Jump to content


Photo

S16mm at 4k


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 J Van Auken

J Van Auken
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:14 PM

I am to DP a short in Colorado in January. Lots of exteriors and vistas, etc. For budget reasons we're on super16 with zeiss SS and a mix of the new Fuji vivid stocks.

The interesting part is that the post facility is offering a 4k di for marginally more than the 2K we planned on. We've got the reserve money and enough storage, so it's doable.

My question is, has anyone here gotten a 4K scan from 16?

I want to make sure to squeeze the details out of the landscape, especially for a future blowup, but I'm not sure if there's much resolving power there beyond 2K as I've never gone bigger on 16 before.
  • 0

#2 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 09 December 2010 - 03:35 PM

Do you know what kind of scanner they are using? The Arriscan does a 3K ->2K internally and Northlight is a 4K linear sensor thet down samples to 2K for 16mm. If they are offering a 16mm projector with a 4K camera filming the image go elsewhere.

-Rob-
  • 0

#3 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 09 December 2010 - 07:27 PM

4k for Super 16 is overkill in my professional opinion. This seems to be something that a lot of clients or 16mm enthusiasts don't understand or like to hear. I did a real-world test myself with the Arriscan we have at work with a professionally shot feature film we were working on. The end sequence had a lot of awful looking blowups/resizing/digital zooms that we were hoping would look marginally better if scanned at 4k. The grain was barely sharper and there was no overall visible difference. This was the case with scenes shot on Kodak 7218 (500T) and Kodak 7212 (100T) that were processed normally and not underexposed. Go with a good overssampled 4k-->2k or 3k-->2k scan. Good luck.
  • 0

#4 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 10 December 2010 - 07:12 AM

4k I would definately go for it! If you're going to degrain I imagine this could look spectacular. Love to see some stills after.

Mark
  • 0

#5 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:22 AM

Working in 4k would be hugely time consuming for marginal gains in the final HD output. If you're going to a film out 2k is still plenty of information. This should probably be another thread but I'm not sure 4k makes sense for anyone unless there are special circumstances like needing to pan & scan the negative more than usual.

I would be much more concerned about your colorist and the quality of their work than whether it's 4k or 2k.

If the decision is 4k for no or minimal additional cost and you put that on a shelf and work from a 2k down sample then by all means get the 4k since it wouldn't hurt unless you work in the format throughout and it massively slows down your process.
  • 0

#6 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 10 December 2010 - 01:41 PM

I made a film using Super 16mm Vision 3 and scanned at 2k using a DiTTO.

Personally If I'd had the choice I'd have scanned the film at 4k, edited and degrained it then taken it to 2k for Colour Correction and final format delivery.
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 10 December 2010 - 01:48 PM

16mm grain gets blown up so much already at 2K, at 4K, no it is probably not worth it unless you're using a slow STOCK with an extraction.
















EDIT: STOCK not SHOT

Edited by K Borowski, 10 December 2010 - 01:49 PM.

  • 0

#8 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 10 December 2010 - 02:08 PM

Will you get more information using 4k and is it worth the effort to get.

16mm grain gets blown up? Its in direct proportion to everything else being blown up although whether being blown up is the right description I'm not sure as its actually being scanned but surely the more clear it is the easier it should be to get rid of?
  • 0

#9 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 10 December 2010 - 03:33 PM

S16 @ 4k is 160lp/mm - high-end lenses and certain low-speed b/w-stocks can have usable information in this range - stock shot on Vivid with old Zeiss SS? I doubt it.
It would be interesting to know which scanner is used, massive oversampling (scanning with higher resolution than the actual negative contains information) can lower the information loss caused by scanning.
My guess: it won't help much but when the budget allows it and maximum quality is needed, it's worth a try.

"Grain get's blown up" by grain-alaising. Scanning at a very low resolution (<1500ppi with fine-grained stocks) causes barely any noticable grain at all, high resolution (>4000ppi actual scanner resolution) starts to detect actual grain - everything in-between can cause alaising between the size of the grains and the scanner resolution. The result is more "noise" in the finale image than there actually is in the source material (like moire in shooting test charts - huge structures appear in the image where the chart actually shows fine patterns). So material scannend at 4k and downsampled to 2k can look less grainy than 2k directly scanned. But these are numbers for S35 - 2k @ S16 (4000ppi)0 should propably not cause alaising.

@Elliot Rudmann
4k S16 with the ARRISCAN? I thought it "only" scans 3k downsampled to 2k output with S16?
  • 0

#10 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 10 December 2010 - 04:06 PM

We shot my film using the latest zeiss superspeeds with an SR3 I would loved to have scanned the film to 4k and sure would have got an even better result. Although I never did this it would be good to hear the experiences from someone who has as it might be an option I will try one day.

http://cinematechnic...super_16mm.html
  • 0

#11 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 December 2010 - 05:37 PM

the post facility is offering a 4k di for marginally more than the 2K we planned on. We've got the reserve money


In that case, I'd try it. With good glass and slow film shooting mostly day exteriors, you may well get some sharpness for your extra effort and expense.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#12 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 10 December 2010 - 06:06 PM

Just because it's on sale doesn't mean you need it. Good to keep in mind this season. A little more money is still more money. You might need that reserve for a colorist or marketing the film, or eating for that matter.
  • 0

#13 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 10 December 2010 - 10:21 PM

@Elliot Rudmann
4k S16 with the ARRISCAN? I thought it "only" scans 3k downsampled to 2k output with S16?


