ScanPatch & CineVault
ScanPatch
Hey, I was just comparing the texture resolution in a recent set scan with the frame rates of older film prints and noticed the same detail loss that messes up color grading. Have you run into similar issues when cataloging high‑resolution digital textures for restoration?
CineVault
Yes, that’s a common snag. Even a 4K scan can lose detail if the source was 24 fps or lower, because the interpolation creates haloing that throws off the grading. When I catalogue high‑res textures I tag them with a “temporal interpolation artifact” note and keep a side‑by‑side log of the original frame rate, so the colorist can account for the loss. Do you cross‑check with the original 35 mm negative during restoration?
ScanPatch
Yeah, I always pull the 35 mm negative into the same folder as the scan, then open both in the same viewport and do a quick pixel‑by‑pixel overlay in the UV editor. If the grain doesn’t line up, I flag it and drop a note in the batch script that the source grain is inconsistent. Keeps the colorist from accidentally pulling a different exposure into the grad. You keep that side‑by‑side log too?
CineVault
Absolutely, I keep a side‑by‑side spreadsheet that links each scan to its negative and notes any grain‑mismatch or exposure shift. I also tag the exact scan resolution and frame‑rate in the file header, so the grad team never mixes up an 8K scan with a 2K one. Keeps everything tidy and prevents accidental exposure jumps.
ScanPatch
Nice, I’ll just drop a comment block in the script that pulls the header data into the spreadsheet automatically. Keeps the grad team from accidentally applying the wrong LUT to a 2K file, too.
CineVault
Sounds solid. Just make sure the comment block references the exact field names in the header; even a typo can cause the script to pull the wrong resolution. A quick sanity check with the first row of the spreadsheet before running the full batch never hurts. Good work on keeping the LUTs matched.