View Single Post
  #22  
Old 06-06-2018, 06:45 PM
old_tv_nut's Avatar
old_tv_nut old_tv_nut is offline
See yourself on Color TV!
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rancho Sahuarita
Posts: 7,184
Agree that 16mm can look really good. The average image, though, would introduce some degradation to analog TV pictures compared to live pickup, especially with the early vidicon film pickup gear, which had poor dynamic range compared to today.

With the usual (not best) film quality, analog TV and 16mm film contributed about equally to overall image quality loss. 35mm source (or carefully transferred high quality 16mm), with a modern flying spot or CCD telecine, could be essentially transparent to the analog TV system, until the image moved and 3:2 pull-down effects became visible.

Part of this was explained in a classic series of papers by Otto Schade at RCA, who noted that film has a frequncy response limit that is higher than video, but rolls off continuously over the whole range; while video has a more constant frequency response up to its bandwidth limit, and then cuts off more sharply. When you cascade these two systems, you get a response that rolls off gradually at first and then abruptly. The eye can see the difference between these three cases, and the cascade is generally judged to be worse than either individual system. Schade invented the concept of a numerical calculation of "just noticeable differences" (JNDs) to come up with a single number for each case to compare the individual and combined degradations.
__________________
www.bretl.com
Old TV literature, New York World's Fair, and other miscellany
Reply With Quote