Media collection organization, digitize plans?

[Haunted_TBC]

Hello,
Not sure if this is relevant or not, but I have been a long-time reader of the site, and feel like I have a somewhat educated idea of what is and is not a good workflow/transfer setup/etc.
Within the last year or so, I have come into possession of a large amount of media over several decades:

Approximately 20 VHS tapes, all NTSC I believe save for one NTSC-J tape and possibly a PAL (AU) tape
Approximately 10 Video8 and Hi8 tapes, all NTSC. I believe I also have both the cameras used to record the tapes in case of playback issues, but the Video8 camera was dismantled completely after its capacitors failed with the tape stuck inside.
Approximately 15 reels of 8mm, Super 8, and 16mm film, some dating as far back as the early 1950s. I do not have the cameras of info for these, but I’m led to believe for most of the reels, the lenses and cameras used were definitely high quality/expensive at the time. I do not believe any have suffered from dreaded vinegar syndrome as far as I can smell, but I have not taken any of them out of the canisters to see for myself.
A single VHS-C tape, while it is intact, I believe there may be some dirt on the part of the tape near the flap due to the lack of a case.

Along with this visual media was a substantial amount of audio media:

Approximately 40 Audio Cassette tapes, many containing personally valuable recordings. I made the mistake of examining a certain funny-looking tape only for it to begin shedding at one end, leaving flakes all inside the player internals. I believe it was a cheap tape that degraded long ago, but I did not loose to much hopefully, and learned the valuable lesson of potential “One-and-Done” tapes.
Possibly close to 60+ Microcassette tapes. I understand that the audio quality of this medium is generally atrocious, but many of these tapes also contain largely irreplaceable content.

I have many stills (negatives, prints, and slides) as well, but I am dealing with those myself using multiple different scanning machines. I also plan to do the same for approximately 100 MiniDV tapes, as I have the two of the three original cameras, cables, and a computer with a FireWire port, just need to find the hard drives for it.

I understand the forum deals primarily with videotape ingest/transfer and not necessarily audio cassette or microcassette transfers, but I believe I may have narrowed down a list of which media to send where:

Videotapes: Perhaps website owner Lordsmurf? His wealth of knowledge has proven invaluable to me, and (ironically or not) also persuaded me to consider not buying the Millenium-Era JVC decks or 1980s, although I’m certain I would have probably taken a serious look at the marketplace workflows if I had more than double or triple the amount of video tapes. My only (admittedly minor) concerns are shipping (not entirely his fault, although he wisely suggests the fastest shipping available, as the less time an item is in the mail, the less time it has to get lost/misplaced) and turnaround/response time. From what I can tell publicly, the last year or so has been very rough on him and his business, and that has led to some delayed turnaround time and other discussion online. I believe he may be in a better position to take on new transfer work now, but that’s just a partially educated guess.

Film: I understand the two recommended services on the sites are with Cinepost and Cinelab. While I have seen great results from Cinepost, I am put off a bit from all their production footage showing what appears to be telecine equipment and “motion-driven” (read: not individual frame-by-frame) scanning processes.
Others I have come across along with Cinelab with seemingly great results and available technology are outfits like The Negative Space, Gamma Ray Video, and Narrow Gauge Films. Also worth mentioning are industry houses like Spectra, Fotokem, Gotham Chemical, and Cineric(?) who apparently have taken on personal home video scanning in the past, although I am no longer sure how true any of that is. Would be interested to hear if anyone on the forums has used any of these businesses for transfer services.

Audiotapes: I am actually at a bit of a loss here. I understand principles such as Azimuth adjustment/frequency tuning and how decks like the Nakamichi Dragon may be crucial for a proper tape transfer, but I have no leads on generally recommended or well-regarded services for audio cassettes of this nature, let alone microcassettes. What would a proper microcassette transfer workflow look like? Would it use that obscure police-grade adjuster deck that sometimes makes appearances on the dreaded eBay?

If anyone else in the community has alternate suggestions or general ideas on how I should proceed with such a task/project, I would be interested to hear them.

[latreche34]

For audio cassettes just get a single cassette deck (2 head is okay) from the 90's for less than $200, Avoid dual cassette at all cost, Use the adjusting azimuth screw to fine tune each tape, use line out and any USB audio interface will do just fine, most of them are at least 96/24 but I had recording transferred for clients at CD quality 44.1/16 final output from 32bit float 192/24 device and they sounded fantastic to them.

For film, see if you can find a service that use modern telecine machines (4k, 6k sensors), some are wet gate some are not.

DV tapes are direct digital transfer, just use the camcorder and iLink port, If your computer doesn't have firewire card there are alternatives based on your OS and hardware.

For analog video tapes I'll let LS take over.

[Haunted_TBC]

OK, by USB audio interface, are you referring to a device such as a Focusrite Scarlett 8i6 or Zoom UAC? Still much cheaper than a Nakamichi Dragon regardless
I assume I would be sending the audio into a program like Pro Tools? I know LS has said not to use DAWs, but if anything, I have been lead to believe that something like Audacity would not be at the same standard for recording.
As for microcassettes, my understanding is that there were very few quality decks made for them, and they were more of an experiment than anything (made sometime in the early 1980s?) I assume the other options are recorders/portable players made for these tapes, but I’m not sure how good they are and how easy it is to correct/adjust for azimuth errors on those.

[timtape]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

As for microcassettes, my understanding is that there were very few quality decks made for them, and they were more of an experiment than anything (made sometime in the early 1980s?)

Actually 1969 from Olympus, the Japanese camera company. Perhaps the most hard wearing microcassette decks will be the desktop dictation models, but as with all old, used gear it's only as good as its condition. Even a Nak Dragon with one small disabling fault is useless. Condition is paramount, and the number of skilled techs around to work on such legacy A/V gear has unfortunately been diminishing for many years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

I assume the other options are recorders/portable players made for these tapes, but I’m not sure how good they are and how easy it is to correct/adjust for azimuth errors on those.

Small portable units arent necessarily bad but again condition is all important and can be a lottery. At least the bare units are cheap. The tiny internal rubber belts and tyres often need replacement. The very small sized rubber parts are much harder to source than in their heyday.

Azimuth is critical on standard speed microcassette and ridiculously critical on half speed. Azimuth is not only often out but tends to wander back and forth. Some portables may have a pre drilled hole in the case to accept a suitable small screwdriver. Others may require careful hole drilling in the plastic case for azimuth screw access. Sometimes for good results we have to improvise.

The "police grade adjuster deck" you referred to is probably the JB Reames with the special 9 track head and the extra read head for detection of altered recordings. I'm not sure if it's still made. I know a large archive here purchased one recently but I think it was second hand.

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

OK, by USB audio interface, are you referring to a device such as a Focusrite Scarlett 8i6 or Zoom UAC? Still much cheaper than a Nakamichi Dragon regardless
I assume I would be sending the audio into a program like Pro Tools?

It doesn't have to be a professional audio interface, You can get away with cheap consumer ones, If you have a desktop (this is why it's important to list your hardware/software in the first post to avoid the "If"s) you can get a good brand name expansion audio capture card for cheap.

Audacity is all you need for audio capture, editing and restoration.

[Haunted_TBC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by timtape

Actually 1969 from Olympus, the Japanese camera company.

I was referring less to the format and more-so devices such as the Sanyo RD-XM1, Victor D-M3, Hitachi Lo-D-MDC5, Sony TC-MR2, and Technics RS-G800.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timtape

The "police grade adjuster deck" you referred to is probably the JB Reames with the special 9 track head and the extra read head for detection of altered recordings.

Yes, that’s exactly what I was referring to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

(this is why it's important to list your hardware/software in the first post to avoid the "If"s)

Should have clarified, the iLink-ready computer is a desktop, but again currently without the hardrives. Should get back to unearthing those relatively soon.
I do have access to another desktop though that would be more capable of working with modern sound cards.

[timtape]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

I was referring less to the format and more-so devices such as the Sanyo RD-XM1, Victor D-M3, Hitachi Lo-D-MDC5, Sony TC-MR2, and Technics RS-G800.

