Is an HD Super 8 transfer overkill?

[Will2]

The larger the digital image on display, the more the difference between an SD and HD scan became apparent.

True that.

When I use the crappy codecs & resolution of Apple TV to display on a 52" LCD major differences are seen between the 720p and the 480p versions.

And if I just "res-up" an SD transfer to HD that is noticeably softer than an HD originated transfer.

[MovieStuff]

The larger the digital image on display, the more the difference between an SD and HD scan became apparent.

True that.

When I use the crappy codecs & resolution of Apple TV to display on a 52" LCD major differences are seen between the 720p and the 480p versions.

And if I just "res-up" an SD transfer to HD that is noticeably softer than an HD originated transfer.

And that, to me, is the whole ballgame. I totally understand the argument that a good SD transfer is preferable to a bad HD transfer. But my point is that, even if you do nothing more than shoot film off a screen with a camcorder, the choice of originating in SD or HD will make a significant difference if you end up watching the final footage on a large HD display. Camcorder footage shot in SD and then up-rezzed live to a large HD display will not look as good as camcorder footage shot in HD that doesn't have to be up-rezzed at all. So even if one feels that an SD transfer can capture all the effective detail in an 8mm frame, the degenerative effect of live up-rezzing to HD from a standard def DVD will negate that level of visible detail on a large HD screen. If the screen is not large, then the difference between HD and SD is a non-issue.

Would a software upscale from SD to HD work just as good as capturing in HD to begin with? Well, due to a difference in aspect ratio, you can't really get the full image area of a super 8 frame into an SD frame without zooming back, which therefore reduces the initial resolution of the image in SD during capture. I'm sure it could look nice but is a non-issue if you choose to capture in HD to begin with, even if you are doing a low end telecine.

Roger

[christoph]

I'm sure it could look nice but is a non-issue if you choose to capture in HD to begin with, even if you are doing a low end telecine.

if you do low end telecine, you have crappy results anyway, no matter what you do, so what's the point of slightly more detail and less problems of uprezing?

the funny thing is that if i talk about theory, the reactions is "numbers blah bla", and if i propose a real world test, it's like "we have SMTPE film already"..

so here's a very simple idea, tell me if it's useless for some weird reason:
you and kent upload a few seconds of your best HD transfer in a lossless codec, i make an SD version of that same clips and we'll see how much quality is lost.

++ c.

[MovieStuff]

if you do low end telecine, you have crappy results anyway, no matter what you do, so what's the point of slightly more detail and less problems of uprezing?

Well the point is that, if you are forced to do an off the screen low end telecine, then you want to add as little additional degradation to the image as possible after that point. No sense making it any worse. And if you are going to do a high end telecine, no sense trashing what you paid good money for. So, in the context of the original question of this thread, "Is an HD Super 8 transfer overkill?", then the answer would be no because, whether low end or high end, capturing directly to HD is going to avoid any potential, random up-rezzing issues from one display system to the next .

the funny thing is that if i talk about theory, the reactions is "numbers blah bla", and if i propose a real world test, it's like "we have SMTPE film already"..

It isn't about avoiding a real world test. It's about what you are trying to prove with that test. Essentially, your position is that a 22 caliber bullet can be just as deadly as a 44 magnum under the right circumstances. My position isn't that I disagree with you but that the circumstances won't always be the same in the real world from one shot to the next and that the size of the target animal will affect the final results.

Posting pictures of scans and counting lines doesn't take into account the fact that even the best SD scan can be made to look like crap because of variances in performance in a live up-rezz to HD. You can see this even off of Hollywood commercial DVDs. Just because you are satisfied with how they look on your particular projection system doesn't make it the dependable constant any more than my dissatisfaction would and both our opinions about what looks acceptable are relative. What you and I think looks okay others might not.

so here's a very simple idea, tell me if it's useless for some weird reason:
you and kent upload a few seconds of your best HD transfer in a lossless codec, i make an SD version of that same clips and we'll see how much quality is lost.

As viewed how? Will we all get together somewhere and view the SD up-rezzed through a typical BluRay player on a large, 52 inch HD flat screen? If not, then the test won't address the issue that Kent and I are trying to get across. This isn't about one method of transfer versus another. It's about how the final SD imagery goes through additional degradation if viewed on a typical, large HD display. And we must assume that is how it's going to be viewed because why go to HD at all if not? But if you scan to HD in the first place -regardless of what method you choose- then you will be able to view the best result that particular method can produce, even if there are better transfer methods to choose from.

Roger

[christoph]

well, looking at the sample clips on their website, their system has a true resolution of just slightly higher then PAL.

Can you tell directly from their test footage?

but make a guess for yourself, which one of these crops has the highest resolution, and how much?

well, apparently nobody was interested or thought the differences are not big enough to qualify..
here's the right answers:

original:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4067280/filmsho ... x-orig.png

1K:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4067280/filmsho ... -3x-1k.png

1K with a bit of sharpening and digital noise:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4067280/filmsho ... x-1k-n.png

PAL with a bit of sharpening and digital noise:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4067280/filmsho ... -pal-n.png

for whatever it's worth
++ c.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

What is useless is all this chattering about IF it is overkill and unnecessary to transfer to HD or not, when a HD transfer looks better than a SD transfer if viewed on a big HDTV.

