Deepthroat on hi def ???????

[xcite-tv]

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=11082


How is this possible when the film was neither shot with HDV camera's or even digital format camera's and in 1972 was probably shot on 16mm


seems there is lots of bullshit flying around about HDV

[JT]

I know fuck all about HDTV so shoot me down in flames if Im talking bollocks. But why would it need to be shot in digital? isnt the limitations on quality from conventional TV the output not the input?

[xcite-tv]

I know fuck all about HDTV so shoot me down in flames if Im talking bollocks. But why would it need to be shot in digital? isnt the limitations on quality from conventional TV the output not the input?


you can convert any format to digital output even 16mm
but showing it in digital doesnt make the image better
you can broadcast in Hi Def but that doesnt make it Hi Def

there is no way you can make deep throat a TRUE hi def image

unless we shoot it again...


I have a saying... Crap in = Crap out

[dvtimes]

Hi def is simply more lines on your TV or 1920x1080 resolution, Your standard TV is something like 400 lines, but the pc monitor (vdu) is much higher resolution.

So all they need do is re-scan the original film and convert it. I am not sure what the original format was filmed on, but if it was film then they may get a decent copy from it.

Also I suspect that even standard recorded dv films will look better in hd format if shot with pro gear, as ok the resolution may not be as high, but frame rate will be good.

With such as original film, these may have been recorded at a high frame rate too, which when in hd format will look better.

[cock-a-leekie]

Any copy - no matter what it is on can only be as good as, or worse than the original source, not better. It is a good idea to digitally archive important works though, as the shelf life for most emulsions is around 30yrs. (depending on the film stock) Some is reckoned to be good for up to 100yrs before the emulsions begin to separate and the film fades.

Here's an interesting bit of info I found on super-16mm. Still a low-end film format:

Image Resolution: Super 16 versus 1080p/ 24sf Digital HDTV Video...
Super-16 is also a perfect fit for HDTV in terms of its resolution performance. The highest resolution HD format is 1080p/ 24sf 1080 x 1920 pixels progressive-scan format. Because of the extremely high data rate generated by this format, severe digital filtering is used to limit the bandwidth of the video signal before it is recorded to HDCAM tape. The highest possible resolution it is possible to record on HDCAM tape is 872 x 1550 TV lines. The 1080p/ 24sf cannot be transmitted by air, or displayed by any of the currently available consumer HDTV sets. It must be converted to 1080i (interlaced) format for transmission. This reduces the vertical resolution by at least 25% to no more than 655 TV Lines, although it does not affect the horizontal resolution. In any event, no currently available consumer HDTV set can display more than 1400 horizontal lines.

Therefore the standard of resolution performance needed to guarantee that a film originated program material will appear just as sharp on HDTV transmission as a 1080i originated video program is an MTF performance of at least 35% response at 655 x 1550 TV Lines.

Super 16 easily meets, and in fact far exceeds these requirements. Even with the over 10 year old Eastman EXR films, such as 7245, and shooting with modern prime lenses, Super 16mm film performance is 68% MTF response at 655 TV Lines (vertical), and 59% MTF response at 1550 TV Lines (horizontal).

[cock-a-leekie]

More boring crap on film resolution:

Below is a graph showing the results of our intitial research. This shows the response for the film only, using the EI 50 7245. The new EI 100 7212 has a similar MTF curve.

This MTF curve will need to be modified by combining the response of the lens with the response of the film. However, it is safe to assume the following: The chart below accurately shows the MTF performance of the film itself, using an ideal "perfect" lens (which obviously does not exist). The best lenses in use today have MTF response of over 90%, at 10 lp/mm, and 70% at 40 lp/mm, so we do not expect the results below to be reduced by any more than 15% due to the lens' MTF performance. In any case, lenses of equal performace exist for Super 16mm, 35mm and HD, so the comparison is valid, since it is impossible to produce and image without a lens. The 872 TVL/ph resolution spec is from Sony's published specs for their CineAlta camera.

Looking at the above graph, the vertical axis is the response in MTF percent, the horizontal axis is spatial frequency in TV Lines per picture height. Because the film actually reproduces low frequency image detail with more contrast than the original, part of the graph is above 100%.
Note the first vertical dashed line (counting from left to right). This represents the 872 TVL/ph resolution limit of the HDCAM recording medium. At this frequency the HDVS system would have an MTF of 35%. This results in an 872 x 1550 line maximum resolution. Since it is a progressive scan format, HDVS has the same spatial resolution in both the vertical and horizontal axis. Note how high the response of Super 16mm film still is at 872 TVL/ph, an average of about 70% for the blue and green layers combined.

When the response of Super 16mm film falls to 35%, we are at approximately 1400 TVL/ph resolution. This results in a 1400 x 2490 line maximum resolution.

As a comparison, standard definition NTSC digital video has a horizontal resolution equivalent to 540 TVL/ph, but this is not as good as it seems because the aspect ratio is only 4:3, and the format is interlaced, so maximum resoultion for 480i digital NTSC is about 330 x 720. The interlacing reduces the effective vertical resolution 30% from 480 (theoretical) to about 330 (actual). For progessive scan 480p, the resolution would be 480 x 720.

In the future, we plan to examine the film negative under a microscope to see what the maximum resolution of the film negative is. We also plan to do an HDTV telecine transfer to see how much of that resolution can be captured by HDTV. We do know, however, that resolution of the Super 16 film negative far exceeds that of the NTSC digital video system. For example, it was possible to see distinct black and white lines in target C (124 lp/mm) in the Arriflex 16SR Viewfinder. As you can see above, this is equivalent to over 1500 horizontal pixels. This kind of viewfinder performance is not avaiblabe on even the latest HDTV cameras, but it is available in a 20 year old film camera!

[dvtimes]

Any copy - no matter what it is on can only be as good as, or worse than the original source, not better.

Well if you have the time, you can improve the original. Such as digitaly remove scratches and specs. Also improve the sound.

With digital you can easily darken or lighten the film.

Its light scanning in a slide. You can play about with it a lot.

[cock-a-leekie]

Well if you have the time, you can improve the original. Such as digitaly remove scratches and specs. Also improve the sound.

With digital you can easily darken or lighten the film.

Its light scanning in a slide. You can play about with it a lot.

You have taken that quote out of context.
Sure, you can edit/alter what is already there. But in terms of resolution (which is what we're talking about here) you can't add what wasn't there in the first place. Interpolation doesn't count either, because it doesn't add any extra detail from the original source, it only copies from existing detail.

The fact still remains that even old, low-end film does hold a remarkable level of resolution for it's physical size and age. Now weather that resolution is made up of a high degree of noise or distortion is another matter, fact still remains the resolution is there.

So as we now know that the bandwidth was probably there, and that by digitising the film, it can be cleaned up and re-recorded on to HDTV. This is not the same as turning a low-definition film in to a hi-definition HDTV film by simply re-recording it, enhancing it, cleaning it up etc. That simply cannot be done.

A re-recording of something can only be as good, or worse than the original source in terms of resolution, (not eye candy).

[xcite-tv]

More boring crap on film resolution:

Below is a graph showing the results of our intitial research. This shows the response for the film only, using the EI 50 7245. The new EI 100 7212 has a similar MTF curve.

This MTF curve will need to be modified by combining the response of the lens with the response of the film. However, it is safe to assume the following: The chart below accurately shows the MTF performance of the film itself, using an ideal "perfect" lens (which obviously does not exist). The best lenses in use today have MTF response of over 90%, at 10 lp/mm, and 70% at 40 lp/mm, so we do not expect the results below to be reduced by any more than 15% due to the lens' MTF performance. In any case, lenses of equal performace exist for Super 16mm, 35mm and HD, so the comparison is valid, since it is impossible to produce and image without a lens. The 872 TVL/ph resolution spec is from Sony's published specs for their CineAlta camera.

Looking at the above graph, the vertical axis is the response in MTF percent, the horizontal axis is spatial frequency in TV Lines per picture height. Because the film actually reproduces low frequency image detail with more contrast than the original, part of the graph is above 100%.
Note the first vertical dashed line (counting from left to right). This represents the 872 TVL/ph resolution limit of the HDCAM recording medium. At this frequency the HDVS system would have an MTF of 35%. This results in an 872 x 1550 line maximum resolution. Since it is a progressive scan format, HDVS has the same spatial resolution in both the vertical and horizontal axis. Note how high the response of Super 16mm film still is at 872 TVL/ph, an average of about 70% for the blue and green layers combined.

When the response of Super 16mm film falls to 35%, we are at approximately 1400 TVL/ph resolution. This results in a 1400 x 2490 line maximum resolution.

As a comparison, standard definition NTSC digital video has a horizontal resolution equivalent to 540 TVL/ph, but this is not as good as it seems because the aspect ratio is only 4:3, and the format is interlaced, so maximum resoultion for 480i digital NTSC is about 330 x 720. The interlacing reduces the effective vertical resolution 30% from 480 (theoretical) to about 330 (actual). For progessive scan 480p, the resolution would be 480 x 720.

In the future, we plan to examine the film negative under a microscope to see what the maximum resolution of the film negative is. We also plan to do an HDTV telecine transfer to see how much of that resolution can be captured by HDTV. We do know, however, that resolution of the Super 16 film negative far exceeds that of the NTSC digital video system. For example, it was possible to see distinct black and white lines in target C (124 lp/mm) in the Arriflex 16SR Viewfinder. As you can see above, this is equivalent to over 1500 horizontal pixels. This kind of viewfinder performance is not avaiblabe on even the latest HDTV cameras, but it is available in a 20 year old film camera!




Who let the scientist in

YOU did all this research or did you copy/paste?

As far as we are concerned we film all our content now on HDV we edit in HDV and i can view it at home on PC or with a Sony HD TV
There is nothing like it for image quality. If the BBC now use these Sonys HVR-Z1 camera's thats good enough for me

unfortunatly this is getting like the old Hifi arguments there is always someone with some better equipment that will sound richer or have more clarity of sound..

I stick to my rule....Crap in= crap out