- Roger Evans
I'm sorry, but I have to take you, and everyone else who believes this fantasy to task. What is it about K40 that turns people into near religious fanatics who refuse to review statistics and then run some objective testing for themselve? Frankly it's bizarre.
Though simple logical deduction with the facts, backed by my own testing, Roger's statement was not even true with Plus-X (in its original formula, things may have changed).
First, Plus-X original formula vs. K40
I read this over and over again, here on this forum, and on some other sites: "K40 is sharper than Plus-X".
No it's not. Or wasn't.
Let's start with K40's actual resolving power, sharpness, and granularity.
It has a grain size of "9". Termed "micro-fine".
Here is what its chart for sharpness and resolving power. You will notice that it drops off far before even 100 lines per mm of resolution.
Here is the orginal Plus-X. Just like K40, it too has a granularity rating (grain size) of "9". I wondered to myself, before I tested it, "Why wouldn't this film stock be at least as sharp as K40? Looking at Kodak's own data, it has a theoretical resolving power that's about 40% higher! That doesn't make any sense." Here is the chart for original formula Plus-X:
You'll notice that even at 30% contrast response (the veritical measurement), Plus-X is even a little higher. And then it goes on to, I don't know, it looks like 130 or 140 l/mm. Not that you could see resolution that high, but with a good German lens (or the best Angeneiux) you should certainly crack the magic 100 l/mm level under optimum conditions.
Meanwhile, people shooting with K40 and a good lens like Mattais and his Canon 814E with his own tests and statements, can't crack over 70 -72 l/mm resolution.
Not that that level of resolution doesn't look great on a TV screen or projected on a home movie screen. It does.
But the truth is, I believe, most people are simply allowing the addition of colour to sway their subjective opinions on the film's resolving power and sharpness compared to Plus-X. Quite heavily so in some cases.
And now I know myself with my own tests, that Kodak's own data is certainly very reflective of the truth on this matter. K40 doesn't have the sharpness or resolving power of Plus-X in its original 40/50 ASA rating.
Now as far as 50d goes, I am on the record denouncing Pro8's monopoly and business practices in relation to super 8's untapped full potential which would better be served by indie filmmakers who could exploit it. Now that the best equipment is cheap, there are choices for high quality transfers, computer editing, using MD technology for easy quality sound, the pressure plate -- all things which have only come together in a magic formula of sorts in the past 2 years or so -- there is for once the real possiblity of producing a threatrically released super 8 originated feature film which is very much a match for DV. In fact, it could take a run at HD. Pro8's high-priced stranglehold on this potential is a real tragedy.
Cost aside, one has to adapt a logical fact-based approach if a theatrically released feature could be a reality. And you must start with examining the statement Roger made, and many people it seem make, and exploding it for the myth that it is. And a harmful myth at that -- one that has crippled Super 8 as a serious format for a long time.
As one can see by a simple examination of the facts above, even Plus-X had it all over K40. With 50d it is even more so.
50d has a granularity rating of "8". That's right, it's smaller in grain than K40's "9".
And here is what the actual data looks like:
You will notice that 50d has no less than double K40's resolving power. And even the red colour curve rates higher all the way through the 30% contrast level than K40.
It would be foolish to assume that you're going to get double the sharpness and detail as K40. But it will be much higher. And one thing you can be completely certain of: it will outperform K40 in any test and is most certainly going to provide a vastly superior platform for feature film production. Provided a proper transfer to HD or even 2K is made to preserve and tweak it to the desired feel.
I've been lucky enough to recently see what 50d properly shot and transfered looks like on the small screen. It is very sharp. It is perfectly smooth. Smoother than any K40 footage. And, based on the factual data, it should be. How couldn't it be? There are no "swarming gnats of grain" like Roger claims.
Finally, here's just one image that dispells this "grain" myth. And I take it from one of the biggest proponents of K40 on this board, Super8 Booster. Unfortunately, it must be a hand-held shot, and isn't in focus. As one might imagine, and is pointed out by authorities such as Carl Zeiss, one couldn't hope to see more than 40 lines/mm resolving power under such conditions. However, you can see that, even on a now outdated Rank transfer, this is not exactly "grainy". In fact, it has less grain than any K40 image on this site:
Now, other than the fact that it is very blurry because of poor focus, I personally don't see any "grain gnats". In fact, the water is a little deceiving because of all the little micro-waves captured, but if you look at the shore and and the kids, you will see it has less grain than any K40 image I can find on this site.
While in the process of my own filmmaking, I will be conducting my own tests of 50d and 100t and I may put some examples up on this site some time in the new year. Like Plus-X, I have seen few in focus, properly lit examples to demonstrate its true protential and quality (as indicated in the hard data) on the internet.
No slight to S8 Booster in any of the above, as I've said before, I really like and appreciate that he's put up all kinds of images. I hope he continues to do so.
To the critics of Super 8 features, I wish to reiterate:
Threatrically released Super 8 dramatic feature is suddenly now very much a possiblity, whether people want to believe it or not. And it's only been possible because of developments in the past couple of years. And, as anybody knows, that's how long it takes for a feature to even get made. Likely more so at the lowest budget defiant indie level. Because of this, I am confident we will see one soon. DV originated movies have reached public acceptance and, ironically, have likely paved the way for public acceptance for Super 8 on the big screen. In fact, it is very easy to imagine CLERKS or Pi having been shot on Super 8 if our current tech was available and the filmmakers were so inclined.
Alright, back to work. I need another green light on another feature (non super 8, millions for budget) so I can hopefully shoot my own (a super 8 feature thousands for budget) some time at the end of next year. For when it comes to a theatrically released Super 8 feature...
"I, sir, am closer than you could possibly imagine."
Have a good New Year everyone.
