Super-8 to hi-def DVD, no compromises

Main Page | Report this Page

Movies Forum Index » Cinematography (Super8) Forum » Super-8 to hi-def DVD, no compromises

Page 1 of 1

Author

Message

Teacherjh

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 9:01 pm

Guest

(double posted to rec.arts.movies.production and to
alt.movies.cinemtaography.super8)

Some time ago I posted about transferring some Super-8 footage to high
definition video with no compromises. Well, I've called a number of houses,
and am down to one in California and one in NY. However I've found out a few
things that slow me down a bit. I'd like to run them by the newsgroup to make
sure that what I learned is in fact correct, and to pose a few other questions.

What I (think I've) found:

1: There is no such thing as a Hi-Def DVD. Even the format has not been
decided on. All DVDs are standard definition.

1a: standard def DVDs are 525 lines (480 visible), interlaced at 29.97
complete frames per second. (seems like the number should be 29.975, as it's
59.95 fields per second, no?)

2: Hi Def is broadcast in various formats, but there is no hi-def storage
medium available to consumers.

2a: CBS broadcats 720p (720 lines, 29.97 fps progressive), Fox does 480p (480
lines, 29.97 fps progressive), others do 1080i (1080 lines, interlaced).

2b: 1080p and 24p are the same format: 1080 lines, progressive, 24 fps.

3: Digi-Beta is higher quality than DVD. (DVD is Mpeg2, with up to 30:1
compression, Digi-Beta is 2:1 compression; I assume Mpeg2 also. Is this true?

4: All Hi definition formats are 16:9 ratio. 1920x1440 is a Hi definition
format. However this is 4:3. So, what is really true?

===

So, if I want to go to DVD, I will end up with standard def, interlaced video.
yecch. Is this really true?

===

My film is 18 fps, sound. I would imagine that this could be transferred to 60
fields per second (a 3:10 ratio) thus:
1 1 = 1 2 = 2 2 = 3 3 = 3 3 ...
So two film frames occupy three fields apiece, and the third film frame
occupies four fields, this pattern repeating. Is that what happens when the
film is scanned directly into an interlaced format?

I have the sound track in ProToolsFree format. There is no sync pulse or time
code, but the program indicates time, bars and beats (which I've rigged to be
frames), and such internally. The sound is in sync with its internal clock.
How do I marry the sound track to the transferred film? Where (in NY) would
you recommend I do this? (in California they can do it themselves)

===

I originally wanted to scan the film in 2K or 4K to data, and go from there to
the lower formats (so that in the future, I can use that tape to go to the
HiDef formats when they become available.) Might it be better to just re-scan
at that time, and punt for now?

Jose

(double posting is posting the same text as a new message, as opposed to cross
posting, which is posting the message once, but "aiming" it at several groups.
Both have their uses, but AOL only lets me do it htis was)

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

twinankhs

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:05 pm

Guest

Quote:

What I (think I've) found:

1: There is no such thing as a Hi-Def DVD. Even the format has not been
decided on. All DVDs are standard definition.

1a: standard def DVDs are 525 lines (480 visible), interlaced at 29.97
complete frames per second. (seems like the number should be 29.975, as it's
59.95 fields per second, no?)

2: Hi Def is broadcast in various formats, but there is no hi-def storage
medium available to consumers.

2a: CBS broadcats 720p (720 lines, 29.97 fps progressive), Fox does 480p
(480
lines, 29.97 fps progressive), others do 1080i (1080 lines, interlaced).

2b: 1080p and 24p are the same format: 1080 lines, progressive, 24 fps.

3: Digi-Beta is higher quality than DVD. (DVD is Mpeg2, with up to 30:1
compression, Digi-Beta is 2:1 compression; I assume Mpeg2 also. Is this
true?

Quote:

4: All Hi definition formats are 16:9 ratio. 1920x1440 is a Hi definition
format. However this is 4:3. So, what is really true?

===

So, if I want to go to DVD, I will end up with standard def, interlaced
video.
yecch. Is this really true?

