CCD to Film
- Thread starter braw
- Start date
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: CCD to Film
depends on the frame size. 35mm is a film width (born from cutting a 70mm strip in two, and was also originally called the "edison size"), but it does not refer to a frame size.
You can have any ratio you like within that width depending on how many "perfs" you take up. 0.825" by 0.602" is the standard "academy" 4-perf apeture, but this is a 1.33:1 frame that is matted to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 in europe.
Super35 is 0.980" by 0.735".
depends on the frame size. 35mm is a film width (born from cutting a 70mm strip in two, and was also originally called the "edison size"), but it does not refer to a frame size.
You can have any ratio you like within that width depending on how many "perfs" you take up. 0.825" by 0.602" is the standard "academy" 4-perf apeture, but this is a 1.33:1 frame that is matted to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 in europe.
Super35 is 0.980" by 0.735".
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: CCD to Film
Well, think about it...the only limitation is in one dimension because of the width of the film. If the perfs were the same (they're not) and you ran motion picture film in a still camera, your vertical height would be limited by the height of the film. If you took that piece of film and ran it through a motion picture camera, it would be your horizontal width that was limited. The non-limited dimension can be essentially anything you want...be it a 35mm still frame, a 35mm 3-perf motion picture frame, a 35mm panoramic still frame, a 35mm 4-perf motion picture full frame.
Motion picture cameras generally shoot a 1.33:1 frame that is hard or soft cropped to the correct presentation apeture, be it 1.85:1 or 1.66:1.
If you're talking super35, then you lose one row of perforations, increasing your horizontal width.
But yes, the gist of the answer is that 35mm is the width of the film...or height depending on how you're looking at it, and motion picture cameras generally project something close to a 4:3 image onto the film.
The film itself has no aspect ratio, so the frame size depends on what frame is exposed upon it.
Well, think about it...the only limitation is in one dimension because of the width of the film. If the perfs were the same (they're not) and you ran motion picture film in a still camera, your vertical height would be limited by the height of the film. If you took that piece of film and ran it through a motion picture camera, it would be your horizontal width that was limited. The non-limited dimension can be essentially anything you want...be it a 35mm still frame, a 35mm 3-perf motion picture frame, a 35mm panoramic still frame, a 35mm 4-perf motion picture full frame.
Motion picture cameras generally shoot a 1.33:1 frame that is hard or soft cropped to the correct presentation apeture, be it 1.85:1 or 1.66:1.
If you're talking super35, then you lose one row of perforations, increasing your horizontal width.
But yes, the gist of the answer is that 35mm is the width of the film...or height depending on how you're looking at it, and motion picture cameras generally project something close to a 4:3 image onto the film.
The film itself has no aspect ratio, so the frame size depends on what frame is exposed upon it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: CCD to Film
Film is any aspect it wants to be -- you can run 35mm film sideways through a VistaVision movie camera and get a native 2.66:1, or you can use Super16 and get a native 1.6:1, etc... but the standard 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and Super35mm film gates are all 4x3.
The "mm" refers to the width of the physical film strip, not to the size of the image area. For example, 8mm and Super 8mm are both the same width (they're both actual physical 8mm strips of film) but Super 8mm gets you about 20% wider/20% taller image size than 8mm. I think the frame size is something like 6mmx4mm. The other 2mm in width are taken up by the sprocket holes and the sound stripe (or where the sound stripe would be, when shooting silent film).
35mm film yields a maximum image frame width of about 24mm, the other 12mm is taken up by sprocket holes. And Academy Aperture 35mm is even narrower, around 22mm, to make a few mm room for the optical soundtrack area.
Film is any aspect it wants to be -- you can run 35mm film sideways through a VistaVision movie camera and get a native 2.66:1, or you can use Super16 and get a native 1.6:1, etc... but the standard 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and Super35mm film gates are all 4x3.
