Workprinter and High-Definition

[tlatosmd]

One shouldn't confuse these lines with pixel resolution, though. Whether it's two, four, or five pixels per line is the question they have tried to solve over at Davideo's link. Even if you'd just take two, 1,000 lines (or more, as quoted on Andreas's site where Davideo also linked us to) would equal 2,000 pixels.

you really shouldnt believe anything you read on the web ;)
the first link is from a production newsgroup (although scott dorsey and robert morein are technically very knownledgable) and the second one is just plain wrong (other than on the cost issues).

I didn't see anyone else doubting you need two or more pixels per line.

They're clever because they downsize two times before playback, sacrificing detail? Even on top of that, they digitally compress it.

what are you talking about? as discussed before, you'd actually need 2000 pixels on the chip to resolve 1000 lines..

Why do you negate what you've just said one quote earlier?

the cinealta does it with 1080! i'd call that pretty clever.

1,080 pixels resulting in 540 lines. Even if you'd use no compression and anti-aliasing instead as Mattias points out, there's just no way of not losing detail and quality by downsizing.

the digital compression is not a chip problem, but a codec problem, and if you ever edit HD you'll see why they do that.

Where did I ever say otherwise? All I said was that compression occurs. Of course, you currently need compression to make modern CPUs able to handle these files, but eventually the format might advance further, for its own good.

When I look at those pics at 100 percent zoom, they look like bad JPEG compression, with halos and similar dirty looking patterns.

HDCAM is 1440x1080 with 3:1:1 and additional compression, you could bypass that if you use the HD-SDI out.. but what you're seeing are rather unfortunate lighting and/or heavy post production.

Exactly. Post-production reveals these artifacts in as heavily compressed files.

it was the first samples i came across, but feel free to search for some more, such as:
http://hd24.com/images/HDSDI%20toys.tif
http://hd24.com/images/HDCAM%20toys.tif

When increasing color saturation on those images, I get video's native multi-colored noise to show up. When increasing contrast while preventing burning out higlights and shadows creeping in too much, I get what looks pretty much like analogue grain. If you'd say S8 has less quality and altering potential, then why does this happen? Anyway, this has nothing to do with pixel resolution but I couldn't see any other meaning in it.

i'm not saying that HD looks better than film, but we were talking about resolution, which is easily measurable.. take the best super8 camera you can find, point it at a resolution chart, use vision2 50D film, scan it on a 8000dpi film scanner and see how many lines you get.

Since you say 720p is enough, all you got was 360 lines or less?

So in order to sample film lines (or any kind of detail) that are not strictly vertical or horisontal it takes a lot more pixels per mm than lines per mm on film.

well, if you call a factor of the square root of 2 a lot. or is my geometry off?

the last time i did this test i saw around 600 lines iirc. search the archives for details. the opinions of people who discuss numbers without ever having shot a test chart should be taken with a grain of salt. theory is interesting for sure but there are so many variables that testing is the only way.

/matt

You saw 600 lines on the film. Tell me how can you sample those 600 lines with 600 pixels if the lines are diagonal?

If what you get is 600 lines, you'll need at least 1,200 pixels which is enough for HD resolution.

not that i expect anyone to care since facts don't seem to interest anyone but those who already have them, but ccd pixels are not necessarily aligned in rows and columns and their number don't necessarily match the resolution of the format it's read out as.

sampling ccd data digitally is a very similar problem to scanning film. as a matter of fact the main reason you never get the full res theoretically possible in a video camera is anti-aliasing, a function designed exactly in order to make lines in all directions resolve the same.

If so, then why are you the first person to find out of all those we've seen talking about nullifying the differences between film lines and pixels? Or thinking that it matters? By anti-aliasing, you blur the image. Thus the image looks a bit smoother, hiding its actually lower resolution. While technically, the quality is reduced.

You say technical terms don't matter, only viewing experience? Then why is it Roger sees such a difference between S8 at SD and S8 at HD?

This started out as a debate whether S8 has enough resolution to justify HD scans. Then why do some suddenly react as if that would be about belittleing HD?

[christoph]

i give up...
you obviously havent even got the difference between lines and line pairs yet (hint: 1 line pair = 2 lines), nor the concept of oversampling on the sensor vs uprezzing nor the basics about image compression etc...

doesn't seem stop you from arguing though ;)
++ christoph ++

[sarmoti]

You say technical terms don't matter, only viewing experience? Then why is it Roger sees such a difference between S8 at SD and S8 at HD?

My 10 cents, It's because the grain becomes sharper giving a sense of overall sharpness to the picture. This isn't an increase in how much actual image resolution is transferred from the film to the video, it's just a perceptual matter, the sharper grain gives a certain illusion of a sharper image.

[mattias]

If what you get is 600 lines, you'll need at least 1,200 pixels

when i make a comparison i've obviously already converted all numbers to a comparable scale/format. of course i didn't see 600 line *pairs* in a super 8 frame. the fact that you even for a second thought that is extremely telling.

If so

there's no if. when are you gonna get the fact that i'm not you. when i say something it's never a guess, nor misinterpreted hearsay, and certainly never a lie. once you get that into your head perhaps you can start learning a thing or two.

By anti-aliasing, you blur the image.

haha, that must be your university classes in signal theory speaking...

You say technical terms don't matter, only viewing experience?

thanks for the question mark for once. it allows me to just say no instead of saying fuck you for putting words into my mouth.

Then why is it Roger

roger sees what he sees and see what i see, and i you would bother to actually look you'd see what you'd see. simple as that.

i'm getting more and more convinced that there's something seriously wrong with your head. i've had private conversations with several members on this board and we've all come to this conclusion. you do realize that everybody would be very happy if you left us alone, don't you?

/matt

[MovieStuff]

You say technical terms don't matter, only viewing experience? Then why is it Roger sees such a difference between S8 at SD and S8 at HD?

My 10 cents, It's because the grain becomes sharper giving a sense of overall sharpness to the picture. This isn't an increase in how much actual image resolution is transferred from the film to the video, it's just a perceptual matter, the sharper grain gives a certain illusion of a sharper image.

Well, I don't know the math behind it but the same test film viewed HD shows significantly more detail than at SD. It isn't a perceptual illusion. I can clearly see more information in detail, such as brick work in buildings or street numbers and the such. I'm not saying that Super 8 has more or less resolution than HD but super 8 transferred and viewed HD has more to offer than in SD, no matter how the math is supposed to work out.

Roger

[mattias]

My 10 cents, It's because the grain becomes sharper giving a sense of overall sharpness to the picture.

the point is that this time roger saw something that tlatosmd likes thus roger's opinion is magically more relevant that other's, and then on another issue roger's opinion suddenly counts for nothing and instead it's npcoombs or whoever that we should listen to. the second point is that there's no argument over the fact that more resolution is better than less.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

roger's opinion is magically more relevant that other's

Wow. I have an opinion that's relevant?!!! I have to show this thread to my wife......

Roger

[mattias]

Well, I don't know the math behind it but the same test film viewed HD shows significantly more detail than at SD. It isn't a perceptual illusion. I can clearly see more information in detail, such as brick work in buildings or street numbers and the such. I'm not saying that Super 8 has more or less resolution than HD but super 8 transferred and viewed HD has more to offer than in SD, no matter how the math is supposed to work out.

that's why we try to point out that sd video cameras regardless of format never resolve more than 400 lines or so while hdv cameras resolve around 500. and then there's the issue of upconversion. in order to view the sd video on your hd monitor it has to be upconverted, which of course will have a negative impact on both resolution and image structure. i have a very hard time understanding why some people think all this is a simple issue that can be understood through sony spec sheets and some math. math is good for explaining the results you get but it can never replace/precede the resuts.

