Hyper-8mm?

[MovieStuff]

Hi, all!

Been tied up lately regarding some family health issues and am sort of back. We recently have been transferring some client's footage at 30fps with no pulldown and have noticed some interesting things. One section was footage shot in "slow motion" but, in reality, his camera only went to about 32fps; hardly slow motion except if you were going to project at only 18fps.

-However-

In checking the playback the footage was, of course, running at 30fps and -MAN!- did it look freakin' good! All the "normal" footage shot at 18fps looked way too fast, naturally. But the "slow mo" 32fps footage looked practically normal since it was playing back at 30fps. The thing that got me was the incredible amount of additional detail and additional resolution that surfaced. I mean, you would be hard pressed to tell if it was a 16mm print or not, and that's no bull. It really, really, really looked great. No wonder so many commercials shot for television on film use 30fps.

So, I am seriously considering modifying my shiney new Fujica ZC1000 to shoot at 30fps (it currently has a setting for 36fps but, hey, that's what screw drivers and a serious set of nads are for).

I have a project that I am about to start on and I was going to shoot at 24 but after seeing the results of these transfers, I am truly smitten with the 30fps rate and the project will live on video anyway. The 30fps footage still looked like film but the motion was much smoother and the additional 6 frames per second really made a HUGE difference in the look of the image.

-So-

Inspired, I now am also considering doing the unthinkable and modifying the Fujica gate with an expansion AND an offset so that the image sits between the sprocket holes instead of next to the sprocket holes. This will allow me to have the full width of the film for a wider aspect ratio.

The end result would be wide screen, 30fps, silky smooth super 8 with a jumbo increase in resolution due to the increased frame rate, the wider picture area and the slight reduction in the video frame to accomodate letterboxing.

Can you dig it? Can you, can you, can you?

Anyone that has a camera capabable of shooting at 30-32 fps that wants to send me a 50 foot roll for a free 30fps test is welcome to do so simply because I am currently a little crazed and I think you'll be astounded at the huge difference it makes, as well. Uses a bit more film but, man, it looks sooooooo fine.

Try it.

On the path to 30fps righteousness and looking for fellow converts. (Say it with me!) Faster, Lawd, faster!!!

Brother Roger
Choich of the Ladder Day Synch [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Scott Spears]

Keep us updated on your progress with this.

This makes me wonder if there are any a crystal sync boxes out that would run at 30fps?

Scott

P.S. I should have some Super-8 footage to send you in a week or so.

[Actor]

I've been told that Camers Pro will gen up a crystal sync for the Bolex DS-8.

[TA152]

Very interesting indeed.

It it possible that it is the faster shutter speed that enhance the resolution and detail or simply the added "data stream" per second?


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">&lt;font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;-However-

In checking the playback the footage was, of course, running at 30fps and -MAN!- did it look freakin' good! All the "normal" footage shot at 18fps looked way too fast, naturally. But the "slow mo" 32fps footage looked practically normal since it was playing back at 30fps. The thing that got me was the incredible amount of additional detail and additional resolution that surfaced. I mean, you would be hard pressed to tell if it was a 16mm print or not, and that's no bull. It really, really, really looked great. No wonder so many commercials shot for television on film use 30fps. &lt;/font&gt;</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

R

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 03, 2002 03:57 AM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by S8 Booster:
It it possible that it is the faster shutter speed that enhance the resolution and detail or simply the added "data stream" per second?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definately the higher frame rate because the stuff shot at 18fps also had more detail when played at 30fps. In fact, I've thought a lot about this ever since I heard about "ShowScan" back in the 80's, which runs at (I think) about 60fps or so. Here is why raw, interlaced NTSC video does not seem to have the same "look" or resolution as film transferred to video.

If you have an NTSC video camera locked down on a tripod and have someone stand still with their arms out to their sides in front of a brick wall, the resulting footage may not have the tones and contrast values of film but at least each frame contains the equivelant of a progressive scanned frame; that is to say that nothing moved from one field to the next, therefore, no motion artifacts exist. However, ask the subject to move one arm up and down and everything changes. Suddenly, the arm moving up and down has only half resolution due to the interlacing of the frames while the stationary arm still has full resolution.

Now, some may feel that increasing the shutter speed on the video camera will solve this problem but it won't. ANYTHING that moves on interlaced video suddenly has only half resolution since the subject is in one position in one field and another position in another field. Therefore, the more that something moves, the more resolution is lost, regardless of the shutter speed used. As disturbing as this may seem, the fact is that video goes from full resolution to half resolution constantly as people move, the camera moves, etc. That is why is looks so, so...."video".

If you repeat the experiment above using a film camera, each film frame will ALWAYS have full resolution. The waving arm may be represented by a blur but that is academic as the video will be represented by only half a blur! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Now, how does this relate to the 30fps transfer? Well, if we take this experiment to the end, then it stands to reason that anytime you spread information across interlaced fields within a frame, a loss of resolution will result when something changes between fields. Now, film shot at 25fps and transferred at 25fps on PAL will always look the same since you always have total frame discretion. But film shot at 24fps and transferred to NTSC is suddenly faced with a problem; 6 artifical frames must be generated to fill out the 30 frame count for each second of screen time.

On the DV8, we use a simple 3:2 pulldown that merely doubles every fourth frame and, frankly, it looks just fine. The Rank uses a more sophisticated pulldown that interpolates fields of adjacent frames to create a new artificial frame to do the same job. The motion is slightly smoother but it seems to me that much of the "edge" of the subject is smoothed out as well. I have some older 16mm films that were Ranked sometime back where they only doubled the fourth frame (as opposed to interpolating fields) and they seem to have a better edge as well.

This leads me to concluded that stretching 24 frames to 30 frames on the Rank actually robs the image of some detail and resolution due to the interpolating of the fields. The interpolation makes the motion more fluid, just as interlaced frames on raw video makes motion more fluid (the inherent "video" look), but unlike the surrounding "original" film frames where total frame discretion exists, the "artificial" interpolated frames created by the Rank can ONLY represent half resolution of any given film frame since one field of the interpolated frame is from one film frame while the other field is from another film frame.

Therefore, when 24fps film is transferred on a Rank, there is a loss of resolution on every fifth frame at best. On some more elaborate 3:2 conversions, the interpolation actually starts on the 3rd and fourth frame, which only compounds the resolution issue since you have fewer and fewer video frames representing singular, complete film frames or what I call "total frame discretion".

In conclusion, if you shoot at 30fps and transfer at 30fps on either the Rank, WorkPrinter or the DV8, it stands to reason that you have total frame discretion ALWAYS. Frames are never interpolated, therefore, resolution is always at 100% on all frames. That, in itself, is going to increase the perceived detail. The fact that you now have an additional 6 "original" frames per second to carry the information will also increase the inherent resolution and decrease the effect of grain. You still have the interlacing that takes you from one video frame to the next but that does not affect the resolution of film transferred to video; only something originally shot on video.

My conclusion: Want more detail and greater resolution on your super 8? Shoot 30fps and transfer at 30fps.

Again, anyone that wants to send in a free 30fps test is welcome to do so.

Roger

[Nigel]

I have always said faster fps is better. I have shot with my S16 at 29.97 and liked it very much. The only problem I have had with 29.97 vs. 23.976 is that you burn up so much more film. I still like shooting faster frame rates when ever possible.

Good Luck

[MattEBoy]

Hehehe

I like the term

"Hyper 8mm"

I think it should be patented. Master the 'widescreen' effect,and shoot at 30fps.

Sounds really good!

[blackangus1]

"The thing that got me was the incredible amount of additional detail and additional resolution that surfaced. I mean, you would be hard pressed to tell if it was a 16mm print or not, and that's no bull."

I'm certain a large part of this is due to the faster shutter speed employed by the 30fps shooting, too. The shorter the exposure time, the less opportunity there is for the frame to blur, of course. And at 30fps, a 170-degree-shutter S8 camera is going to have an exposure time of about 1/64, vs. about 1/50 at 24fps. That sharper, crisper shutter should produce less blurring and therefore much better perceived resolution.

This is another reason why the Beaulieu 6008/7008 series delivers such superior footage: the 144-degree shutter gives a 1/60 sec exposure time, while the lack of a prism ends up sending more light to the film than you would get with a 220-degree "XL" system!

Pro8mm rents a 7008 ProII which is crystal-sync'd at 29.97fps, which would deliver a hyper-fast exposure time of just 1/75. I bet it looks pretty sharp!

"Inspired, I now am also considering doing the unthinkable and modifying the Fujica gate with an expansion AND an offset so that the image sits between the sprocket holes instead of next to the sprocket holes. This will allow me to have the full width of the film for a wider aspect ratio."

I wrote to Martin Baumgarten about this a while back, proposing a new standard that I thought should be called "UltimEight". Moving the picture between the sprocket holes, and widening the gate, would give you 8mm of image width -- consider that 16mm gives you only 10mm of actual image area, and you can see UltimEight could be a pretty high-quality format for 2.35:1 origination. By centering between the sprocket holes, you'd get a frame of 8mm x 3mm, or about 2.66:1. The great thing is, in terms of actual negative area used, UltimEight would give you 24 square mm, which is the same size as a standard Super 8 frame! You get ultimate widescreen filming, with no loss due to cropping -- you get just as much screen real estate as if you used the full-height 1.33 Super8 frame. This also means that you'll get just as efficient usage from your negative as you would have if you shot in 2:1 anamorphic, but with none of the drawbacks of anamorphic photography.

I bought a couple of cheap cameras to try modifying 'em, but I don't have the skills Roger has, so hey -- I say go for it!

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by blackangus1:

I'm certain a large part of this is due to the faster shutter speed employed by the 30fps shooting, too. The shorter the exposure time, the less opportunity there is for the frame to blur, of course. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, no doubt the high speed stuff made things look better but, remember, I also noted that the footage shot originally at 18fps looked just as good, to my eye, when played back at 30fps. In any event, I think the idea of going to 30fps is a great trade off for super 8 film makers. It doesn't use double the film like 16mm would but it does offer a significant increase in perceived resolution. If I can offset the image to that the entire width of the film is used, then that would REALLY be a gain worth writing about.

Like I got nothing else to do these days. Sheesh.

WorkPrinter order 132 just came in a while ago.

Back to the fields.....

Roger

[jukkasil]

Hi Roger!

Great idea about using faster speed to get better image quality.

I just wonder (as a PAL user), this 30 fps is suitable for your NTSC standard, but what about PAL?

Would it be the same for us if we shoot with 50 fps?!

Perhaps I could try this out, I have couple super 8 cameras with 54 fps speed.