The "mm" refers to the width of the physical film strip, not to the size of the image area. For example, 8mm and Super 8mm are both the same width (they're both actual physical 8mm strips of film) but Super 8mm gets you about 20% wider/20% taller image size than 8mm. I think the frame size is something like 6mmx4mm. The other 2mm in width are taken up by the sprocket holes and the sound stripe (or where the sound stripe would be, when shooting silent film).
35mm film yields a maximum image frame width of about 24mm, the other 12mm is taken up by sprocket holes. And Academy Aperture 35mm is even narrower, around 22mm, to make a few mm room for the optical soundtrack area.
braw
Well-known member
Re: CCD to Film
Awesome, thanks guys. That was a more indepth answer than I expected. I was just wondering how close in technology we were to emulating film much more accurately.
Would I be wrong in assumming that the closer in image area size we get in either CCD or CMOS (if that's the nest step), the closer we could get optically as far as resolution, latitude (bigger pixels and more of them), and DOF?
I know that firmware and DSP plays heavily in this as well.
Awesome, thanks guys. That was a more indepth answer than I expected. I was just wondering how close in technology we were to emulating film much more accurately.
Would I be wrong in assumming that the closer in image area size we get in either CCD or CMOS (if that's the nest step), the closer we could get optically as far as resolution, latitude (bigger pixels and more of them), and DOF?
I know that firmware and DSP plays heavily in this as well.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: CCD to Film
The closer in size the imagers are, the more equivalent the field of view becomes, which means the depth of field will be more comparable. As far as latitude and such, that depends on the manufacturers and the resolution they decide to offer. If they make a 35mm-size chip, but cram 12 million pixels on it, it won't have as good latitude as if they'd only put 4 million pixels on it, etc...
The closer in size the imagers are, the more equivalent the field of view becomes, which means the depth of field will be more comparable. As far as latitude and such, that depends on the manufacturers and the resolution they decide to offer. If they make a 35mm-size chip, but cram 12 million pixels on it, it won't have as good latitude as if they'd only put 4 million pixels on it, etc...
10s
Veteran
Re: CCD to Film
Here's what ARRI has been up to with digital formats, the D20. This will be costly but it's really what the next DVX should be modeled after. ARRI does it correctly most of the time.
Notice the 24 X 18 mm chip size. This is to give the same "Lagrange Invariant" DOF effect and allow useage of cinematic primes. I believe chips of this nature will become std. in time once mfg.s mature and realize there is a Market for film makers, not news gathers.
Video still has latitude challenges, it will be interesting to see how ARRI handles this.
Here's what ARRI has been up to with digital formats, the D20. This will be costly but it's really what the next DVX should be modeled after. ARRI does it correctly most of the time.
Notice the 24 X 18 mm chip size. This is to give the same "Lagrange Invariant" DOF effect and allow useage of cinematic primes. I believe chips of this nature will become std. in time once mfg.s mature and realize there is a Market for film makers, not news gathers.
Video still has latitude challenges, it will be interesting to see how ARRI handles this.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: CCD to Film
That's way to much engineering to transition from a DVX to. It would be far easier to just manufacturer a CCD film magazine then to design a whole camera. But that's not exactly panasonic's bag.
Also, don't forget that a 535 starts at close to a hundred grand before lenses and accessories. you're still not talking about anything close to a realistically cheap solution.
That's way to much engineering to transition from a DVX to. It would be far easier to just manufacturer a CCD film magazine then to design a whole camera. But that's not exactly panasonic's bag.
Also, don't forget that a 535 starts at close to a hundred grand before lenses and accessories. you're still not talking about anything close to a realistically cheap solution.
braw
Well-known member
Re: CCD to Film
That would be pretty cool actually. Make a camera that uses 35 lenses, full manual and full auto everything. Have a slot to put a magazine that has an image sensor and storage device like a hard drive or flash memory. The camera will stay useful for a long ass time, and only the storage and image sensor would have to be changed or updated. So you could have film stock like ability. Each cartridge has it's own look and feel, i.e. it's own DSP and image capture technology. Maybe you prefer the CCD look or a CMOS look.
