Comparison of Cineroc Film Conversion Techniques

Comparison:   All  Previous  Next  Camera/Video Rockets

(by Jeff Lane - 11/29/05)

Cineroc film scanning test: Howtek 4000

Click to Enlarge

In order to view super 8mm movie film from the Cineroc on computer, you have to scan it and then edit it down into Quicktime or Wiindows Media Files. This review covers the most expensive method remaining in my area.

The Howtek 4000 and 4500 are mid-range professional scanners. When new several years ago, they cost $40,000. A high-end scanner like a Hell or Scitek went for $70,000 to $200,000, depending on how well they were equipped. They were designed to scan negatives and transparencies for publication, but with the advent and dominance of digital photography, the genre is dying.

The Howtek uses a photo-multiplier tube, which has more dynamic range than the charge coupled device common in video cameras and desktop scanners, so I was anxious to see that quality on the screen.

Cost to scan a single flight was $72.

Difficulty of assembling the final film was moderate, because you get more frames on a single scan than on the desktop scanner, but you have to cut the film into strips and then reassemble it.

The scans were done at a much higher resolution than they normally scan, so it took 1.5 hours. Maximum resolution the machine is capable of is 4000 dots per inch; these scans were done at 2800. then rastered up to 2987 (final video resolution of 640x480).

Maximum density range is 3.8 on a scale of 0 to 4.

I give the scans an overall rating of 6.

Pros: Professional quality (best sharpness and density range).

Cons: Must cut film into strips of less than 17 inches to mount on drum, raw scans are limited to 5.974 inches (30,000 pixels) by Photoshop, highest cost.

I did not evaluate color accuracy because some variance should be expected between different technologies, and the color can be adjusted to wherever you desire in Photoshop.

I will undoubtedly not use the drum scanning method again. The expense is too high. The improvement in sharpness and density range is barely noticeable over the desktop scanner, and having to cut it and then reassemble each film reduced the likelihood of ever being able to use the film in a projector.

Cineroc film scanning test: Elmo SC-18

Click to Enlarge

In order to view super 8mm movie film from the Cineroc on computer, you have to scan it and then edit it down into Quicktime or Wiindows Media Files. This review covers the telecine method.

The Elmo is not a giggling plush doll. It’s a rear-projection film-to-video transfer system in which the operator synchronizes the frame rate so there’s no frame role an then does a real-time transfer. They have been around as long as film transfer, as far back as the 1960s. I was not able to find a retail price for the equipment but estimate $4000.

Cost to scan an entire reel of flights was $25. I had approximately 15 flights done for this price.

Assembling the final video was extremely easy. You just copy the digital film file into whatever software you use to create final films, and roll titles and credits.

The scans were done at final video resolution of 640x480.

Density range is camera dependent, but the estimated range of the scans is 3 on a scale of 0-4.

I give the scans an overall rating of 4.

Pros: Many flights can be transferred in one low-cost session, fast, film doesn't have to be cut.

Cons: Lower density range with highlight and shadow detail lost, images are less focused.

I did not evaluate color accuracy because some variance should be expected between different technologies, and the color can be adjusted to wherever you desire in Photoshop.

I would use this method again, especially if a quick and dirty method is needed or if multiple flights needed to be transferred. It is too expensive if transferring single flights.

Cineroc film scanning test: Hewlitt Packard 5370C

Click to Enlarge

In order to view super 8mm movie film from the Cineroc on computer, you have to scan it and then edit it down into Quicktime or Wiindows Media Files. This review covers the desktop flatbed method.

This particular Hewlitt Packard scanner is a CCD device with optional light that fits on top and allows transparencies to be scanned. Original price when new a few years ago was in the $250 range, these are now available on Ebay for $50-120, so they are easy to justify to the significant other as a business expense.

Cost to scan a single flight at a service provider would be an estimated $72 because of the time it takes, around 2 hours.

Assembling the final video is somewhat tedious. Since you can only scan 24 frames at a time, it takes a couple of hours to assemble a final film in Photoshop and Premiere after spending a couple of hours scanning.

The scans were done at final video resolution of 640x480, which works out to 2987 dpi. The hardware is only capable of 1200 dpi resolution but has excellent internal software interpolation, so the scans are very sharp.

Density range is estimated at 3.0 on a scale of 0-4. With CCD devices, the shadow areas fall off quickly and detail is lost, so it is easy to get bad scans with dark film; planning for a little overexposure is the lesser of the two evils in this case.

I give the scans an overall rating of 5.

Pros: Quality is visually close to high-end drum scans, film doesn't have to be cut.

Cons: Can only scan 24 frames at a time, time-consuming, shadow density detail falls off sharply, hard to mount film on scanner, natural film curve reduces sharpness/focus.

I did not evaluate color accuracy because some variance should be expected between different technologies, and the color can be adjusted to wherever you desire in Photoshop.

This is my preferred method, although it is time consuming.

GUEST's OPINION: