Workprinter and High-Definition

[freddiesykes]

What a collection of quotes!

Interestingly, I have seen images of Super 8 blown up to IMAX before. They look like - really big - Super 8 images. With grains the size of Volkswagens. Kinda bumpy ride!

I'd love to see this.

[twotoneska]

Wow! I actually got quoted... I'm on here all of the time, but I didn't think I posted enough to get quoted...

[Davideo]

http://www.filmshooting.com/filming/page5.php

This link mentions Super 8 having over 1300 lines of resolution, more than 1080 in HD. Is that still a flour bag in a 10 pound sack?

[MovieStuff]

All I can say is that I managed (with some difficulty) to align my Sony HDV camera with one of our CineMate units and the difference in detail as seen on an HD monitor was quite staggering, compared to SD. Frankly, I was surprised at the difference. It was not a perfect fit due to the rather short zoom and the difference in aspect ratio but the results were very compelling, none the less. I think that HD transfers of Super 8 are going to look just wonderful and quite a departure from SD transfers. I don't have any resolutional math to back it up but I know what I see with my own eyes and my experiment showed me there is definately more information in the super 8 frame than is currently harvested in even the best SD transfers I've seen on a Rank, etc. I will try to post some images as soon as I get my HD suite so I can extract frames, etc. Neat-O.

Roger

[christoph]

http://www.filmshooting.com/filming/page5.php

This link mentions Super 8 having over 1300 lines of resolution, more than 1080 in HD. Is that still a flour bag in a 10 pound sack?

that page should really be updated :/

super8 resolution is way under 1080 lines, the extra detail you get with a HD scan is mainly grain detail - which is a good thing, because it will look sharper and more detailed..

that said, the canon HDV only resolve about 700-800 lines as well (the sony a bit less), while a good DV camera would give you around 400-500 lines. so assuming that super8 will be around 600-700 lines, the HDV cams make sense even if you dont factor in the grain.

++ christoph ++

[aofe]

We have the capability to output to various 1080i or 720p formats including HDV, D-VHS, WMV9, and uncompressed HD. We do the capture via HD-SDI 4:2:2 with the help of Blackmagic's Decklink capture card. Since we're working with Dodcap, the data that we playback on a 1920x1080 monitor is progressive and can be stored as such on an external hard drive or with the WMV9 codec.

How did you get Dodcap/Cinecap to accept an input greater then 720x480?
Does the Decklink card work directly with Dodcap?

[twotoneska]

Roger,

What Sony camera are you using?

[aj]

That's a kind of cool picture, in a street photo kind of way. Where is it? Paris, NY, Blackpool or Vegas?

IMHO Paris - most likely taken on a boat since the "statue of liberty" is on an island in the middle of the Seine. (There's a bridge on the pic, too.)

Indeed it is Paris (France )

The boat is just rounding the tip of the Island with the model 'small' size Statue of Liberty. The needle in the background is the Eiffeltower.

It still looked like that in October 2005

[BK]

The other day I was browsing one Sony HC1 HDV forum, and was surprised that some guy was asking whether he would get a decent HD transfer using one of those awful grainy, hot spot prone video transfer boxes for his 8mm films!?!:roll:

Guess a "super-duper" camera system with a "super-duper" workprinter would be perfect for a HDV transfer, squeezing every bit of quality out of that "super- duper" 8 frame.

Bill

[MovieStuff]

The other day I was browsing one Sony HC1 HDV forum, and was surprised that some guy was asking whether he would get a decent HD transfer using one of those awful grainy, hot spot prone video transfer boxes for his 8mm films!?!:roll:

Yes, I get about half a dozen calls a week from existing clients that will not bother to clean their customer's film but want to know if we have any HD solutions on the horizon because they are "really concerned about maximum quality".

Guess a "super-duper" camera system with a "super-duper" workprinter would be perfect for a HDV transfer...

That and a whole bunch of hard drives in a "super-duper" Raid array. ;)

Roger

[Davideo]

that page should really be updated :/

super8 resolution is way under 1080 lines, the extra detail you get with a HD scan is mainly grain detail - which is a good thing, because it will look sharper and more detailed..

