What resolution is 8mm film?

[Mephesto]

A few sources estimate 1080p because if 35mm is 4320p then 8 would be ~1080 but that can't be right. I've looked at 8mm footage before and the quality sucked. 16mm on the other hand I believe is larger than 1080p.

[jagabo]

Depends on the film. Fine grain black and white is probably close to 1080. Large grain consumer grade color much less.

[DB83]

This topic caught my eye. I do not quite understand the rationale in the theory for no better reason than 8mm film is not a 16:9 format. It is not even 4:3.

Some numbers.

Super 8 film has a 'recordable' image size of 5.79 mm * 4.01 mm (wiki source)
35mm academy as a 'recordable' image size of 22 mm * 16 mm (wiki source)

I'll take a high resolution 35mm still which, if my maths is correct, gives you a 6408*4272 pixels or 178 pixels per mm (135 film = 36mm * 24mm)

On that basis, the 8mm film = (5.79*178)1030 * (4.01*178)714. Not even 720p (vertical resolution)

Ok. My theory is probably flawed but..........

[budwzr]

"16:9" is an AR designed to "fit" all the different AR's out there with the least size reduction. It's a compromise AR during the transition from SD to HD.

Film is like a 35mm slide. It has no inherent pixel resolution. It's continuous. That's why (oldtimer)photographers love slides.

[jagabo]

Film is like a 35mm slide. It has no inherent pixel resolution. It's continuous.

It's not continuous. It has an inherent resolution limit based on the size of the silver halide crystals. The size and orientation of the crystals isn't regular like a pixel so it's "resolution" is not as clear cut as with digital images. Different film types have different size crystals and hence different abilities to resolve detail. Typically, low ISO film has smaller crystals, high ISO film has larger crystals.

But I think the problem with 8mm film captures has more to do with the way it's digitized. Usually with cheap projection setups. Not specialized film scanners.

[budwzr]

By continuous, I mean no quantization. Scott got me on that one too in another thread. Or maybe I meant "analog".

[jagabo]

By continuous, I mean no quantization.

It does have quantization -- the size of the crystals. It's just that they're not regularly spaced and lined up like pixels.

[budwzr]

By continuous, I mean no quantization.

It does have quantization -- the size of the crystals. It's just that they're not regularly spaced and lined up like pixels.

Hahaha, can I change "quantization" to "rasterized". I knew I should have kept my nose out of this, but all the other threads were boring.

[Mephesto]

Thanks for the answers.

It's appalling how behind the technology is. 4000p since 70 years and we've been watching substandard quality for the past few decades. God bless this broken, mismanaged economic system.

[smrpix]

I think you've got a few things mixed up here. If you compare professional motion picture film stocks (+lenses, cameras) of 70 years ago with the same of today you'll find a stunning, continuous improvement. 8mm film, VHS (and Betamax) tapes, AVCHD aren't up to the same quality, but they serve a different purpose. They are thousands of times less expensive, more portable and require a smaller crew.

It reminds me of the argument many decades ago about CDs not having the same audio quality as vinyl LPs. Maybe so, but try playng a vinyl LP in your car.

Whatever your proclivities, the economic environment surrounding the motion-recording business (let's call it) has led to improving technology, lower prices and greater access. I'm (honestly) curious what you think would have worked better.

[Mephesto]

I think you've got a few things mixed up here. If you compare professional motion picture film stocks (+lenses, cameras) of 70 years ago with the same of today you'll find a stunning, continuous improvement. 8mm film, VHS (and Betamax) tapes, AVCHD aren't up to the same quality, but they serve a different purpose. They are thousands of times less expensive, more portable and require a smaller crew.

That's the thing, everyone was using varying-quality but still superior quality projector theater setups playing 16 or 35mm film. It wasn't cheap but everybody in prosperous, low-unemployment 1950s America could afford it.

I'll never understand how it was possible to dupe people into accepting the downward spiral that started in the 1970s with the garbage quality 240p VHS. What generation who enjoyed the beauty of 4000p would suddenly accept that shit??

Then came about a series of artificial "advancements" in quality with the Laserdisc, betamax, DVD and now the "high definition" fad that is still 1/16th the amount of detail of the original format it's shot in. Nobody is even aware how ancient the technology is that gives way superior detail than the "cutting edge" blu-rays they buy thinking they're living large.

It's a pretty cool scam.

CDs are not to comparison, the difference in quality from a vinyl is so low that nobody can reliably ABX it. Difference between current HD and 35mm detail is more than obvious.

The sum is always zero in the end and digital is no more superior than analog. Analog deteriorates slowly until it becomes unlistenable, digital does not deteriorate at all for the first 5-10 years but once it does it will become unusable that very moment without warning. Only advantage is you can keep re-copying it with 100% accuracy and that's the only reason digital survived in a planned-obsolescence economy. It forces you to keep buying and replacing shit.

[jman98]

I'll never understand how it was possible to dupe people into accepting the downward spiral that started in the 1970s with the garbage quality 240p VHS. What generation who enjoyed the beauty of 4000p would suddenly accept that shit??

