Jump to content
Mark Williams

16mm generational loss?

Recommended Posts

Anyway Im prepared to listen what would you say is the cheapest and best way to get to a print?

 

Hi,

 

1) Shoot on film

2) Develop + Print Neg

 

Your question is fully answered, however I add steps 3-6 at my own risk!

 

3) Cut Print

4) Pay for Neg Cut

5) Make sound track

6) Ask lab for an answer print

 

Just my 2p

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

1) Shoot on film

2) Develop + Print Neg

 

Your question is fully answered, however I add steps 3-6 at my own risk!

 

3) Cut Print

4) Pay for Neg Cut

5) Make sound track

6) Ask lab for an answer print

 

Just my 2p

 

Stephen

Sounds good to me..

 

BUT I would have to pay for

 

The Negative.. The telecine (In order to edit it on an NLE) The print..(To cut for the negative cutter to work with) The neg cut.. The answer print....

 

If I do it myself I pay for the neg cut.. The telecine.. and the answer print..

 

Although yours is a better way, for me its not cost effective.. Thanks for your advice though..

Edited by Mark Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds good to me..

 

BUT I would have to pay for

 

The Negative.. The telecine (In order to edit it on an NLE) The print..(To cut for the negative cutter to work with) The neg cut.. The answer print....

 

If I do it myself I pay for the neg cut.. The telecine.. and the answer print..

 

Although yours is a better way, for me its not cost effective.. Thanks for your advice though..

 

Hi,

 

Why do you want to spend money on telecine! Its not required!

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

 

Why do you want to spend money on telecine! Its not required!

 

Stephen

 

Well Not absolutely required.. BUT I want to edit in my NLE and thats also where I will create my sountrack.. Which I will send to the lab and have them put it on my answer print.. Guess I could always telecine myself as a rough version BUT I think the lab is a good idea because I could have two versions of the film.. ONE which has been Possibly telecined to HDV.. The other in 16mm ready to be transferred to a format of my choosing or to project for my own viewing etc..

Edited by Mark Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Not absolutely required.. BUT I want to edit in my NLE and thats also where I will create my sountrack.. Which I will send to the lab and have them put it on my answer print.. Guess I could always telecine myself as a rough version BUT I think the lab is a good idea because I could have two versions of the film.. ONE which has been Possibly telecined to HDV.. The other in 16mm ready to be transferred to a format of my choosing or to project for my own viewing etc..

I still don't get why you want a final version in HDV. You can't really show it in that format, and I really doubt it would be any cheaper than a better HD format- You still have to pay for HD telecine, and then rendering to HDV on top of that. Why do you want HDV over superior formats like Digibeta or HDCam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get why you want a final version in HDV. You can't really show it in that format, and I really doubt it would be any cheaper than a better HD format- You still have to pay for HD telecine, and then rendering to HDV on top of that. Why do you want HDV over superior formats like Digibeta or HDCam?

Scott

 

Why cant I show it in that format??

 

I could telecine to digibeta BUT How would I edit it? I dont have facilities..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott

 

Why cant I show it in that format??

 

I could telecine to digibeta BUT How would I edit it? I dont have facilities..

 

Hi,

 

If you think you could cut neg, then editing the rush print would be easy!

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

 

If you think you could cut neg, then editing the rush print would be easy!

 

Stephen

Tell that to Walter Murch

 

I dont understand WHY you think neg cutting is SO Difficult anyone can cut and splice Its done all the time Even when your film is shown at the Movies they will splice film.. Its not rocket science you know..

 

BUT Im not really neg cutting in the traditional sense am I

 

I have explained this already but I will be more specific..

 

I put my telecined footage into my NLE I render it out to a more usable format adding a frame counter

With this rendered footege now frame counted I edit it when I am happy with my edit I put my NEG on the gang synchroniser starting at zero I know look for the first frame that tallies with My frame counted footage on my NLE I then make a cut I hang this and mark it cut 1 I then go through all the cuts I know have all my neg cut to the film I edited in vegas NOW I set my synchroniser up to do an AB Roll I cement the cuts and send the final rolls into be made into an answer print with the sountrack NOW WHY is this so Difficult? WORK YES but I cant see the difficult bit? If I was doing it by eye then I would agree probably impossible If I was reading the frames and an avid readout then I may have to learn more..

 

The biggest problem I can foresee is the cementing Is this the bug bear does the cementing need extra attention? I have 8mm Films edited here from the seventies all with original splices..