===

My film is 18 fps, sound. I would imagine that this could be transferred to
60
fields per second (a 3:10 ratio) thus:
1 1 = 1 2 = 2 2 = 3 3 = 3 3 ...
So two film frames occupy three fields apiece, and the third film frame
occupies four fields, this pattern repeating. Is that what happens when the
film is scanned directly into an interlaced format?

I have the sound track in ProToolsFree format. There is no sync pulse or
time
code, but the program indicates time, bars and beats (which I've rigged to be
frames), and such internally. The sound is in sync with its internal clock.
How do I marry the sound track to the transferred film? Where (in NY) would
you recommend I do this? (in California they can do it themselves)

===

I originally wanted to scan the film in 2K or 4K to data, and go from there
to
the lower formats (so that in the future, I can use that tape to go to the
HiDef formats when they become available.) Might it be better to just
re-scan
at that time, and punt for now?

Jose

(double posting is posting the same text as a new message, as opposed to
cross
posting, which is posting the message once, but "aiming" it at several
groups.
Both have their uses, but AOL only lets me do it htis was)

> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:22 am

Guest

Quote:

Why doesn't anyone want to make a Single, Super 8,

8mm and 16mm Film scanner?
<<

Actually, they do. It does 35 too. It's a bit pricey though.

My problems stem not from the lack of a scanner, but from the lack of post-scan
smarts. For example, 24fps going to 30 (60 interlaced video fields) uses a 3:2
pulldown ratio. It looks like this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10...(video fields)
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 ....(video frames)
1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4.... (film frames)

At 18 fps, it should look like this:

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 ....(video frames)
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3.... (film frames)

Count the fields occupied:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (original film frame)
3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 (fields occupied)

This would be a nice smooth conversion. But they don't do it that way. In
fact, they don't do it at all.

I could convert to 24p, which looks like this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... (24p video frames, equaling 24 fps)
1 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 .... (original 18fps film frames)

but to convert THAT to DVD video would be a mess with the 3:2 pulldown.

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9... (video frames)
1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7... (24p video frames,
equaling 24 fps)
1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6.... (original 18fps film
frames)

because every third original film frame is duplicated to get to 24fps.

Now count the fields for each original film frame:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (original film frame)
3 2 5 3 2 5 3 2 5 (number of fields occupied)

It's a mess. By moving one field around (or changing the 3-2 pulldown to a
3-2-2-3 pulldown and picking the right starting point), we could get the 3-3-4
pulldown ratio perfect for 18fps. But nobody does this either.

That's the issue. (we won't go into the fact that its' not really 30, but
29.975, so the sound has to be tweaked to stay in sync)

Jose
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Jeff

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:27 pm

Guest

Jose -

Quote:

At 18 fps, it should look like this:

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 ....(video frames)
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3.... (film frames)

Count the fields occupied:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (original film frame)
3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 (fields occupied)

This would be a nice smooth conversion. But they don't do it that way. In
fact, they don't do it at all.

I agree with you that 3:3:4 (or 4:3:3 as it is sometimes called) is
the smoothest pattern for 18 fps film to NTSC conversion. However, I
do know of at least one transfer house in California that does use
this pattern. I had them transfer some Super8 footage to DV video
tape, and they used the pattern you mention. They also correctly
converted some 16 fps Regular8 footage and 24 fps footage as well. The
transfer house was Pro8mm. I am not recommending them (they are very
expensive) but I just want to point out that some xfer houses do use
the patterns you mention.

- Jeff Dodson

Jeff

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:36 pm

Guest

Jose -

One more note also...I have written some software that applies
pulldown patterns to video files. The software is actually for
capturing Super8, Regular8, and 16mm film to video, but it does have
post-processing tools for applying pulldown and various other effects.
The pulldown patterns are fixed but you can modify them (instructions
are in the help file) to be whatever you want. I don't know if this
would help you in your current sitation, but I just thought I would
mention it.

- Jeff Dodson

Jeff

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:14 pm

Guest

....and finally...the link to my website is http://www.alternaware.com
if you need it.

You can do the 3-2-2-3 pulldown scheme in this software I mentioned.
However, that would still not solve your problem in terms of
converting 18fps-->24fps and then letting the DVD playback add
pulldown at play time.

