What´s the REALLY resolution power in a S8 frame with K-40?

[Carlos 8mm]

Hi fellows,

In some topics of this forum somebody wrote about the resolution power of Super 8 with K-40 film: somebody says about 1.300 lines.

According to Kodak´s Web Site (technical publications) Kodachorme K-40 can reproduce 100 lines per milimeter.

The super 8 full size frame is 4,23 x 5,65 mm. That means 565 lines of horizontal resolution PER STILL FRAME.

Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X Can reproduce 125 lines per milimeter.
This gives about 700 lines of horizontal resolution.

Can anybody explain me about this? 8O

Cheers,

Carlos.

[S8 Booster]

Just an indicator from me memory if it serves me well.

At Kodak web pages they give a max resolution for a 35mm movie frame (which I can not remember figure for exactly). Kodak says the scanning device for this given resolution is the limiting factor, not the film.

Now, If K40 is amongst the highest resolving films of their stock I took this figure and down calculated this resolution to a S8 frame (downsizing area factors also from the Kodak WEB site. By re-arranging this figure to 4:3 format I came to a total horisontal (technical) resolution of 900+ lines. (920) or so.

I believe that Mattias did a test with K40 in tungsten light (with the 85 filter "out" - no use) and ended on something like 900? Correct me if I am wrong.

I have seen some operate with "about" 700 lines for K40.
I knocked off about 670 lines with jittery cartridges and the 85 filter in.

However, that is projected so in theory, if the projector lens reduces the resolution by a factor of 2:1 (as is common in "photo mode" with 35mm cam lenses) it means that the K40 offers up to the double; 1340 lines total.

Eleastics by the metre?

I think the K40 resolution is VERY GOOD. Figures aren´t that important? My impression is that it is as good as or better than MiniDV but the texture is totally different.

R

[Guest]

anybody know the resolving power of kodachrome 25 in 16mm,is 16mm k40 lower in resolving power?

[S8 Booster]

Scroll down this page and find the film table.
It will give you an idea for the K25, not the k40 I think.

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html


film Type ISO 1000:1 lpm 1.6:1 lpm
Kodachrome 25 / 25 Prof slide / 25 / 100 / 63

Also check out: http://creekin.net/films.htm

R

[mattias]

According to Kodak´s Web Site (technical publications) Kodachorme K-40 can reproduce 100 lines per milimeter.

The super 8 full size frame is 4,23 x 5,65 mm. That means 565 lines of horizontal resolution PER STILL FRAME.

...which if you add the nyquist theorem means 1130 pixels. and yes, i did test this, and if i remember correctly i found the resolution to be around 800x600. don't take my word for it though, since it was a while ago. search the google groups archive...

/matt

[S8 Booster]

Took Mattias by the word and put my "not too seriously" performed res test into a 1200x microscope and with the 85 filter in (use) the "gray" lines between the black lines are clearly distinguishable up to 850 "lines". Sorry I have no gear to post this result.

R

[tim]

Why do we have to keep going through this?

Every instant, convenient but inadequate electronic imaging system has attracted those with little patience since 30 line tv.

Until any form of video can:

- achieve true colour (the colours used in TV monitors, especially the red, are highly artificial, designed to maximise the impact of advertising)

- achieve resolutions equivalent to the 100 line pairs (NOT lines)/mm of film emulsions (including colour - not true for TV)

- project a picture having these attribuites

Then they are plastic lumps of hyped electronics that represent an inferior technology that sell on convenience. Moreover, they become obsolete every time the wind changes so you can't get the parts to keep them going for a fraction of the 50 years that my colour film collection covers.

Get real guys. Electronic imaging can't touch film yet, so don't keep trying to excuse your enormous expenditure.

[S8 Booster]

Took Mattias by the word and put my "not too seriously" performed res test into a 1200x microscope and with the 85 filter in (use) the "gray" lines between the black lines are clearly distinguishable up to 850 "lines". Sorry I have no gear to post this result.

R

There seem to be more to go.

The approx 850 rrl was at the absolutely max performance of this m.scope. Lens stuck on the film surface. Focusing range cut off. Indications are that there are more to go. See if there is some way to sort it out.

Academic interest only though.

R

[tfunch24]

If this is all true...

...then where on Earth did Phil Fitzlaff get the 1,300 figure? No offense to you, Phil, if you're reading this. I really liked your online book on S8 filmmaking; it was one of the first documents I read in November 2001 when I discovered that Super 8 was not dead.

Tom

[tim]

If we must keep harping on this topic, let us at least read and comprehend the relevant posts.

On Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:53 am, S8 Booster wrote:

"The approx 850 rrl was at the absolutely max performance of this m.scope. Lens stuck on the film surface. Focusing range cut off. Indications are that there are more to go. See if there is some way to sort it out. "

This means that the measurement method used was insufficient to measure full resolution, which appeared to be in excess of 850 lines.

It only requires a 50% increase observed by better methods to approach the 1300 lines figure. This agrees with Kodak's own 100 lines-PAIRS per mm.

Now, can we drop this and forget about video, DVD and all the other short-led, electronic gadgets designed to part the impatient from a lot of money?

[S8 Booster]

Agree with you Tim.

It´s just this funny info on the DV boards that the S8 resolution is "almost!" on par with VHS, 250 lines or so which makes it all fun and or hillariuos whatever, daft.......?

I do not care.
S8 film does whatever it takes and possibly more.

Shoot film!! Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!

R

[tfunch24]

If we must keep harping on this topic, let us at least read and comprehend the relevant posts.

Well excuse me for not understanding something and asking a question.

Tom

[mattias]

...then where on Earth did Phil Fitzlaff get the 1,300 figure?

i though i had addressed this already? 1,300 is a theoretical figure while 800 is the result of testing...

/matt