That's the Spirit???

[Alessandro Machi]

While I am grateful that we have a few Rank Cintel places in Los Angeles for Super-8 film transfers, I am also curious about the Spirit Telecine for Super-8 film in the Los Angeles area. There is one Spirit Super-8 Gate in the Los Angeles area.

 

I was quoted a $300.00 gate fee charge and $300.00 to 350.00 additional to transfer 17 minutes of Super-8 film. I was willing to wait for other Super-8 jobs that needed to be transferred so that I could "share" the Super-8 gate cost, but that was not presented as an option.

 

I believe my 17 minutes of Super-8 film could be transferred within half an half an hour's time because the shot was a lock off and I shot the same angle on all seven cartridges. Each cartridge has only one take on it because I shot between 150-200 frames per second and the cartridge lasted around 15 seconds. In other words I have 7 takes of the same dang thing from the same angle.

 

I consider this footage as "camera test" footage since I don't know if the lens is ideally columnated for the camera that I am using. Because there is only one Spirit Super-8 gate in the Los Angeles area there isn't much competition I suppose. (Boy does lack of competition follow Super-8 around like a sore thumb).

 

I'm just reporting that as it stands right now, One Spirit Super-8 Gate in the Los Angeles area is better than none, but it's also more expensive to use than 16mm and 35mm, especially if you haven't shot a lot of film.

[Matt Serrins]

Did Technicolor quote you this price? Is there anyone else in the US who has a super 8 gate for Spirit? Just curious.

[Alessandro Machi]

I'm specifically talking in the Los Angles area because I was planning on being present for the transfer. I rechecked my list and actually it's the Shadow not the Spirit that is located in the U.S., one in LA, and one in Seattle, Washington at Flying Spot.

 

I thought there was one in New York but it's not on my list. The Library of Congress DOES HAVE a Spirit with a Super8 Gate!

 

Spirit and Shadow Super-8 Gate Locations

[Alessandro Machi]

I recently watched some Super-8 (both KODACHROME 40 and VISION200T) blown up to a 35mm print via Digital Intermediate (scanned on a Spirit).  It looked very good, but no mistaking it for 35mm or Super-16.  Size DOES matter.

 

I'd like to know more about this. Was this test footage or was it an actual film project? What camera was used to shoot the footage? I'd like to do a Spirit test to HD with the pin registered Super-8 camera I have, but I was quoted $600.00 to transfer 20 minutes of film.

 

It was internal Kodak test footage.

 

According to my research, there are no Spirit Super-8 Gates in the U.S. other than the Library of Congress. John, would you be willing to state whether it was a Shadow or Spirit transfer and what facility you used?

 

If Kodak has an internal transfer set-up available, I would like to send my 17 minutes of Super-8 film to Kodak for a Spirit transfer, not for free, but hopefully without an additional Super-8 gate fee of $300.00.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I hear vague rumours that Red Postproduction in London may have a super-8 gate for their spirit. Utterly unconfirmed. Also they are not cheap.

 

Phil

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak owns one of the first Spirit 2K datacines, since we developed the illumination and scanning engine for Thomson. I recall we may have a prototype (not production model) Super-8 gate. It is in a research and development area, and we cannot offer transfer services outside of Kodak.

 

A quick Internet search found the following:

 

http://jl-site.com/Super8/Super8Gate.html

 

http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/2001/0.../NABwrapup2.htm

 

http://millimeter.com/mag/video_yk_compliant_year/

 

http://www.digitalfilmlab.com/chestnut/php...ERVICES_ARCHIVE

 

http://www.namac.org/article.cfm?id=57&catid=30

[Alessandro Machi]

Thanks for the links John. I checked them out. Technicolor in New York is doing Super-8, but I can't tell if it is a Shadow or a Spirit that they use.

 

Are 4K transfers in real time possible with a Spirit Super-8 Gate, or is it only 2K transfers that are being done in real time? Also, if only 2K transfers are currently being done in real time, does the advantage of the Spirit become indistinguishable from a Shadow?

[John Sprung]

Have you tried Crest? I know they do a lot of unusual formats like VistaVision.

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I think for Super-8, a 2K or HD scan would more than suffice. In most cases, your final product is for video release, such as music videos.

[Alessandro Machi]

A valid point John. I read where on 35mm a 4K transfer seems to create a mildy noticeable difference in quality, but perhaps it doesn't matter for Super-8. For a more contrasty film such as Kodachrome I wonder if the 4K would bring out more info in the darks without adding noise.

 

But at this point in time, it appears that no one in the U.S. is offering 4K for Super-8?

