Copying 8mm to DV

[OneIron]

I've seen conflicting info about the native resolution of both 8mm film and DV tape. I'm just curious to know if 8mm film has higher resolution than DV. I've used DV as a transfer medium in the past.

I've purchased a frame by frame telecine unit so going forward, it won't be an issue. But I'm curious by nature...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[johnmeyer]

I transfer 8mm and Super 8 film using a MovieStuff Workprinter. I posted the following thirteen years ago in the Sony Vegas forum, and perhaps it will help answer your question:

First, as an earlier poster said, for 8mm, a good 3-chip DV camera is probably all that you need. Here's why. Most literature states that 35mm film stock can achieve the equivalent of about 6,000 to 8,000 pixel resolution in the 35mm direction (of course the 35mm negative is only about 24mm tall). 8mm is less than 25% of those dimensions (closer to 20% because of how the percentage of the film taken up by sprocket holes). This gets you down to about 1600 pixels. While a DV camera is only 720 pixels in the long direction, in my experience, this seems to capture every bit of detail on the 8mm or Super8 frame.

I now have thirteen additional years of movie transfer experience and I would now modify this to say that I think it is worthwhile to use an HD camera, but have it output in DV. I use my Sony FX-1 to do this. You get the benefit of the superior optics and sensor resolution. Also, the "6,000 to 8,000 pixel resolution" is under absolutely ideal conditions, with professional emulsion, great optics, perfect exposure, etc. Most 8mm film has none of those attributes, especially the film emulsion.

As always, do a few tests of your own. That is really the only way to convince yourself that using some form of HD instead of DV is going to provide substantial improvements.

My conclusion, after doing film transfers for fifteen years:

• DV is fine for 8mm, perhaps overkill
• Super 8 might yield a little more detail at higher resolutions
• 16mm can definitely be improved by using an HD capture chain.

With 16m, if you use an HD camera outputting DV, the result can actually be pretty close to what you'd get with HD, but only when transferring really old amateur film (I have transferred lots of 16mm from the 1920s and 1930s).

[edit]This has been discussed in this forum before:

What resolution is 8mm film?

[JVRaines]

Good points. I would add that film has full color resolution, unlike video, which is almost always subsampled. DV's 4:1:1 subsampling is fine for NTSCish video, but throws away too much color information with a film source.

[OneIron]

I transfer 8mm and Super 8 film using a MovieStuff Workprinter. I posted the following thirteen years ago in the Sony Vegas forum, and perhaps it will help answer your question:

First, as an earlier poster said, for 8mm, a good 3-chip DV camera is probably all that you need. Here's why. Most literature states that 35mm film stock can achieve the equivalent of about 6,000 to 8,000 pixel resolution in the 35mm direction (of course the 35mm negative is only about 24mm tall). 8mm is less than 25% of those dimensions (closer to 20% because of how the percentage of the film taken up by sprocket holes). This gets you down to about 1600 pixels. While a DV camera is only 720 pixels in the long direction, in my experience, this seems to capture every bit of detail on the 8mm or Super8 frame.

I now have thirteen additional years of movie transfer experience and I would now modify this to say that I think it is worthwhile to use an HD camera, but have it output in DV. I use my Sony FX-1 to do this. You get the benefit of the superior optics and sensor resolution. Also, the "6,000 to 8,000 pixel resolution" is under absolutely ideal conditions, with professional emulsion, great optics, perfect exposure, etc. Most 8mm film has none of those attributes, especially the film emulsion.

As always, do a few tests of your own. That is really the only way to convince yourself that using some form of HD instead of DV is going to provide substantial improvements.

My conclusion, after doing film transfers for fifteen years:

• DV is fine for 8mm, perhaps overkill
• Super 8 might yield a little more detail at higher resolutions
• 16mm can definitely be improved by using an HD capture chain.

With 16m, if you use an HD camera outputting DV, the result can actually be pretty close to what you'd get with HD, but only when transferring really old amateur film (I have transferred lots of 16mm from the 1920s and 1930s).

[edit]This has been discussed in this forum before:

What resolution is 8mm film?

Thanks for the detailed response. I've been messing with film transfer for several years but my early attempts were using projection and later using an Elmo with an achromatic lens. I've thoroughly enjoyed these early efforts but I'm really looking forward to frame by frame telecine.

You guys have been a huge help in my learning process and I really appreciate it!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JVRaines]

You will love frame by frame scanning! I worked with a Retro-8 for a couple of years, and while it had its shortcomings, the results were generally stunning.

[OneIron]

You will love frame by frame scanning! I worked with a Retro-8 for a couple of years, and while it had its shortcomings, the results were generally stunning.

I've been looking at Retro-8 samples on YouTube and they're really impressive. My Retro-8 Universal should be here any day now. Can't wait...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lordsmurf]

I actually find 8mm film's color is degraded quite a bit, and consider DV to be fine.

But yeah, frame by frames scanning (and realignment!) is much better.

I'd rather just pay Cinepost to do it via wet gate transfer. For most people, it's both cheaper and easier than DIY.

[OneIron]

I actually find 8mm film's color is degraded quite a bit, and consider DV to be fine.

But yeah, frame by frames scanning (and realignment!) is much better.

I'd rather just pay Cinepost to do it via wet gate transfer. For most people, it's both cheaper and easier than DIY.

Yeah, but that would take all of the fun out of it...

On a more serious note though, lots of my IT clients have film and have been concerned about shipping their irreplaceable memories. Consequently, they've been sitting on it. Hardly a day goes by that I don't get a couple of emails asking if my telecine unit has arrived yet. I've promised my clients that I will satisfy local demand before marketing nationally.

I've been doing IT work since the early 90's but, aside from software development, it's starting to bore me. Film restoration really has me excited again.

