CompuServe Thread

#film .. again

12 messages in this thread
#48308From: Steven LeeJul 1, 1993 1:17 AM
Thanks for the information about the film resolution, aspect ratio, settings, etc the last time I asked. I've just got the results back for my first ever film output of a 3DS image. It looks absolutely wonderful! Pretty exciting actually. Here's my question, before you suggested 2048×1535 as the resolution. The picture I have looks fine but I need for it to go to a very large size (poster size). I can tell right away that if I were to explode the existing picture even more, it would lose quite a bit of quality and have that very dull/diffuse appearance rather than a nice sharp/tight appearance. What is the optimal MAXIMUM resolution for 35mm film output? Something like 4096×4096? Also, what are the aspect ratio and other related settings? Thanks for the tips! — Steve
#48326From: Yost GroupJul 1, 1993 9:45 AM
The problem is not the resolution of the digital image… it's the resolution of the 35mm film. If you're going to create poster-size output, you DO NOT want to output to 35mm… you want to go to 4×5! A 2048 image to 4×5 film will blow up to at least 3-5 feet without loosing much… we've done it here and it works GREAT. Don't even attempt to go to poster output with 35mm, however. You'll be mightily disappointed. – G
#48403From: Gus GrubbaJul 1, 1993 7:34 PM
Steven, Unless you want the "grainy" effect. Using a high speed film, you may end up with some very interesting effects. The resolution of a film depends on the film speed. You could actually use a 35mm Kodachrome 25 and blow it up to 11×17 using Cibachrome or something similar without degradation. If 3×5 feet is sufficient, a 6×6 (6 by 6 centimeters, like in the Haselblad) positive would do it. The increase in film area is not directly proportinal to the projection area when it comes to resolution perception. Using 4×5 negatives or positives, you could blow it up to 100 feet without noticeable degradation. Obviosuly, the larger the negative, the better the image reproduction. But if the resulting poster is to be seem from a distance, a lot of detail can be lost before you could notice. Experiment!
#48548From: Tim c BrananJul 3, 1993 12:00 AM
Could you clarify 4×5 a little for those of us with no experience with it? I have been thinking of making a poster or two when I make something that is worth the expense.
#48574From: Yost GroupJul 3, 1993 10:55 AM
4×5 means 4"x5" FILM. – G
#48602From: Tim c BrananJul 3, 1993 4:54 PM
that was an awfully simple explanation, I was expecting some sort of exotic specialized type of film. this is what I get for trying to make things more compllicated than they are (g).
#48607From: Yost GroupJul 3, 1993 6:14 PM
Ask a simple question, get a simple answer! – G
#48359From: Brian Rudolph [Adesk]Jul 1, 1993 12:55 PM
Remembering back to my film school days… There is no "resolution" to a frame of film. Each frame of film has, in theory, an infinite resolution. This is not the case in reality, however, due to the grain of the silver particles within the film stock. Calculating this can be difficult, though, as each film stock has a different gain pattern and granule size. The upshoot to all this… if you are recording to 35mm film, you will probable stop seeing the benifit of higher resolutions somewhere between 8Kx8K and 12kx12k. If you are rendering to 4×5 film stock, You will probably never be able to hit a resolution where your pixels are as small as or smaller than the grain of the film. -Brian
#48456From: Craig Sharp [Mem TM]Jul 2, 1993 10:18 AM
Brian: I would think that the 'resolution' is based on the film recorder, which would be either 4000 lines or 10000 lines. Obviously, if you are using a 4000 line recorder, then resolution of the original file couldn't exceed 4000×4000 except that some software will do a good job of anti-aliasing a file 'up to' the film recorder resolution. Image Center, in Roanoke, has software that does a great job of refining the image… amazing, actually. The software is proprietary… and they don't care what the resolution of the file is. Of course, bit maps vs. solid colors or lines would be a different story. C#
#48698From: Pat Vernon [ATC TM]Jul 5, 1993 7:08 PM
Craig, Is this the same Image Center service center that opened in Chicago last year, I think it is a parnership with Canon and some other electronics companies. They do really nice work, but usually high $ for it. Do they take mail order work? Thanks, PAT
#48780From: Craig Sharp [Mem TM]Jul 6, 1993 5:52 PM
Pat: No… not that I know of. Their prices aren't out of line with experiences that I have had with others. You can modem in or overnight or mail your stuff to them, no problem. They are primarily Mac based but they have 'banks' of drives that lets them read a ton of different media and file formats. C#
#48575From: Yost GroupJul 3, 1993 10:56 AM
Craig's basically right. The resolution of a film recorder pretty much stops at 4K. Plus, throwing anything more than 2K at 35mm film is useless. The grain just doesn't hold the pixels. – G