 

QUOTE

"All the money that is ever spent on a film is kept in one place in the end: on the negative. Damage the negative and you are costing the film thousands, millions. The Neg Cutter's job is to cut the negative. And then glue it together in the right order. And as we all remember from Airfix, glueing is not as easy as you think"

END

 

I will take the risk!

 

AS FOR Editing the two have nothing in common Editing is an art Neg cutting is a very resposible job that does not allow for mistakes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there is so much risk in cutting your own negative, I think all of us feel some obligation in warning you not to do it -- we would be remiss if we didn't. It's not because we don't like you or something, quite the opposite. If we didn't care, we'd let you do it and suffer the consequences.

 

That said, now that we've all warned you and you still are going to do it, well, as you can understand, it makes us feel that you don't take any of us or our advice seriously.

 

Now if this is negative that you don't mind possibly ruining and see this as just practice, then go ahead. Basically the goal is to conform correctly to the edit, including any A-B roll transitions, create cement splices that won't fall apart at the lab, and be hyper-clean while doing it. Remember that if you make a mistake, you're going to lose a frame or so when redoing the splice, which may affect the sound sync, etc.

 

The other problem is simply that this is one of the most tedious, uncreative jobs in the world and a quarter of the way through it, you may be asking yourself WHY, WHY, WHY you decided to try this yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other problem is simply that this is one of the most tedious, uncreative jobs in the world and a quarter of the way through it, you may be asking yourself WHY, WHY, WHY you decided to try this yourself.

 

Hi,

 

Neg Cutting is very cheap. I would not dream of cutting MY OWN neg myself, I was even taught 'how to' 25 years ago.

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because there is so much risk in cutting your own negative, I think all of us feel some obligation in warning you not to do it -- we would be remiss if we didn't. It's not because we don't like you or something, quite the opposite. If we didn't care, we'd let you do it and suffer the consequences.

 

That said, now that we've all warned you and you still are going to do it, well, as you can understand, it makes us feel that you don't take any of us or our advice seriously.

 

Now if this is negative that you don't mind possibly ruining and see this as just practice, then go ahead. Basically the goal is to conform correctly to the edit, including any A-B roll transitions, create cement splices that won't fall apart at the lab, and be hyper-clean while doing it. Remember that if you make a mistake, you're going to lose a frame or so when redoing the splice, which may affect the sound sync, etc.

 

The other problem is simply that this is one of the most tedious, uncreative jobs in the world and a quarter of the way through it, you may be asking yourself WHY, WHY, WHY you decided to try this yourself.

I have listened to everything thats been said I never asked for advice regarding this bUT I was given it anyway and I do appreciate your sentiments.. Although you have never actually commented on this subject until now so I am not sure why you feel I am not listening to your advice when Actually I do take what you say very seriously.. Anyway.. Any advice is listened to and guaged.. I know neg cutting "myself" is not the ideal.. The reason I know is because Kris Malkiewicz says so.. I was actually listening to his advice on page 158 Cinematography second edition... I know you have advised in the past to read the third edition as its much better.. BUT I have the second... He prefers to scribe and temporarily tape his originals allowing the lab to make the permanent cement splices.. although he knows some budget minded film makers perform the original cement splicing themselves..

 

Im sure your right about the work being tedious so I will start with a short film and see How I get on!

 

Hey and seriously its really great if you have my interests at heart.. Much appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im interested in finding out just how high regular 16mm quality is when its been through all its processes

 

First the Negative which is has been masked for 16:9 Then your interpositive after the neg cut.. and then an internegative before finally a print.. What kind of quality are you left with after these stages? HDV Standard?

 

OK I realise you could just telecine to HDV from the off and edit colour correct on the computer.. Surely though the high compression of HDV and editing it would have an effect on the look of the final version?

 

What workflow is best and why.. What quality loss can you expect?

 

 

Why not take a look at MTF chars of stocks which you are interested in, both camera negative, and intermediate and print, and come up with a realistic aproximation of the end resolving power.

It will get you a lot closer to the answer (without testing, which is of course best) than asking around people about their opinions, because as much as their intentions are good, people do tend to say a lot of different things, and generalize, and mix things up.

Leave it to the Kodak engineers to give you the best answer. All that you need is on the Kodak website.

 

Of course, you do have to consider your taking lens, and printer lenses if any (opticals)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not take a look at MTF chars of stocks which you are interested in, both camera negative, and intermediate and print, and come up with a realistic aproximation of the end resolving power.

It will get you a lot closer to the answer (without testing, which is of course best) than asking around people about their opinions, because as much as their intentions are good, people do tend to say a lot of different things, and generalize, and mix things up.

Leave it to the Kodak engineers to give you the best answer. All that you need is on the Kodak website.

 

Of course, you do have to consider your taking lens, and printer lenses if any (opticals)

Hi Filip

 

Sounds a great idea! Although my concern was with generation loss.. And was prompted after reading Reflections by Benjamin Bergery.. On page 12 he says the best quality prints would be obtained directly from contact with the original edited negative..

 

This made me wonder Just what was lost in the film making process regarding 16mm if you frame for 16:9 using a standard gate and then neg.. IP.. IN.. and release prints..

 

David Mullen answered My questions on this and I now understand its minimal.. Its really All I wanted to know.. Im not trying t get a free education here I am reading and learning sometimes I have questions that arise from this and I ask here..

 

Thanks Filip !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was preparing a post with MTF charts of print stocks, intermediate stock and negative as well as lens resolution table. And then by browser crashed.

 

From such data you can calculate specific theorethical generation loss for any format, but if you don't want specific resolutions (they are not always accurate in real world, but they do give you quite a precise idea)

I won't repeat the post. (not that I would mind, I love discussing optical photography issues)

Edited by Filip Plesha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was preparing a post with MTF charts of print stocks, intermediate stock and negative as well as lens resolution table. And then by browser crashed.

 

From such data you can calculate specific theorethical generation loss for any format, but if you don't want specific resolutions (they are not always accurate in real world, but they do give you quite a precise idea)

I won't repeat the post. (not that I would mind, I love discussing optical photography issues)

Sounds like it would have been really good and something to file away :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then...

 

 

Here are MTF charts for some films you encounter in the printing process:

 

The original negative (for example 200T):

5217_mtf.gif

 

 

The intermediate stock (vision intermediate film):

an error at Kodak site, the title says Ektachrome film, but the data is from the vision intermediate film

for sure:

f002_1139ac2.gif

 

Standard vision print film:

f010_0292ac.gif

 

So, since you are contact printing (unless blowing up to 35mm) the only lens (let's forget the projector lens and see what the actual print contains rather than what the image on screen contains due to projector optics)

you have is the taking lens of the camera.

 

Here is how all lenses behave:

Lenses are limited by two things in general:

1. diffraction limit of glass as a material (no way of bypassing that in the way lenses are made)

2. lens design (which causes distortions, abberations, flares etc.)

 

Now if we forget the lens design for a moment and imagine that

we have a perfect lens, here is how the diffraction limit limits the resolution of the lens.

The resolution depends on the aperture and the wavelenght (color) of light that is passing through the lens, this is

 

Accoarding to Rayleigh criteria (there is other criteria, but this one is most popular)

 

f/1.8 833 lp/mm

 

f/2 750 lp/mm

 

f/2.8 535 lp/mm

 

f/4 375 lp/mm

 

f/5.6 267 lp/mm

 

f/8 187 lp/mm

 

f/11 136 lp/mm

 

f/16 93 lp/mm

 

f/22 68 lp/mm

 

 

These numbers are for green light passing through perfect lenses.

 

Now some reality:

Best lenses actually do reach these diffraction limits, on apertures of f/4 and smaller, but

are limited by other anomalies at apertures of f/2.8 and larger.

Motion picture lenses are I think some of the best out there, so you may take these numbers

for real, exept the ones around below f/5.6 or f/4 , which don't go so high as in this table in reality.

 

 

So now you have a realistic resolution limit of first class (diffraction limited) lenses. What about resolution of film?

 

Well compared to digital, film resolution is different because:

1. It is uniform in direction, does not depend on angle of detail, is not fixed to a horisontal-vertical pattern in other words.

2. film resolution depends on criteria of maximum resolution you set yourself.

In other words, what do YOU consider to be a resolved line.

Digital cameras record lines at high contrast pretty much till they run out of pixels.

Film reduces contrast (response) of resolved lines as lines get smaller.

So for example at 50lp/mm some film may record lines at 100% contrast, while at 100lp/mm it

may record lines at 20% contrast.

The Rayleight criterion (mentioned above for lenses) of what is actually a resolved line is

around 26.5% contrast (response)

Lower contrast lines are hard to see, and often get lost in the sea of grain, so for all practical purpuses of photography of any kind, the Rayleight criterion is very good.

 

So, since all the lenses are rated at minimum 26.5% contrast of lines in the above tables, you must

find the resolution at which film responds with the same contrast, in order to combine the data

and come up with a unique resolution from lens to print.

 

Now, you take a look at each of the MTF tables in this post (or for any other film stock you chose), and

try to extract resolution for aabout 26% response.

 

The vertical axis is response, and horisontal axis is resolution.

Find around 26% on the vertical axis, and read out the resolution on the horisontal axis.

The resolution you have read can be considered maximum resolving power for that specific film stock

accoarding to the criterion of Lord Rayleight.

 

Now that have gathered all the resolutions of all the films in your model system, and chosen a specific aperture in which you shoot a scene (for which a lens resolution is specified)

you can combine all that data, and come up with a realistic resolution you get in the print.

 

Here is how:

 

1/(resolution of entire system) = 1/(resolution of component 1) + 1/(resplution of component 2).......+ 1/(resolution of component n)

 

Put everything you have in that forula, every lens (printer or camera), and every piece of film used, and the result is roughtly what you get in the print.

 

By calculating different models for contact printing, optical printing, direct printing, regular 4 generation printing etc. you can see differences in resolution resulted by generation loss

 

The lp/mm means "line pairs per linear milimeter of film area". A line pair is one black and one white line clearly resolved. (well how clearly depends on the % of contrast)

 

Multiply that with the number of milimeters the super16 (or any other format) image area has

on either of the sides, and you get how many lines can the film resolve.

 

This is a bit different from digital pixels, because they are rigid, fixed, so one line pair does not literally equal 2 pixels. It takes more like 3-4 pixels per line pair to match/scan lines captured on film.

 

Hope it was all clear.

Try calculating and see what you get

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Filip I have 2450' of Kodak 7248 I know a definative answer would come from John P. Pytlak as to the duplication..

 

QUOTE

To maintain optimum quality and consistency in the final prints, the laboratory must carefully control the color timing, printing, and duplicating procedures. To aid in color timing and curve placement, negative originals should be timed relative to Laboratory Aim Density (LAD) Control Film supplied by EASTMAN Kodak Company.2 The LAD Control Film provides both objective sensitometric control and subjective verification of the duplicating procedures used by the laboratory.

 

Perhaps you can tell me the resolution I would lose ? If its anything less than 5% Which looking at your charts looks as if it would be then thats fine As for the lenses I would be using zeiss primes T1.3s

Edited by Mark Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you can tell me the resolution I would lose ?

 

Well I can read can read charts as much as you or anybody can, so I'd do it, but

is there a problem with understanding some of the content of my previous post?

If something is unclear, ask, there are lots of people here who can explain details, and I'd be happy to do that too.

 

The data on 7248 Is still available:

ti1667a.gif

 

 

Would you be making direct prints from your original negatives, or prints from duplicate negatives? And would you blow to 35mm or stay in 16mm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post path is either digital or optical, but either way, all you can really do, if you're worried about generational loss, is shoot the best image you can: a well-exposed negative using the slowest speed stock that is practical, using the largest negative format you can afford, using high-quality lenses at their optimal f-stops, and using lighting with enough contrast.

 

If you do all of that, and you will have done all you can to handle any post process that causes some loss.

 

And many of your post decisions are driven by budget anyway, so you do the best you can.

 

So I'm not sure the point of measuring the loss if the post path is unavoidable anyway. And there's also a difference between measurements and simply how the results look to your eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The post path is either digital or optical, but either way, all you can really do, if you're worried about generational loss, is shoot the best image you can: a well-exposed negative using the slowest speed stock that is practical, using the largest negative format you can afford, using high-quality lenses at their optimal f-stops, and using lighting with enough contrast.

 

If you do all of that, and you will have done all you can to handle any post process that causes some loss.

 

And many of your post decisions are driven by budget anyway, so you do the best you can.

 

So I'm not sure the point of measuring the loss if the post path is unavoidable anyway. And there's also a difference between measurements and simply how the results look to your eye.

 

And there's also a difference between measurements and simply how the results look to your eye.

