either. I find it very difficult to adjust and try to keep it only tight enough for the film to be held flat within the gate. The reason it seems so difficult is that the tension from the takeup motor is also a factor in helping to keep the film flat. There are problems to being a perfectionist: you're always second guessing (at least that's true for me!).

This thread is turning into a very interesting discussion!