Cintel Wish List

We are very interested in the new Cintel scanner, and in talking to the folks in the BMD booth at NAB, I was told to put our requests here. So here goes, in no particular order:

* 2-perf and 3-perf 35mm
* Optical audio
* mag audio for 16mm sound stripe *AND* fullcoat, and 35mm Fullcoat (basically, use it as a dubber in a second pass, with fullcoat)
* keykode EDL support
* Automatic base calibration (or at least one-click base calibration)
* I assume this is built in, but it wasn't clear: the ability to do flat, ungraded scans
* Basic RGB Lift/Gamma/Gain settings for primary grading while scanning
* User-upgradeable sensors. Future proof it.
* In-scanner stabilization (digital) or physical pin registration
* pressure plate for warped film
* options for dealing with film shrunken more than 2% (Sprocketless scanner? Swappable sprocket wheels with more forgiving pitch for archival work?)
* scanning to frame rates other than 24 or 25fps (really only necessary with 16mm, but not all 16mm film is 24 or 25fps)
* Scanning to 23.98fps
* DigitalICE or an IR dust map pass to an alpha channel or second scan file for later restoration work
* HDR multi-flash scanning for high contrast prints (even if it's slows down the scan. That's ok).

Software suggestions:
- Punch in IN/OUT times for scanning select clips
- Batch scanning with different settings per clip (Useful for reels with mixed stocks, A/B roll or cut neg, etc)
- Scan direct to Log or Linear 10bit or 16bit DPX files, not just CinemaDNG
- Scan direct to ProRes (at least 422 HQ and 4444)


Speed is nice, but quality is more important. Scanning doesn't need to be realtime or faster than realtime if the results are worth it. We can be patient.

I'll add more as I think of things. Anyone else?

8mm and super8mm option
Revival mac
And resolve direct comunication with scaner

Perry's list is quite comprehensive, but for us a few big things stand out.

Audio--optical and mag, but optical is more important esp with 16mm

16mm and super 16mm at true UHD, not an "area of interest" on the chip

Stabilization, one way or another

And HDR would be very nice, indeed

Basically, to replace the Spirit, we need all of the Spirit functions, at UHD resolution. We are very excited about the Scanner, and can't wait to hear a release date!

If this were 5 years ago, I would have been all over this device, and long did I linger around the diTTo/Cintel booth until film completely died, convulsing with ballistic haemorrhaging in my market. Like an Ebola patient that you know you cannot help, and even the act of helping will result in your own demise in the same manner.

A few individuals have commented about the proposed UHD output resolution of the unit. 3840 appears to be aimed at what might be an early-adopter business plan to restore the global theatrical catalog for re-release to video in some way. Streaming, probably. I don't see DCP production for theatrical redistribution being specifically targeted -- going away from the 4096 standard. But maybe 3840 will still scale to 2048 somehow... its just a weird choice with that goal, but not odd at all if you think public cinema is going extinct.

That said, and looking over the first post with its shopping list of things that are guaranteed to make the device add a "zero" to the end of the MSRP, perhaps the thing to do is to keep it as simple as possible. It is not a telecine, it is a scanner. I thought the whole idea was to grab the whole frame, Dmin/Dmax and then deal with it as high bit-depth dpx. No frame rate. Run it whatever speed you want. The notion of High Dynamic Range multiple exposures plus an IR flash for emulsion/backing contamination does have appeal, as it has been brought up elsewhere that even high intensity telecine has a lot of difficulty getting enough light through a really dense exhibition print to dig out the shadows. And of course, with that comes the grain and every other thing clinging to the polyester.

I congratulate the company for having this ambition. If no one carries this technology forward, then we truly will not have an archival medium of any description. The argument that digital files are almost by default consigned to oblivion because the means to decipher the files goes obsolete, will actually be the same argument applied to film. Even if the medium lasts for hundreds of years, there still will be nothing to play it on.

jPo

* mag audio for S8mm sound stripes
* 9,5mm and 17,5mm options

I agree with JPOwens on this one. The target market for this device is not high end facility use but a device that allows broadcasters, universities and other similar enterprises monetize their archive by bringing it into the digital world. It is frame rate agnostic as a frame is a frame until a playback rate is applied. I am curious as to audio on film elements and if not on film, what is the state of audio archives for double system archives?

Michael

I didn't find anything on BMD's Cintel web page about the frame rates when running 16 mm film. Surely it will handle 16 or 18 fps (which I believe my old Bolex uses). How can anyone ignore the old frame rates if they are ostensibly interested in saving old film in the digital age? As someone mentioned this new device doesn't replace a full-featured telecine machine.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapata

How can anyone ignore the old frame rates if they are ostensibly interested in saving old film in the digital age?

If in fact the scanner is sprocketed, as the demo model at the show was, I wouldn't count on putting old film through it.

