Jeff, Kevin, et all: to re-qualify my comments on digitizing super 8, my intention was not to categorically state that the option I described below for digitizing super 8 was the first and last word on how to do so, hence my putting the word, "information" in quotations--which btw, is a term that technicians use, not myself. As an artist, the questions I asked myself prior to choosing my digitizing path were: What look do I want? Which digitizing technology will help me achieve that look? What look/effect will a given technology give me that I didn't intend? and, Which screening contexts will I be presenting in? In fact, Jeff was one of the people I consulted with on the way to making my final decision. So there is no 'proper' path or resolution, save the one that will best embody, manifest, and support your intentions. As I mentioned in my prior post, I've projected my compressed rez images (via mini dv, dvd or .mov file) on a theatre size screened and it "looked stunning", meaning that to my tastes, there was no perceivable loss in any respect from what I saw on my colorist's monitor during my online--none, and I have an obsessively discriminating eye. If I'd intended to blow it up to 35mm film, then I would definitely have made full rez transfers. That said, depending on the project, I may have desired the increase in grain should I chosen a compressed transfer prior to a 35mm film enlargement. Last word on this: two critical factors are the type of transfer device (eg, Millenium vs Spirit) and the operator her/himself. Both must be optimal *for your needs*. I believe Jeff is involved with frame by frame scanning which indeed is capable of producing the greatest resolution. His knowledge and experience in that area is much appreciated....Ken > Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:51:26 -0600 > From: Jeff Kreines <jeffkrei...@mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Digitizing Super 8 at proper resolution
> There is a common belief -- which, like a lot of common wisdom should be > looked at skeptically -- that small format film lacks enough useful > "information" to require scanning at resolutions greater than pillarboxed HD > (1080 x 1440) or cropped HD (1080 x 1920). Some feel that for Super-8 and > 8mm, NTSC, PAL, and 720P are, in the words of an engineer I know, "good > enough." > > But I don't think anyone really tested this properly -- they just said what > seemed logical enough to them. It's fine to say "that looks pretty good at > 1080 x 1440" but those who say this probably did not try scanning the same > film at higher resolutions to see if there was an appreciable difference. > > I did some simple tests, and honestly was quite surprised at the results. > Even when the final release format is HD or less, the advantages of high > resolution scans are obvious. > > I put together a little PDF you can download, with both Super-8 and grainy > 16mm samples scanned at different resolutions. It was written in response to > a report by the Swiss group Memoriav, which was doing tests of small format > (for them this includes 16mm) scanning. > > Here's a link: > > http://db.tt/iriz5nyY > > Here are links to full-res TIFFs of the files used -- zoom in on them and see > what you are losing with lower resolution scans. Note that the files are > mostly over 20MB each, so don't try this on your cell phone. > > http://db.tt/8cw0YUXU > > http://db.tt/xizfMgLq > > http://db.tt/VvwuPSog > > http://db.tt/LR0Phcy2 > > http://db.tt/BofN5ls8 > > http://db.tt/aPXrsxAf > > http://db.tt/JSC7Vf2C > > http://db.tt/SGYbJiWb > > http://db.tt/X1flduqJ > > Let me know what you think. > > Jeff Kreines > > > On Dec 23, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Ken Paul Rosenthal wrote: > > > Kevin, > > > > For future reference, if you simply digitize your super 8 upfront at: Pro > > Rez 422 HQ 1080p, 1920x1080, 23.98 fps, > > you'll be entirely up to spec and not need to do any converting for your > > timeline. Furthermore, digitizing to a > > compressed file will allow you to easily edit without freezing up your > > system. As for projection quality, I've been > > on the road for a year a half with Crooked Beauty--which was transferred on > > the above specs--and have seen > > it projected on a the best (and worst) systems, the former in a huge > > theater on a commercial sized screen > > and it looked stunning. I spent 3 months researching tech options, and the > > consensus from all the folks I consulted > > with was that uncompressed is overkill for super 8 because the frame size > > only contains so much 'information'. > > So spend the money upfront during the transfer (I highly recommend sitting > > in with owner/operator Phil Vigeant at > > Pro 8) and it will be smooth sailing down the line. > > > > Ken > > www.crookedbeautythefilm.com (Academic) > > www.crookedbeauty.com (Public) > > www.kenpaulrosenthal.com
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
