Jump to content


Photo

Emulation of Super 8 on a digital slr


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Christopher Guerrero

Christopher Guerrero

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 August 2005 - 11:46 PM

Anyone have a good idea how I could be able to emulate certain Super 8 conditions on my Olympus E-300 Digital SLR. I have a Canon 814xl-s no external meter yet. But I think the shutter speed at 220 degrees comes out at about 1/40th of a second. And the stock is about 40iso for kodachrome I suppose. How would I be able to punch those certain specs into a SLR for gaining exposures before I shoot with film. Any tips or ideas on this would be a great help. Thanks
  • 0

#2 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 03 August 2005 - 11:55 PM

Physically impossible. Your DSLR doesn't have the resolution. With a Nikon D2X you might be able to pull it off for resolution, but it doesn't have the color-depth nor contrast needed for K40. You can approximate it by pushing your saturation sharply yellow and pushing your contrast to maximum, but then you'll blow our your highlights badly, ruining the effect. A digital sensor just can't hack it.
  • 0

#3 Christopher Guerrero

Christopher Guerrero

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 August 2005 - 07:08 PM

thanks I appreciate the info. But I'm not trying to capture an effect just the exact exposure before I began shooting scenes on Super 8. It doesnt have to look wonderful just close to what the exposure would be on my camera.
  • 0

#4 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 04 August 2005 - 08:34 PM

Physically impossible.  Your DSLR doesn't have the resolution.  With a Nikon D2X you might be able to pull it off for resolution, but it doesn't have the color-depth nor contrast needed for K40.  You can approximate it by pushing your saturation sharply yellow and pushing your contrast to maximum, but then you'll blow our your highlights badly, ruining the effect.  A digital sensor just can't hack it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



What are you talking about? A DSLR doesn't have the resolution of 8mm Kodachrome?
  • 0

#5 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 04 August 2005 - 08:59 PM

What are you talking about? A DSLR doesn't have the resolution of 8mm Kodachrome?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Technically, perhaps, but realistically it lacks the lattitude, even against Kodachrome, which doesn't have much lattitude for film. I did a test, shooting a standard 8mm frame with a D2X using a slide copier, and the D2X still pulled out more details of that old Kodachrome than the D70 on the same frame of film, which says that the 8mm frame does have more resolution than a consumer DSLR.

But, that's an arguement for another day.
  • 0

#6 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:01 PM

thanks I appreciate the info. But I'm not trying to capture an effect just the exact exposure before I began shooting scenes on Super 8. It doesnt have to look wonderful just close to what the exposure would be on my camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Oh, ok! Misunderstood your question.

Yes, 1/40th of a second, but the Olympus doesn't go to that fast of an ISO. Set your ISO to 200 and use some ND filters, ND 2 should get you to pretty close what you'd get with the Canon.
  • 0

#7 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:15 PM

Technically, perhaps, but realistically it lacks the lattitude, even against Kodachrome, which doesn't have much lattitude for film.  I did a test, shooting a standard 8mm frame with a D2X using a slide copier, and the D2X still pulled out more details of that old Kodachrome than the D70 on the same frame of film, which says that the 8mm frame does have more resolution than a consumer DSLR.

But, that's an arguement for another day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



well then, remind me to use 8mm next time I want to make a 10x15
  • 0

#8 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:41 PM

If you take a look at the MTF curve you can see that it reaches about 90 lp/mm when the contrast of the lines gets consumed by grain structure.

When you put that together with the lp/mm of the BEST lenses at center, you get something around 70lp/mm, which is something around 1k for super8 frame

Are you saying your Nikons can't even reach true 1K?

Edited by Filip Plesha, 04 August 2005 - 09:41 PM.

  • 0

#9 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 04 August 2005 - 10:46 PM

If you take a look at the MTF curve you can see that it reaches about 90 lp/mm when the contrast of the lines gets consumed by grain structure.

When you put that together with the lp/mm of the BEST lenses at center, you get something around 70lp/mm, which is something around 1k for super8 frame

Are you saying your Nikons can't even reach true 1K?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm just going by what I found, a D2X pulled more information out of it than a D70 did. It's an impractical system in any case, waste of a D2X. 8)
  • 0

#10 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 05 August 2005 - 07:21 AM

I do believe what you saw, I'm just saying you are misinterpreting it.

Scanning film and beating it in resolution is not the same thing.
It takes a lot more resolution to scan film than to capture image with same resolution.


I'll explain your mistake on example of lenses.

let's say you have a lens that can resolve 800lp/mm and one that can resolve 300lp/mm at some specific aperture in the center.

You test both of them with the same film. You get better results with a 800lp/mm lense, and you conclude that your film must be able to capture more information than 300lp/mm

wrong.

Even if your film captures 50lp/mm maximum, using 800lp/mm lense will give improvement, why?


because the formula for resolwing power of all systems is:

1/(resolving power of component 1) + 1/(resolving power of component 2) + ...... = 1/(resolving power of full system)


So, a 100lp/mm film in combination with 100lp/mm lens will produce a system that can resolve 50lp/mm, and not 100


It took the resolution of your DSLR to capture the detail from the super8 frame because each component of this complicated capture system reduces resolution, and diagonal detail can only be sampled with higher frequency than the one of film.

