Should I give up?

[Danitalil]

Lets just start with, my mother volunteered me for this. Had I seen the quality of the image, I wouldn't have agreed to it!

A woman is writing a book and has requested that I find a picture of "Randy" from some old home footage. The footage has been converted from super 8 to vhs to dvd and finally to mov. From there, I have pulled what I think is the best shot of his face. There is very little data.

Here you can see how far I've gone (not anything I'm proud of), and the original:

https://plus.google.com/photos/10339...15912896013265

Any advice? She wants this for print. The other option is to get some relative of theirs who looks like him to model for a real photograph. Should I give up now and tell them that's their best bet?

[Tony W]

I would surrender now .

Super 8 original image size is 8mm wide (0.31"), it has then been copied and at each stage must have lost something.

To even expect a print 2" wide would IMO be pushing it.

IMO best to come clean and say that this is only doable in the movies

[Chain]

If you are lucky, perhaps it's possible that the original (or a more original copy) has been preserved somewhere? If so a better scan can be made from that...

Your current copy is rather damaged...

[RobertAsh]

Moving from Super 8 to VHS is a destructive act. Even the very best tape-to-tape recording equipment using the finest available tape suffered quality degradation. Super 8 was low-quality consumer tape to begin with (or at least its consumer recording equipment wasn't that great), so the transfer equipment that copied it to another consumer tape format is likely not high end.

Not to mention camera shake during the original recording if it's a normal hand-held family picnic type recording.

The original or closer to it would be the best possible source, but even that source would like be not very high quality.

So a model or some great digital painting skills (plus a decent photo of the subject) would probably be your best bet.

[Tony W]

May be some confusion here (and it might be mine!), but I assumed the OP was referring to Super 8 which is an analogue film stock, hence my mention of size of film frame size being 8mm wide. This being optical it would need projecting to record on VHS tape via a telecine machine?

Then I assume that the VHS tape transferred to PC via direct input and capture. Both conversions damaging and I suspect the first one causing the greatest loss.

If the OP is referring to a video tape system that I believe would be either Video8 or Hi8

[John Wheeler]

I agree with what has already been posted about scanning the original Super 8 if you have access. Once you find the frames of interest you have them scanned on a flatbed scanner that allows scanning transparencies. At 4000 dpi scan, a super 8 frame would give you 600 pixels by 900 pixels as a starting point. No matter how bad the original, it would be a much better starting point with which you are presently using. Note that by using a flatbed scanner you could scan multiple frames in one scan as well. I would not preclude that possibility that utilizing multiple frames with some special techniques in Photoshop might provide even better results.

[RobertAsh]

Originally Posted by Tony W

May be some confusion here (and it might be mine!), but I assumed the OP was referring to Super 8 which is an analogue film stock, hence my mention of size of film frame size being 8mm wide. This being optical it would need projecting to record on VHS tape via a telecine machine?

Then I assume that the VHS tape transferred to PC via direct input and capture. Both conversions damaging and I suspect the first one causing the greatest loss.

If the OP is referring to a video tape system that I believe would be either Video8 or Hi8

Hi,

Sorry, wasn't clear in my statements I meant that the very best tape to tape recording as being the ideal transfer quality between similar analog media. Even with audiophile quality equipment and materials there is a fair amount of quality loss. Moving between dissimilar analog media can only be worse.

To be truthful I did forget that Super 8 was film (that format goes a loooong way back ). Otherwise I'd have used film to film transfer as my ideal scenario, which also has quality degradation. But the core point is, if the best possible analog media transfer mechanism is fairly lossy then something much less than the best will be considerably worse. Underscoring the statements recommending using the original media if possible.

[sergio2263]

Originally Posted by Danitalil

Lets just start with, my mother volunteered me for this. Had I seen the quality of the image, I wouldn't have agreed to it!

A woman is writing a book and has requested that I find a picture of "Randy" from some old home footage. The footage has been converted from super 8 to vhs to dvd and finally to mov. From there, I have pulled what I think is the best shot of his face. There is very little data.

Here you can see how far I've gone (not anything I'm proud of), and the original:

https://plus.google.com/photos/10339...15912896013265

Any advice? She wants this for print. The other option is to get some relative of theirs who looks like him to model for a real photograph. Should I give up now and tell them that's their best bet?

There are times when miracle just won't happen and you have to accept your limitations. you win some, you loose some, IMO I would count my loses and give that job a thumb down.

helen

[aartist]

I think this rendering show a lot of Randy's personality.
If its the only photo and the book requires it, then yes, do your best
and use it. You have his eyes opened and he shows lots of energy.