I realize the advantage of encoding at the lowest possible frame rate
in mpeg2 (i.e., you get better compression and playback quality) and
have wanted to do this myself.

It sounds like what is needed is a process like this:

1) You get a frame-for-frame copy of your film onto video
2) You run pulldown that takes 18fps to 24fps in this pattern: ABBC
3) You encode this to mpeg2 as a 24fps file (with no pulldown on
playback)
4) Run resulting mpeg2 file through new utility that creates 3-2-2-3
pattern

The software/hardware to do steps 1-3 already exists in various forms.
You can get a frame-for-frame copy of your film either through a xfer
house such as Pro8mm.com (I think) or from machines like those found
at www.moviestuff.tv. You can use AfterEffects, Premiere, or my
software Smile

to do step 2. You can use any mpeg2 encoder to perform
step 3. Step 4 is the "new" part as far as I know (I don't know of any
utility to do this). I have never written any software that operates
on mpeg2 files. However, I may be interested in writing a utility that
does this, if one doesn't already exist. I believe that I do know how
to modify an mpeg2 file internally so that it plays back with a
3-2-2-3 pattern on television, regardless of what DVD player you use.

- Jeff Dodson

Teacherjh

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:00 pm

Guest

Thanks for the info (on pulldowns). I think I'm leaning towards scanning to
1080i rather than 24p for the reasons mentioned. 1080i, though interlaced,
should have the resolution I'm looking for, and I won't have to go from 18 to
24 and then back out. Also, the 3:3:4 pattern directly has the advantage that
for every film frame, there is at least one complete unadulterated video frame
that represents it.

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:20 am

Guest

Somehow- we need to get the attentions of Nikon or Canon so that "the 8mm
transfer problem" can be fixed for good.

It is unbelievable that 8mm scanners do not yet exist in 2003.

"Teacherjh" <teacherjh@aol.comspam.not> wrote in message
news:20030814150118.03115.00002604@mb-m01.aol.com...

Quote:

(double posted to rec.arts.movies.production and to
alt.movies.cinemtaography.super8)

Some time ago I posted about transferring some Super-8 footage to high
definition video with no compromises. Well, I've called a number of
houses,
and am down to one in California and one in NY. However I've found out a
few
things that slow me down a bit. I'd like to run them by the newsgroup to
make
sure that what I learned is in fact correct, and to pose a few other
questions.

What I (think I've) found:

1: There is no such thing as a Hi-Def DVD. Even the format has not been
decided on. All DVDs are standard definition.

1a: standard def DVDs are 525 lines (480 visible), interlaced at 29.97
complete frames per second. (seems like the number should be 29.975, as
it's
59.95 fields per second, no?)

2: Hi Def is broadcast in various formats, but there is no hi-def storage
medium available to consumers.

2a: CBS broadcats 720p (720 lines, 29.97 fps progressive), Fox does 480p
(480
lines, 29.97 fps progressive), others do 1080i (1080 lines, interlaced).

2b: 1080p and 24p are the same format: 1080 lines, progressive, 24 fps.

3: Digi-Beta is higher quality than DVD. (DVD is Mpeg2, with up to 30:1
compression, Digi-Beta is 2:1 compression; I assume Mpeg2 also. Is this
true?

4: All Hi definition formats are 16:9 ratio. 1920x1440 is a Hi
definition
format. However this is 4:3. So, what is really true?

===

So, if I want to go to DVD, I will end up with standard def, interlaced
video.
yecch. Is this really true?

===

My film is 18 fps, sound. I would imagine that this could be transferred
to 60
fields per second (a 3:10 ratio) thus:
1 1 = 1 2 = 2 2 = 3 3 = 3 3 ...
So two film frames occupy three fields apiece, and the third film frame
occupies four fields, this pattern repeating. Is that what happens when
the
film is scanned directly into an interlaced format?

I have the sound track in ProToolsFree format. There is no sync pulse or
time
code, but the program indicates time, bars and beats (which I've rigged to
be
frames), and such internally. The sound is in sync with its internal
clock.
How do I marry the sound track to the transferred film? Where (in NY)
would
you recommend I do this? (in California they can do it themselves)

===

I originally wanted to scan the film in 2K or 4K to data, and go from
there to
the lower formats (so that in the future, I can use that tape to go to the
HiDef formats when they become available.) Might it be better to just
re-scan
at that time, and punt for now?