[Alessandro Machi]

Have you tried Crest? I know they do a lot of unusual formats like VistaVision.

 

 

-- J.S.

I had called them. I was told they weren't offering it. Thanks for the suggestion.

[David Mullen ASC]

I wouldn't worry so much about minor noise problems in a Super-8 transfer -- the grain particles are more prominent than any noise; it would be hard for people to see the difference.

[Sam Wells]

I'm fairly certain Tape House had their S8 gate on a Spirit, I don't shoot S8 & never saw it but, so people said.

 

Maybe they put that gate in a Shadow now since they became part of Technicolor ?

 

(You can do that, no ?)

Or maybe it's still available on the Spirit.

 

I don't know, call 'em up and ask.

 

-Sam

[Alessandro Machi]

Did Technicolor quote you this price? Is there anyone else in the US who has a super 8 gate for Spirit? Just curious.

No it wasn't Technicolor. It was Modern Video Film in Burbank. They appear to be the only one in Los Angeles with a gate for the Spirit or Shadow.

[Matt Pacini]

2K is probably overkill, and 4K would be excessive sillyness.

There's simply not that much resolution in Super 8.

Those are TINY frames!

 

Matt Pacini

[Riku Naskali]

There's simply not that much resolution in Super 8.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, people should always keep in mind what in fact they do have to begin with and make sound decisions based on that. In my opinion, that extra money on transfer could be better spent earlier on the production chain.

[Alessandro Machi]

hahaha.

 

There's not much more, perhaps less resolution in mini-dv, yet people spend scads of money on that format.

 

As for whether anything more than BetaCam SP or Digital BetaCam is needed for a super-8 transfer, that's a tough one to figure out. I'd definitely rather have a good Super-8 to BetaCam SP transfer with wetgate than a "dry" Super-8 to HD transfer.

[Nate Downes]

there is no harm in trying tho, is there?

[S8 Booster]

According to Kodak specs Super8 / K40 can resolve up to about 430 line-pairs/cycles (80 per mm film at 20% response) or approx 860 pixels (DV equivalent).

 

With a filmstock like 50D NEG the technical available resolution is up to appox 1080 line pairs or 2160 DVpixels for a Super8 frame. (ideally up to 200 cycles per mm film)

 

If I remember correctly the 100D technically will resolve about 540 line-pairs / 1080 DVpixels a/S8 frame if it gets available for S8.

 

These are max ideal values and depends on more factors like lens performance/exposure etc.

 

PAL SD DV : 720x576 pixels - NTSC SD DV: 720x480 pixels.

Horisontal resolution about 500-530 line pairs.

 

Still there is no doubt that S8 matches DV SD resolution easily because "film in motion" will give a better resolution than a single frame. Lets call it dynamic resolution. When 24 frames a second "overlaps each other" the summa "dynamic" resolution is higher than 1 frame res.

 

Simplified; one frame/grain structure will catch details the previous one did not and so it goes on and sums up.

 

R

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

At the cost of a really high noise floor, yeah.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

People throw these numbers around all the time to prove Super-8's resolution over standard def video but the fact is that I've never seen any Super-8 transferred to video (SD or HD) or even blown-up to 35mm look as sharp or detailed as DV. The best it can look is direct projection of Super-8 shot in K40 or Plus-X.

 

Super-8 looks beautiful so shoot it if you want a Super-8 look -- or a film look in general. It doesn't need to be compared to DV. Resolution is not the reason to chose Super-8! Chose it for how it looks.

 

And in theory, 60i video has superior temporal resolution over 24P or 24 fps material since you are talking about 60 motion samples per second versus 24.

[S8 Booster]

Hi,

 

At the cost of a really high noise floor, yeah.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is possible to shoot K40 grain free using the right gear and techique.

 

May add that a recent test shoot of Provia F400 S8 showed grainage compareable AVR K40 when slightly overexposed.

 

R

[Alessandro Machi]

People throw these numbers around all the time to prove Super-8's resolution over standard def video but the fact is that I've never seen any Super-8 transferred to video (SD or HD) or even blown-up to 35mm look as sharp or detailed as DV.  The best it can look is direct projection of Super-8 shot in K40 or Plus-X.

 

Super-8 looks beautiful so shoot it if you want a Super-8 look -- or a film look in general.  It doesn't need to be compared to DV.  Resolution is not the reason to chose Super-8!  Chose it for how it looks.