Ah yes "hifi" microcassette decks. I didnt know various companies offered a model back then. From a design viewpoint I suspect it would have been difficult to manufacture any microcassette deck with reliable all direct drive motors such as was at least doable with standard sized cassettes, the Nak Dragon being an example. My point is even on these decks they may have needed to retain a less reliable drive system with perishable rubber belts and tyres which require regular replacement. But I hope that wasnt the case.

Stereo playback of mono microcassette recordings is not to be sneezed at. When digitising Compact Cassettes it's common to play back even mono recordings on a stereo deck, to moderate the azimuth misalignment issues and to allow extra flexibility in post. Even more important with the super slow microcassette LP speed.

I've professionally custom modded playback decks for audio, video and film digitisation purposes and have been on the lookout for a true stereo microcassette magnetic playback head. A microcassette head needs to be shorter than usual to squeeze into the smaller window of the tiny microcassette. Such a head would probably have to be salvaged from a parts microcassette deck such as from one of the stereo models you mention. So I appreciate the list of models.

I notice not all of the decks you list carry the two speeds. The manufacturers would have been well aware the slower 1.2 cm/s speed fell well short of high fidelity performance, which perhaps explains their not including it on some models.

[Haunted_TBC]

Correct, although it’s a shame these particular decks have become so hard to get a hold of. Even back in the 2010s, someone found a cache of unopened examples, but it seems those days have gone. Anyways, does anyone know of any specific decks along the lines of those recommended by latreche34? There were so many in the 1990s, and I believe the overall quality began to decrease near the end of the decade as many manufacturers moved away from the format and took their playback/recording technology with them.

Back to the some of videotapes I mentioned earlier, I was recently informed that many of the VHS (along with the sole VHS-C) tapes had been stored in an attic (horrible place for it, I know) for possibly decades. It appears to have been by a mainly cool seaside area, so perhaps with the insane heat or temperature fluctuations, but I’m sure it has probably gotten hot in that attic during some of the more recent summers. This may or may not have degraded the tapes more quickly, and since I’m not certain of the actual tape quality, I can only guesstimate.

Final issue of note for now, but is anyone aware of where to get a properly working Nikon Coolscan 9000? The one I purchased sometime ago has apparently given up the ghost, and I’ve had no luck repairing it despite considerable help. eBay is, of course, a gamble and some of the Facebook groups for these scanners appear to see almost every “listed” item trade hands privately prior to sale(?)

[latreche34]

Those dinosaurs go for a lot of money in working condition, There are good modern alternatives but you have to do a lot of research to stay away from Chinese clones, Don't kid yourself, Imaging sensors have come along way and they are far better now than ever before, Even the backlighting has improved now, Cold RGB LEDs are used instead of Halogen bulbs. Also avoid the obvious Chinese gadgets that use camera pickup instead of an imaging sensor.

[Haunted_TBC]

Worth mentioning have a V850 Pro that I use for prints I otherwise have no negatives for (can’t quite put up five figures for Flextight at the moment), but I prefer dedicated scanners, as much as I try to refrain from dragging flatbeds through the mud. I know of the PrimeFilm products, but have read many disappointing reviews of them in comparison. There is also the new PlusTek Pro scanner that apparently no one can get ahold of these days, but even it has apparently proven unreliable, at least earlier on in production. I just have yet to see a true successor to the Coolscan 9000 that isn’t from Hasselblad, which is an entirely different market anyway. Imaging sensor tech has indeed vastly improved, but I believe that newer scanners fail to take advantage of it because of cost reasons or the fact the market has shrunk (the reason Nikon apparently ended manufacturing their scanners).

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

Hello,

Hello.

Quote:

Within the last year or so, I have come into possession of a large amount of media over several decades:
Approximately 20 VHS tapes, all NTSC
---------- I believe save for one NTSC-J tape and possibly a PAL (AU) tape
Approximately 10 Video8 and Hi8 tapes, all NTSC.
Approximately 15 reels of 8mm, Super 8, and 16mm film
A single VHS-C tape, while it is intact, I believe there may be some dirt on the part of the tape near the flap due to the lack of a case.
Approximately 40 Audio Cassette tapes

That's not really a large collection, just a typical stash of home media.

Quote:

but I did not loose to much hopefully, and learned the valuable lesson of potential “One-and-Done” tapes.

My condolences. I always hate those.

Quote:

approximately 100 MiniDV tapes, as I have the two of the three original cameras, cables, and a computer with a FireWire port, just need to find the hard drives for it.

Tip: Verify all conversions. DV tapes have a way of incurring transfer delays, meaning lost footage. Sometimes "clip show" type tapes need to be analog converted, as you lose lots of seconds at each start/stop.

Quote:

I understand the forum deals primarily with videotape ingest/transfer and not necessarily audio cassette or microcassette transfers,

Microcassette? As in small audio tapes?

Fun fact: I was doing digital audio in the early 90s, using Pro Audio Spectrum/Studio cards (ISA), with early versions of Sonic Foundry Sound Forge. Audio really is simple compared to video, and processes so much faster (and often better). It's just not something mentioned much anymore, because it's rarely done by anybody. Perhaps I should write guides on it next year?

I have certain Aiwa gear for audio conversion, into Turtle Beach Santa Cruz.

Quote:

Videotapes: Perhaps website owner Lordsmurf?
My only (admittedly minor) concerns are shipping (not entirely his fault, although he wisely suggests the fastest shipping available, as the less time an item is in the mail, the less time it has to get lost/misplaced) and turnaround/response time. From what I can tell publicly, the last year or so has been very rough on him and his business, and that has led to some delayed turnaround time and other discussion online. I believe he may be in a better position to take on new transfer work now, but that’s just a partially educated guess.

Thank you, yes, '22-23 was rough. But most people were understanding, as they've had similar losses and health hardships in their own lives, and can relate. The 2-3 that complained in public were I think younger, healthier, and just have not yet (yet!!!!) had their lives turned upside down for an extended period.

Contact me in January, both for video and audio.

Quote:

Film: I understand the two recommended services on the sites are with Cinepost and Cinelab.
Would be interested to hear if anyone on the forums has used any of these businesses for transfer services.

Wetgate, wetgate, wetgate.

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

I know of the PrimeFilm products, but have read many disappointing reviews of them in comparison. There is also the new PlusTek Pro scanner that apparently no one can get ahold of these days, but even it has apparently proven unreliable, at least earlier on in production. I just have yet to see a true successor to the Coolscan 9000 that isn’t from Hasselblad, which is an entirely different market anyway. Imaging sensor tech has indeed vastly improved, but I believe that newer scanners fail to take advantage of it because of cost reasons or the fact the market has shrunk (the reason Nikon apparently ended manufacturing their scanners).

Oh yah, Using a flatbed scanner for film is like using using a heavy duty truck to get groceries, you use like 10% of the bed resolution.

PlusTek may have been taken over by Pacific Image, Haven't look it up but they have a new model shaped exactly like the PlusTek model.

I personally own the PrimeFilm XEs, found it on eBay in good condition for $150 and couldn't resist the deal, If I knew that PrimeFilm 120 Pro Plus will be out I would've waited, But so far I'm happy with the XEs, though it only does 135 film max, I don't have larger films anyway.

[Haunted_TBC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

That's not really a large collection, just a typical stash of home media.

A more recent look at the microcassette stash revealed there were close to 100, but fair enough, I suppose I could have called it a relatively large collection, since I have seen much larger stashes myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Tip: Verify all conversions. DV tapes have a way of incurring transfer delays, meaning lost footage. Sometimes "clip show" type tapes need to be analog converted, as you lose lots of seconds at each start/stop.

Excellent tip, although I was planning to monitor each transfer during and after ingest, it is definitely worth considering the potentially necessary analog conversion, I hadn’t thought of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Microcassette? As in small audio tapes?

Yes, the ones from Olympus that make Compact Cassettes appear as if they’ve had far too many cheeseburgers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Wetgate, wetgate, wetgate.

My thoughts exactly. I will not put up the cash for a scan that doesn’t use this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

Oh yah, Using a flatbed scanner for film is like using using a heavy duty truck to get groceries, you use like 10% of the bed resolution.