Jose

(double posting is posting the same text as a new message, as opposed to
cross
posting, which is posting the message once, but "aiming" it at several
groups.
Both have their uses, but AOL only lets me do it htis was)

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Hugh Reilly Jr.

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:58 am

Guest

The reason these transfer machines are so expensive is that they are real
time. The machine for 8/S8/16mm would be really simple. Scan one frame,
advance, scan one frame, advance, etc... It would look a lot like a film
editor without the screen. Each frame might take a few seconds to scan but
so what. Just set the machine going and go play 9 holes. Then afterward
just tell the computer what frame rate the original was and it will convert
it. I wrote Kodak about it a few years back but to no avail. This is
actually a much bigger deal than anyone knows. There are millions of feet
of 8/S8/16mm taken over the past 100 years that catalouge the past century.
It would be great to have a device that could preserve these images before
it's too late. The drug store film chains crappy transfers don't do them
justice. I think I figured at one point a 4000 dpi scanner would yeild 500
lines of Super8 and over 1000 lines of 16mm. Just the tool for a film maker
also. Maybe it would make more sense to make an adaptor for a present day
scanner than to come up with a whole new one.
Hugh

"twinankhs" <twinankhs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bhrf2u$8vj$1@services.kq.no...

Quote:

I am also interested in doing this,
I did find a method of transferring to
the computer at HI-Def quality images,
but it requires a really crappy method of
scanning the super 8 movie film 6 frames
at a time with a conventional scanner.
Why doesn't anyone want to make a Single, Super 8,
8mm and 16mm Film scanner? It's a conspiracy
I tell you!! They don't want the public knowing
how to do Hi-Def films, that's why!!!
When you find out how to do this cheaply, let me know.
I am going to contact KODAK to see if they will make a
machine to do this. Thanks!!

Teacherjh wrote:

(double posted to rec.arts.movies.production and to
alt.movies.cinemtaography.super8)

Some time ago I posted about transferring some Super-8 footage to high
definition video with no compromises. Well, I've called a number of
houses,
and am down to one in California and one in NY. However I've found out
a few
things that slow me down a bit. I'd like to run them by the newsgroup
to
make
sure that what I learned is in fact correct, and to pose a few other
questions.

What I (think I've) found:

1: There is no such thing as a Hi-Def DVD. Even the format has not
been
decided on. All DVDs are standard definition.

1a: standard def DVDs are 525 lines (480 visible), interlaced at 29.97
complete frames per second. (seems like the number should be 29.975, as
it's
59.95 fields per second, no?)

2: Hi Def is broadcast in various formats, but there is no hi-def
storage
medium available to consumers.

2a: CBS broadcats 720p (720 lines, 29.97 fps progressive), Fox does
480p
(480
lines, 29.97 fps progressive), others do 1080i (1080 lines, interlaced).

2b: 1080p and 24p are the same format: 1080 lines, progressive, 24 fps.

3: Digi-Beta is higher quality than DVD. (DVD is Mpeg2, with up to 30:1
compression, Digi-Beta is 2:1 compression; I assume Mpeg2 also. Is this
true?

4: All Hi definition formats are 16:9 ratio. 1920x1440 is a Hi
definition
format. However this is 4:3. So, what is really true?

===

So, if I want to go to DVD, I will end up with standard def, interlaced
video.
yecch. Is this really true?

===

My film is 18 fps, sound. I would imagine that this could be
transferred to
60
fields per second (a 3:10 ratio) thus:
1 1 = 1 2 = 2 2 = 3 3 = 3 3 ...
So two film frames occupy three fields apiece, and the third film frame
occupies four fields, this pattern repeating. Is that what happens when
the
film is scanned directly into an interlaced format?

