RESOLVING POWER OF FILM

Many of our members still have film cameras. And some even use them! This is for film junkies

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is. Please also check the portal page for more information on this.

RESOLVING POWER OF FILM

Postby lejazzcat on Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:01 am

Im reading Peter Inovas book and im rather awed by his observation of 16/35mm motion film having ample resolution to fill a huge cinema screen, and still be visually sharp!

How true - but how/why is it possible?!!

Why is that when you try to blow up a 35 mm image larger than a 1mtr it gets so soft as to loose appeal and yet the movie is >10 mtrs and very tolerable? It cant just be because were so far back that it looks sharp ...
So many ideas. So little time.

"The camera is much more than a recording apparatus, it is a medium via which messages reach us from another world, a world that is not ours and that brings us to the heart of a great secret" Orson Welles
User avatar
lejazzcat
Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Sydney Australia D70

Postby Nnnnsic on Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:10 am

I don't know about you, but I've seen quite a few 35mm images that go over 1m with no problems and look fantastic.

A lot of it can come down to the speed of the film and how it's processed.
Producer & Editor @ GadgetGuy.com.au
Contributor for fine magazines such as PC Authority and Popular Science.
User avatar
Nnnnsic
I'm a jazz singer... so I know what I'm doing
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:29 am
Location: Cubicle No. 42... somewhere in Bondi, NSW

Postby Matt. K on Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:23 am

The reason is "persistence of vision". Motion picture film does not have to be sharp...and in fact individual frames are not sharp. The frames flick past at 24 frames per second, or whatever the rate is, and the human brain perceives them as being sharp. That's how motion pucture films work. Even the lenses don't have to be as sharp as lenses from a still 35mm camera...hence they can provide greater zoom ranges.
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9980
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Postby lejazzcat on Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:24 am

Nnnnsic wrote:I don't know about you, but I've seen quite a few 35mm images that go over 1m with no problems and look fantastic.

A lot of it can come down to the speed of the film and how it's processed.


sure have - but the general opinion is that 35mm is too low res to be acceptable for professional photography - unless its for 'lowly" press
photos. or magazine work - ads stock etc must be medium to large.

So then why is it totally accepted as the format for mega bucks motion pictures? (huge blowups)
Or it just a hangover from when the 35mm gear and film just couldnt cut it as it does today?
So many ideas. So little time.

"The camera is much more than a recording apparatus, it is a medium via which messages reach us from another world, a world that is not ours and that brings us to the heart of a great secret" Orson Welles
User avatar
lejazzcat
Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Sydney Australia D70

Postby lejazzcat on Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:28 am

Matt. K wrote:The reason is "persistence of vision". Motion picture film does not have to be sharp...and in fact individual frames are not sharp. The frames flick past at 24 frames per second, or whatever the rate is, and the human brain perceives them as being sharp. That's how motion pucture films work. Even the lenses don't have to be as sharp as lenses from a still 35mm camera...hence they can provide greater zoom ranges.


Sounds like the brains version of VR. :)
So many ideas. So little time.

"The camera is much more than a recording apparatus, it is a medium via which messages reach us from another world, a world that is not ours and that brings us to the heart of a great secret" Orson Welles
User avatar
lejazzcat
Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Sydney Australia D70

Postby Glen on Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:03 am

lejazzcat, not sure that you cant blow 35mm up. Have you been into Rugby League headquarters in Fox? They have a whole wall as a picture, a mate of mine shot that, pretty sure he shot it at 35mm, though could be one of his medium format cameras, and that is about 3m by 6m. Will check in the next couple of days what it was shot on, but pretty sure it was his 35mm Canon.
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby lejazzcat on Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:32 am

Glen wrote:lejazzcat, not sure that you cant blow 35mm up. Have you been into Rugby League headquarters in Fox? They have a whole wall as a picture, a mate of mine shot that, pretty sure he shot it at 35mm, though could be one of his medium format cameras, and that is about 3m by 6m. Will check in the next couple of days what it was shot on, but pretty sure it was his 35mm Canon.



I have to be more careful not to oversimplify my statements/questions.
Yep there will always be exceptions to every 'rule' .
Im speaking in fairly general terms .

I recently saw Bill Henson exhibit and apparently his large prints were also done on 35- but modern art photography has always been more forgiving of technical limitations like soft underexposures etc

Thanks for the tip about the image a fox - ill take a look - i work near darling harbour...
So many ideas. So little time.

"The camera is much more than a recording apparatus, it is a medium via which messages reach us from another world, a world that is not ours and that brings us to the heart of a great secret" Orson Welles
User avatar
lejazzcat
Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:37 am
Location: Sydney Australia D70

Postby gstark on Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:17 am

What Matt said is correct.

Also, we're viewing these images from a far greater distance than we might view a print from.

Big difference.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22896
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby huynhie on Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:37 am

Matt K is indeed correct.


If you have a "pause" button on your tv you will also notice that the image is not sharp yet when viewing the image in motion everything looks sharp.
User avatar
huynhie
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:11 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby dooda on Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:22 pm

Plus, I remember when people took stills from video cameras. They absolutly stunk with pixelation where a cheap little camera did 10 times the job.
love's first sighs are wisdom's last

Dave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/
User avatar
dooda
Party Animal
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada

Postby Glen on Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:57 pm

Lejazzcat, I was wrong about that image coming from a 35mm, saw my friend on Monday whilst doing a little business and he said it came from his Noblex which produces 6x12cm negs, just a bit bigger than 35mm :oops:
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby Dargan on Fri May 06, 2005 5:54 pm

Reading a book on the life of Damien Parer the WWII Australian war cameraman (PNG was his best work) and he used still shots quite successfully from movie camera shots. The grainy stills added to the realism of the war photos some said. Composition, subject matter and the moment are of more importance in many famous photos.
In the end we know Nothing, but in the meantime Learn like crazy.
Your Camera Does Matter Nikon D70 D200 D300
PPOK
User avatar
Dargan
Senior Member
 
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Sunshine Coast

Postby Matt. K on Fri May 06, 2005 6:19 pm

The resolving power of the human eye is fairly poor. The image that falls upon the retina is inverted, (upside down), and very blurry around the edges...only sharp in the very centre like a certain brand of camera lens. The image is also grossly barrel distorted. The reason we percieve our world as being sharp is because the eyes are always moving, scanning our field of view. The brain, or more correctly, the cerebal cortex, takes this information and processes it into a continuous sharp image. If you want to test this then sit at a table and fixate your gaze upon a vase of flowers. Don't allow your head to move and don't move your eyes. After a few minutes you will "see" the appalling fall off in your ability to hold focus at the edges of your vision. If we were cameras then we would be "Zeniths".
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9980
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Postby Onyx on Fri May 06, 2005 7:27 pm

I always thought it was the occipital lobe's job to process visual information.
User avatar
Onyx
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:51 pm
Location: westsyd.nsw.au

Postby Matt. K on Fri May 06, 2005 8:29 pm

Onyx
Yes. The cerebral, (I spelt it wrong the first time), cortex is more to do with perception. I was writing from memory and broadly speaking. I have never studied brain surgery but will do that tonight. :lol: :lol:
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9980
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Postby Onyx on Fri May 06, 2005 8:35 pm

Having to perform stereotaxic neurosurgery on mice in 3rd year uni and all I got was this lousy trivia knowledge....
User avatar
Onyx
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:51 pm
Location: westsyd.nsw.au


Return to Film and Non-Digital Imaging

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests