Can somebody tell how the HD movies on DVDs are so neat and cleanly scanned? They have less noise and very good sharpness. Why cant i get the same look with my 35mm camera?
Scanning for movies.....
-
H
- Thread starter F80p
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale BOOK SALE! Weston, Karsh, Kenna, Worth, Sexton
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Complete Mamiya RB67 Pro SD collections with camera bags
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 56
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
You probably do. It's just that HD video is such low rez....remember, we're talking about 2+mp....that grain vanishes in the low resolution. If the video was higher rez, and with less compression, say the equivalent of a 10mp or 15mp scan, then yes, you'd see grain o' plenty!
The 35mm cinema frame is less than half the size of the 35mm photo frame.
The photo frame, as you know, is 36mm X 24 mm. The cinema frame is 20.96mm wide and can vary from 11.33mm (AR 1.85 "Widescreen") to 17.53mm tall. (AR 2.39 "Cinemascope")
The film runs through the camera or projector vertically instead of horizontally as it does in a camera. Those frames fly by at a rate of 24 per second. Other than that, the 35mm film used in the cinema is virtually identical, in physical dimensions, to 35mm photo film. There are some differences in the emulsions but it is possible to use 35mm cinema film in a still camera.
First, you have frame size and film speed to contend with. There is just that much less surface area to get dirty. Small bits of dirt are just that much harder to see. They are there but they are flying by at 24 fps. You CAN see them if you look hard enough but 90% of the people never even know it.
Then, just as David says, the resolution of a DVD is only 720 pixels wide by 486 lines tall. (Assuming non-anamorphic picture.) One frame of 35mm film has the equivalent of 4,000 lines, vertically. What dirt is on the film won't be registered if it is small enough.
After that, there is interlacing to deal with. One frame of a television picture is actually made up of two fields, each carrying half the picture. Theoretically, you never see more than half the picture at any one time. Persistence of vision creates the illusion that you see it all.
(The exception is if you are watching progressive content on a screen capable of displaying it.)
Hollywood studios also employ people to keep film processing laboratories and equipment scrupulously clean. A lot of times, they use "wet gate" techniques which clean the film with optically clear fluids and leave it wet while it is being projected.
The bottom line is that Hollywood movies really are that much cleaner and, because of the inadequacies in the resolution of television, what dirt does get through just isn't seen most of the time. It is there. You can see it but you really have to look for it.
The photo frame, as you know, is 36mm X 24 mm. The cinema frame is 20.96mm wide and can vary from 11.33mm (AR 1.85 "Widescreen") to 17.53mm tall. (AR 2.39 "Cinemascope")
The film runs through the camera or projector vertically instead of horizontally as it does in a camera. Those frames fly by at a rate of 24 per second. Other than that, the 35mm film used in the cinema is virtually identical, in physical dimensions, to 35mm photo film. There are some differences in the emulsions but it is possible to use 35mm cinema film in a still camera.
First, you have frame size and film speed to contend with. There is just that much less surface area to get dirty. Small bits of dirt are just that much harder to see. They are there but they are flying by at 24 fps. You CAN see them if you look hard enough but 90% of the people never even know it.
Then, just as David says, the resolution of a DVD is only 720 pixels wide by 486 lines tall. (Assuming non-anamorphic picture.) One frame of 35mm film has the equivalent of 4,000 lines, vertically. What dirt is on the film won't be registered if it is small enough.
After that, there is interlacing to deal with. One frame of a television picture is actually made up of two fields, each carrying half the picture. Theoretically, you never see more than half the picture at any one time. Persistence of vision creates the illusion that you see it all.
(The exception is if you are watching progressive content on a screen capable of displaying it.)
Hollywood studios also employ people to keep film processing laboratories and equipment scrupulously clean. A lot of times, they use "wet gate" techniques which clean the film with optically clear fluids and leave it wet while it is being projected.
The bottom line is that Hollywood movies really are that much cleaner and, because of the inadequacies in the resolution of television, what dirt does get through just isn't seen most of the time. It is there. You can see it but you really have to look for it.
I don't understand what you want to do. Do you want to take a bunch of photos with your camera and sequence all the frames into a movie? Or do you want to take a piece of movie film and scan it and turn it into a movie on your computer?
Yes, this can be done but it is going to be a LOT of work.
I'm not trying to be a naysayer. But, do you realize that there are 24 frames of film for every second of movie? If you are talking about video there are 30 frames per second of video.
Consider the amount of scanning you would have to do!
If one frame of film takes a minute to scan it would take 24 minutes to scan one frame of movie film. It would take 1440 minues (an entire day) to scan just one minute of film.
As an academic exercise, it is absolutely possible to scan film and make it into a movie but, to do it correctly with any kind of speed or quality you need to use a telecine.
Yes, this can be done but it is going to be a LOT of work.
I'm not trying to be a naysayer. But, do you realize that there are 24 frames of film for every second of movie? If you are talking about video there are 30 frames per second of video.
Consider the amount of scanning you would have to do!
If one frame of film takes a minute to scan it would take 24 minutes to scan one frame of movie film. It would take 1440 minues (an entire day) to scan just one minute of film.
As an academic exercise, it is absolutely possible to scan film and make it into a movie but, to do it correctly with any kind of speed or quality you need to use a telecine.
I like the way HD movies are with so much clarity and grain-less. Compared to that my mini-lab scans are too grainy. So i started this thread to learn about the techniques they use to get such clean images. Now i think i should have a macro digicam/dslr to get a clean image. Note: I dont have access to a coolscan or anyother hi quality scanner near my place at affordable rates.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |