Jason Banker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Hi, Does any one know where to get a super8 transfer to either HD or 2k? I looked at the Pro8mm pricelist and don't see them offered. Can anyone comment on the possible quality difference between HD and 2k for super 8? Thanks;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted July 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2005 Hi, Does any one know where to get a super8 transfer to either HD or 2k? I looked at the Pro8mm pricelist and don't see them offered. Can anyone comment on the possible quality difference between HD and 2k for super 8? Thanks;) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi, I know there is a Super 8 gate for a Spirit that could give you HD or 2k data if you really needed it but IMHO HDCAM SR is fine for Super 8 originated material. What do you want to do? Output to 35mm? I don't know where your based but www.onlinevideo.ch in Zurich could do that. I know they offer very good Super 8 rates on their Spirit. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2005 I heard that Laser Pacific did Super-8-to-HD transfers for "American Family" on PBS (the show was shot in 24P HD with Super-8 flashbacks.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hyde Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 (edited) Unless dealing with compatibility on a project that is mostly HD, I think SD is still the better choice. I have seen some super 8 from laser pacific and quality difference is not on par with results from higher resolution films. It still looks like a SD transfer. Unfortunately, super 8 just does not have the resolution to make a significant difference in HD. Edited July 15, 2005 by John Hyde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Collins Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 www.bonolabs.com will do transfer to 10 bit uncopressed Quicktime and ship on a Firewire drive for a deposit fee(you get back when you return the drive) I have not used them yet but want to know if anyone has ever used them and what were the results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Banker Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 (edited) Unless dealing with compatibility on a project that is mostly HD, I think SD is still the better choice. I have seen some super 8 from laser pacific and quality difference is not on par with results from higher resolution films. It still looks like a SD transfer. Unfortunately, super 8 just does not have the resolution to make a significant difference in HD. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What film did you shoot with for your transfer to HD? I am trying to figure out the full limitations of S8 in terms of resolution using the maximum quality in film, lenses and transfer technology. A Beaulieu S8 camera with quality prime lenses and maybe Vision 2 100ASA or EXR 50ASA with a 2/3 stop overexposed would be an optimal starting point for the conversion. With that base, could the quality improve to a point where it might make sense to go HD or 2k scanning? Edited July 15, 2005 by Jason B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Banker Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 (edited) www.bonolabs.com will do transfer to 10 bit uncopressed Quicktime and ship on a Firewire drive for a deposit fee(you get back when you return the drive) I have not used them yet but want to know if anyone has ever used them and what were the results <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What resolution is 10bit uncompressed quicktime? (720x480?) Would this option mainly improve color information? Could you explain a more about the advantages of 10bit uncompressed? Thanks Edited July 15, 2005 by Jason B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2005 Yes, the truth is that, roughly, a scan that is 4K across for 35mm is the same as a 2K scan of something half as wide (like Super-16) so it follows that something half as wide again like Super-8 would only need to be scanned at 1K, which is close to standard def video. But still, HD would be a little better even for Super-8. However, if the goal is a film-out, there is some advantage to transferring 24 fps Super-8 1:1 to 24P HD rather than 60i NTSC and have to deal with removing the 3:2 pulldown before transferring to film (depends on how you post the NTSC I guess). So 50i PAL may be a better format to transfer to than 60i NTSC if you can't afford 24P HD. "Greendale", the Neil Young Super-8 feature, was transferred to betacam I believe and that was used for the film-out. Not that it looked very sharp, but it's hard to know if that was due to the photography or the transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Banker Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 "Greendale", the Neil Young Super-8 feature, was transferred to betacam I believe and that was used for the film-out. Not that it looked very sharp, but it's hard to know if that was due to the photography or the transfer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David, do you happen to know what stock "Greendale" was shot on. I haven't seen the whole film but from the clips I saw it looked like Vision 800ASA? If so, I had some of the Vision "1" line processed at Pro8mm and was shocked at how bad it looked!! Shot that footage before the Vision 2 was avalible. Recently a friend of mine saw my S8 footage and wanted to shoot a test for flashbacks for his 16mm feature. Just trying to figure out how to achieve the best results. 