But that does not mean that your dslr can not capture the same amount of detail from actual scene. In fact, it can probably capture 3 times more.
  • 0

#11 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 05 August 2005 - 03:08 PM

You missed my point, I shot it twice, with two different DSLR's, a 6MP and a 12MP. Same lens on both. How about I post the samples for you?

Edited by downix, 05 August 2005 - 03:08 PM.

  • 0

#12 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 05 August 2005 - 07:32 PM

no, I didn't miss your point.

two different sensors are two different components in the equation.


But please do post the examples
  • 0

#13 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 05 August 2005 - 07:51 PM

let me put it this way:
I'll use film terms only

this is your logic:
if you copy an 8mm frame to 35mm, you will get more detail than if you copied it to another 8mm frame, therefore 8mm frame must have resolution similar to 35mm

which of course is not true.

35mm would probably be enough to capture every little detail from 8mm in copying.
But copying 8mm to 8mm will get you half the resolution you had already.


same goes for film to digital, or digital to film, whatever combination you like.

scanning film is just another form of analog image copying. You have to use a DSLR that has 3-4 times more resolution, to accuratly copy a small 8mm frame.
That does not mean they have equal resoluving power.

Copying medium MUST have at least 2 times more resolving power to make a faithfull copy

Your tests prove only that high-quality Nikon DSLR is good enough as a copying medium to sample a 8mm frame.

here is the explanation:

let's say that there is a sharp line in nature, which gets photographed and is recorded as a blurry line on film. In order to copy it to another piece of film (or digital capture) so that it stays the same, you need much more resolution. why?
because if you had the same resolving power as the original piece of film, your blurry line would turn out even more blurry, or it would dissapear compleatly. why?
because for this resolving power it takes a sharp line to "draw" a soft line on film, and your original piece of film does not have a sharp line but a soft line, therefore, the copy will have an even softer line. This is not due to optical problems, or drawbacks in technology, it is the nature of all capture mediums.

that is why print films and intermediate films are always made so that they can have many times the resolution of avarage camera negative film (they say it's usually 3 times more for print stock, but I don't know this). If they had the same resolution
as camera stock, even the perfect contacts print would lose resolution.

To get to the point:
super8 frame has around 1K reoslution in best conditions, but to get a PERFECT copy you need 2-3 times more resolution. That is why your better DSLR still makes a difference.
  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 06 August 2005 - 06:25 AM

that is why print films and intermediate films are always made so that they can have many times the resolution of avarage camera negative film (they say it's usually 3 times more for print stock, but I don't know this). If they had the same resolution
as camera stock, even the perfect contacts print would lose resolution.

To get to the point:
super8 frame has around 1K reoslution in best conditions, but to get a PERFECT copy you need 2-3 times more resolution. That is why your better  DSLR still makes a difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

IMHO Intermediate and print films have little in common resoloution wise!

The reason people scan the negative and not a print in telecine is there is far more detail in a low contrast Negative than in any print.

Stephen
  • 0

#15 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 06 August 2005 - 08:34 AM

what does that have to do with what we are discussing here?
  • 0

#16 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 06 August 2005 - 09:07 AM

what does that have to do with what we are discussing here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

I was disagreeing with your claim that print stocks had 3 times more resoloution than negative stocks. A print will never have the resoloution of negative.

Stephen
  • 0

#17 Jonathan Spear

Jonathan Spear
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 August 2005 - 09:48 AM

"You missed my point, I shot it twice, with two different DSLR's, a 6MP and a 12MP. Same lens on both. How about I post the samples for you?"

Please do. This is an interesting thread.
  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 August 2005 - 09:56 AM

Hi,

I was disagreeing with your claim that print stocks had 3 times more resoloution than negative stocks. A print will never have the resoloution of negative.

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


A print off of a negative will have less resolution than the negative, but the print STOCK may possibly have more resolution than the negative stock, being so slow-speed, but of course, you'd have to photograph the image into the print stock directly in the camera, with all the attendant problems (lack of color mask, lack or remjet, lack of speed, etc.)
  • 0

#19 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 06 August 2005 - 02:28 PM

A print off of a negative will have less resolution than the negative, but the print STOCK may possibly have more resolution than the negative stock, being so slow-speed, but of course, you'd have to photograph the image into the print stock directly in the camera, with all the attendant problems (lack of color mask, lack or remjet, lack of speed, etc.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Yea, the print stock itself has greater resolution to compensate for the loss of resolution in copying. If it had same resolution as camera film, a lot of resolution would be lost. Any copying material (print or intermediate) has to have more resolution than the original medium in order to capture all its detail.


Here is how it is in numbers.

if the original film stock captures say 100lp/mm, and you use print film that can capture 10 times more (1000lp/mm), you would end up a copy degraded down to about 90lp/mm.
And now consider the reality, print stocks can probably go up to 200lp/mm or something like that, which degrades 100lp/mm film down to a 66lp/mm copy.
That is why print stock MUST have more resolution, otherwise the copying process would be ever worse than it is now.
  • 0

#20 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 06 August 2005 - 02:32 PM

if the original film stock captures say 100lp/mm, and you use print film that can capture 10 times more (1000lp/mm), you would end up a copy degraded down to about 90lp/mm.
And now consider the reality, print stocks can probably go up to 200lp/mm or something like that, which degrades 100lp/mm film down to a 66lp/mm copy.
That is why print stock MUST have more resolution, otherwise the copying process would be ever worse than it is now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

Where do your figures come from?

Stephen
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

The Slider

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Opal

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Opal

rebotnix Technologies