Of course there's drawbacks, but in theory if it were somewhat standardized (which no electronics company would support) so that the camera hull could be made by any company, and anyone could make compatible "digital film stocks".
I can dream can't I? :
That would be pretty cool actually. Make a camera that uses 35 lenses, full manual and full auto everything. Have a slot to put a magazine that has an image sensor and storage device like a hard drive or flash memory. The camera will stay useful for a long ass time, and only the storage and image sensor would have to be changed or updated. So you could have film stock like ability. Each cartridge has it's own look and feel, i.e. it's own DSP and image capture technology. Maybe you prefer the CCD look or a CMOS look.
Of course there's drawbacks, but in theory if it were somewhat standardized (which no electronics company would support) so that the camera hull could be made by any company, and anyone could make compatible "digital film stocks".
I can dream can't I? :
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Re: CCD to Film
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Links;num=1106854882;start=0#6 date=01/27/05 at 16:07:58] As far as latitude and such, that depends on the manufacturers and the resolution they decide to offer. If they make a 35mm-size chip, but cram 12 million pixels on it, it won't have as good latitude as if they'd only put 4 million pixels on it, etc...[/quote]
I'm confused by this. More pixels is a bad thing? Do you trade resolution for latitude?
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Links;num=1106854882;start=0#6 date=01/27/05 at 16:07:58] As far as latitude and such, that depends on the manufacturers and the resolution they decide to offer. If they make a 35mm-size chip, but cram 12 million pixels on it, it won't have as good latitude as if they'd only put 4 million pixels on it, etc...[/quote]
I'm confused by this. More pixels is a bad thing? Do you trade resolution for latitude?
Re: CCD to Film
Well, there is plenty more to a camera than that sure! Hence the reason you have high quality Nikon cameras and crappy 2mp cameras. But it _is_ true that the larger the pixels the more light they individually captuer. Better low light sensitivity for sure (at least until processed).
Well, there is plenty more to a camera than that sure! Hence the reason you have high quality Nikon cameras and crappy 2mp cameras. But it _is_ true that the larger the pixels the more light they individually captuer. Better low light sensitivity for sure (at least until processed).
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: CCD to Film
[quote author=10s link=board=Links;num=1106854882;start=0#12 date=01/28/05 at 13:22:54]I don't think so. To believe that would suggest that expensive digital 8 mega pixel Nikons perform worse than cheap 2 mega pixel Generic chip cameras.
No cigar!
[/quote]
You're completely missing the point. It's not the resolution, it's the pixels per inch[sup]2[/sup]. A large image sensor 3 megapixel camera will perform better in low light then a small 5 megapixel image sensor. There are a limited number of photons and the larger the surface area of the individual "pixels", the more light they are able to gather.
This is why those high resolution point and shoot cameras don't produce images as good as an old D30. Even though a D30 is somewhere around 3 megapixels, it's CCD is much larger then a pocket camera.
[quote author=10s link=board=Links;num=1106854882;start=0#12 date=01/28/05 at 13:22:54]I don't think so. To believe that would suggest that expensive digital 8 mega pixel Nikons perform worse than cheap 2 mega pixel Generic chip cameras.
No cigar!
[/quote]
You're completely missing the point. It's not the resolution, it's the pixels per inch[sup]2[/sup]. A large image sensor 3 megapixel camera will perform better in low light then a small 5 megapixel image sensor. There are a limited number of photons and the larger the surface area of the individual "pixels", the more light they are able to gather.