2k seems overkill, technically, if the S8 resolution is too small to benifit from scanning. Thats good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philwgreen Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Has anyone here actually shot Super 8 and then telecined to HD? Better yet, does anyone know where, or have, a sample quicktime could be downloaded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted July 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2005 Has anyone here actually shot Super 8 and then telecined to HD? Better yet, does anyone know where, or have, a sample quicktime could be downloaded? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi, I've seen super 8 Vision 2 200T live in a Spirit at SD. I think the camera lens was the week link, not that well collimated. I think David is spot on in thinking that 1k is the limit for super 8. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Banker Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 Could someone please post the actual pixel resolution of 1k,2k,and 4k? I have never transfered Super8 to anything other than miniDV which is 720x480 pixel resolution? Being new to these other processes I could use the exact info. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hyde Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 With that base, could the quality improve to a point where it might make sense to go HD or 2k scanning? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I do not believe the improvement in quality is worth the money to go with HD. The base quality of super 8 just does not have the resolution for a truly noticeable difference. However, I have seen noticeable improvement with anamorphic super 8 in SD. This may translate even better with HD since the resolution of super 8 is being squeezed down. The HD film transfer I saw was not with film I shot. It was shot with 200T Vision 2 Kodak brand film. Dailies were done at Spectra in SD. The film was re-transfered HD at Laser Pacific. They both looked great. But, there was not a significant difference in the picture. At some point, I expect the cost of HD transfer to go down significantly. When this happens, it might be worth considering for my projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Banker Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 However, I have seen noticeable improvement with anamorphic super 8 in SD. This may translate even better with HD since the resolution of super 8 is being squeezed down. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have never used anamorphic lenses, and don't fully understand how "squeezing down" the picture could help the picture quality, could you explain the advantages of shooting anamorphic? The aspect ratio would be widescreen but wouldn't that also soften the image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 16, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 16, 2005 Has anyone here actually shot Super 8 and then telecined to HD? Better yet, does anyone know where, or have, a sample quicktime could be downloaded? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How would you be able to tell the difference between an HD transfer and an SD transfer in a Quicktime movie? Can one post HD-resolution Quicktime movie files on the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Hi! Hi have found two examples for S-8 Scans (Kodachrome K40). The first one is a S-8 Frame-scan (Nikon ED 5000 Super Coolscan) with a resolution of 903x661 Pixel and the second picture shows a wetgate scan, PAL 720x576 Pixel. Take a look at the cropping (left and right)! Examples: http://www.kamera-board.de/wbb2/images/lin...s/s8_vergl.html The complete thread in german: http://www.kamera-board.de/wbb2/thread.php...f91ac0f31744030 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 There is a difference between SD resolution and 1K when it comes to super-8. With larger formats it wouldn't make much difference, but with super8 it would because SD is below its limit, and 1K is around its limit. With 16mm and 35mm both 1K and SD are below limit so they would behave in a similar way. With super8 SD would provide some grain aliasing, 1K or 1.2K would prvide just the right sampling of grain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 16, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 16, 2005 That's why I think some marginal improvement would come with HD over SD, but note that scanning Super-8 at 720 pixels across as for SD is the equivalent of scanning 35mm at 2880 pixels across, nearly 3K, roughly figuring that 35mm is 4X the width. So SD isn't a bad format to scan Super-8 to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 That's why I think some marginal improvement would come with HD over SD, but note that scanning Super-8 at 720 pixels across as for SD is the equivalent of scanning 35mm at 2880 pixels across, nearly 3K, roughly figuring that 35mm is 4X the width. So SD isn't a bad format to scan Super-8 to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I tis far from being