Please ,
what means "cycle/mm" on the film's modulation transfer curves
given by Kodak on his site ?
Does it-mean "lines/mm" ?
Technical english question
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
I was not familiar with this type of measurement, so I did some research. Here's a pretty good article:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
"Cycles" refers to frequency. For example, In the U.S. the electrical current alternates at 60 Herz or 60 Cycles per second; in Europe, it alternates at 50 Hz or cycles.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
"Cycles" refers to frequency. For example, In the U.S. the electrical current alternates at 60 Herz or 60 Cycles per second; in Europe, it alternates at 50 Hz or cycles.
-
gianni1
- Senior member
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:30 am
- Location: Bag End, Hobbiton
- Contact:
This isn't an Technical English definition, it's a Kodak Technical Document, that our Great Senior Technical Specialist for Eastman Kodak Company Mr. John P. Pytlak could possibly help.
Go back to the subject line of your first post and change it to:
Explain Kodak Technical "cycle/mm film modulation transfer curves"
Me I want to know why are you interested in this Film Cycle/mm stuff????
Gianni
Go back to the subject line of your first post and change it to:
Explain Kodak Technical "cycle/mm film modulation transfer curves"
Me I want to know why are you interested in this Film Cycle/mm stuff????
Gianni
-
S8 Booster
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
- Real name: Super Octa Booster
- Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
- Contact:
it is a term for film resolving power..
in this case 1 cycle should equal 1 line pair per mm.
s
in this case 1 cycle should equal 1 line pair per mm.
s
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
-
audadvnc
- Senior member
- Posts: 2079
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:15 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Contact:
"...DV resolution is higher than 16 mm !!!"
Depends on how you phrase the question -
"Is 1st generation camera original DV higher resolution than 16mm transferred to DV?" may be someone's interpretation. Anytime you transfer from one medium (film) to another (video) you will suffer significant transfer losses.
But it works the other way, too. DV transferred to film will not look as good in a film projection as camera original 16mm.
According to the specification, the standard 16mm camera frame is 10.26 x 7.49 mm. A color negative film such as 7218 hits a 50% knee about 50 cycles/mm in its MTF chart, but still has measurable resolution capacity up to 100 cycles/mm. my guess is that the resolution of a 16mm frame of 7218 would therefore be about [10.26 x 100] x [7.49 x 100] or about 1025 x 750 pixels. This figure seems to bolster the argument that 16mm is comparable in resolution to HD, and holds significantly greater detail than standard definition DV. Super 16, with its wider gate [12.5mm?] provides still more potential for higher resolution.
Depends on how you phrase the question -
"Is 1st generation camera original DV higher resolution than 16mm transferred to DV?" may be someone's interpretation. Anytime you transfer from one medium (film) to another (video) you will suffer significant transfer losses.
But it works the other way, too. DV transferred to film will not look as good in a film projection as camera original 16mm.
According to the specification, the standard 16mm camera frame is 10.26 x 7.49 mm. A color negative film such as 7218 hits a 50% knee about 50 cycles/mm in its MTF chart, but still has measurable resolution capacity up to 100 cycles/mm. my guess is that the resolution of a 16mm frame of 7218 would therefore be about [10.26 x 100] x [7.49 x 100] or about 1025 x 750 pixels. This figure seems to bolster the argument that 16mm is comparable in resolution to HD, and holds significantly greater detail than standard definition DV. Super 16, with its wider gate [12.5mm?] provides still more potential for higher resolution.
I totaly agree.
On the fhe french video forum , it is difficult to explain
such evident things at a lot of "video mads".
The "best of the best" was writting that HDV was able
to "fight" with 35 mm resolution...
Funy , isn 't it ?
And you know what ? A lot of these people are "professionals" , unknown "professionals" , of course !
On the fhe french video forum , it is difficult to explain
such evident things at a lot of "video mads".
The "best of the best" was writting that HDV was able
to "fight" with 35 mm resolution...
Funy , isn 't it ?
And you know what ? A lot of these people are "professionals" , unknown "professionals" , of course !
-
gianni1
- Senior member
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:30 am
- Location: Bag End, Hobbiton
- Contact:
Video and Film technologies both have their place in our multimedia cosmos. It's like different neighborhoods, with different tribes, cultures, languages, governments, humor, food, fun, etc..
Quite a few of us mix media, like living with varioius relatives in distant locations. Shooting on Film, telecine through DV, then Editing on Computer is way to go to bring out the best of this media.
Gianni
Quite a few of us mix media, like living with varioius relatives in distant locations. Shooting on Film, telecine through DV, then Editing on Computer is way to go to bring out the best of this media.
Gianni
-
tlatosmd
- Senior member
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:23 pm
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
- Contact:
This is is so ridiculous.
Kodak themselves guarantee 1,000 lines for telecining S8, and we've already seen even better results with a 2k scan of S8 from Chile. DV has, even in its PAL version, only 576 lines, only half as much as S8, and even HDV only has about as much lines as the lowest estimation for S8.
And don't forget about all that compression in DV, and even before that the ol' 4:2:2 TV compression!
16mm is usually telecinined at 2k, yet that resolution still doesn't indicate what's really in the gauge, just as there's a positive difference even between a 1k and a 2k scan from S8. 1k for S8 and 2k for 16mm is only used as the lower limit/quality level as that's when special effects edited in start to look like parts of the originally shot footage.
Same applies for 35mm, of course. This is where it gets really ridiculous. 576 DV lines vs. 4k scans as the lower limit? C'mon!
Lastly, for those who might be interested, though it's a bit off-topic, R8 is able to give about 300-500 lines (no 4:2:2, of course!). Actually, that's about DV level.
So go tell'em that they can come back as soon as they won't lose in quality and resolution against the very smallest, tiniest, and most amateurish of all cinematographical formats anymore. :lol:
Kodak themselves guarantee 1,000 lines for telecining S8, and we've already seen even better results with a 2k scan of S8 from Chile. DV has, even in its PAL version, only 576 lines, only half as much as S8, and even HDV only has about as much lines as the lowest estimation for S8.
And don't forget about all that compression in DV, and even before that the ol' 4:2:2 TV compression!
16mm is usually telecinined at 2k, yet that resolution still doesn't indicate what's really in the gauge, just as there's a positive difference even between a 1k and a 2k scan from S8. 1k for S8 and 2k for 16mm is only used as the lower limit/quality level as that's when special effects edited in start to look like parts of the originally shot footage.
Same applies for 35mm, of course. This is where it gets really ridiculous. 576 DV lines vs. 4k scans as the lower limit? C'mon!
Lastly, for those who might be interested, though it's a bit off-topic, R8 is able to give about 300-500 lines (no 4:2:2, of course!). Actually, that's about DV level.
So go tell'em that they can come back as soon as they won't lose in quality and resolution against the very smallest, tiniest, and most amateurish of all cinematographical formats anymore. :lol:"Mama don't take my Kodachrome away!" -
Paul Simon
Chosen tools of the trade:
Bauer S209XL, Revue Sound CS60AF, Canon 310XL
The Beatles split up in 1970; long live The Beatles!
Paul Simon
Chosen tools of the trade:
Bauer S209XL, Revue Sound CS60AF, Canon 310XL
The Beatles split up in 1970; long live The Beatles!