For the 2k option, yes it scans at 3k and downsamples to 2k. Our scanner has the 6k option. Frames scanned at 4k are actually scanned natively at 6k and downsampled to 4k.

You don't hear this being done with Super 16 because it doesn't need to be done with Super 16. The difference between oversampling Super 16 at 3k vs 6k in the Arriscan is barely noticeable. 3k is already overkill. The theory that there might be more to gain from S16 from a 4k scan is too far from the reality at this point in film scanning technology. Like Will said, spend that money on something more tangible.
  • 0

#14 J Van Auken

J Van Auken
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 December 2010 - 09:29 PM

Thanks for the replies, all. Widely differing opinions here, which is great.

In reference to the machine, it is in fact an Arriscan (they nixed my idea of pointing a RED at a moviescope)

Budget wise, this is strictly post money we're talking about, and has been allotted as such. We have a great colorist at the house we're using and there's ample time for finishing, and although I'm sure the other dept. heads would love the cash transfered to them, this bit is mine and I'm not sharing.

In the end, I'll probably just test it out. I do suppose it says something that in asking if anyone had done it, no one had first hand experience.

Thanks again!
  • 0

#15 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 12 December 2010 - 02:52 AM

@Elliot Rudmann

Are you sure? I always thought the ARRISCAN works with a fixed magnification and only uses half the sensor wideness for S16 and therefore is only capable of3k->2k @ S16? Am I completely wrong and 3k 16mm really means no microscanning but an adjusted optical magnification?
  • 0

#16 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 12 December 2010 - 06:57 PM

The Arriscan has a 3K area cmos sensor, it is the same sensor as used in the D21 but monochrome instead of Bayer-Mask color. The scanner physically moves the sensor for 6K scans. S-16mm 2K scans are made with the full 3K area of the sensor and then down-sampled internally to 2K. The 2K oversampling is good for Nyquist sampling and I don't think working in 4K will get you any advantages.

-Rob-
  • 0

#17 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 12 December 2010 - 07:00 PM

I do suppose it says something that in asking if anyone had done it, no one had first hand experience.


I operate an arriscan almost every day of the week so I'd consider having first hand experience. If you can get a free test by all means do it and see the comparisons for yourself.

Georg - The arriscan sensor has a native resolution of 3k by 2k pixels, microscanning is done to create the 6k-4k scans. During the microscanning the sensor shifts and grabs different parts of the image to make up the 6k frame. It does this whether or not you have 16mm or 35mm loaded in the scanner. The amount of optical shifting and microscanning done varies between the 16mm and 35mm frames obviously because of their respective difference in size.
  • 0

#18 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 13 December 2010 - 02:56 AM

I had an introduction to the technology a few years ago - but scanning 16mm wasn't the topic.
So the optical magnification is actually changed by moving the lens to always use the full sensor wideness? I tought S16 only uses half the sensor and 3k is achieved by microscanning, therefore not menationing the possibility of 6k/4k with 16mm. It would have been interesting to see the results in the 4k+-document, instead they used an optical element to simulate "10k" !? The difference was quite noticeable, pointing out that current scanning technology still limits the resolution/MTF.

That's something I didn't expect, but this forum is also there to learn new stuff, thanks!
  • 0

#19 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 13 December 2010 - 04:26 AM

Georg
I have some 8mm films here from the seventies using kodachrome 40 and I can tell you on an 8mm viewer it blows HD out of the water it's almost like looking through a time window its so clear. However I dont expect people to believe that and I dont care. But it's one of the reasons why I think many have been duped about digital and film

Film resolution is often judged By scanning to digital I think there is a lot more to this.
  • 0

#20 Paul Korver

Paul Korver
  • Sustaining Members
  • 154 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 December 2010 - 02:11 AM

I operate an arriscan almost every day of the week so I'd consider having first hand experience. If you can get a free test by all means do it and see the comparisons for yourself.

Georg - The arriscan sensor has a native resolution of 3k by 2k pixels, microscanning is done to create the 6k-4k scans. During the microscanning the sensor shifts and grabs different parts of the image to make up the 6k frame. It does this whether or not you have 16mm or 35mm loaded in the scanner. The amount of optical shifting and microscanning done varies between the 16mm and 35mm frames obviously because of their respective difference in size.


Hey Elliot... I believe you that you actually scanned S16mm at 4K from an ARRI.... but I've been digging around and can find no info on ARRI's site but the two post houses that give detailed output capabilities of their ARRI 4K's specifically say that it does 35mm at 6K->4K or 3K->2K but that S16mm is only 3K -> 2K.

www.goldcrestpost.com/postny/di

http://www.digitalfi...outcentral.html

Does yours have some sort of undocumented S16mm 4K option?

-Paul
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineTape

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

The Slider

FJS International, LLC