The analogy works in theory, but doesn’t hold up when referring specifically to 135 film or smaller. The V850 Pro sensor/actual resolution is simply not up to the specs of the Coolscan 9000, even the build quality of the sensor/lens is vastly different. I have tested 135 scans on the V850 Pro, and while nice, they did not quite achieve the level of detail seen in scans by the 9000, even if some of the encoding/color resolution may indeed be superior in some ways.

[traal]

However:

Quote:

"Scanners like the Lasergraphics Scanstation that we use at Gamma Ray Digital, have a highly diffuse light source that pretty much negates the need for a wet gate."

[source]

[Haunted_TBC]

I actually found a post on Cinematography.com where Perry Paolantonio of Gamma Ray Digital (who apparently also manages the u/friolator Reddit account) goes into more detail:

Quote:

Unless you're using it to clean the film as well, wet gate primarily hides base-side scratches, fingerprints, etc. There's really only a need for this when using a system that has a collimated light source as in older-style telecines. If you use a modern film scanner that uses a diffuse light source (most do, including ours) there's really no need for a wet gate.

Base scratches are enhanced when a directed beam of light, going from the light source in a straight line to the sensor, encounters a scratch that causes the light to refract. Wet gates use a solvent with the same refractive index as the film base, effectively filling in the scratch temporarily to allow the collimated light to pass through unobstructed. This works well. But if the light source is diffuse, the scratch is naturally concealed, rendering a wet gate kind of pointless. And diffuse light doesn't require nasty carcinogenic chemicals like Perchloroethylene.

Here's a good illustration from Lasergraphics: http://www.lasergraphics.com/area-im...tegration.html

Since a wet gate will only affect the base side, emulsion scratches will still be there. If the point is to try to clean the film of debris first, a better way to deal with dust and dirt is to actually clean the film before scanning, either manually or with a mechanical film cleaner.

Some scanners, like the Müller scanner from Filmfabriek claim to have a wet gate, but this is really just a pair of saturated rollers that uses isopropyl alcohol -- a perfectly good cleaning agent for film -- but it doesn't have the same refractive index as perc so it will do nothing for scratches. It's basically just a pre-scanning cleaner, not really a wet gate in the traditional sense.

Quote:

Cleaning the film will do nothing for scratches. If the scratches are on the base side, diffuse light scanners, OR wet gate/collimated light will conceal them, to a point. Really deep scratches are the exception. But a wet get with a diffuse light is redundant.

Nothing will conceal an emulsion scratch.

Digital scratch removal - we don't call it that when talking to clients about potential restoration work, because it sets the expectation too high. There are some kinds of scratches that can be completely removed digitally, but with most, you're talking about concealment. If the scratch doesn't move a lot, it's virtually impossible to completely get rid of, without some artifacting left behind.

-- merged --

Since the last posting, I was able to come across the alleged PAL tape, only to discover it was actually an NTSC tape that was created in AU for some reason.

As for the film, the total amount came around to around five thousand feet of 8mm, Super 8mm, and 16mm film. Despite contacting Gamma Ray Digital and receiving relatively reasonable pricing, I will be unlikely to have all the film digitized. Some of the film is stable and properly wound/not smelling (although some reels have white mold on them, it appears to be “inactive” and I wonder if cleaning the film with an outfit like Spec Bros may cost as much as sending it to be scanned anyway). However, without the fund to scan it all, I have decided on having the film in the poorest condition (those which have begun to develop some vinegar syndrome) initially, and have the others done at a later date. This may be a great plan or a terrible one, I’m not exactly sure.

As for the analog videotapes, now that I have all of them accounted for, I sent LordSmurf a message. Hopefully I can get them sent to him relatively soon.

-- merged --

Partly unrelated, but is anyone aware of the sound quality on devices like the Sharp CT-5001 and its badge-engineered counterpart the General Electric 4CM3326X? Apparently, these were made in the early 1980s like the other Hi-Fi microcassette machines and featured a miniature built in radio and television as well as the stereo microcassette player. I have been able to come across listings of these in the last few months, which is more than I can say for the Sanyo or Technics decks. I did see some unused Lo-D decks go for just short of four figures USD though, which is a serious amount.

