HD TRANSFER are they worth it.

Think about it... a frame size of 5.79mm x 4.01mm which you were blowing up to 720x480, which you are now blowing up to 1920x1080.
 
Yes i have always said that,but why do firms get away with their adverts,just look at the number of firms in various coutries advertising super 8 to HD digital transfer,if it cant be done it should be illegal to advertise it.
 
I haven't had to do the transfers, but I have dealt in post with super8 material in HD movies. Though the source may be roughly equivalent to SD, there can be some subtle advantages in transferring to HD. I would think that the grain and gradations of color between "pixels" would benefit more from a direct to HD transfer than from a transfer to SD that was later upscaled. Might not be night and day, but it should be visible if it's a decent transfer. A crappy transfer will look like crap no matter what resolution it is.
 
What I find makes the most difference is the technology through which the transfer is being made. Just look at the Zapruder film and how the image has gotten better through the years.
 
let me get this strait.... you have always said that super 8 is SD resolution(twice now)

but you also bought into a HD transfer expecting to get MORE than SD resolution out of it?

so which is it? what you have always said, or what you have bought into and expected? You're claiming two things here, that you've always had the knowledge that super 8 is SD, and that you were sold a service that did just you paid them for but wasn't what you expected. so how could you have had that greater expectation when you have this firm knowledge that super 8 is NOT HD?

like andrius said, there are more reasons than resolution to scan to a higher format, but you've just been talking resolution here.
 
Darren Levine said:
let me get this strait.... you have always said that super 8 is SD resolution(twice now)

but you also bought into a HD transfer expecting to get MORE than SD resolution out of it?

so which is it? what you have always said, or what you have bought into and expected? You're claiming two things here, that you've always had the knowledge that super 8 is SD, and that you were sold a service that did just you paid them for but wasn't what you expected. so how could you have had that greater expectation when you have this firm knowledge that super 8 is NOT HD?

like andrius said, there are more reasons than resolution to scan to a higher format, but you've just been talking resolution here.
Click to expand...


Yes i have always said it ,but i have not gone through life never having been wrong and with my transfer company and others quoting the figures they do there was always doubt that perhaps i could get more from my cini,regarding the grain and colour mine are the same.
 
Wow, okay, so I got the same advice from a Super 8mm filmmaker I really admire online--that I should just go with cheaper SD scanning--and I totally blew him off, thinking that HD was the way to go, but this makes total sense. At the end of the day, scanning SD film onto SD video and then blowing it up for HD is the same as blowing it up by scanning it into HD to begin with. Obviously, you have to add a bit of filtering to smooth out the lower pixel count, right? Or maybe editing programs do the upressing automatically? I'm suddenly realizing that shooting a Super 8 film won't be half as expensive as I thought. I've been using Pro8mm, but their HD scanning is pretty steep and I've only been able to afford a few rolls, not enough for the project I want to shoot.
 
It was not a huge cost thats why i went for it, on very close inspection the transfer is very slightly better than my origional SD one,whether that is because its an HD one or because the transfer firm are just slightly better i dont know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top