++ christoph ++

Thanks. I found this link that discusses this in depth. Wish there was a simple table that I can refer to that outlines the number of lines for each film format.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts ... rt=2&num=3

[christoph]

Thanks. I found this link that discusses this in depth. Wish there was a simple table that I can refer to that outlines the number of lines for each film format.

you wont find a simple table because it depends on so many factors:
stock, lens, contrast, subjective measurement etc..

the best you can do is to set up a resolution target, point your camera at it, film it and .. (gasp) ... count. and even then two different people will come up with two different numbers, and it mostly results in a flame war.

but here you are... you get about:
1000 lines on a cinealta HDCAM
550-800 lines on a HDV
450-500 lines on Digibeta
(those are vertical resolution numbers, but the horizontal are actually very close)

and:
4000x2500 lines on 35mm Vision2 50D camera original
(and about half of that in the final release print)
700x550 lines on super8 Vision2 50D
(probably less, but i want to avoid the flamewar)

also note that resolution is not the same thing as sharpness.
++ christoph ++

[audadvnc]

4000x2500 lines on 35mm Vision2 50D camera original
(and about half of that in the final release print)
700x550 lines on super8 Vision2 50D

Obviously the topic is open to interpretation. Christoph is claiming that, for a given film stock, Super8 has 700 / 4000 or 17.5% the horizontal resolution of the equivalent 35mm image.

However, the dimensions of the corresponding film frames do not support his statement:

35mm Acadamy frame: 22.1 x 16.58 mm

Super 8 frame: 5.63 x 4.22 mm

If horizontal resolution corresponds linearly to the film frame size, Super 8 would have 5.63 / 22.1 or 25.4% the horizontal resolution of the equivalent 35mm image.

If we assume Christoph's 4000 lines of resolution for 35mm, the equivalent Super8 frame would then be .254 x 4000 = 1020 lines of resolution, fully in the HDCAM ballpark.

[ekta-clone]

http://www.filmshooting.com/filming/page5.php

This link mentions Super 8 having over 1300 lines of resolution, more than 1080 in HD. Is that still a flour bag in a 10 pound sack?

that page should really be updated :/

super8 resolution is way under 1080 lines, the extra detail you get with a HD scan is mainly grain detail - which is a good thing, because it will look sharper and more detailed..

that said, the canon HDV only resolve about 700-800 lines as well (the sony a bit less), while a good DV camera would give you around 400-500 lines. so assuming that super8 will be around 600-700 lines, the HDV cams make sense even if you dont factor in the grain.

++ christoph ++

If avarage super8 image has 600-700 lines (which I don't doubt) , it takes a lot more resolution to transfer it to video.

If you have say some 50 lines per mm on your film, you need a lot more pixels per mm to capture that to digital imagery.

It's for several reasons:
1. Loss of MTF response in any kind of copying results in total loss of
detail with response lower than say 10%

2. Film lines are not the same thing as pixel lines.
Lines of pixels only come vertical or horisontal, while film lines come in all angles.
Example: a film that can capture 50 line pairs per mm can record those lines diagonally, while if a digital sensor thried the same with 50 pixels pairs (100 pixels) per mm, the result would not be lines but a checkerboard.
So in order to sample film lines (or any kind of detail) that are not
strictly vertical or horisontal it takes a lot more pixels per mm than lines per mm on film. It is good to sample at double or triple resolution to capture ALL the detail.

3. grain aliasing screws a lot of things up, and makes the film look grainier than it really is


So HD is a perfect format to fully capture the resolution of super8. The reason super8 looks better in HD is not because its resolution is simlar to HD, but because it takes more than super8 resolution to capture super8 resolution, just as it takes a 70mm print to capture "all" the detail from 35mm film.

[mathis]

2. Film lines are not the same thing as pixel lines.
Lines of pixels only come vertical or horisontal, while film lines come in all angles.
Example: a film that can capture 50 line pairs per mm can record those lines diagonally, while if a digital sensor thried the same with 50 pixels pairs (100 pixels) per mm, the result would not be lines but a checkerboard.
So in order to sample film lines (or any kind of detail) that are not
strictly vertical or horisontal it takes a lot more pixels per mm than lines per mm on film. It is good to sample at double or triple resolution to capture ALL the detail.

That sounds like a very valid point.