[Help] Hellraiser (Clive Barker, 1987) – 35mm Scan

[The Aluminum Falcon]

Happy day! Glad these are ready.

[Firmament]

As I could tell in PM, I look forward to seeing the final result of this scan
I put $20

[LucasGodzilla]

Funding is still needed to finish off this scan, however, I am hoping this little tease of the HDR rescan is an enticement to donate to help cover the final costs.

[Hitcher]

I can manage another donation ($20 sent).

[pipefan413]

Ditto, sent

[LucasGodzilla]

So mixed news.

As it turns out, the rescan will require extra funds than I initially thought, so the end goal will be around $1,100 (about $100+ from my initial goal).  So roughly $300 will still be needed.

However, that being said, despite the price hike, I would certainly say that the investment is worth it as it ends up hiding even more damage than I initially thought having seen more preview material (from reel 2), making even some of the more heavily scratched areas look near-pristine.

So although there’s still a bit more fundraising needed, I can at least guarantee the results will look far superior.

[pipefan413]

I would certainly say that the investment is worth it as it ends up hiding even more damage than I initially thought having seen more preview material (from reel 2), making even some of the more heavily scratched areas look near-pristine.

Holy CRAP. That's incredible.

[deleted user]

How come one of the scans has all those scratches and the other doesn't?

Edit: The comparison is a tiny bit unfair tho, given that one of the images is horribly compressed and not calibrated. Just adding calibration makes it look a lot different:

[Valeyard]

The new scanner has a really good backlight. It's an LED RGB light with a diffusing sphere. They don't cost much wholesale, the LED light might be about $100 or so and the diffusing sphere is just a piece of glass that sits on top. You can get a cheap plastic cone from a hobby shop for about $2 to get the same effect in a DIY machine or in an older scanning machine that didn't offer such a thing. If the film is clean then the light scratches will disappear entirely.

The deeper scratches are still visible in the second scan and in motion that will be more clear, but they have faded by more than 95% and will be barely noticeable.

[pipefan413]

The comparison is a tiny bit unfair tho, given that one of the images is horribly compressed and not calibrated. Just adding calibration makes it look a lot different:

I apologise for what I'm sure is very much a rookie question but what specifically did you do to "calibrate" that second image? My assumption would have been that calibration would be something done before capture, rather than after, although I expect this is just a specific term referring to correcting white balance, levels, etc. Not to derail, but I figure others might potentially benefit from any response you might be able to give, whereas PM could only be of use to me individually. I'm mostly wondering how one would determine what it's actually meant to look like when doing this; is there something buried in Resolve (e.g. a LUT) that is theoretically right for various film stocks / colour systems?

Part of why I ask is that the "uncalibrated" image is clearly extremely saturated and warm but... it also kinda looks good as is to me? In isolation, at least; it might not necessarily be true of other shots scanned with the same settings.