monobath wrote:
I shot on 4x5 sheet film, but I blew up a 4.01mm x 5.31mm section (what John Pytlak said was the SMPTE standard viewable area of a Super 8 frame), and it looks pretty good to me. Still, I have no idea how it will look projected.
Here's the Super 8 sized frame sample
er, yes but this not a handheld shot at 1/48 second whizzing along a dodgy plastic plate.
npcoombs wrote:er, yes but this not a handheld shot at 1/48 second whizzing along a dodgy plastic plate.
but it's also not shot through a lens designed for that small a frame. anyway what we're trying to do here is judge the sharpness and grain of the emulsion itself, which is only marginally affected by the sharpness of the footage.
I shot on 4x5 sheet film, but I blew up a 4.01mm x 5.31mm section (what John Pytlak said was the SMPTE standard viewable area of a Super 8 frame), and it looks pretty good to me. Still, I have no idea how it will look projected.
Here's the Super 8 sized frame sample
Monobath, which one of the different tests that you did with EKTA 64T slide film corresponds to the posted image? 64T normal exposure, overexposed as ISO 50T, 40T? (with an 85B filter, of course).
What kind of scanner did you use to digitalize that little area (I mean how many real DPI) ?
npcoombs wrote:er, yes but this not a handheld shot at 1/48 second whizzing along a dodgy plastic plate.
but it's also not shot through a lens designed for that small a frame. anyway what we're trying to do here is judge the sharpness and grain of the emulsion itself, which is only marginally affected by the sharpness of the footage.
/matt
I still think you need a control for it to be of any use.
npcoombs wrote:I still think you need a control for it to be of any use.
i don't understand. because of what you said before, which i said i didn't think was relevant, which you now seem to agree with, or something new that you're not sharing? :-)
of course it's better to have something to compare it with, but that would have been just as true had the frame actually been shot with a super 8 camera. this scan is far from sharp enough anyway, but it was still interesting.
I shot on 4x5 sheet film, but I blew up a 4.01mm x 5.31mm section (what John Pytlak said was the SMPTE standard viewable area of a Super 8 frame), and it looks pretty good to me. Still, I have no idea how it will look projected.
Here's the Super 8 sized frame sample
Monobath, which one of the different tests that you did with EKTA 64T slide film corresponds to the posted image? 64T normal exposure, overexposed as ISO 50T, 40T? (with an 85B filter, of course).
What kind of scanner did you use to digitalize that little area (I mean how many real DPI) ?
Carlos.
Carlos, that blowup was from the 50 ASA exposure of the 64T film. I chose that one because I liked it best. I used an 85B filter, one stop compensation for that. Note that most sources say to adjust exposure 2/3 stop for an 85B, but I have a Hoya filter, and Hoya says 1 stop for their filter.
Scanned at actual 3000 DPI on an old Nikon LS-4500AF film scanner.
You know, I don't have an 85 filter, and that would actually be a better test because most S8 cameras with a built-in filter have an 85.
so it's in fact overexposed by 2/3 stop? 1/3 because you rated it 50 asa and 1/3 because hoya don't know how their own filters work. :-) that explains the difference compared to the velvia...
mattias wrote:so it's in fact overexposed by 2/3 stop? 1/3 because you rated it 50 asa and 1/3 because hoya don't know how their own filters work. that explains the difference compared to the velvia...
/matt
If Hoya don't know their own filters, then I guess that's right!
Just to get back to a comment by npcoombs, a boring thread on K40 this may be but you obviously don't understand the issue we have with K40.
Many of us like to project our movies and K40 is the means to do so and at an exceptionally affordable price. We appreciate it's as old as the hills of Hollywood but it is a proven system and is the point at which most film users make their first contact with real film.
To lose it is a great loss to the amateur film world and the education of the next generation of movie makers
Carlos, very nice. It's encouraging. 64T not be so bad in Super 8 after all.
I'm always afraid when sharpening that what I'm seeing is some sort of artificial digital edge effect or something. But that does indeed look like the film grain.
Yes, if the detail is up too high it can really produce a sort of "artificial" grain. However, we once had one of our broadcast cameras on the bench and had the technician turn off the detail competely. Bloody hell! It is amazing how much video cameras depend on the detail function. Without it the image is just soft and fuzzy as a peach. Absolute Glocoma-Vision.
I don't have the file any more but someone sent me some Velvia Super 8 a long time ago to transfer (from the special run back then) and the greens had a bluish cast to them. Kind of yucky for video work, in my opinion. The E64 looks nice, though!
I will do miniDV. A movie is about MOVING PICTURES, and the technique behind it is secondary. You guys can use miniDV the way you would use s8 - the result will be very similar to the average viewer, some even find DV better.
I will do miniDV. A movie is about MOVING PICTURES, and the technique behind it is secondary. You guys can use miniDV the way you would use s8 - the result will be very similar to the average viewer, some even find DV better.