We use a sprocketless 2k scanner, and it'll handle anything up to about 5% shrinkage (which is a *lot* of shrinkage). We've put some pretty far gone 8mm and 16mm film through it without worries. But I wouldn't even try it in something with sprockets. It's not at all uncommon to see serious shrinkage on film shot 30+ years ago, especially 16mm and smaller, since those formats often aren't stored in great conditions.

I didn't find anything on BMD's Cintel web page about the frame rates when running 16 mm film. Surely it will handle 16 or 18 fps (which I believe my old Bolex uses). How can anyone ignore the old frame rates if they are ostensibly interested in saving old film in the digital age? As someone mentioned this new device doesn't replace a full-featured telecine machine.

Since it is a series of frames, it does not need to define the speed at time of scanning. Once in Resolve or other application, the timeline rate will determine speed albeit I am not aware of too many native 18fps NLE's. Those will be either be sped up Charlie Chaplin style to 23.976 or motion compensated as desired.


Michael

Hola!
We transfer a lot of old film including Nitrate, on a Millenium II HD and DaVinci 2k plus.
I would like the new Cintel scanner to be able to have different gates 35 up to vista vision16mm and s16mm, 8 and s8, a way to digitize 2,3,4 and 8 cinemascope perf 35mm at user selectable speed, like 18 or 16 fps.
Also as this is Image mill stabilization and scracth removal dirt and dust, something similar to Oliver or a digital way like Revival.
A way to use it direct with a special Resolve with all Revival tools.
Windows and linux compatibility.
Sprocketless transport for old shrunken or damaged film.
Optical and mag audio heads. Optical with led light for both positive and neg sound.
A way to integrate existing Aaton or Evertz key code readers.
Would love to betatest. Have betatesting experience all the way back to 1994.
Right now I'm working on a feature film called Los Invisibles produced in 1963 a comedy.
Thanks

Thanks, Perry. The new Cintel has pin registration as an option but presumably that's not for 16mm film.

I'll remember to mention shrinkage when I convert the old film to digital. The firm I talked to recommended I do a 4K scan by the way since their 2K scan doesn't quite cover the height of the 16mm film image apparently. They scan and save each frame as DPX so I should be able to work with that in Resolve.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

I didn't find anything on BMD's Cintel web page about the frame rates when running 16 mm film. Surely it will handle 16 or 18 fps (which I believe my old Bolex uses). How can anyone ignore the old frame rates if they are ostensibly interested in saving old film in the digital age? As someone mentioned this new device doesn't replace a full-featured telecine machine.

Since it is a series of frames, it does not need to define the speed at time of scanning. Once in Resolve or other application, the timeline rate will determine speed albeit I am not aware of too many native 18fps NLE's. Those will be either be sped up Charlie Chaplin style to 23.976 or motion compensated as desired.


Michael

Michael, I don't want my old 16mm to be sped up. Which motion compensation would you recommend? I plan to intercut the old black and white film with new 24 fps 4K video. Should the telecine operator take care of the motion compensation to give me DPX images that will playback at 24 fps or do I need to do that timing change in Resolve?

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

The new Cintel has pin registration as an option but presumably that's not for 16mm film.

I don't see why not. You're going to have to swap gates for 16mm and pin registration is just as valid there as with 35mm or even 8mm or Super 8.

-perry

Michael, I don't want my old 16mm to be sped up. Which motion compensation would you recommend? I plan to intercut the old black and white film with new 24 fps 4K video. Should the telecine operator take care of the motion compensation to give me DPX images that will playback at 24 fps or do I need to do that timing change in Resolve?

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

A telecine would do this by adding 1 frame for every 3 - like a step printing method. In other words, print every 3rd frame twice. In an NLE, you would do this my applying a 25% slomo for 24fps material to play back as "18fps" in a 24fps timeline. Perhaps there is a method in the software driving the scanner to set up these types of skip/print frame commands as were done on legacy film based FX systems.


Michael

Michael, I don't want my old 16mm to be sped up. Which motion compensation would you recommend?

When clients have frame rates like 16 or 18fps and we're doing their transfers, we recommend scanning to either DPX (which has no frame rate associated with it, as it's just a folder full of images), or to a Quicktime file at the native frame rate.

That is, we would make them a 16 or 18fps Quicktime, so the frames are mapped 1:1. Alternatively, we can do what Michael describes, directly on our ScanStation (effectively step-printing the 16 or 18fps to 23.98, 24, or 25fps). It does exactly what he said, repeating frames in a pattern appropriate to the source and target frame rates. However, we don't usually recommend this, because it permanently bakes in those repeated frames, and that can make further manipulation of the film trickier. (It's a feature that's more appropriate for home movie transfers, where you're not as likely to need to do further post production work).

-perry

Thanks, Perry and Michael. I'll do the frame rate adjustment myself rather than having it done at the time of scanning. That gives me some flexibility for how the old 16 mm footage will be viewed compared to the new footage. And the old is black and white footage while the new footage is normal colour so I can play with grain and sepia etc. as appropriate in post.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD