Jeff, this is fantastic! Bookmarked for future reference. Kind RegardsKevin
> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:58:12 -0800 > To: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Digitizing Super 8 at proper resolution > > 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
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
