In message <uqvatg$1qt3t$
1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:35:24,
NY <m...@privacy.invalid> writes
>"John Williamson" <
johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:l3gjpo...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 19/02/2024 08:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <BOCAN.73723$ds1....@fx14.ams1> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024
>>> Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
>>> professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
>>> be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
>>> _would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
>>> series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
>>> quite HD.
>>>
>> Depending on the camera lens quality, 100 ASA colour film can resolve
>>about 160 lines per mm at normal contrast levels, so 8mm film gives
>>you roughly the same definition as DVD quality video. 16 mm gives a
Except when I was filming (starting 1972), the standard film available
for 8mm was far below 100 ASA. My old standard 8mm camera (similar if
not identical model to Mr. Zapruder's) had automatic exposure control
set for 10 ASA film; the commonest available, a Kodak product, was 25
ASA, which I sometimes used (looking at what the automatic exposure
wanted to set then manually stopping down a stop and a bit - it had
manual control too), though I usually used 10, as there was one make
(Perutz) that was still available in 10 ASA. (I have a few Agfa reels
too - can't remember whether that was 10 or 25.) [I did once get hold of
some 400, but that got lost being sent away for processing. I suspect
would have been _very_ grainy.]
The commonly-available one for Super 8 was actually 40 ASA (though see
below); given the larger frame size, that was _probably_ similar in
resolution to 25 on standard 8.
>>touch more than double that in each direction,so 2K is about the
>>limit. The latest 8K cameras are roughly equivalent to 70mm movie film.
>>
>> For most amateur movies as used on You've Been Framed and the like,
>>VCD is about the best quality you can expect, though some digital
>>enhancement can be applied if required to make it seem better.
>
>
>My experience of Standard and Super 8 home movies which we had
>telecined by a company (ie we didn't do it at home) is that the picture
I'm now using a WinAit (Wolverine, Reflecta, etc. - I _think_ WinAit is
the actual manufacturer). In terms of the actual picture performance (I
use it fully zoomed out, on the assumption that that's 1:1 usage of the
sensor), I think it's on the whole fine: dirt, scratches, and film
"grain" are clear. (Other aspects - mainly, it's extremely fussy re any
damage to the film - though most actual splices, and some distortions,
go through without a murmur, to my surprise. Given how bad my films are
- I was only 12! - I'm happy with it so far.)
>quality is pretty blurred. I do wonder whether my dad's Super 8 camera
>may have had a slight focussing error because even at "infinity" it
>looks slightly unsharp (*), whereas any film grain is sharp. Standard
(I haven't got to any of my Super 8 ones yet.)
>8, despite having a slightly smaller frame size, looks sharper on Dad's
>older films, but that may have been because the grain on earlier film,
>magnified a bit more, subjectively sharpened the image slightly - if
>you take a slightly blurred image and add random noise, subjectively it
>looks sharper.
>
>
>(*) I wonder if the "infinity" setting of the lens was focussing
>"beyond infinity" or else slightly closer - which is difficult to
>determine during filming if the focussing aid (split-screen) is not
>correctly adjusted to match the focal plane of the film. This is an
I _hope_ I don't have such disappointments to come: my Super 8 one was
just a point-and-shoot, no focussing aid (no focussing!); it was a gift
from my great-uncle, so I used it a few times. On the whole I preferred
using the old Bell and Howell Std8 - seemed much more precisely made
(mostly metal), no battery worries (the Super took IIRR 3 AA), exposure
adjustment - oh, and I managed to obtain a tele and a wide
(supplementary) for it.
>example of a frame from a Super 8 film on Kodachrome - probably 25 ASA.
If it's the same as I used (and which the camera was designed for), it
was _exposed_ as 25 outdoors, because it was 40 ASA indoor film,
intended to be shot through a red filter outdoors which reduced it to 25
ASA equivalent. The camera came with a sort of square "key" - normally
lived inside the handle (pistol grip type) - which, when inserted into a
slot somewhere, disengaged the filter, which was normally in place. So
normally _exposed_ as 25 ASA, but I presume the grain size was 40 ASA.
[I found - or, at least, felt - the Perutz was happiest returning
greens, and the Kodak reds and yellows; the Agfa more blues, but I
didn't shoot enough of that to be sure. My feeling may have been
influenced by the colours of the reels they came back on - Perutz green,
Kodak yellow, Agfa orange! From what I've done so far with the WinAit, I
fear - despite being kept on reels in the dark - they've all faded
colour-wise in the fifty-odd years since I shot them )-:.]
Bamburgh? (Love the old cars!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Come on, Pooh," and he walked off.
"Where are we going?" said Pooh.
"Nowhere," said Christopher Robin.
So they began going there.
~A.A.Milne