PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: videoholic on January 05, 2004, 07:31:01 AM
-
I meant to ask your thoughts on this. When watching ROTK, on some of the wide landscape shots, as the shot panned it seemed jerky. This I notice in a lot of movies, but I really noticed it in this movie.
Is this a limitation of only running at 24fps? Is there any reason why film is still running at 24fps? Am I just a whacko?:stick:
:gman:
-
You should be able to answer this! You\'re in the film/broadcast industry! You sure you\'re qualified to keep yer position? I\'m gonna lay you off if you don\'t improve! :mad:
-
I\'m in video. 29.97 fps.. We own film and their measily 24fps.. Doubling every 3rd frams. Bah.. I spit on them..
-
I dunno... but I also noticed it. Why don\'t they film on digital? Episode 2 has nice colours, neat image, very sharp... is it so expensive?
-
Originally posted by Seed_Of_Evil
I dunno... but I also noticed it. Why don\'t they film on digital? Episode 2 has nice colours, neat image, very sharp... is it so expensive?
There are certain things you can do with film that is more difficult to do in digital. The show that had this juxtaposition interviewed a couple of directors who\'ve worked in both format.
-
This is not becoming a factor though very quickly.. They are shooting many TV shows now with HD cameras. THey are just shooting them at 24fps.. THey have cameras now that can burn tape at amazing speeds giving slow mo right in the can. Freaking amazing stuff.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
This is not becoming a factor though very quickly.. They are shooting many TV shows now with HD cameras. THey are just shooting them at 24fps.. THey have cameras now that can burn tape at amazing speeds giving slow mo right in the can. Freaking amazing stuff.
but they\'re analog or digital cameras? I mean, standard tv shows such as series are filmed in digital?
-
Lots of shows now are done in digital format. They are running the cameras at 24fps which give them that feel that film gives them.
When you are watching a TV show in HD it doesn\'t give you that window effect like watching a live football game (Dame football this weekend was awesome)... It looks more like watching a film.
-
you mean that flashing effect?
-
It\'s kind of a jumpy feel. Not a smooth pan. Seems to me that it\'s just not enough frames per second to make such a wide pan.
I notice this all the time. It\'s not just LOTR..
-
It\'s unfortunately more a factor of the projector than the soruce material. The projector tries to compensate by flashing each frame twice, meaning the screen sees 48fps. This is supposed to reduce the perceived film flicker, but it\'s not a perfect solution.
Digital projectors help in this situation by throwing a continuous beam of light at the screen, elimnating the flicker caused by moving physical film between the light and the lens. I saw my first flick in Cinema DLP (ROTK) last weekend and it was grrrrreat!! I kept telling my friends how nice it looked but they didn\'t really notice a difference. :nerd: Taking them back to my ghetto theater and they should see it.
http://www.dlp.com/dlp_cinema/dlp_cinema_digital_cinema_101.asp
-
Email Panavison and ask them.
-
Umm, isn\'t HD broadcast run faster than 24 frames per second?
I believe it runs at 60 frames per second progressively in 1280 x 720p resolution with 4:2:0 Y:U:V sampling (color sampling equivalent to 12 bits RGB bandwidth).
Actually there are two popular HD formats for now:
1080i and 720p. Both have a faster frame rate than 24fps.
1920 x 1080i is interlaced and runs at 60 fields or 30 frames per second.
Only movie runs in 24 fps usually film based like 35mm. Why? Well of course, to cut cost. To think movie studios spending multi million dollars on a movie, they would have speed up the camera speed to 30fps or higher. But, they still use 24 frames per second and spend the money elsewhere like to themselves or to the filthy rich casts.
-
Yeah, but it\'s 60 fields per second. Not frames. A frame is composed of 2 fields.
Progressive is different though since the whole screen is drawn each time.
http://www.cybercollege.com/filmtap.htm
Cool site to read.
-
^^^What did I say? I said 1080i is 60 fields and 720p is 60 frames per second. Geez.
