That is not all I'm doing. What I'm doing, as distinct from whatever you think I'm doing, has everything to do with SD and HD transfers. How do you think transfer systems are built in the first place? Do you think someone just assembles such machines by trial and error? They are built on theory.Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:If all you are comparing is scaling of images back and forth then fine. It has nothing to do with neither a SD transfer nor a HD transfer.
carllooper wrote:...I'm only scanning a small window on the film. The scanning resolution of 24K you mention is what I said the scanning resolution would be if I were scanning the whole frame.
Real life transfer systems are built on theory. My real life system is built on the same theory as any other real life system. I have done real life transfers with real life results.Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:So once again all you have are theoretical scaling data. No real life transfers, no real life results and no real life conclusions.
The whole universe doesn't revolve around your particular use case. The purpose of the tests, as I've already said, is to understand the nature of the FILM (which is not well defined) rather than the scanning system (which is well defined). And from such design an optimum transfer system which balances budget, quality and redundancy. The optimum transfer system won't be a 24K system. You don't have to guess that. As I already said, the information gathered by the 24K tests will be information used in designing the optimum system. I don't yet know what that optimum system will be until I complete the tests on the FILM. It is the FILM which is not well defined. It is the FILM which requires testing, using the best techniques at my disposal.Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:Transfer one hour to 24K, transfer the same hour to 4K. Compare results, figure out how you will use the material, if you have use for the extra details and if it is worth the hassle of dealing with a 24K file. My guess is that you won´t ever even end up doing a real 24K transfer. So what is the point of the whole "24K test" then?
Do you think scientists looking at FILM using an electron microscope is overkill? And if not why not? I use electron mircroscope images of FILM in my research. The structure of the silver halide crystals and the dye clouds informs how I understand the FILM. It is the FILM being analysed, not the transfer system.
My transfer system will probably end up somewhere between 4K and 8K. However the ultra high def tests are in relation to how to process those scans. They inform the processing algorithms.
Perhaps the problem you are having in understanding what I'm doing is because you are under the false impression that upscaling and downscaling are no different from each other. Upscaling adds artificial information, through interpolation. But downscaling is very different. Downscaling removes information. It doesn't add any new artificial information.
All I'm doing is removing from an HD scan that information which makes it HD. The remaining information is SD. I then interoplate the SD information back up to HD. The difference between the original HD and the SD interpolated back to HD becomes the important information. It tells me something about the FILM, rather than anything about the transfer system. I already understand the transfer system. The transfer system is a well defined system. The FILM is what is being analysed, not the transfer system.
Hope that helps to understand the theory. If there is any problem with this, it is not because it is theoretical, but because there is something wrong with the theory. I don't know what is wrong with the theory and neither do you. As far as I can tell there is nothing wrong with the theory. It's really quite a simple theory. There isn't much to understand. There isn't that much that could be wrong with it. You should look at the theories I have to deal with day in and day out as a software developer. They are a million times more complex than this.
Carl