If the Blu-ray looks better than the DVD, then it is not overkill. Simple as that.

I still fail to understand why you are argueing about SD being good enough, and then still you choose HD when you transfer your films. It is so not logical I can´t wrap my head around it.

Why oh why are you using HD Christoph?

[MovieStuff]

If the Blu-ray looks better than the DVD, then it is not overkill. Simple as that.

Agreed.

I still fail to understand why you are argueing about SD being good enough, and then still you choose HD when you transfer your films. It is so not logical I can´t wrap my head around it.

To be fair, while you and I just have to satisfy the average Joe, Christoph isn't just wanting to transfer his films. I may be mistaken but I believe he's looking to create something that will contain all the reproducible information in the 8mm frame so that it could be printed back to film. What works for typical HD viewing would not be good enough for that application and SD would certainly fall short. Again, I could be wrong, but I believe that's his goal.

Roger

[Andersens Tears]

I'm thinking of getting some super 8 transfered to HD and I wanted to get some opinions on whether or not you think it's worth it or if it's overkill.
Thanks!

OK, I thought I'd add my opinion to this discussion - now I have thought very hard about this and gone through all the pros and cons, checked the plethora of tech data posted here and I have to say it was tough coming to this decision, but here it is: Is an HD Super 8 transfer overkill?

No.

[granfer]

Jamie,
If your current avatar is an HD transfer, then I agree.... it certainly improves your looks!

Granfer

[Will2]

Those stills are blurry because of the lens & focus, not solely because of the inherent definition of the film.

One thing that was mentioned in this Film vs. DSLR shootout was how 35mm film is still the king when it comes to information stored and there was a noticeable difference between 2k and 4k scans even when shown back on a 2k projector. The DPs suggested (in their hi-end world) that film should always be captured at 4k because of this difference even though the film out process is only 2k.

I know we're talking about Super 8 not 35mm but there might be a corollary there.

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

To be fair... all the reproducible information in the 8mm frame so that it could be printed back to film.

Ah, OK. With the film out in mind, I modify the question to Christoph:

If the film you transfer is not to be printed back to film (there are no plans for a film out now or in the future) but rather for viewing with a projector/HDTV, do you transfer it to SD or to HD?

[christoph]

Ah, OK. With the film out in mind, I modify the question to Christoph:

sorry kent,

i'm out of this discussion...

i already answered this question in detail in this thread and i even posted a real world comparison a few pages back:

flashscanHD 720P transfer:
http://eightmm.net/filmshooting/flashsc ... s_corr.png
PAL from my setup:
http://eightmm.net/filmshooting/flashsc ... Luprez.png

++ christoph

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

i'm out of this discussion...
i already answered this question in detail... a real world comparison...

OK, I will read this as a "I transfer to HD" kind of answer.

There´s really no need for details or further comparisons, if you choose to transfer to HD even if the target is not a film out, then you don´t think transferring to HD is overkill.

Even if the target is "normal" use of a HD transfer (normal being any other use than a film out, printing out to film is pretty rare I believe). Simple as that.

[Andersens Tears]

Jamie,
If your current avatar is an HD transfer, then I agree.... it certainly improves your looks!

Granfer

Thanks! ( You don't wanna see my ugly mug there)

[cinelicious]

Hey Guys,
Came to this very late (haven't been on this board in a while). But believe it or not I read every post and found it all very interesting as I am a lover of Super 8mm, Film in general, and the science of film scanning. Haven't shared this on here (or anywhere yet) but last year I was on a personal quest to find the best film scanner in the world. The goal was to compare the new crop of "optically pin registered" scanners (GoldenEye, Steady Frame, Scanity) which are FAST to the gold standard ARRI and Northlight which are high quality but super slow. The test would examine resolution, dynamic range and steadiness. I had resolution test charts made up in Prague that go down to 250 LP/mm!! And dynamic range charts that go from 0-4 density over 24 calibrated steps of grey, and a rock solid registration chart. The results were very interesting and would surprise many DPs if they knew. Now I'm just trying to save up money to actually buy the winner.

All that to say that while I'm into the technical side of film scanning... often times it's not the tech speak that clients respond to. And since at Cinelicious we own both and SD/HD uprez telecine (URSA) as well as a Super 8mm capable Spirit I'm in a unique position to answer the question of wether a true HD scan of Super 8mm is "worth it" as we show clients side by sides all the time. While "worth it" is highly subjective and depends on their pocket books... what is unanimous is that every single person prefers the resolution and sharpness of the true HD scan.

I'll be posting some beautiful HD Super 8mm stuff on our recently renovated website later this month. And if you haven't seen it yet check out Cinelicious 2.0
http://cinelicious.tv/ especially the "rad video" with the homespun super 8mm reel "we love film" animation.

Cheers.

-Paul