/matt

[mattias]

Wow. I have an opinion that's relevant?!!! I have to show this thread to my wife......

according to an insane person in hamburg? maybe you can show it to her real quick. make sure she doesn't get this far. :-)

/matt

[christoph]

I'm not saying that Super 8 has more or less resolution than HD but super 8 transferred and viewed HD has more to offer than in SD, no matter how the math is supposed to work out.

the math is actually pretty simple:

the final resolution is a function of original format resolution, transfer sensor resolution, transfer lens, and storage format.
the weakest link in the chain limits the final product, two weak links will add up and you need a bit of overhead to avoid degraiding errors over the entire chain.

for example, lets assume we have a pristine shot resolution chart on super8 on a very fine grain film with 600 vertical lines.. then transfer that with:
a) a prosumer DV camera (with an undersampled sensor and and medium quality lens) and store it in a 720x480 NTSC frame you get less than 400 vertical lines.
b) a digibeta camera with an oversampled sensor and store it in a 720x576 PAL frame and you get about 500 lines of vertical resolution
c) a spirit (with a true 1920x1080 sensor) and store it in a PAL frame and you get over 500 lines
d) a sony HDV camera (with a pixel shifted 960x1080i sensor, which maxes out at 650x700 lines) and store it in a uprezzed 1080i HDV frame and you get about 540 lines.
e) downrez the above to a 720p format with low compression and you get about 530 lines.
f) use a spirit and transfer to a uncompressed 1080p frame and you get about 590 lines.
g) use a spirit and transfer to a uncompressed 2K frame and you get exactly the same thing as in f) (because the spirit only has a 1080p sensor and uprezzed to 2K.. the main difference is in color sampling/compression)


of course you gain the additional benefit of more detailed grain if you store your image in a HD format.. but, since there is no widespread consumer device that plays back HD formats, and not a lot of HD TV sets one has to wonder if it's worth the extra money and hassle.
i can see that this will become faster a reasonable option in the states where technology moves faster and people had to cope with crappy NTSC so far.

++ christoph ++

disclamer: all of the aboves numbers are only examples to explain the basic differences... they are NOT meant as absolute values (although they shouldn't be more than 10% off)

[audadvnc]

There may not be much practical difference in transferring in HD vrs. SD, just as there may not be much practical difference between a 2K and 4K scan for 35mm Academy frame. If we assume a 700 line horizontal resolution for Super8 (which to my mind seems more likely than 1000+ lines) then the Acadamy 35mm frame using equivalent film stock probably maxes out at 700 x 4 or 2800 line limit.

So why would some major motion pictures go through the significant additional expense of a 4K workflow? If the difference were minimal, they wouldn't bother. But the studios must be seeing sufficient improvement to warrant the high priced scan.

My guess is that S8 HD vrs SD scans of Super 8 reveal equivalent differences in definition to 4K vrs 2K scans of 35mm Academy.

But Aristotle thought you should be able to deduce the number of teeth in a horse's mount without empirical proof. And everybody knows what a dunce he was...

[christoph]

So why would some major motion pictures go through the significant additional expense of a 4K workflow? If the difference were minimal, they wouldn't bother. But the studios must be seeing sufficient improvement to warrant the high priced scan.

simple: they don't!
and why not? because the difference on the screen is minimal, even for tech heads.

the first film that went through a full 4K DI was Spiderman 2 .. and that was mainly for prestige.
google for it if your interested (two quicklinks here)
http://millimeter.com/mag/video_di_innovations/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n7070177

++ christoph ++

[S8 Booster]

just for ref my Sony DCR PC120E PAL MiniDV cam reproduces exactly 520 horsiontal lines shooting a resolution chart which is exactly what sony states even on the "tag" added on the cam.

CCD is single chip 1360 x 1020 pixels - all used for still capture - possible all are used for "oversampling/sizing" for the motion images as well. dunno.

still, it captures/reproduces up to 520 lines in both DV/tape and via the analog S-Video onto a "unlimited resolution" (4000x4000 max pix) MAC capture card.

if i remember correctly this is one of the images i posted once upon a time:




s8hôôt

[audadvnc]

On the equivalent thread at the cinematography.com forum,

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004 ... 1570&st=15

Joshua Reis provides a link to several Super 16 images he recently transferred at 1920 x 1080. For an equivalent Super 8 transfer you would figure the transfer at around 720 x 540, and crop the frame appropriately to view the results.

[ekta-clone]

You saw 600 lines on the film. Tell me how can you sample those 600 lines with 600 pixels if the lines are diagonal?

why on earth would i do that? to prove what? i have obviously never made any such claims so i can only assume it's you who have some kind of point to make? if so i suggest you make it and leave me out of it. thank you.

/matt

Oh, nevermind, I must have misunderstood your last post