Then came about a series of artificial "advancements" in quality with the Laserdisc, betamax, DVD and now the "high definition" fad that is still 1/16th the amount of detail of the original format it's shot in. Nobody is even aware how ancient the technology is that gives way superior detail than the "cutting edge" blu-rays they buy thinking they're living large.

Are you like 20 years old or something?

I'm not going to tell you my age, but I will admit to being a young person when VCRs hit the market. Before that you know what happened when 2 shows came on at the same time and you wanted to see them both? You picked ONE. And then you hoped that the other might one day show up again in reruns. You know how we normal people "recorded" TV shows before VCRs? You took a tape recorder (do you even know what that is?) and set it up next to the TV speaker and you recorded the audio only.

Good grief man, I don't remember most people raving that their VCR recordings were "just as good" as TV broadcasts. It was a lot better than nothing and that's what we had before that - NOTHING. It enabled people to save shows that they treasured and wanted to see again because before that, as I said, we just had to hope for reruns. It might be YEARS before some shows or movies got back on TV again.

You do yourself no favors by resorting to hyperbole and exaggeration. HD is NOT 1/16th the resolution of the original. If you don't like it, well, S2BU.

I do give you credit for at least not being a vinylphile idiot. I remember buying records in the pre-CD days and absolutely HATING surface noise. American LPs of the era used cheap vinyl and weren't exactly made to exacting standards. Surface noise came with the territory. LPs also have a much lower possible dynamic range but that's another story.

[smrpix]

I think the "downward spiral" was largely a question of convenience over quality. One example, for home movies, the price of a 60min VHS cassette was about the same as 3 1/2 mins of silent super 8. All you had to do was plug it into the TV, no projector, no turning out the lights, no setting up a screen, no sending out for 3-7 days to get developed. Even for Hollywood movies, the convenience of watching at home vs going to a theatre was attractive. I don't think anyone was duped into buying VHS -- quality wise it was the best they could engineer in the day. No one was going to make a 2" quad machine with massive power, space and maintenance requirements into a home commodity. (But TV stations quickly adopted the smaller, better quality 1" and DigiBeta machines that replaced it at $70,000 a pop.)

In a glass half full kind of way --we have HD recording at home now, and far better and bigger screens. I think you are seeing resistance to Blu-Ray because many people are making the decision that it isn't "better enough" than DVD for consumers and consumption habits have moved to greater portability.

I agree with you on the "keep buying and replacing shit" nonsense. (Although ironically, the enticement is almost always that the new version is higher quality. )

Anyway, interesting discussion.

[budwzr]

I'm not that old, but I can remember being able to haggle 10% off the asking price of a new car, now you have to pay full sticker because most of the dealerships are owned by the same entity.

They're name says it all, "AutoNation".

[Mephesto]

[QUOTE=jman98;2248454]

Are you like 20 years old or something?

You're one year off.

I do get it was convenience over quality. I guess I'm biased. I'd rather not see a show at all if it won't be dignified in decent quality.

You do yourself no favors by resorting to hyperbole and exaggeration. HD is NOT 1/16th the resolution of the original. If you don't like it, well, S2BU.

I'm not exaggerating. 1080p is exactly 1/16th the amount of pixels 4000p would have.

I do give you credit for at least not being a vinylphile idiot. I remember buying records in the pre-CD days and absolutely HATING surface noise. American LPs of the era used cheap vinyl and weren't exactly made to exacting standards. Surface noise came with the territory. LPs also have a much lower possible dynamic range but that's another story.

People who grew up with LPs have grown nostalgically attached to its artifacts just like today's generation prefer MP3 over WAV because of the sizzly artifacts they got used to. The surface noise is what makes music natural for them and without it there is something missing.

You should listen to the wiring noise of Laserdiscs if you wanna hear something annoying. I despise them more than any other medium.

smrpix, yes and thru the guise of this convenience is how a whole generation if not two have forgotten the true soul and dignity of film that's been robbed the past 40 years. It should not have been negotiable.

[yoda313]

@mephesto - you can't compare home technology to theater technology. (how are you comparing a 50 inch tv to a full size movie screen????) At least not the stuff when vcrs were new.

These days with 4k tvs and 4k theaters we are nearing an equilibrium of sorts. however without a true 4k delivery system available yet you'll be hard pressed to get a 1:1 relation between a home theater and a true theater setting.

And besides the thing I like about digital in the theater is you don't have to see a film the first week its out to avoid the wearing you'd see if you went to go see it a few weeks after it came out (in the film days). Digital is identical the first day or last day its in the theater.

[netmask56]

Well I turned 75 last week and I love the progress in technology. I saw the introduction of the vinyl record, less surface noise than those wretched 78's that you had to flip the disc every 5 minutes - no chance to drift off to zzzz land back then. Then the CD, no surface noise a wider dynamic range. Have to agree with comments about pre VHS - record your TV show, audio only on 1/4" tape and let your imagination fill in the video in your mind! LOL

I smile to myself when I hear the crap about "preferring that vinyl sound or valve sound!" Do these people listen to music or specifications? I built a Williamson Valve amp when I was 13 with a mate of mine at school - we belonged to the (don't laugh!) Junior Wireless Club. Nerds were admired at school back then.