-
Nevermind, I read it wrong. Yes, everything video broadcast is faster than 24fps.
But this still doesn\'t answer my initial question. Why are they still projecting at 24fps?
Are they not wanting to update systems?
Do they like the jerky look?
WHat\'s up?
-
WHat\'s up?
My penis.
:jack:
Just kidding.:D
Back to the question:
Why are they still projecting at 24fps?
My already answer:
Why? Well of course, to cut cost.
-
don\'t they play every frame twice in movies
-
That\'s what THX mentioned before.
-
Cecil Adams to the rescue:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_067.html
One thing you need to know about the old silent movies. Sure, they were shot at slower speeds than today\'s movies. But the main thing was that the camera was hand cranked. The only form of speed regulation was the cameraman going "one one thousand, two one thousand" as he rotated the handle. As a result, there wasn\'t any such thing as a standard silent speed. Old flicks ran at anywhere from 12 to 22 frames per second, with 16-20 fps being about average up through the early 1920s.
With the advent of sound in the late 1920s the industry switched to a standard speed of 24 frames per second. There were two reasons for this. First, it was the average speed of most silents then being made--there had been a steady increase in projection speeds during the 20s as theatre owners tried to cram in more showings per night and movie directors speeded up their cameras to compensate. Second, 24 fps was the minimum necessary to produce decent sound quality. The faster the film\'s sound track ran through the projector, the more sound information you got per second, and the better the fidelity
As far as WHY the 24 fps standard is still around... well I think that\'s simply because standards are hard to kill when they\'ve been implemented widely enough. Consider not only how many 24 fps projectors there are in the world, but also how many very expensive pieces of machinery there are for film printing, compositing, and editing... much of which is also based on 24 fps. It would be a massive investment to change optical motion picture photography to a different standard, so why bother. Just wait for digital to eclipse it.
-
I think that is the main reason why. I think in 5 years or so there is going to be a major push towards digital. We have a couple screens here in Tampa and it\'s pretty damn nice.
-
Seinfeld and Friends are/were both shot in 24fps film btw. If you train yourself you can spot what shows are being filmed and which are using HD cameras. Shows shot digitally look smoother.
-
also, i believe 35mm still have a much better picture quality than the top of the line HD video camera.
35mm have a 24 x 36 mm image sensor while HD video camera have like what 2/3" CCD while is like what? 13 x 7 mm?
Beside the Image sensor, a 35mm may have as many as 12 megapixels and above. Some thereotically suggested as high as 50 million pixels or more. Not to mention 35mm is easier to adjustable white balance and high color bandwidth and all are uncompress. But just one 24 expo (frames) of 35mm cost quite some money. and 1 hour long take up nearly 100,000 frames shot at 24fps.
HD video camera. Which to pick? the 100 Mbits per second like DVC100, or 140 Mbits from Sony HDCam (beta), or 250 Mbits from Panasonic HD - D5?
Well lets start with 100 Mbits, its have a 7:1 lossless compression with a resolution of 1280 x 1080i with 4:2:2 YUV sampling.
The Sony HDCam 140 Mbits have 4.4:1 lossless compression with a resolutin of 1920 x 1080i with 3:1:1 YUV sampling.
The Panasonic HD-D5 have a whopping of 250 Mbits with a 4:1 compression, resolution of 1920 x 1080i with 4:2:2 YUV sampling.
So, in spec, the panasonic gives the best picture quality, and some movie studio master their film on it with DVD quality of 720 x 480 resolution.
nevermind what the heck i am talking about. i am lost.
-
Coredweller explained it well - the cost is what\'s keeping the industry using 24P.
Besides, I don\'t think the problem is that bad. I rarely, if ever, see any jerky moment in movies these days.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
I rarely, if ever, see any jerky moment in movies these days.
What about your extensive porn collection ? ;)
-
Originally posted by Kurt Angle
What about your extensive porn collection ? ;)
Then I\'m the one doing the jerking, not the movie. :)