 

And in theory, 60i video has superior temporal resolution over 24P or 24 fps material since you are talking about 60 motion samples per second versus 24.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Are you talking about field resolution when you talk about 60 motion samples per second??? If thats the case I don't know if tht necessarily means a better picture since one need two fields to make an actual video frame. I much prefer film's ability to grab 24 distinct images per second versus video's attempt to grab 60 fields per second. HD's early attempts in the past at 24 P were not that successful but since HD's goal ultimate goal is to replace film that is where their R& D has gone.

 

As for if Super-8 is as sharp or detailed as mini-dv, I don't know how much Super-8 you've seen transferred to 35mm but usually the Super-8 was shot with the intention of not matching it to from a grain point of view to make sure it stands apart from the other portions of the film. Most higher budgets 35mm films don't necessarily shoot Super-8 to try and fool people into thinking it is 35mm, they shoot it to create a different look or mood or perhaps as a crazy hand held moment in time kind of shot.

 

I would have loved to have seen 28 days simultaneously shot in Super-8. The High Key HMI lighting that was used in some scenes would have probably looked incredible if it had been shot with Kodachrome 40 and most definitely would have given the DV a run for it's money and probably looked better than the DV.

[S8 Booster]

People throw these numbers around all the time to prove Super-8's resolution over standard def video but the fact is that I've never seen any Super-8 transferred to video (SD or HD) or even blown-up to 35mm look as sharp or detailed as DV.  The best it can look is direct projection of Super-8 shot in K40 or Plus-X.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Figures are not thrown around. They are from Kodak specs. How to take full advantage of film resolution is a different story but it is accessible. DV will maintain its resolution under wider range of circumstances than film for S8 but S8 is capable using some artifice.

 

Sharpness and resolution are two different things in this context. Film has more colour resolution than DV thus carries more information per "pixel" (colour depth). DV has less colour information to handle and will look "sharper" but in reality it is edge/contrast "sharpness" due to lack of colour contrast handling and not actually higher resolution.

 

 

And in theory, 60i video has superior temporal resolution over 24P or 24 fps material since you are talking about 60 motion samples per second versus 24.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But that is not actually the point since each frame is "sampled" exactly the same way.

With film all frames are "sampled" differently and will all pick up details differently from frame to frame and the summa is an "overlaid" image with higher resolution and the difference is actually quite big.

 

Anyway, S8 compares well and avoids hard the contrast "sharpness" and flat dead imaging which many dislikes with the DV originated material.

 

 

Another important factor that seems misunderstood is that S8 in fact needs better transfer systems for blowup than bigger film formats. That is to extract more information from the film frames. This is not nessescary with big film formats - they will do anyway.

 

Allthough not directly compareble I fancy this sample from the Audio world. shows the difference between normal 2x oversampling and MASH 168x oversampling. The point is that details hardly handled at all with 2x sampling is easy to process and reroduce with 168x. The same goes with film sampling so without doubt more is better. The point is to handle subtle neuances not accessible with systems designed for bigger film formats..

 

In my view the optimum film scanning system for S8 is yet to be made by a long shot.

 

 

R

Edited December 12, 2004 by S8 Booster

[David Mullen ASC]

ALL sequentially projected systems benefit from the "overlap" as your brain averages frames together. It heps reduce visible grain and improve detail but video images have the same benefits (except that grain is not a problem.) If you shot with a 24P video camera and transferred it 1:1 to 35mm and projected it, a single frame would look softer than when the image is projected at 24 fps.

 

As for Super-8 needing better scanning systems than are even used for high-end 35mm motion picture work, you have two basic problems: (1) Super-8 is a low-cost format so it's silly to spend TOO much on the scanning technology just to improve the image quality when you could just move up to shooting in Super-16; (2) As resolution of scanning improves, graininess becomes MORE of a factor, not less. 4K scans of 35mm looks grainier than 2K scans because now you can resolve the grain. And the average Super-8 filmmaker isn't going to be able to afford the equivalent of a Northlight or Arriscanner or Imagica-XE. Maybe someday... but by then, 24P DV cameras will improve and some will be 24P HD.

 

Ultimately Super-8 is limited by the tiny size of the film. I have never understood this push by some people to make it something it is not. Shoot Super-8 if you like Super-8, like the way it looks, etc. It's not a substitute for DV; they do very different things, have very different looks, etc. Besides how many quiet, sync-sound Super-8 cameras capable of loads longer than 3 minutes are out there at reasonable prices? And how many high-quality Super-8 scanners are out there that are affordable?

 

The proof is out there. Theoretical discussions of Super-8's potential resolution over DV are fun to a point but practical reality is that one shouldn't use Super-8 if resolution is important to you. Sharpness and fine-detail are not its selling points.