Adam Paul Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 What's Super8 resolution/sharpness in lp/mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted November 30, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 30, 2005 What's Super8 resolution/sharpness in lp/mm? Kodak publishes the technical data for each film, usually including the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) curves that measure sharpness: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/s8mm/ind...=0.1.4.14&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.1.4.4.4&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.4.10.4&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/motion/curveBtn.gif For example, Kodak VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 has significant response well beyond 80 cycles (line pairs) per millimeter. The projectable image area of Super-8 is 5.31 x 4.01 millimeters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 For example, Kodak VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 has significant response well beyond 80 cycles (line pairs) per millimeter. The projectable image area of Super-8 is 5.31 x 4.01 millimeters. So, as video is measured in pixels or "single lines" rather than pairs of lines we can, I guess, double that so that it's 160 lines/pixels per mm (at least). And if we use the conservative spec projectionable standard of 5.31 x 4.01 mm... 850 x 642 Only a rough, very conservative estimate. Larger than that as the response is significant "well beyond 80 cycles (line pairs) per millimeter". Also, the potential scanning image area is larger than the projectionable standard number which was created, no doubt, to take into account any manufacturer variance for old home movie projectors. But then, there's the camera system's limits, too. Theoretical limits can never be truly reached. No doubt about it, though. In theory and in practice, the latest super 8 negatives do top standard definition and can benefit from an HD transfer, provided one is using primes, as they have at least a 50% potential resolving power advantage over old non-removeable 1970's zoom lenses on most super 8 cameras. You can shoot with the sharpest film stock in the world, transfer to HD, but if your lens tops out at only 60 lp/mm at best like those probably do, you're wasting your time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Paul Posted November 30, 2005 Author Share Posted November 30, 2005 Thank you John_P_Pytlak and Santo. Santo I'm still looking for the MTF for the Cinegon 10mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Paul Posted November 30, 2005 Author Share Posted November 30, 2005 Here are some interesting frame comparisons over pixelmonver.com (Scott Billups site). Ironically they are also shots of an eye. The Super8 frame posted here looks better than anything there but the 35mm frame shot in a Panavision. It beats the Digibeta by a huge margin on color and sharpness. It's a pity he doesn't have a HDCAM frame as well, as I'm sure the Super8 frame here will beat it as well, or at least match it. http://www.pixelmonger.com/hotgear.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Santo I'm still looking for the MTF for the Cinegon 10mm. If you find a specific one for the Macro Cinegon for Leicina, please share it on this board. I'd be very interested, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 I don't know if we can draw exact comparisons, Adam, or how reliable a website that a couple of years ago proclaimed that the Viper "is the camera that killed film aquisition" -- when motion picture film remains #1 by an overwhelming gigantic margin and is enjoying record sales. And not to mention that, in 35mm form, it blows that Viper so far out of the water in image origination it's kind of a bad joke. Also, we're talking about different filmstocks, different lighting conditions, who knows how much of the frame is pictured there, and on and on. However, I made assertions on another website long ago that the prime lens/V2 100t/hi-def transfer can bring super 8 into some serious HD origination image quality challenging territory. I now know that to be true. Unfortunately, all I got for my trouble then was a lot of home movie makers talking about their Kodachrome 40 and their 1970's Japanese megazoom home movie cameras and how sharp they remembered their movies were. And some assorted other people who confused the skin pores we see in that image with film grain (mostly businessmen with businesses based on reversal film or transfer systems that can't do HD -- what a surprise)! :rolleyes: So, Adam, I wouldn't make too much noise proclaiming this. The bleary-eyed nostalgia nuts and business men are on their way to disagree with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Paul Posted November 30, 2005 Author Share Posted November 30, 2005 (edited) Disagree with me? I don't really care. It's a free world. I believe on what I see, and that super8 frame looked as sharp as any HD originated material I have ever seen. About that website, well, what would you expect from a website about digital cinematography? Were you expecting they would say digital sucks and film is king? :lol: About the Viper, the only reason it?s not really widely used is because it?s quite cumbersome since it needs to record to a computer system and not to an onboard recorder. If it was as portable as the Cine Alta, it could make a real dent on 35mm production, because it sure have the resolution to rival it. We will see what happens now that Panavision has the Genesis. I'm looking for a Leicina Special to buy right now and I will give the 100 and 200 negatives a try. Should beat any SD or HDV camera out there easily. I realize the process used to produce that super8 shot is expensive and complex, but at least it shows the potential. I would love to see a short or feature film up on the big screen done that way. I wonder how wold it stack up against HDCAM. Maybe George Lucas would make his next movie with Leicina Specials after seeing it. :P Edited November 30, 2005 by Adampaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 What's Super8 resolution/sharpness in lp/mm? since it's "per millimeter" it's obviously the same as any other gauge. :-) /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 since it's "per millimeter" it's obviously the same as any other gauge. :-) /matt Recently I bought some Russian line pairs off ebay. They're smaller than US line pairs, so I can get more of them on a super 8 frame. My Super 8 films will be sharper than most 35mm movies. I'll be licensing this to George Lucas. Lens manufacturers tend to NOT want to publish MTF curves. I don't blame them. Can you say subject to misinterpretation ? -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Although they do not offer all out limits of resolution tests, Zeiss and Leica are unafraid to publish mtf charts based on real world tests that show the contrast response (5 to 10 lp/mm range) and the detail response (40 lp/mm range) of the lenses they sell. And they have been unafraid to do so for a very long time. Ultimate resolving power tests they always reserved for magazine/website testers. 120 lp/mm or 121 lp/mm ultimate readings can vary too much to make published results by the company a wise idea - what if there is a film grain or two that throws off an independent tester's data? To their credit, Schneider at least offers the computer generated theoretical charts of their lenses in the contrast and detail ranges, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Paul Posted December 2, 2005 Author Share Posted December 2, 2005 Those who can?t or don?t want to contribute to the thread, at least leave the jackass comments out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 at least leave the jackass comments out. i think mine was a fair comment. your question does have some built in confusion. and anyway if you can't take a jackass or two i suggest you stop asking questions. we're trying to have fun here, as friends do. it releases tension and can even help getting us further in the discussions. in my opinion. /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest santo Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 I would imagine his reference was to SamWells who seems to consider super 8 something of a joke, crapping on another thread with regards to prime lenses and super 8's current potential with his recollections of borrowing a "Sanyo" camera and shooting some K40 back about 10 years ago, and recalling how sharp he thought it was. His "contribution" on this thread confirms his attitude. Typical of somebody ignoring Kodak, Pro8, and about a dozen other film labs and pro telecine businesses who are all living in the 21st Century with regards to the format which has changed focus and ability considerably as a filmmaking tool in the past couple of years thanks to modern tech -- for those willing to employ it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now