supa8 wrote:You're just contradicting yourself.
That's dead easy to say but it's a lot harder to say how. If you can't show how this claim might be true then it's just an empty claim.
But I remain open to being shown otherwise.
Perhaps you mean why I'm using scalers at all if HD is better than SD by definition?
Well that's the whole point. The issue, as I've mentioned, is not the difference between HD and SD, because that is already a known. It is numerically defined. You don't need any tests to test whether a 640 x 480 sensor is a 640 x 480 sensor because if it wasn't such, you wouldn't be calling it a 640 x 480 sensor in the first place (unless you're lying to yourself or being lied to).
What is not known
(to me at least) is at what resolution the scan of the FILM is no longer any better than an upscaled lower definition scan of that same FILM. And you then use that found resolution. You don't use the upscaled lower definition scan.
The FILM should hold an image of a resolution chart or something similar otherwise the above iteration won't ever terminate, precisely because, by definition, a higher resolution scan will always be higher definition (or no worse) than a lower definition scan (whether the low def was upscaled well or not).
Now I've only tested Super8 up to 2.5K with a resolution chart, and it was still better than an upscaled lower definition scan (across all possible lower definitions). But the reason I'm exploring extremely high definition scans, 12K+ (not yet with resolution charts) is more about exploring the signal/noise relationship at those definitions rather than the resolution of the signal. I'm not at all suggesting Super8 requires such excessive definitions, but at these excessive definitions I'm finding useful information that helps me understand the structure of the film and how it might aid in enhancing things like dynamic range of a scan. It is information that is not available at lower definition scans. And I'll be doing resolution tests at these excessive definitions as well, in due course, precisely because the 2.5K Super8 test did not show me a resolution limit.
I'm not out to prove anything I already know. I'm out to discover things I don't already know.
And use this information to build a good transfer system for the film I'm making.
And like everyone else(?), it is also for me, about what LOOKS BETTER
. It's not just that (as I've argued elsewhere) but I'm certainly right into the LOOK as well. But my particular position on that is that if something looks better, it is because
something about it IS better. So I just want to know what that something is. If I know why or how something IS
better (or can be better), then the result of implementing that knowledge
will LOOK BETTER. That's the theory. And so far it's working for me. I'm getting results that LOOK BETTER. Even if my theory is completely wrong or contradictory. But if it is wrong or contradictory I'd still like to know, because perhaps I can get something that LOOKS EVEN BETTER.