[johnmeyer]

The colors on well-exposed Kodachrome have a richness that is tough to transfer to video, no matter what the chain. Unfortunately, 95% of all the home video I transfer has been stored so poorly, and was never properly exposed, and as a result the colors are pretty bad. Remember, in most cases we are talking about home movies, not professionally-produced movies.

Here is one more example, this one showing what movie film looks like when stored on a basement floor, with no can or even a box (just a reel), for fifty years. And yes, I did clean the film with Edwall film cleaner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gy9ZG23TTk

As you can see, the colors are faded, the emulsion discolored, and of course the dirt is overwhelming. I would love to have another chance to transfer this, because our collective restoration techniques have improved since I did this, and I could make the "after" look a little better. Also, my "after" colors, while perhaps more pleasing, are most definitely not even close to being accurate. Once the color is faded, there is no easy point of reference.

[JVRaines]

I've been looking at Retro-8 samples on YouTube and they're really impressive. My Retro-8 Universal should be here any day now. Can't wait...

Lucky you. Roger has made some great improvements over the model I used, which ran at a commercially-nonviable rate of 2 fps and required constant attention.

I actually find 8mm film's color is degraded quite a bit, and consider DV to be fine.

I have scanned 70-year-old Kodachrome with beautiful, rich colors. Yes, it has the "Disneyland" Kodak look, but that's an aesthetic matter rather than a question of degradation. At 720p, I wouldn't trade it for DV's color resolution of 180 samples per line.

[johnmeyer]

I have scanned 70-year-old Kodachrome with beautiful, rich colors. Yes, it has the "Disneyland" Kodak look, but that's an aesthetic matter rather than a question of degradation. At 720p, I wouldn't trade it for DV's color resolution of 180 samples per line.

Some day I need to do a proper test on some good Kodachrome, capturing both at 1080p and also using my old transfer chain using SD with the DV codec. I just recently (two weeks ago) finally acquired the hardware to do the HD capture directly from component HD directly out of the camera (i.e., no HDV compression). My new capture device cannot do uncompressed, but it can capture using a reasonably modern codec.

I'll certainly post the results, if I get around to doing this.

[lordsmurf]

the "Disneyland" Kodak look

That's degraded color.

[OneIron]

I'm admittedly a newbie in movie film but I've been pleasantly surprised at the vibrant color in many 8mm films. And my first peek at a 16mm film I purchased on eBay blew me away. Granted, I'm looking at frames using a view box and a magnifier.

I do have a fair amount of experience in photography though. I use a Canon 6D with several Canon L Series lens. For post processing, I use Lightroom and Photoshop. So I'm really excited about using some of my photography skills in film restoration.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JVRaines]

the "Disneyland" Kodak look

That's degraded color.

I'm not talking about dyes that have changed. I'm talking about the Kodak "look," which was an intentional design to please consumers, whether it was particularly accurate or not.

[OneIron]

the "Disneyland" Kodak look

That's degraded color.

I'm not talking about dyes that have changed. I'm talking about the Kodak "look," which was an intentional design to please consumers, whether it was particularly accurate or not.

Does the "Kodak Look" refer to the color saturation? I know in photography, many like to over saturate their images in post processing. Some photographers call it "clown vomit". I'm not sure if I'd take it that far...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[johnmeyer]

I'm not sure I've ever heard the expression "Kodak look," but it may perhaps refer to the slightly warmer than natural colorations that were characteristic of their signature emulsion, Kodachrome. There really was nothing else quite like it.

[JVRaines]

Does the "Kodak Look" refer to the color saturation? I know in photography, many like to over saturate their images in post processing. Some photographers call it "clown vomit". I'm not sure if I'd take it that far...

Clown vomit! I love it. Yes, I'm talking about the warm, saturated colors. They were developed to make white-skinned people look good.

[johnmeyer]

Actually, I think the over-saturation was more characteristic of the much more modern competitive emulsion from Fuji, namely their Fujichrome film. I actually came to prefer it, and in the last years of film, ended up shooting more of that than I did Kodachrome.

I wonder if I can still sell my Kodak Kodachrome mailers on eBay ?

[lordsmurf]

Kodak favored orange, red, yellow.
Fuji favored green and blue.
That's common knowledge among film photographers.

[OneIron]

Kodak favored orange, red, yellow.
Fuji favored green and blue.
That's common knowledge among film photographers.

I shot a lot of film with a Canon AE-1 and a YashicaMat 124G. Unfortunately, I was pretty clueless about photography until I started shooting digital. The current crop of photographers have no clue about the difficulty of learning photography using film.

I look at Ansel Adam's work and I'm speechless...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[johnmeyer]

I live in Carmel, CA where Ansel Adams lived. However, another photographer, almost equally famous, also spent his final years here: Edward Weston. It is he who I would cite as the person from whom most photographers -- whether shooting on film or digital -- could learn the most. He published many of his techniques and technical methods:

Equipment and Techniques

As a young boy, I learned a lot by reading his writings.

[OneIron]

I live in Carmel, CA where Ansel Adams lived. However, another photographer, almost equally famous, also spent his final years here: Edward Weston. It is he who I would cite as the person from whom most photographers -- whether shooting on film or digital -- could learn the most. He published many of his techniques and technical methods:

Equipment and Techniques

As a young boy, I learned a lot by reading his writings.

Thanks for that, John! I'll definitely check out his work.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OneIron]

I live in Carmel, CA where Ansel Adams lived. However, another photographer, almost equally famous, also spent his final years here: Edward Weston. It is he who I would cite as the person from whom most photographers -- whether shooting on film or digital -- could learn the most. He published many of his techniques and technical methods:

Equipment and Techniques

As a young boy, I learned a lot by reading his writings.

That is some gorgeous photography! Appreciate the heads up. I've got some homework to do...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk