This is a big news, but it comes to my mind, what is the point? The small area of 8mm (even actually less) will not have enough information to be stored as 4K quality.
I am afraid what will be seen is the grains instead of sharper picture. I am imagining this like using a magnifier to see our skin and we will see more dots and not as smooth as we see our skin with our bare eyes.
posted June 22, 2018 02:51 AM
I would think only for archiving the film as near to its original state. For viewing a downscale may be better, after all it was said that for DVD/Blu ray of films scanning the original at twice the intended final format was best.
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013
posted June 22, 2018 11:41 AM
Maurizio, I don't want to spread rumours but I heard when I was in Spain a few weeks ago that the new super 8 filmstock was being tested at the moment. I don't know any details but it looks promising.
From: Herne Bay, Kent. U.K.
Registered: Oct 2011
posted June 23, 2018 03:13 PM
I think you are probably quite right Winbert. In the same way, why have 4k on mobile phones, tablets, laptops. or small size TVs. You would never notice the difference to standard definition. I have been given to understand that many Digital Cinema projectors are 2k! It is all part of the sales gimmics to sell you the latest model. So also is using them for making movies. Yes you can store a lot of footage on them but if you are out doors, the batteries do not last long before having to replace them or re Charge them. Ken Finch
posted June 23, 2018 06:38 PM
What 4K gives you is "overhead". The extra resolution helps resolve the film grain more correctly (which is important so it doesn't become digital noise but still looks like film grain.)
It also allows you to over-scan the film image (past the frame) and then crop it in post and use stabilizing software to the image will be a lot steadier when viewed on the screen.
This stability greatly benefits the perceived sharpness of the film, especially a format as inherently "gate-jittery" as Super-8 can be. Recent Blu-rays with scans of classic silent features utilize this overscan/stabilizing combo to produce beautiful images. C.
-------------------- "Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
From: Barendrecht, The Netherlands
Registered: Aug 2017
posted July 07, 2018 09:04 AM
Is it 4K or UHD? 4K only stands for the resolution. UHD also adding Wider Color Gamut and High Dynamic Range. 4K resolution is great for large screening. WCG and HDR is also great on a 32" screen.
In the cinema's we already look at colors in DCI P3 which has a wider color dept than Blu-Ray has with it's REC709, which was already better than the DVD's REC601. P3 gives more lifelike colors, that can be much deeper as well if needed. HDR gives us a larger scale between black and white, and goes behind that for sunlight and reflections of specular highlights.
I do not think analog film goes that far, so HDR will not add anything to a transffer from Super8, but WCG does.
From: Summit NJ, USA
Registered: Nov 2015
posted July 07, 2018 03:36 PM
Winbert, The small frame of super 8 film can have the equivalent of 4K resolution. It's all in the lens that is used. If you have footage this sharp, then the more digital space, the better.
Repeating what Claus said- You see the grain correctly. Also, you can crop to 1:85:1 ratio and still have good quality, but the film grain must be very fine to do this.
Higher scanning will always let the film be more acceptable for digital projection on a big screen and Super 8 film should have that opportunity. I've had my short films scanned in 2K and screened at a film festival and the footage looked very good on a big screen in 2K, but I knew it could look even better in 4K.
Projecting on film is still the best, but it hasn't been possible for Super 8 filmmaking anymore.
posted July 08, 2018 03:59 PM
wasn't it Steven Spielberg who said Digital tries to imitate film? I think film has a look of its own, i have to say though, the digital projected images that Graham puts up here are fantastic. Beggars the question why people still want to pay top dollar for a film print instead of switching to digital, (that includes me). I wonder where film will be in five years