🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3ra4u7$2i2@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jdq@aol.com (JDQ) writes:
>Bruce Barrett wrote:
>
>>Another good point is that though Super 8 can not compare to 16mm or 35 
>>mm when projected in a theatre, when shown on a TV screen, the image is 
>>so small Super 8 does very well.  When translated into video terms it has
>
>>powerful resolution (800 lines compared to 400 for SVHS).
>
>I'm wondering what you mean that S-8 has "800 lines"?  Film of any format
>is not pixelated and is resolution not determined by the grain size of the
>imaging solids (silver compounds and whatnot) and evenness as they are
>distributed over the film's plastic surface?  Just wondering.

The resolution of film is listed as "resolving lines" which is to say the
number of lines per inch which can be resolved on the film surface without
them smearing together.  This is a standard test chart which is generally
used to determine this.

Now, if you take a video system and measure it in a similar fashion, you
will find that it takes two scan lines to resolve a line on the test
chart, so the 480 visible lines of NTSC will permit you to see the individual
lines on the test chart if there are 240 lines across the frame surface.

So, to get a jackleg comparison, take the number of lines per inch 
resolved by the film (which you will find on the datasheet), multiply
it by the number of inches across the frame (the 35mm frame is about
1 inch by 1.5 inches (24x36mm) while the 8mm frame is much smaller), and
multiply by two.   This gives you a good estimate of the number of 
"pixels" of resolution.

Of course, getting resolution as good as the number on the data sheet is
an exercise left to the student.  After a few generations of printing and
a less-than-optimal shooting condition, it isn't always as good as you
might like.  In this regard, film _is_ like video.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."