Alex wrote:
Mr. Jarvies, you started this topic about the pressure plate then switched to the virtues of extending the frame width
But I think there are many reasons not to do it. The main ones in my opinion are the image quality probably drops off the farther towards the edge of the frame you go
It depends on the lens and its inherent COI. If the COI is large enough, it actually becomes a rectilinear lens and you get a very nice, flat field across the entire image. That was the case on many R8mm lenses, which were often just lenses for 16mm repackaged for use on R8 cameras. If the COI on a super 8 camera is large enough, then the image at the edges will be just as good as in the center. We've done tons of transfers off of R8 where the image literally spills off the edge of the film on both edges and it is sharp as a tack.
Alex wrote:
The other reason is I think the more you widen the picture, the muddier it becomes when transferred to video. You actually will begin to add additional depth of field the wider you try and make the video transfer. Super-8 already has a lot of depth of field, why give it more?
I'm not sure how you can say the picture gets muddier when depth of field increases. At any rate, increased depth of field is one of the best things going for super 8. The notion of shallow depth of field being a "virtue" because it looks more like 35mm is really sophistic reasoning, when one thinks about it. Low budget 35mm films always have crappy depth of field because they are always using small lighting packages. If you look at a big budget 35mm film, you will find that they have plenty of depth of field when they want it because they have large lighting packages. So, in reality, if you want your film to look like a low budget 35mm film then, by all means, go for the shallow depth of field look.
The choice to go to shallow depth of field should be a discrete artistic one, where one wants to isolate the actor or item on screen, and is generally achieved with longer lenses. I've worked on a variety of 35mm and 16mm productions and I can tell you that fighting shallow depth of field is a constant battle and no professional DP I know of thinks it's a problem to have "too much depth of field", since one can ALWAYS reduce depth of field by adding ND filters and using a longer lens.
Alex wrote:
There is only so much resolution that the video image can absorb from the film original,
???? Granted, the video does not have the resolution that film has, but your statement flies in the face of reality that a 35mm frame looks better on video than a super 8mm frame. A larger film original is always going to be better for video transfer than a smaller film original.
Alex wrote:by addiing width to the film frame, and trying to capture that added resolution via a film transfer, you will have LESS video resolution overall because the same video frame has to capture MORE film info with the same amount of video pixels.
Yes, if the picture is reduced in height to accomodate the extended left and right areas of the picture, there will be fewer lines of video representing the final image. However, the grain of the super 8 will be reduced and that will make it sharper for final viewing if the goal is for a letterboxed image.
When we transfer, we often give people the choice of whether they want the super 8 image to spill off the edges of the video frame or if they want us to pull back until the entire video frame is visible within the open viewing area of a normal television set. If so, then either we or they put a black matte around it to hide the adjacent frames and sprocket holes. The black matte is outside the viewing area of a normal television set and the image looks MUCH sharper since the grain is reduced. And, since televisions crop the video image quite a bit, pulling back allows the whole super 8 frame to be viewed. So, in reality, the final image IS better if the super 8 is reduced in size.
Alex wrote:This may give the illusion of a better quality picture, but in reality it is a worse quality picture because the picture will have more in focus areas than before, which will make the picture look "flatter".
Again, the illusional increase in depth of field from having a reduced picture size is a distinction without a difference compared to the universally obvious benefits of having the frame appear sharper. Pulling back during telecine and using more of the super 8 frame always creates a sharper picture with tighter grain; the very same reason that 16mm telecined looks better than super 8 telecined. For your counter position to be valid, then pushing into the super 8 image would result in more resolution and a better picture, which it clearly does not, since doing so would increase the effect of grain.
Roger