[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 480P - Anyone know what this is? Off list.




-----Original Message-----
From: Veenotph at aol.com <Veenotph at aol.com>
To: mikael.reichel at culinaire.se <mikael.reichel at culinaire.se>
Date: den 20 juli 1998 21:16
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [TIG] 480P - Anyone know what this is? Off list.


>Arw you responding directly to me, or the list?
Thanks for noting, corrected.
>
>The Speed of a film refers to its sensitivity to light, not how many frames
a
>second.

Speed is commonly referred to (however incorrectly) as the sensitivity.


That is an oversimplification.....

Most of us are aware of the films response to grain as exposed and
processed.

>Grain is grain.

Undeniably so. But you might want to add film grain so we dont think its the
stuff Bourbon is made of...;-)

Grain, learn it, love it, use
>it.

IŽll buy the use of filmgrain as a possible but rarely used artistic tool.
Just to cause some trouble, does anyone use tubegrain or fixed pattern noise
for creative purposes?

>Besides I'd rather have a random pattern of grain than a fixed block of
pixels
>squaring of my nice chaotic shapes.


Agreed! But with MPEG coding that is not much of of choice. With too much
grain the result at the other end can be blockiness (lowered quantisation in
response to too much data for the allowed bitrate)

>24fps...Perhaps
>that is because I have gotten used to it.

THATS what I mean by conditioning.

When I see telvision images that
>originate on Video, they look wrong to me.

EXACTLY - Films 24fps translates bad to video (worse for NTSC and even worse
for MPEG coding if it came through that standard), for multiple reasons.

><<<<<<<But "too" crisp motion what is this?>>>>>>>>
>Ugly, stilted, unatural looking.
Maybe I am "marking words" here but I though the consensus from the other
respondents on this subject was that film was best for not portraying
reality. I still dont get it how something that was correctly portrayed (or
less incorrectly) can look less natural. There has to be some other variable
that you have not pin-pointed.

Why not just shoot it the way you want it
>to look in the first place?


Once upon a time thats how you had to do it. Now you leave the creative
decisions until later when you are able to verify the end result, or alter
it at will. The move would be to shoot as plain/clean as possible. This is
NOT saying that filming has become mechanical process. On the contrary my
personal observation is that filming has become better because some
obstacles have been removed allowing more focus on for instance lighting
techniques which play a fundamental role in creating the mood.

>I don't believe that motion captured on film displays any aliassing until
it
>is transferred to video. Looks fine on the projected print.


Ever seen still standing (or backwards running) carriage wheels on the
cowboy - indian chase?

>Film weave is generally something like less than one two thousands of the
>picture height. I guess that at 2k scanning that would mean one pixel line,
or
>is it two?

Firstly, filmweave varies a grreat deal. In fact several pixels in standard
definition. Archived (i.e older) features often exhibit more than this. Also
the weave is not always uniform over the entire frame. Secondly there is no
realtime solution to filmweave that works on both original and copies
without impairing the original quality. Filmweave is a concern in
compressioncoding because it is so difficult to distinguish from the real
motion content. Many have tried and many have failed.

>You don't watch much American Television these days.

True, I do my best to avoid it as I do with TV in general...But with my
250buck Creative DVD player (set for US region) in this computer it looks
and sounds pretty impressive! It could look a lot better if the DVDŽs where
recorded non interlaced (thats progressive) so that I could enjoy the film
more like in the cinema. With those optional directors audio tracks I get a
kick watching the film again. I think the audience is soon going to accept
nothing but higher quality and that quality, now that its possible is going
to become a sales argument even in broadcasting. We will see quality on
demand, QOD (just invented that).

 >I see tons of broadcast with digitising Artifacts, Red Chroma
smearing.....

Did not know it was this bad. But sometimes the content is more important
than just quality and sometimes both is required. I have seen some stunning
footage shot by amateurs on DVC that was broadcast. Stuff no one would see
unless this format was what it is. Decent quality but with stunning.
Remember that intrinsically, as opposed to analog, digital transportation
has no "quality". A coder will have "quality" (alghoritmic quality) but the
storage device and delivery has no quality. The same bits go out that went
in or else its broken. Quality begins and ends where it is created and
postproduced/prepared for delivery. This is a paradigm change that we are
facing. In time it will put a lot of demand on new content creation.

Mike Reichel



---
Thanks to Bob Festa and Rick Dean for support in 1998.
No product marketing allowed on the main TIG.  Contact rob at alegria.com
994 subscribers in 39 countries on Tue Jul 21 05:52:20 PDT 1998 
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/