Now I have lived long enough to have transferred my entire CD, DVD and Blu Ray collection and a few selected vinyl and 78's to hard disk, Oh how I would have loved this technology in 1954... my motto is "don't look back"

[Mephesto]

@mephesto - you can't compare home technology to theater technology. (how are you comparing a 50 inch tv to a full size movie screen????) At least not the stuff when vcrs were new.

People had home film projectors of varying quality that was still way higher than VHS but it's true it was only watchable in the dark. So what? I don't even watch films today in the daylight. Only problem is that organic film crap would deteriorate slowly.

And besides the thing I like about digital in the theater is you don't have to see a film the first week its out to avoid the wearing you'd see if you went to go see it a few weeks after it came out (in the film days). Digital is identical the first day or last day its in the theater.

Analog rots slowly, digital dies utterly without warning.
That's the equilibrium and a clear validator of the idea that the sum is always zero.

[lingyi]

To get back to the original question.

Following is post fromDavid Mullens on the RedUser forum:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?59036-Resolution-of-35mm-film-and-70mm-IMAX-film

“It's easier to just talk about the resolution on theoriginal negative and avoid bringing in the resolution of various printing andprojection methods, etc. Red has tested Super-35 and generally found it to be,I forgot, 3.2K or 3.5K, something like that.

You could therefore say that if a 24mm wide piece of film negative resolves3.2K, for example, a 36mm wide piece of film (VistaVision) would resolve 4.8K,and a 52mm wide piece of film (5-perf 65mm Super Panavision / Todd-AO) wouldresolve 6.9K, and a 70mm wide piece of film (15-perf 65mm IMAX) would resolve9.3K. However, this ignores some real-world issues like the fact that oldermedium-format lenses used on large format movie cameras have a lower MT

If you really want to be crude, you could say that youlose maybe half the resolution of the negative once it is printed through dupeelements and thrown onto a theater screen, which is why 2K projection seems onpar with the best 35mm print projection, and 4K projection would be similar to70mm projection, but it therefore also means that IMAX digital projectionshould be at least 6K...

Now don't confuse measurable resolution with optimal scanning, mastering, andarchiving resolution -- if 35mm film really resolves 3.2K, then in reality youreally should be scanning it at more like 4K to 6K to avoid aliasing, which iswhy most people round things off to 4K as being ideal for posting 35mmphotography... but perhaps 6K would be better for scanning, and then you shouldfinish at 4K.”

Extrapolating downward, 8mm would be roughly 1K or 720p.

What I find interesting about 4K is that while the resolution may be sufficient to display all the details of film, the color gamut is still below of what film can provide.

[lingyi]

@mephesto
It will probably take you another 10-20 years to develop an appreciation and sense of nostalgia to understand what smrpix and netmask56 are talking about. You’ll look back at 1080p video and wonder how you thought it was so great, but hopefully you’ll be able to appreciate it for what it is, a capsule of that moment in time.

Like smrpix andnetmask56, I was there in the early days of home video. If I was “duped” intoaccepting the quality of ½” video (I’m a Betaphile myself) it was because the choices were, ½” video or nothing. This was an era when you saw a Disneyc lassic twice in your lifetime. Once as a child and the second as a parent when it was re-released to theaters 15-20 years later.
If not for the “lower quality”of home video, I wouldn’t have been able to see the hundreds of films I hav eover the years. Yes, I’ll happily accept “substandard quality” if given the choice of “substandard quality” or nothing.

Yes, 16mm copies of a handful of films were available, but $200 (in ‘70’s dollars) bought you a 30 minutereel of that films highlights. The vast majority of films were just not available to the general public at any price. Disney in particular was especially adamant that their classic films would never be released on home video, seeking to continue their plan of theatre viewings for each new generation.

It’s been shown time and time again that the vast majority doesn’t care about picture quality (VHS over Beta, the fall of Laserdisc, DVD over Blu-Ray, $399 46” HDTVs). Their choice is driven by price over ‘perceived’ value. The economics of home video is that higher quality doesn’t sell as well as lower price.

[Mephesto]

@mephesto
It will probably take you another 10-20 years to develop an appreciation and sense of nostalgia to understand what smrpix and netmask56 are talking about. You’ll look back at 1080p video and wonder how you thought it was so great, but hopefully you’ll be able to appreciate it for what it is, a capsule of that moment in time.

That's how I feel about it now, actually. Same with VHS. What really impressed me was 3D remakes. Either way, I'm yet to see a film with true 1080p detail. All the blu-ray masters are dirty-assed lowpass hell jobs, DVDs were not much different.

It’s been shown time and time again that the vast majority doesn’t care about picture quality (VHS over Beta, the fall of Laserdisc, DVD over Blu-Ray, $399 46” HDTVs). Their choice is driven by price over ‘perceived’ value. The economics of home video is that higher quality doesn’t sell as well as lower price.

True. Most people think DVD quality is good enough and I'm one of them, sadly.