IAVMMCM running time

[anathema]

Originally posted by frogboy4
I didn't write the article. I'm just reporting the contents. What you have said is not entirely true. The theory is that 25 fps translates fluidly when converted to a regular film format (to be shown at festivals) than 30 does. Yes, there may be a dropped frame, but that is reportedly the appeal of PAL (or 25 fps) digital cameras with budding filmmakers. That was the gist of the article. Wish I could post it, but it has been 2 years since I read the thing.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at there. Video-to-film transfer is a whole 'nother story! It's a pretty effective way of 'filmising' video, and it's the format most pre-1970s TV has survived on, which leads so some interesting projects such as VidFIRE, which attempts to restore the fluid look of video to the recording.

 

[frogboy4]

Yeah, I've seen several product that attempt to give video a film-look and they have all done so at the expense of the image. As far as vid to film transfer, there's still something lacking in the translation. I saw Episode 2 both ways. Digitally and projected. While the pixeliziation was pretty disgusting in the digital projection, the film transfer was muddy and distracting. I still love the flicker of original film.

 

[anathema]

Originally posted by frogboy4
Yeah, I've seen several product that attempt to give video a film-look and they have all done so at the expense of the image. As far as vid to film transfer, there's still something lacking in the translation. I saw Episode 2 both ways. Digitally and projected. While the pixeliziation was pretty disgusting in the digital projection, the film transfer was muddy and distracting. I still love the flicker of original film.

Professionals take the view that if you want the film look, shoot on film! Progressive-scan video gives the frame rate without degrading the resolution, but film has somewhat different image characteristics anyway - video can tend to look rather 'flat' in comparison.

I don't know what the state-of-the-art is in video->film transfer. The first systems developed could only handle one field of each pair. There's a lot more information here:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PeterFinklestone/tvtech.htm


BTW, film may be shot at 24fps, but it's projected at 48 or even 72 in order to eliminate the flicker.

 

[frogboy4]

Film has a wider range and palette. Video is more of a high contrast medium. I know most of this. I majored in film for a few years before changing to multimedia and have shot and edited both film and video. I have also done some work in the field. There is still a hypnotic flicker with film even though it is not as evident. It actually hooks the viewer's attention more than video because of the flicker. That is partly why some purists object to digital projection. Subconsciously the audience isn't as interested. That's the theory and I tend to agree with it.

 

[anathema]

I've not seen a digital projection yet - I think the nearest cinema to me with the equipment is Manchester, and the new trilogy wasn't worth the trip. However, I would have thought that you'd still have some flicker there - it's still being scanned serially.

Personally, I prefer the more immediate 'live' look of interlaced video. I've worked with analogue video for about 12 years now, and digital for the last three. I'm currently working on digital restoration of old analogue videotapes, which is an interesting challenge!