2k scan or HD telecine for 4-perf 5219?

[David Cunningham]

Ok, not my last note on that... sorry... here is my last note.

 

Even the most ardent of film supporters (me being one of them) will tell you that the best films shot under the best conditions will render 250-300 dpmm (6000-8000 dpi). So, even under the greatest of circumstances, a true 2K scan of a Super 8 frame is about all that is necessary to get "all the information" from the film. In most cases, 2K is overkill, especially for older stocks.

[Robert Houllahan]

The practical problem of scanning Super-8mm at 4K is the optics and size of the sensor, our 4K Xena has a full frame size sensor and a high MTF lens to image the gate. For 16mm we use the full sensor size and the sensor is about 3 feet from the gate, for the same sensor to image a super8 frame it would probably have to be 5-6 feet from the gate! Not practical to build......

 

We have a 3K color sensor Xena we are just starting to run, it has the same Kodak CCD (http://imperx.com/ccd-cameras/b3340/) as the Kinetta which is a 4/3" sensor at 3.3K resolution, the smaller sensor size allows for a shorter optical path length to image the smaller frame.

 

Other CCD based scanners like the ones mentioned above have smaller than full frame 35mm sensors and the Pro8 flying spot machine is a whole different beast because it uses Photomultipler Tubes and only scans one pixel at any given time with specifically designed optics.

 

-Rob-

[David Cunningham]

... What rob said. :)

[Will Montgomery]

Since the vast majority of Super 8 was shot in the 70's with really bad lenses and people that didn't know how or care to focus, I'm sure 2K is overkill. But for modern people with decent lenses and shooting 50D I would think a benefit would be seen at 2K. Maybe not much advantage over HD if you are zooming in on 16:9 vs. pillar box. I guess a full 2K scan would be nice so you can pan & scan as you like if going to 16:9.

[Perry Paolantonio]

Will - you're correct. Scanning at 2k gives you more compositional flexibility later, should you need to make a 1.78:1 master, for example. But the most compelling reason for scanning at 2k vs HD for Super 8 is the aspect ratio, I think. A pillarboxed HD scan from Super 8 will get you an image area of only about 1440x1080 (approximately, width depends on the crop). However, a 2k scan of that same film gets you a file that's about 2048x1556 (again, exact dimensions depend on format and crop). That's more than twice the number of pixels for the same frame. To my mind, that's the main reason one would want to scan to 2k. If you're spending the money on a decent transfer, why cripple it by cropping to 1.4k from the get-go?

 

By the way, we've seen some really fantastic looking Super 8 shot on Kodachrome and Ektachrome from the 60s and 70s, that looks just amazing in 2k. Lots of factors at play (quality of shooting, camera, lenses, light, processing, storage of film for the past 40+ years, etc), but just because it's old doesn't mean 2k is overkill.

 

You'd be surprised how many people have opted to do their home movies with us at 2k. I was - honestly, I expected most consumers would want HD and only filmmakers would be interested in anything higher, but we priced our 2k scans so competitively that a lot of people are choosing it because it's not that much more than HD, for much more picture and greater flexibility.

 

-perry