 

yea, I doubt someone in the audience pays too much attention to those boarder 20% contrast detail, allthough it may have a subconscious effect even if you don't see it with your conscious mind. (those harmonics that human senses "can't" hear or see, yet they sense them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After you have cascaded the MTFs of all the system components, don't forget the last and most important one --- that of the human eye. The Watanabe curve weighted by the viewing distance is often used. See the published work by Kodak scientists Crane and Nelson. Some recent good work by Dr. Roger Morton, Michele Mauer, and Chris DuMont too, comparing film to HD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I can read can read charts as much as you or anybody can, so I'd do it, but

is there a problem with understanding some of the content of my previous post?

If something is unclear, ask, there are lots of people here who can explain details, and I'd be happy to do that too.

 

The data on 7248 Is still available:

ti1667a.gif

Would you be making direct prints from your original negatives, or prints from duplicate negatives? And would you blow to 35mm or stay in 16mm?

Hi Filip

 

Yes I found it a little hard to understand! :) Is there an idiots guide somewhere? Looking at the graph I see quite a dip for this particular stock!

 

This is fascinating stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After you have cascaded the MTFs of all the system components, don't forget the last and most important one --- that of the human eye. The Watanabe curve weighted by the viewing distance is often used. See the published work by Kodak scientists Crane and Nelson. Some recent good work by Dr. Roger Morton, Michele Mauer, and Chris DuMont too, comparing film to HD.

John I looked at some old 8mm footage through an old eumig projector viewscreen which is about the size of a small TV.. I couldnt believe the Quality compared to DV... SO SUPERIOR.. I also think its on par or better than HDV... I dont understand? because 16mm Must be 4 times better? So why do some say in order to get a good HDV TRANSFER the old 16mm cameras converted to super are ideal? SURELY all 16mm cameras must surpass HDV BY a wide margin..

 

The new HD TVs coming out in this country and soon to be broadcast HD.. ARE still no match for standard 16mm Even if it has gone through 4 generations? Of course thanks to new info here I now know there is differences in film stocks performance and also in lens ability etc..

 

Would I be right in thinking my standard 16mm Camera still qualifies me to make broadcast quality HD footage even when its masked for 16:9 or even 2:35:1 and been through 4 generations?

Edited by Mark Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I can read can read charts as much as you or anybody can, so I'd do it, but

is there a problem with understanding some of the content of my previous post?

If something is unclear, ask, there are lots of people here who can explain details, and I'd be happy to do that too.

 

The data on 7248 Is still available:

ti1667a.gif

Would you be making direct prints from your original negatives, or prints from duplicate negatives? And would you blow to 35mm or stay in 16mm?

 

Filip I will have a go at understanding this

 

OK For my 7248

 

Is the resolving power

(Measured in lines (or line pairs) per millimeter (lp/mm)

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

 

 

For Green about 77 lp/mm

For Red about 96 lp/mm

For Blue about 115 lp/mm

 

Now I would have to do some maths for the lens using the rayleigh limit?

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html#diffraction

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE

Would you be making direct prints from your original negatives, or prints from duplicate negatives? And would you blow to 35mm or stay in 16mm?

-----------------------------------------------------------

OK Stay in 16mm Could you work this out for me if the workflow was

NEG

Interpositive

internegative

print (Reversal)

This is not my workflow its just to get an idea of generation loss using this!

 

I dont like Maths very much I got a headache just looking at the rayleigh equation.. I do have a better understanding now.. Although my original question is not really about how film quality is arrived at or even what it is! What my interest is.. IS how much is lost in generations.. On that score David Mullen still has the best answer which is basicly Minimal..

 

How much quality using calculations do you think I would lose if I went through this process How many lp/mm would I start with on my 7248 after its been exposed at say f4 through a zeiss prime lens and then how many lp/mm would I end up with after the workflow above?

Although this is a very accurate way of doing things its not really neccesary for me because I have a percieved idea of what 16mm resolves and looks like I dont need to be scientific or exact..

 

If you have a quick way of doing it in % terms that'd be very useful for my limited understanding so say for every generation you would lose as a rough guide aprox 2% That would really be cool.. Although just going through this process adds to my understanding... Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at the graph I see quite a dip for this particular stock!

 

In this case the clip is hard because of the way graph was charted on the horisontal axis. If you straigthened the horisontal axis into a linear one (exual numbers= exual distances) it would not clip so hard.

The horisontal axis is in this case compressed from the top to same room. Take a look at the

readings on the bottom, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

But in general..

The longer the curve stays straight, and the harder it falls down the sharper the stock looks to human eyes at its "natural" resolution.

