Jeff is absolutely right, there's no reason to capture footage at anything other than the maximum affordable resolution and color depth. ---
Consider this: everything looks better in the future. Literally. With vastly better technology available today, old footage looks better than on the day it was developed. All analog-to-digital transfers should be made at the best possible quality, in order to future-proof the material as much as possible. --- And, of course, the larger the image is projected, the more obvious any sampling errors will be. --- Aaron At 12/27/2011, you wrote: >There is a common belief -- which, like a lot of common wisdom >should be looked at skeptically -- that small format film lacks >enough useful "information" to require scanning at resolutions >greater than pillarboxed HD (1080 x 1440) or cropped HD (1080 x >1920). Some feel that for Super-8 and 8mm, NTSC, PAL, and 720P are, >in the words of an engineer I know, "good enough." > >But I don't think anyone really tested this properly -- they just >said what seemed logical enough to them. It's fine to say "that >looks pretty good at 1080 x 1440" but those who say this probably >did not try scanning the same film at higher resolutions to see if >there was an appreciable difference. > >I did some simple tests, and honestly was quite surprised at the >results. Even when the final release format is HD or less, the >advantages of high resolution scans are obvious. > >I put together a little PDF you can download, with both Super-8 and >grainy 16mm samples scanned at different resolutions. It was >written in response to a report by the Swiss group Memoriav, which >was doing tests of small format (for them this includes 16mm) scanning. > >Here's a link: > ><http://db.tt/iriz5nyY>http://db.tt/iriz5nyY > >Here are links to full-res TIFFs of the files used -- zoom in on >them and see what you are losing with lower resolution scans. Note >that the files are mostly over 20MB each, so don't try this on your cell phone. > ><http://db.tt/8cw0YUXU>http://db.tt/8cw0YUXU > >http://db.tt/xizfMgLq > ><http://db.tt/VvwuPSog>http://db.tt/VvwuPSog > >http://db.tt/LR0Phcy2 > ><http://db.tt/BofN5ls8>http://db.tt/BofN5ls8 > >http://db.tt/aPXrsxAf > ><http://db.tt/JSC7Vf2C>http://db.tt/JSC7Vf2C > >http://db.tt/SGYbJiWb > ><http://db.tt/X1flduqJ>http://db.tt/X1flduqJ > >Let me know what you think. > >Jeff Kreines > > >On Dec 23, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Ken Paul Rosenthal wrote: > >>Kevin, >> >>For future reference, if you simply digitize your super 8 upfront >>at: Pro Rez 422 HQ 1080p, 1920x1080, 23.98 fps, >>you'll be entirely up to spec and not need to do any converting for >>your timeline. Furthermore, digitizing to a >>compressed file will allow you to easily edit without freezing up >>your system. As for projection quality, I've been >>on the road for a year a half with Crooked Beauty--which was >>transferred on the above specs--and have seen >>it projected on a the best (and worst) systems, the former in a >>huge theater on a commercial sized screen >>and it looked stunning. I spent 3 months researching tech options, >>and the consensus from all the folks I consulted >>with was that uncompressed is overkill for super 8 because the >>frame size only contains so much 'information'. >>So spend the money upfront during the transfer (I highly recommend >>sitting in with owner/operator Phil Vigeant at >>Pro 8) and it will be smooth sailing down the line. >> >>Ken >><http://www.crookedbeautythefilm.com>www.crookedbeautythefilm.com (Academic) >><http://www.crookedbeauty.com>www.crookedbeauty.com (Public) >><http://www.kenpaulrosenthal.com>www.kenpaulrosenthal.com >>_______________________________________________ >>FrameWorks mailing list >><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >>https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > >_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing >list [email protected] >https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ------------------------------------------- Aaron F. Ross Digital Arts Guild _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