This is why those high resolution point and shoot cameras don't produce images as good as an old D30. Even though a D30 is somewhere around 3 megapixels, it's CCD is much larger then a pocket camera.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: CCD to Film
[quote author=braw link=board=Links;num=1106854882;start=0#9 date=01/28/05 at 10:47:15]That would be pretty cool actually. Make a camera that uses 35 lenses, full manual and full auto everything. Have a slot to put a magazine that has an image sensor and storage device like a hard drive or flash memory. The camera will stay useful for a long ass time, and only the storage and image sensor would have to be changed or updated. So you could have film stock like ability. Each cartridge has it's own look and feel, i.e. it's own DSP and image capture technology. Maybe you prefer the CCD look or a CMOS look.
Of course there's drawbacks, but in theory if it were somewhat standardized (which no electronics company would support) so that the camera hull could be made by any company, and anyone could make compatible "digital film stocks".
I can dream can't I? :[/quote]
Also, there's no reason to redesign a camera around this. There's over a hundred years of engineering that's gotten film cameras to the point they're at now. Not to mention the investment by rental companies all across the world.
All you need is the actual magazine to be redesigned. You could have a movicam CCD mag, an Arriflex SRIII CCD mag, a Panaflex CCD mag, etc.
There's already a guy out there who's designed a digital mag for an SRIII. The name eludes me, but you could find a page out on the interweb that shows his creation.
[quote author=braw link=board=Links;num=1106854882;start=0#9 date=01/28/05 at 10:47:15]That would be pretty cool actually. Make a camera that uses 35 lenses, full manual and full auto everything. Have a slot to put a magazine that has an image sensor and storage device like a hard drive or flash memory. The camera will stay useful for a long ass time, and only the storage and image sensor would have to be changed or updated. So you could have film stock like ability. Each cartridge has it's own look and feel, i.e. it's own DSP and image capture technology. Maybe you prefer the CCD look or a CMOS look.
Of course there's drawbacks, but in theory if it were somewhat standardized (which no electronics company would support) so that the camera hull could be made by any company, and anyone could make compatible "digital film stocks".
I can dream can't I? :
[/quote]Also, there's no reason to redesign a camera around this. There's over a hundred years of engineering that's gotten film cameras to the point they're at now. Not to mention the investment by rental companies all across the world.
All you need is the actual magazine to be redesigned. You could have a movicam CCD mag, an Arriflex SRIII CCD mag, a Panaflex CCD mag, etc.
There's already a guy out there who's designed a digital mag for an SRIII. The name eludes me, but you could find a page out on the interweb that shows his creation.
braw
Well-known member
Re: CCD to Film
I was just thinking that the camera could have pins or connectors for transferring lens info and power to the mag, very much like the XL series lenses. However it would work out if at all, that would be a great way to go.
Something specifically designed for a system like that to maximize control and automation if needed.
I was just thinking that the camera could have pins or connectors for transferring lens info and power to the mag, very much like the XL series lenses. However it would work out if at all, that would be a great way to go.
Something specifically designed for a system like that to maximize control and automation if needed.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: CCD to Film
Yes cigar. If all other things are equal, more pixels = less light gathering capability and less latitude. Now, the thing is, not all things are always equal, and a better-engineered CCD may somehow overcome these limitations. But if you took a certain-technology CCD and designed it to have 2m pixels, and the exact same silicon was cut into 8m pixels, yes the 2m pixel version is going to have better light-gathering and wider latitude.
Yes cigar. If all other things are equal, more pixels = less light gathering capability and less latitude. Now, the thing is, not all things are always equal, and a better-engineered CCD may somehow overcome these limitations. But if you took a certain-technology CCD and designed it to have 2m pixels, and the exact same silicon was cut into 8m pixels, yes the 2m pixel version is going to have better light-gathering and wider latitude.
fomoDVXpal
Active member
Re: CCD to Film
SO....the best of both worlds would be to have more pixels but make them LARGE.
thus you get resolution and light.
?how'm i doin?
SO....the best of both worlds would be to have more pixels but make them LARGE.
thus you get resolution and light.
?how'm i doin?