I've found clients end up re-editing and choosing shots based on what looks good, not on what editorially makes sense. Forcier explains that 35mm has almost three times the resolution of Super 16 - the former has roughly 4,500 lines of resolution, while the latter has around 1,500. You start with a smaller negative in Super 16 and when you convert to HD you transfer to a higher resolution, so anything wrong with the film and any grain structure weaknesses become more apparent . . . Schneider says that in the edit suite, the video noise created from the Super 16 to HD conversion may not be very noticeable - it's in the transmission to the viewers that the loss of image quality becomes evident, and the dispersal of film grains into different positions from frame to frame becomes a problem. It's one one-hundredth of that, or 14 to 19 megabits per second.
Interpolation is predicated on predictable images - and noise is the enemy of compression.
The compression processor diverts power away from reproducing the resolution in an effort to reproduce the noise. As a result, in the post-compression transmission to viewers, the lower resolution becomes apparent, says Schneider. Looking at the video in the edit room you won't see this. It's when the video is compressed for transmission that it's noticed. However, advocates of Super 16 say that putting noise reduction equipment between the output of the film telecine and input to the HD recorder reduces the burden on the compression equipment.