Digital images have a long straight MTF curve followed by a very short drastic fall toward the end, that's why digital images are so popular today and seem sharper.

 

Digital images (I'm talking about images in general, photography or HD or whatever) look sharper at less enlargement (because their chart keeps straight for a most of their resolution range) so they can seem

sharper than film (in fact at normal enlargements they do have higher contrast response than film),

but when you get to a certain point in enlarging digital images just run out of pixel resolution and their shapness curve falls down like a rock, while film images continue to show detail with lower and lower contrast.

That's why at big enlargements, such as big paper prints, or cinema screens, film images show true resolution advantage over digital images.

 

 

 

For Green about 77 lp/mm

For Red about 96 lp/mm

For Blue about 115 lp/mm

 

you have reversed the readings, you have been looking for response on horisontal axis and reading from the vertical one, it's the other way around, you look for around 20% on the vertical axist and read from

the horisontal one, try again.

 

 

I dont like Maths very much I got a headache just looking at the rayleigh equation.. I do have a better understanding now.. Although my original question is not really about how film quality is arrived at or even what it is! What my interest is.. IS how much is lost in generations.. On that score David Mullen still has the best answer which is basicly Minimal..

 

How much quality using calculations do you think I would lose if I went through this process How many lp/mm would I start with on my 7248 after its been exposed at say f4 through a zeiss prime lens and then how many lp/mm would I end up with after the workflow above?

Although this is a very accurate way of doing things its not really neccesary for me because I have a percieved idea of what 16mm resolves and looks like I dont need to be scientific or exact..

 

If you have a quick way of doing it in % terms that'd be very useful for my limited understanding so say for every generation you would lose as a rough guide aprox 2% That would really be cool.. Although just going through this process adds to my understanding... Thanks!

 

I know what you are asking, but I just thought you might want to get the idea of how it works in order to answer your own questions in the future, when say one day you'll be asking the same for 35mm or any other different stocks.

 

But ok, here it goes:

 

SUpose this Zeiss lens is diffraction limited at f/4 (quite possible)

Your lens resolving power will be about 375 lp/mm at 26.5% contrast.

 

The resolving power of 7248 at 26.5% is about 180 lp/mm at best

The resolving power of intermediate film at 26.5% is not charted (the chart goes to about 80 lp/mm only), but "aiming" where the curve would go It's safe to assume it would be also around 180, probably more

because it's a slower stock, so let's say it's going to be around 200 lp/mm

The resolution of the print stock at 26.5% again is not charted (why doesn't Kodak chart it beyond 80lp/mm?) so I'm guessing again where the curve will go, let's say about around 200 lp/mm

 

Now right there in the start we can't be precise here because Kodak didn't measure

the response for resolutions higher than 80lp/mm, so this is all going to be just

a aimed guess, but it won't be too far away from reality due to the nature of the math behind it.

 

We have all the numers now, let's do the math:

 

In the formula we put one lens, one original film stock, two intermediate stocks (neg and pos)

and one print stock

 

so...

 

1/(end resolution) = 1/(375) + 1/ (180) + 1/(200) + 1/(200) + 1(200)

 

What you get is about 43 lp/mm, which is decent film resolution.

 

In digital equivalents it's between 2K and 3K for 35mm film. We are talking about prints here,

that's fairly accurate to what people mostly say about 35mm prints.

For super 16 it's between 1K and 1.5K.

Again that is very good considering it's a 4th generation print.

The actual resolution of original super16 negative is much higher. At f4 it could possibly resolve

up to around 120 lp/mm, around 3K for super16, which is again realistic for this kind of film stock.

 

The loss is down to about 35-40% of the original resolution. That's fairly good considering how much

optical components you are away from the original negative.

 

This is not really accurate data because we are still missing the resolving power of print film

and intermediate, which could be actually higher than the figures we have used. In which case

the loss would be less than this result.

But when you compare the numbers with what people are usually saying from experience,

it seems it is pretty realistic.

 

Lack of data from Kodak is the reason I prefered to explain the math behind it instead of

giving you numbers, because these numbers are just an example of how it goes since

I don't know how does intermediate stock and print stock behave beyond 80lp/mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Paralinx LLC



    Ritter Battery



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Glidecam



    The Original Slider



    Just Cinema Gear



    Rig Wheels Passport



    CineLab



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Visual Products



    Metropolis Post



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Tai Audio



    G-Force Grips



    Wooden Camera



    Abel Cine



    Serious Gear



    FJS International



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...