Super8 E100D Transfer of Rez Chart

[carllooper]

Here is Resolution Chart I shot on E100D, with a Leicina Special and HD transferred @ 1440 x 1080.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~carllooper ... hanced.jpg

The centre of the image (inside the box) has been enhanced using SR algorithms which reconstruct a silky smooth image.

In the test the line pairs start to become indistinguishable at about 8 line pairs per 32 pixels which is the equivalent of an ideal 720 x 540 digital image. This is due to limitations in the transfer system rather than the original film/camera.



Carl

[carllooper]

Here's another test:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~carllooper ... orTest.jpg

Again, the area inside the box has been enhanced using Super Resolution (SR) processing.

Note that SR isn't a degraining process per se. The disappearance of the grain is a "side effect" of enhancing the definition.

Carl

[PyrodsTechnology]

Hi Carl
great improvement on cleanliness of image, BUT i am not sure if it is the way to go. I mean, if you take away the grain, to shot with a cine camera is a non sense, shot video ! The resolution of a single cine frame may be poor , but when the projector runs, we have an averaging of multiple frames. All these frames reconstruct dynamically the resolution thanks to image persistence of human retina. That is why motion picture technology is unsurpassed by video, with its fixed pixel pattern. By my experimentation the lowest framerate is about 32fps. At this framerate the grain becomes very little noticeable, and the resolution improves dramatically. Ofcourse to achieve this, the frames steadiness must be 100%. this can't be obtained by an average S8 camera, with its ridiculous plastic cartridge, but only via a professional double super8 camera. Viceversa, with video technology there isn't any improvement on framerate speed up. A single still frame resolution is equivalent to playback resolution. That is why video is so flat.
Regards.
Rob

[etimh]

Looks real good for what is intended, Carl. Very impressive.

But I of course tend to sympathize with Rob's sentiments and would further defend grain as not just an inherent physical manifestation of film, but a desirable aesthetic quality as well.

I like grain. But if you don't, your computer voodoo seems to do the trick!

Tim

[Tscan]

Some of what we're seeing may be digital noise paired with grain. I see this on DIY transfers I do at 1920x1080. The video source adds a lot of artifact in low lit scenes, which is what appears to be on your samples. It's more of that magenta laced digital static than raw grain. I have a simular de-noiser plug-in called Neat Video that works really good, although sometimes it can cause blurring to the image. The renders take forever.

[slashmaster]

Hi Carl
great improvement on cleanliness of image, BUT i am not sure if it is the way to go. I mean, if you take away the grain, to shot with a cine camera is a non sense, shot video ! The resolution of a single cine frame may be poor , but when the projector runs, we have an averaging of multiple frames. All these frames reconstruct dynamically the resolution thanks to image persistence of human retina. That is why motion picture technology is unsurpassed by video, with its fixed pixel pattern. By my experimentation the lowest framerate is about 32fps. At this framerate the grain becomes very little noticeable, and the resolution improves dramatically. Ofcourse to achieve this, the frames steadiness must be 100%. this can't be obtained by an average S8 camera, with its ridiculous plastic cartridge, but only via a professional double super8 camera. Viceversa, with video technology there isn't any improvement on framerate speed up. A single still frame resolution is equivalent to playback resolution. That is why video is so flat.
Regards.
Rob

The thing is, if you shoot at 32 frames per second, wouldn't you get a poorer resolution because the more you have to open up the aperture the less resolution you can get?

[PyrodsTechnology]

slashmaster wrote:
The thing is, if you shoot at 32 frames per second, wouldn't you get a poorer resolution because the more you have to open up the aperture the less resolution you can get?

well, i mean the higher framerate the better. So 24 fps i better than 18, 32fps is better than 24fps and so on. I am not reinventing the wheel, this technique is called showscan and exists from late '70s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
Ofcourse we are speaking about pro gear, you can't take in account home movie equipment. With my Bolex DS8 and Switars i got ultrasharp images at f 2.8 too.

[carllooper]

The process doesn't eliminate grain as such. The grain is still there - it's just that you would need a bigger scanner to see it.

The purpose of the process is not to remove grain - it's to increase the resolution and dynamic range of the Super8 to that comparable with the same stock in 16mm and 35mm definition.

The tests posted here were limited to a HD scanning system, rated at 1920 (1440) x 1080, but in actual fact the real resolution of the scanner was only half that: 720 x 540.

Now the super-rez algorithm does improve the scanner resolution, but only a little: you can see in the test chart that lines are still discernible beyond the scanners 720 x 540 limit. But video always has a cutoff frequency beyond which you can't push it much further. Whereas film can be pushed almost indefinitely.

With a better scanner (have been testing true 2K scans of Standard/Regular 8 ) the resolution and dynamic range is improved further.

Now the irony may be that I need to digitally process the scan in order to do that. But at least one can do that with film.

This is a tick for film.

Carl

[carllooper]

I have a simular de-noiser plug-in called Neat Video that works really good, although sometimes it can cause blurring to the image. The renders take forever.