bad. In fact when we are considering that this is air format (not archival) then it is very good. No other broadcast combination (of film and video transfer) captures 70-80% of information from film. but It is not EVERYTHING from film, there is still some small gain from going to 1K, HD would be fully archival when it comes to 8mm film, but consumer HD resolution (1440 or 1200-ish) pixels would be more than enough, no need for maximum HD (1920) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Banker Posted July 16, 2005 Author Share Posted July 16, 2005 There is still some small gain from going to 1K, HD would be fully archival when it comes to 8mm film, but consumer HD resolution (1440 or 1200-ish) pixels would be more than enough, no need for maximum HD (1920) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So HD at "1440" would be the perfect archival resolution for super 8. Is HD at any resolution considered 1k? Could someone please post the actual pixel resolutions of 1k, 2k, and 4k? Also is capturing to HD a telecine process or a scanning process? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 that is just my opinion, don't take it literally, I'm in no position of making such statements as general rules. Some hardcore perfectionists would consider 2K for super8 to perfectly copy each piece of grain. Such scan would show little to no actual improvement in image quality in actual projection or broadcast, but the author would sleep more easily to know each grain is perfectly sampled. Some people who are more practical would even suggest that 1K is an overkill when it comes to capturing image detail. It is only my opinion that the best results would be in the middle, somewhere at 1K to 1.2K because after that there would be no actual improvements to viewers. and to get to your question. 1K is 1x1024 pixels 2K is 2x1024 pixels 4K is 4x1024 pixels this goes for width, height of the picture changes depending on the aspect ratio, but the picture is still named 4K because of its width, regardless of its height . For example, both 4096x2048 and 4096x3112 would be called 4K. HD (pro 1920 HD) is exactly 1.875K 1440 is about 1.4K In order to get the exact K number (if it means anything to you), just divide the width of any image by 1024 and add the letter K :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 17, 2005 "K" just refers to a thousand. The resolution is the number of horizontal pixels used in the scanning and recording. However, "2K" is generally considered to be 2048 pixels across in data files; "4K" is 4096 pixels across. An HD scan is usually 1920 pixels across (so 1.92K in theory) and it will that if recorded to HD-D5 or HDCAM-SR. If recorded to HDCAM, it becomes 1440 pixels across. Although it really depends on the relation of the film to the CCD in the Spirit (if that's the HD telecine used.) I'm assuming that a Super-8 gate allows the full aperture width to use all 1920 pixels across of the CCD. And if using the Spirit in data mode, it will uprez this 1920 pixel scan to the standard 2048 pixels for 2K data storage. We're using the term "scan" somewhat loosely; the issue is HD video versus 2K data mode in terms of processing and storage. There is also the 1280 x 720 pixel HD format; you'd still though probably use an HD telecine and scan at 1920 across anyway; it's just that it would be recorded at 1280 pixels across. Anyway, I don't think there is any cost savings in transferring to 720P instead of 1080P, so you might as well use 1080P. Like I said, there should be some minor improvement from doing an HD telecine instead of an NTSC or PAL telecine of Super-8 in terms of the detail & grain recorded, but it might not be enough of an improvement to warrant the costs. I'd favor a 24P/1080 workflow for scanning and post just to simplify the transfer to film, as opposed to an NTSC post, pulldown removal, upconversion, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted July 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 17, 2005 "K" just refers to a thousand. The resolution is the number of horizontal pixels used in the scanning and recording. However, "2K" is generally considered to be 2048 pixels across in data files; "4K" is 4096 pixels across. Hi, 'K' in computing means '2 power 10' (2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=1024) Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 "K" just refers to a thousand. The resolution is the number of horizontal pixels used in the scanning and recording. However, "2K" is generally considered to be 2048 pixels across in data files; "4K" is 4096 pixels across. Hi, 'K' in computing means '2 power 10' (2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=1024) Stephen <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yea, which makes HD 1.875K , not 1.92K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted July 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 17, 2005 yea, which makes HD 1.875K , not 1.92K <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi, Not as simple as that! Super 35 1K is 1024x778, Acadamy 1k 914x666 , 1:1.85 1k 914x414 Super 35 2k is 2048x1556, Acadamy 2k 1828x 1332, 1:1.85 2k 1828x988 So 1920x 1080 is bigger than a conventional 35mm 2k 1:1.85! Cheers, Stephen 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