-- merged --

Update: I bit the bullet on a CoolScan 5000, so that puts the stills issue away for now.
I also have managed to finally gain (temporary) access to a very rare, personally valuable tape in unknown condition. I know RF capture is a frowned upon method due to the vaporware, unreliable and unproven nature of projects like the misinformation-riddled VHS-Decode, but would it be possible to perform some sort of rip of the RF data from the tape in addition to a traditional transfer to possibly get more detail out of the data in the future? This is a tape I am unlikely to ever have access to again once I return it to its owner.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

Update: I bit the bullet on a CoolScan 5000, so that puts the stills issue away for now.
I also have managed to finally gain (temporary) access to a very rare, personally valuable tape in unknown condition. I know RF capture is a frowned upon method due to the vaporware, unreliable and unproven nature of projects like the misinformation-riddled VHS-Decode, but would it be possible to perform some sort of rip of the RF data from the tape in addition to a traditional transfer to possibly get more detail out of the data in the future? This is a tape I am unlikely to ever have access to again once I return it to its owner.

It's not going to give more detail in the future. There may be a slight % sharpness boost now, at times, due to noise-related conditions, but it heavily relies on many factors. Most samples to date have sadly shown the opposite effect, less details (again, due to noise, many factors). A lot of the sharpness comments are from people wrongly reading what I wrote about it long ago, and in a theoretical context.

If you do decide to do it, do it 2nd. Remember, some tapes are "one and done", and you don't want to waste that single pass on something unproven.

Right now, in the hands of most people, it's just another way to screw up tapes/conversions, botched DIY work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

Update: I bit the bullet on a CoolScan 5000, so that puts the stills issue away for now.

Should be excellent for you. We have the Coolscan V. It's exceptional with negatives, and better than almost anything under $1000 in the past 20 years.

But be aware the slide scanning can be subpar, even compared to a flatbed like the Epson V600.

And then pay attention to the Kodak notes.

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

I also have managed to finally gain (temporary) access to a very rare, personally valuable tape in unknown condition. I know RF capture is a frowned upon method due to the vaporware, unreliable and unproven nature of projects like the misinformation-riddled VHS-Decode, but would it be possible to perform some sort of rip of the RF data from the tape in addition to a traditional transfer to possibly get more detail out of the data in the future? This is a tape I am unlikely to ever have access to again once I return it to its owner.

There is a new simplified hardware coming out called MISRC is coming out soon if you can wait, With this you can capture Video RF and HiFi RF at the same time, But it is no different than the others in terms of the steps involved, capture, mux and decode, I personally will not dive in anytime soon, probably ever. It's too many steps, too much time involved and a lot of data to crunch, around 300-400GB an hour. It is just not worth it for the tapes I have. If there are special rare tapes out there, maybe, but personally I don't have such tapes.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

simplified hardware

An oxymoron is there ever was one. "Instead of 17 steps, it's only 16 now! Simple!"

Good for them, but it's not any sort of game changer how they think. It's so easy to think others have the skills you do, or the patience, or the lack of fear of catching it all on fire. It's so involved, for essentially the same results, or worse. The real benefit is non-VHS formats, non-Hi8/Video8 formats, where no quality players exist (just crummy players, but heads are all you need there).

[latreche34]

This goes to show the great lengths people can go to try to save some money.

[Haunted_TBC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

If you do decide to do it, do it 2nd. Remember, some tapes are "one and done", and you don't want to waste that single pass on something unproven.

Of course, I would never attempt something so risky on what could be the only successful playback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Right now, in the hands of most people, it's just another way to screw up tapes/conversions, botched DIY work.

I had begun to suspect that many “additional sharpness” situations were either somehow signal/artifact related or simply a one-in-ten-thousand example that was deliberately selected as a display of the project’s “capabilities.” Considering the extremely unreliable nature of reproducing such excellent results with that method, I’m inclined to discredit it (especially when so much of the rationale behind it is to cut costs “wherever possible”), but I figured I may as well ask for your current opinion on it all.

As for the CoolScan 5000, I’m familiar with its system, so it would be picking up where I left off.