Comparison: projection vs. transfer

[VideoFred]

The only way to judge a filmtransfer, is by projecting the original film, and watching the transfer on the computer monitor at the same time.

So this is what I did. I used a (brandnew condition) Noris(electronic speed) projector and projected on a white sheet of paper. Size was about the size of my computer monitor.

Footage was 1975 Kodachrome, average amateur quality, but very good preserved colors.

What did I see:

First, the projector is blowing out the whites, at some scenes.
There is more on the film then the projector shows.(sky, clouds)
I always tought this effect was typical for a digital transfer, and it is, but the projector does it, too.

Second, the white parts of the projector picture looks a little red/orange,this is caused by the halogene spot. Might be better with a new spot.

The transfer was made without seeing the projected original.
To my surprise, the colors of the transfer are pretty much the same as on the original. Except for the whites.. The automatic white balance from the capture camera has actualy improved things.

Scenes with heavy backlight are looking much better on the projected image. The only way to capture these digital is by double capturing, and overlay both files. Then, the digital version has more detail in it.(more control over the blown out whites)

Also, with advanced frame rate conversion, color correction and stabilisation, these old films can be made to look like they never did original.(remember this is amateur footage, no tripod, low frame rate, automatic settings etc..)

I love film... But I love digital, too.


Conclusion: both can work fine together. 8)

Fred.

[Film-0-Matic]

indeed a very interesting test!
did you see any noticeable difference in resolution?

p

[super8man]

But you don't actually watch film movies on white pieces of paper...you should have used a correct DALITE or similar projection screen and sized the projection to the same size as the4 monitor...the results would have been better.

And besides, when you show the image of super 8 as it is SUPPOSED to be seen, about 4 feet by 3 feet minimum PROJECTED, all the beauty of it comes alive. And this will always blow PC/TV viewing results.

The only REAL reason any of us are doing PC/TV final results are because otherwise no one would watch our movies in the first place. And because NLE is like crack cocaine.

[Angus]

Quite right super8man.

A white piece of paper has the wrong reflective properties for projecting film. And your projector isn't designed for such a small image. Some projectors handle a monitor-sized image better than others though...but if you had blown out highlights then your Noris simply isn't working at that size of picture.

My like for like projection was on two four foot wide screens, one disigned for LCD digital projectors and one for film projection....both projectors showing the same material (Harry Potter trailer) and both set up for optimum results...digital was via RGB input for example, not a composite video or s-video input.

Super 8 won hands down...to be honest there was no competition.

[Mitch Perkins]

And because NLE is like crack cocaine.

The best natural high there is! No doubt about it; digital editing provided a new lease on life for S8.

I find editing to be the most fun part of the whole process.

Re: Fred's test - wouldn't an NTSC monitor be better than a computer monitor for comparison to the projected image? Mine (NEC) blows my computer monitor away.

Mitch

[VideoFred]

Thank you all for the interesting replies... :lol:

If I ever have some time, I do this test again on the big screen, to see if the blow out is better then.

But my point was: the transfer comes pretty close to the original.
I was not sure about the colors, but they are fine on the transfer.
And it still has the 'film' look. 8)

And, again, old stuff can be improved with modern digital equipment.

Fred.

[VideoFred]

My like for like projection was on two four foot wide screens, one disigned for LCD digital projectors and one for film projection....both projectors showing the same material (Harry Potter trailer) and both set up for optimum results...digital was via RGB input for example, not a composite video or s-video input.

Super 8 won hands down...to be honest there was no competition.

Can you explain some more?
What exactly made Super-8 so muth better?
Scharpness-detail-colors-movement-everything?

And the transfer, how was it done?
Wait a moment... Harry Potter trailer... on Super-8?

Fred.

[Angus]

Yes, the trailer for Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets is available from Derann on super 8....as are trailers for many recent films, and even exerpts (Star Wars, LOTR) and complete features....all on super 8 from Derann. Did you think real home movies had died?

I used a brand new PC with DVD drive hooked to the projector via RGB projected onto a screen designed for LCD projectors....using a Saharan XGA projector in native 1024x768 mode ceiling mounted and well adjusted to give a screen-filling image with colours checked via test software.

For super 8 I used my Chinon 600 twin track onto an old cine screen of the same dimensions as the other.

The room was dimmed (not totally dark) and the trailer was first shown on the LCD, then on super 8, then side by side twice.

The detail and rendition of the colours was far better on super 8. But it is hard to explain...the film just looked better, more pleasing on the eye.

[pippin]

[Angus wrote]The detail and rendition of the colours was far better on super 8. But it is hard to explain...the film just looked better, more pleasing on the eye.

Does this mean that one will always achieve better quality imaging with traditional projection than with scanning? The question is quite important because professional scanning equipment is expensive. Compared with a scanned image on TV - (and TV imaging systems seem to get better and better) -, projection has the disadvantage of the risk of damaging or scratching film due to repeat projection and the difficulty of making splices unobtrusive. However, one could live with these things in the knowledge that one wouldn't be able to get a better image by watching it on a TV.

[super8man]

Try watching a movie for its content and not its presentation. That will help immensely in your viewing pleasure.

[S8 Booster]

Try watching a movie for its content and not its presentation. That will help immensely in your viewing pleasure.

very, very, very important by any measure regarding films.

s/hoot

[VideoFred]

But it is hard to explain...the film just looked better, more pleasing on the eye.

OK, Angus..
I follow you.. I understand.
It's the difference between analog and digital..

The difference between real wood and artifical wood
The difference between Belgian food and junk food

It's the same with music, too. (LP vs CD)

Fred.

[VideoFred]

Try watching a movie for its content and not its presentation. That will help immensely in your viewing pleasure.

very, very, very important by any measure regarding films.

s/hoot

I can second this opinion, too.
If I look at my old films, just for content, then even my webcam is good enough for transfering.

The frames on my website are all taken with this webcam.

But there is a bottom quality limit, of cource.
If the transfer realy is bad, then pleasure is gone.

It's strange....
All these old sixties hits... We have heard them on poor quality transistor radios. We have watched al these old films and series in B/W on poor quality TV sets.

We never had the feeling we missed something...Because indeed we where focussing on content.

If you ask me... Content is absolutely more important then technical quality alone. Because a low quality film or piece of music stays low quality, no matter the medium.


Fred.

[Angus]

CD Vs LP....I surprised my uncle a couple of days ago by showing him that LP's are actually still manufactured!

As for content over quality...I find if the quality is poor it does spoil my enjoyment - but it is partially down to what I am expecting.

For example, if watching an old silent short by somebody like Harold Lloyd I can accept that maybe the film isn't in perfect condition or that it could be shot at 12fps. But if watching a modern film such as a recent Star Wars release it really bugs me when I can see the shortcomings of digital capture (Anakin and Padme in the field in Star Wars II...UGH!!!)

Is there any logic in that? Not really. If I watch a vintage TV program I accept it is in B&W and maybe not preserved terribly well.

Actually...the problem is probably that the more recent stories simply aren't up to par. Maybe, if Star Wars II had been as rip-roaring a story as Star Wars IV I wouldn't have been bothered...after all I can see the visible results of travelling matte in the latter! And I've been happy to watch it from VHS for twenty years...

[Film-0-Matic]

if we go to the cinema we are watching a projection of film frames.if we had the techno to make a digi projection look as good as film then we would have had digi-cinemas by now. So all in all this discussion in digi versus anal projection (lmao..sorry) is pretty futile.
We must remember that doing a capture of film is already a projection. HA! Film can only BE projected not injected. You may call it scanning or
reading or capturing whatever...it is still a projection on an electronic eye.
So bypassing them and using our biological eyes of course it LOOKS better. (except of course neg stocks..)

im talking shit
later peeps hhh[y newyer