Scanner with 8K resolution

[Oren Grad]

Actually it is about literally films (moving pictures) but I can not compare analogue and digital moving pictures since I have no chance to get the equipment for that so I compare photos.
If moving picutres are shot analogue, it is common to digitalize, for postproduction but also for distribution. This is why I compare them in digital form.
The question of my project so far is how I can compare them on a fair level since it would be unfair to compare a great digital Sensors quality with poor quality scan to come to the conclusion that digital is as good as analogue. So I have to find a comparision basis. I still have to think about that. When I posted the question I thought it would be best to compare the sensor to the analogue quality so that I need a scanner which is capturing this quality on the best level. But now I know that this is not possible so I need to take a step down and include the problem with quality loss in digitalization in my project somehow.

You've probably figured this out by now, but every one of the high-fidelity digital capture methods mentioned here is time- and labor-intensive for each frame. It would be completely impractical to digitize a motion picture that way. You need to be looking at whatever high-volume methods are available specifically for motion picture film.

Good luck with your project!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you are multiplying pixels times pixels, I believe the correct units would be "MP" (MegaPixels), and not MB (MegaBytes), right?

Knowing the megabyte file size tells us how much space a file will take up in storage, but I believe megabytes are much less useful for estimating the resolution of an image.

I think you're right. So when they talk about a 8K TV, then they're talking about what?

 

[runswithsizzers]

Thank you all for your answers and your interesting input!
To be more specific about my project, it is about figuring out if shooting analogue is still viable.
Actually it is about literally films (moving pictures) but I can not compare analogue and digital moving pictures since I have no chance to get the equipment for that so I compare photos.
If moving picutres are shot analogue, it is common to digitalize, for postproduction but also for distribution. This is why I compare them in digital form.
The question of my project so far is how I can compare them on a fair level since it would be unfair to compare a great digital Sensors quality with poor quality scan to come to the conclusion that digital is as good as analogue. So I have to find a comparision basis. I still have to think about that. When I posted the question I thought it would be best to compare the sensor to the analogue quality so that I need a scanner which is capturing this quality on the best level. But now I know that this is not possible so I need to take a step down and include the problem with quality loss in digitalization in my project somehow.
You have given me a lot of input and actually I don't have further questions at this point. Maybe I will have some in time again. So there is no need in giving me further answers but of course I am happy and thankful if you have further advices, but as mentioned, no need for it at this point.
Have a nice day and thanks again.

If you want to compare analog films to digital films at the level practiced by the motion picture industry, then getting access to the kind of equipment they use is going to be almost impossible for someone outside the industry. But there are people inside the movie industry who make decisions about when to shoot digital and when to shoot analog, and they have already made the kinds of comparisons you are talking about (or so I would assume). Compared to fooling around with film and scanners, it might be much less fun to spend hours at a university library, but I wonder if researching what professional film makers have to say about their reasons for shooting analog vs. digital might lead to a better conclusion than trying to do the testing yourself? More clues about the viability of analog motion pictures might be learned by tracking some statistics about how much movie film stock is being sold. A list of fims catagorized according to a scale ranging from all-digital to all-analog might be informative, as well as charting year-to-year trends.

 

[grat]

I think you're right. So when they talk about a 8K TV, then they're talking about what?

A video stream with a horizontal resolution of roughly 8000 pixels-- specifically, full 8K UHD is 7680 × 4320 pixels at 24 bit color (or more for HDR), typically at 24 or 30 frames per second. The stream rate is usually measured in megabits (not bytes) per second.

A single frame would be 32 megapixels, each pixel being three bytes of data-- four to six bytes per pixel for HDR. That's about 24 gigabits (3 gigabytes) per second for 30 FPS-- or 48 gb/s for 60 FPS. That's a ridiculous amount of data, so it has to be compressed via a compression scheme that reduces the bandwidth to something people might actually have.

That's also the source of difference between still images such as film or digital cameras, and motion pictures-- Persistence of vision hides a multitude of sins with regards to resolution, frame rate, and compression.