I have the sound track in ProToolsFree format. There is no sync pulse
or
time
code, but the program indicates time, bars and beats (which I've rigged
to be
frames), and such internally. The sound is in sync with its internal
clock.
How do I marry the sound track to the transferred film? Where (in NY)
would
you recommend I do this? (in California they can do it themselves)

===

I originally wanted to scan the film in 2K or 4K to data, and go from
there
to
the lower formats (so that in the future, I can use that tape to go to
the
HiDef formats when they become available.) Might it be better to just
re-scan
at that time, and punt for now?

Jose

(double posting is posting the same text as a new message, as opposed to
cross
posting, which is posting the message once, but "aiming" it at several
groups.
Both have their uses, but AOL only lets me do it htis was)

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:09 am

Guest

Quote:

Maybe it would make more sense to make an adaptor for a present day

scanner than to come up with a whole new one.
<<

They exist. Both the Spirit and the Shadow have a super-8 gate.

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

George Selinsky

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 8:34 am

Guest

"Hugh Reilly Jr." <hughreilly@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:M8ydnYkvMYEcGtiiXTWJjg@comcast.com...

Quote:

Well, if you shoot just a few feet of film that's fine, but if you're doing
a serious project (that is, more than five minutes total length) we're
talking a lot of scanning and wear and tear on the mechanism.

Quote:

it. I wrote Kodak about it a few years back but to no avail.

Kodak is not going to shed an extra dead skin cell to such ideas right now.
We're lucky enough they bother to make the stocks available that they do.

Quote:

It would be great to have a device that could preserve these images before
it's too late.

Well, whatever footage is important is usually by this point at an archive
somewhere. Few people will be interested in seeing poorly filmed amateur
home movies years from now (if they can find the correct format to play the
digital transfers on, heheheh :)

Quote:

justice. I think I figured at one point a 4000 dpi scanner would yeild
500
lines of Super8 and over 1000 lines of 16mm. Just the tool for a film
maker
also. Maybe it would make more sense to make an adaptor for a present day
scanner than to come up with a whole new one.

Would be possible, but again, think of the wear and tear of the mechanism,
even if you're willing to wait for a millenium for the thing to work. Then
there's also the software issue - gotta write code that batch processes it,
and saves in case of a power failure. Oh yes, what happens if the bulb
shifts color temperature during a scan?

Best solution IMHO is to use a projector with a shutter out of phase that
projects its image onto a fast linear CCD from a flatbed scanner. The out of
phase movement, if well lubricated and solid, will "pass" the image before
the CCD as the CCD photographs each line. It's the best system I feel, you
could get very high resolution, and the mechanism would not get wear (the
projectors are designed to be used with that movement).

Anyway, I can't be bothered to invent this device in my basement so those
with the enthusiasm, go ahead and good luck!

Derek Gee

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:27 am

Guest

"Teacherjh" <teacherjh@aol.comspam.not> wrote in message
news:20030822000921.14491.00002007@mb-m04.aol.com...

Quote:

Maybe it would make more sense to make an adaptor for a present day
scanner than to come up with a whole new one.

They exist. Both the Spirit and the Shadow have a super-8 gate.

Jose

Jose, I've heard of the Spirit scanners, but who makes the Shadow? How many
banks will I have to rob to own one? ;)

Derek

Teacherjh

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:44 am

Guest

The same people make the Shadow as the Spirit: Thompson Grass Valley (whose
parent also owns Technicolor). Googling "shadow telecine" gave me their home
page right off.

www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/film/shadow/

They're pretty inexpensive - any super-8 filmmaker should be able to buy one.
I think the Spirit goes for two thirds of a million dollars.

So you rob a bank while filming the robbery in Super-8. Use the money to pay
for the Spirit and transfer your stuff to high definition, and release it on
VHS. When the money starts rolling in, pay your lawyer and buy off the
witnesses.

By this time the police will have finished writing parking tickets and may be
on to you. So pay for the Spirit with the income from the film, and disappear
into the next town, where you open up a service for other Super-8 filmmakers.
Since good super-8 transfers are so hard to find, the police detectives will
never catch up to you.

If you like, you can even open up a small 35mm department for the few Hollywood
films that might want such transfers, though I don't think there's much money
in it. :)

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:38 am Movies Forum Index