I just downloaded Neat Video and gave it a whirl. Not bad at all. Apart from mine it's the best I've seen so far.

TEST 1

In this test I did both images at 720 x 540. Neat Video bottoms out at about 4.5 while mine just reaches 6.



TEST 2

Here I've done both images at the original scan rez and sharpened both considerably by the same amount - just to see where the rez limit occurs. Both are now reaching the scanner resolution limit, but Neat Video is tripping up on what I suspect could be the scanner's bayer/debayer filter * (causing the checkerboard pattern).



Carl

* Whatever it is there is a definite checkerboard patterning in the original scanner image and Neat Video is inadvertently locking onto this. The patterning is also the reason why the actual scan rez is only 720 x 540 rather than 1440 x 1080.

[ECNtoo]

Hi Carl
great improvement on cleanliness of image, BUT i am not sure if it is the way to go. I mean, if you take away the grain, to shot with a cine camera is a non sense, shot video ! The resolution of a single cine frame may be poor , but when the projector runs, we have an averaging of multiple frames. All these frames reconstruct dynamically the resolution thanks to image persistence of human retina. That is why motion picture technology is unsurpassed by video, with its fixed pixel pattern. By my experimentation the lowest framerate is about 32fps. At this framerate the grain becomes very little noticeable, and the resolution improves dramatically. Ofcourse to achieve this, the frames steadiness must be 100%. this can't be obtained by an average S8 camera, with its ridiculous plastic cartridge, but only via a professional double super8 camera. Viceversa, with video technology there isn't any improvement on framerate speed up. A single still frame resolution is equivalent to playback resolution. That is why video is so flat.

Regards.
Rob

The thing is, if you shoot at 32 frames per second, wouldn't you get a poorer resolution because the more you have to open up the aperture the less resolution you can get?

I would think shooting and playing back at 30 fps would lessen grain and sharpen up the images. As for the sharpening up of the images, I would love to see a film transferred to blu ray or dvd so I can watch a before and after on my television at 23.975 fps. it would be even cooler to try the 30fps concept. Maybe Ill shoot some footage on my mekel one of these days and somebody will want to ptocess the image.

[PyrodsTechnology]

The frame steadiness is the most important thing .If you have a Mekel you are OK to test higher frame rate effect

[Tscan]

If you shot and played back at 30fps, it would look like video

[ECNtoo]

If you shot and played back at 30fps, it would look like video

Do you say it would look like video because of the lack of grain? If that is the only reaons that I doubt it would be true. We watch features on DVD, HD cable, etc that were shot on 35mm. I can;t see the grain but the colors, yextures, contrast and a bunch of things still have that great feel because it was shot on 35mm. Panning is also not weird the way it looks when shot on video. Any thoughts? My position is to maximise the quality of super8 the way people have done so with 16mm. 16mm used to be the little amateur brother to 35mm. Now super8 is in that position but getting better every year. Why not use it to its maximum abilities while retaining its non video feel.

[themagickite]

I really like the feel of lower framerates, 24 seems like a very normal framerate for me, dialing down the projector to 18 gives that magic super8 look for me. but i definitely agree that we should all experiment as much as possible so that we can be the most happy with our images. I was just today wondering what shooting at 54fps would look like if slowed down to 50 (or sped up to 60) and played at 720? I don't think i would be fond of it, but some would surely say it's better quality (forgetting about steadiness issues for this hypothetical)

the resolution argument, when people say that super8 is SD "no point scanning in HD" to me seems of very little merit, it's so true that this format has dancing grains that move around each frame of film, you want to capture that dance in as high res as you can. for me, the ideal resolution that s8 should be scanned at (or indeed any film format) is high enough so that the circumference of each grain of film can be clearly defined.

it's true about the resolution of video sensors, they usually capture less than half of the resolution they're rated for, they use a low pass filter to make sure each pixel gets its own light information without mixing it all up and creating a strong moire pattern. it makes sense, if a black line is 1 pixel wide against a white background, then sticking it halfway between 2 lines of video will render both lines grey, this is why i love film

[MovieStuff]

If you shot and played back at 30fps, it would look like video

Not really. Video spreads motion across 50 increments for PAL or 60 increments for NTSC and those increments are interlaced so that one image increment essentially blends in between the other. This is what gives video a very "live" feel. But film shot at 30fps will still look exactly like film, and will still have film motion, even if it is transferred to video. I've shot it that way and transferred 1:1 and it looks just terrific. Definite increase in resolution and detail and pans are much smoother. Looks great. I highly recommend it for super 8. Some cameras list 32fps as their top speed but, realistically, it probably levels off at about 30fps and would work fine, even if it was 32fps.

As an aside, there were many musicals in the 50s shot at 30fps such as Oklahoma and others. They shot with two cameras; one at 24fps 35mm for standard release and one at 30fps 70mm for special release. I've seen 30fps musicals at a revival house and it is nothing short of stunning and it still looks just like film.

Roger