Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] I really need all your help with a technical issue

Subject: Re: [OM] I really need all your help with a technical issue
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:45:15 -0400
I'm with Moose.  You don't have anywhere near enough information to 
solve this problem... including the definition of the "problem".  You 
don't even know what the image source is... film or video and what size 
or resolution.

Back to the drawing board.

Chuck Norcutt


On 8/18/2011 3:00 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 8/18/2011 9:50 AM, David Irisarri wrote:
>> As you probably know I have come to NY to live
>
> Welcome to the zoo. :-)
>
>> and today I met a guy who is
>> creating movies. I showed him my portfolio and he really likes it and we
>> have been taking for a couple of hours to know each other. He loves retaking
>> pictures of his movies being projected in a huge wall and he also likes
>> cropping them. He told me if I can help him with this issue in a couple of
>> weeks and I have been carefully thinking about the right procedure for
>> maximizing quality. He normally enlarges pictures a lot to be displayed in
>> galleries and I was thinking about several possibilities.
>
> I'll just jump in here, instead of posting at the end.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the intended result of projecting the images, then 
> photographing them:
>
> 1. If the point is highest quality, why project them at all? If video, one 
> may simply extract the needed frames from the
> video.
>
> If film, scan the desired frames on a film scanner. I used to be a 
> projectionist, long, long ago. No one ever notices if
> you splice out a frame (A topless Claudia Cardinale, for example). If that's 
> not possible, use bellows, roll film copier
> attachment and macro lens (80/4 is ideal for 35mm film).
>
> In either case, the result will be truer to the original than anything 
> projected and photographed. A lot simpler, too.
> Projecting huge, then photographing, just re-reduces it to the size of the 
> sensor. Any such exercise, involving two
> lenses, light source, screen surface and the unavoidable loss of some edge 
> definition of the digital capture will reduce
> technical quality of the result.
>
> Although the idea if making a photograph of it huge, so the resulting gallery 
> print captures everything possible may be
> attractive in his mind, it will, in fact, make a poorer quality reproduction.
>
> 2. If the point is not  the most accurate enlargement, but the artistic 
> result of exactly the above factors, what's the
> point of trying to minimize them? He may not have thought this through. It's 
> the photographer's job to help the client
> determine what he actually is looking for.
>
> See what sort of effect(s) he likes. Look at what he has done before and talk 
> to him about how he might want future
> images to be similar or different. You might find that one or more of the 
> very things you are trying to avoid, odd WB,
> softened edges, blown highlights, etc. may be what he values.
>
> If you find that what he want is artistic interpretation of what's on the 
> video/film, I'd try some shots with whatever
> cameras are available, including something really cheap, aiming for those 
> effects, and see what does or doesn't please
> him, before spending a cent on additional equipment. Probably, the whole 
> thing could also be done in PS (or whatever
> editor one likes), working from video or film frames, without ever involving 
> photographic equipment. But that might not
> fulfill his vision of how to do it.
>
> 3. It's possible that he does not understand the limitations of video/film 
> capture, and wants to get more quality and
> detail out of the images than are actually there. I imagine some people don't 
> realize that the high quality stills,
> especially close-ups, that come out with commercial films are not taken from 
> the film, but taken by a photographer with
> still camera as part of film production.
>
> Motion picture frames are just that, shots at relatively slow frame 
> rates/shutter speeds of things in motion. Individual
> frames of subjects in motion usually have more or less blur in them, which is 
> not noticeable to those watching the
> movie, but immediately apparent in a still frame of a video or looking at 
> film with a loupe.
>
> I can't see any point in thinking about what equipment would get the best 
> possible shots of projected images without
> first determining what sort of result is actually desired.
>
> Stop Frame Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz