Uncompressed S8 transfers really work

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

User avatar
npcoombs
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:03 am
Location: computer
Contact:

Uncompressed S8 transfers really work

Post by npcoombs »

I just received a film by Gavin Lim which was transfered with an uncompressed 8 bit PAL transfer by Spectra - all I can say is wow!

It seems twice as sharp as anything else I have received so far. The stocks he shot were Velvia 50D and v2-200T, they both appear razor sharp and the film looks like a slightly jittery 16mm film.

This was sun-saturated Singapore, but still the uncompressed transfers seem worth it.
User avatar
avortex
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:46 am
Location: Valentian Country (Europe)
Contact:

Post by avortex »

Mmmhh... any stills? Sound interesting.
Marc
User avatar
npcoombs
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:03 am
Location: computer
Contact:

Post by npcoombs »

Image

Image

Image
narri
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:40 pm

Post by narri »

Holy cow. I'm no expert, but that looks very good. How much does that service cost? I tried looking it up without really getting any smarter.
christoph
Senior member
Posts: 2486
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: atm Berlin, Germany

Re: Uncompressed S8 transfers really work

Post by christoph »

the irony is that they show severe compression artifacts (check the RGB channels or look at the redlight for example) which means it has likely been dubbed to DV or you compressed the hell out of your jpeg stills (unlikely)

you can have very sharp transfers to DV, and you can have soft transfers to 10bit uncompressed, the machine that is used is much more important than the codec used.
++ christoph ++
Evan Kubota
Senior member
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:04 am
Location: FL
Contact:

Post by Evan Kubota »

I have to agree with christoph - you just wouldn't see the blocking on the red lights if it were actually 10 bit. Did he give you the footage on a miniDV tape or ship a drive to you?

Anyway, it looks good. Better than my recent 10-bit transfer from Cinelab (I think they turned the grain reduction up too much, as there is no visible grain but it's somewhat soft).
BigBeaner
Posts: 930
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 5:50 am
Location: Boston-MA/Los Angeles-CA
Contact:

Post by BigBeaner »

Are those blocks visible with the video in motion?
User avatar
avortex
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:46 am
Location: Valentian Country (Europe)
Contact:

Post by avortex »

Wow! Resolution is excellent... Compression artifacts and RGB noise is present but they show an excellent sharpness.
Marc
christoph
Senior member
Posts: 2486
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: atm Berlin, Germany

Post by christoph »

Evan Kubota wrote:I have to agree with christoph - you just wouldn't see the blocking on the red lights if it were actually 10 bit.
actually the originaly post states it's 8bit.... but the blocking isnt a result of bith depth (and we canNOT see a difference between 8bit or 10bit unless one performs some major color correction anyway) but rather of compression. two different things altogether.
++ c
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

Evan Kubota wrote:I have to agree with christoph - you just wouldn't see the blocking on the red lights if it were actually 10 bit.
he said it was 8-bit. but it's certainly not 4:2:2 either but 4:2:0. or even 4:1:1 resampled to 4:2:0 from what i can tell. great sharpness and colors though.

/matt
User avatar
steve hyde
Senior member
Posts: 2259
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:57 am
Real name: Steve Hyde
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by steve hyde »

...the images show compression artifacts because .jpg is a compressed image - in this case 716 X 574 px.. A raw 8bit image would be much larger.

Steve
christoph
Senior member
Posts: 2486
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: atm Berlin, Germany

Post by christoph »

steve hyde wrote:...the images show compression artifacts because .jpg is a compressed image - in this case 716 X 574 px.. A raw 8bit image would be much larger.
yeah, but you have to compress the hell out of an image like this to get an jpeg file with such obvious blocking artifacts - and those are usually less regular. (and the file size suggest only about 1:7 compression).
but a png or tiff file would certainly clear this up.

++ christoph ++
User avatar
npcoombs
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:03 am
Location: computer
Contact:

Post by npcoombs »

I've sent Gavin an email to ask him to confirm his workflow.

I received a disc labeled 8-bit uncompressed film and presumed he had carried across that standard from his transfer, although thinking about it it is perfectly possible that he upscaled from DV, although I can't see what the advantage of this would have been?

Whatever the case his shooting and Spectra's transfer have produced some remarkably crisp images, which are far better than what I have seen CineLab deliver.

My experience with Cinelab is that all their transfers tend to be a little soft.
ccortez
Senior member
Posts: 2220
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 3:07 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by ccortez »

Evan Kubota wrote:I have to agree with christoph - you just wouldn't see the blocking on the red lights if it were actually 10 bit. Did he give you the footage on a miniDV tape or ship a drive to you?

Anyway, it looks good. Better than my recent 10-bit transfer from Cinelab (I think they turned the grain reduction up too much, as there is no visible grain but it's somewhat soft).
You saw this from Cinelab in 16mm transfers, or S8? I should get something back from them this week, and I really hope it doesn't look like that b/c I don't mind grain but I HATE soft.
Evan Kubota
Senior member
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:04 am
Location: FL
Contact:

Post by Evan Kubota »

Super 8. The 16mm has always had pretty sharp, visible grain.
Post Reply