DVL-Digest 519 - Postings: Index "Timecode" - WAS shot on DV "Timecode", apparently shot on thoughts on film grain What's the difference betwen D "Timecode" - WAS shot on DV - Adam Wilt > Do you know if Figgis used PAL or NTSC D130's? NTSC. I saw it in SF played off of HD D5 through a Digital Projections DLP system, with Mike Figgis live-mixing sound. Bloody gorgeous. And, oh, yeah: those folks saying "drama can't work at 60fps"? Bollocks! Cheers, Adam Wilt "Timecode", apparently shot on - Adam Wilt > I should point out, that -- as in many other situations -- the filmmakers > made stupid mistakes which showed up in the final quality.... No advice, > little understanding of the technology. Frighteningly common! > I keep hearing tales of folk who never bother to contact the lab for > suggestions, just send 'em the tape. Aw, man. If there's one rule in tape-to-film, it's this: PICK YOUR LAB FIRST. THE LAB IS GOD. DO WHAT THEY SAY! > Swiss Effects, for instance, insists on interlaced footage because their > process is set up to deal with that. Frame mode will look jerky, as you > described. I thought Swiss Effects was pro-frame-mode for PAL footage, which transfers 1:1 to film? I know DVFilm (http://www.dvfilm.com) prefers it. Frame mode on NTSC is, as mentioned, a complete and unmitigated disaster when making film prints. The motion judder converting 30 fps to 24fps is a real horror show. Cheers, Adam Wilt thoughts on film grain - Adam Wilt > ...the grains are very small compared to the whole picture, so > my question is now, does it really show on the tv? Yes, usually, unless it's very fine-grained 35mm. > one grain has got to be smaller than a pixel. You don't see "one grain", but the aggregate "swimming" noise caused by the grain. It's a texture, almost subliminal at times. But even than, you can often see individual grains, especially with Super8 or high-speed 16mm films, and especially when transferred with a collimated "hard light" source. > playing in my mind with the fact that we add grain to our material to > enhance realism (?) We add it to make smooth video look more like grainy film. It's not more real, it's just more film-like. > do we degrade the quality of the picture to make it look more real? Yes, because we're culturally conditioned to accept film as reality. But bear in mind that the dynamic texture of grain is another artistic choice, just like lighting, shallow focus, camera angles, and choice of color rendition. Much of what good cinematographers do is to "degrade" or distort objective reality (if we can even speak of such a thing) in one way or another to enhance the dramatic, emotional, or didactic content of an image. Every artifact of a medium can be put to use as a tool on one's pallette, and turned to one's advantage. > if someone invented a "perfect" film, totally without grain, what would be > "good" then? grain or not grain? Oh, it'll be great -- but only a couple of human generations from now, after all the people who imprinted on film as the mamma duck of motion imaging have passed on, and the new generation can make its own aesthetic judgements reasonably untainted by historical imperatives. Only then (and it might take a while) will people be free to judge grain vs. no-grain for their inherent artistic merits. > the same thoughts can be used on fps. why do we want the picture to be > jerky? isnt it better with nice smooth realistic movement? Same thing: film is 24fps, we all grew up with film being "art" and video being "news, sports, and commercials", so we are (I'm convinced) conditioned to associate 24fps with drama and high production values. Others will disagree, saying that "the 24fps film look" is a necessary prerequisite to the proper suspension of disbelief, to the cultivation of the appropriate brain waves (really!), and so on. However, all our test subjects (i.e., us) have been acculturated to film as art and video as trash, so we have no untainted controls with which to conduct an argument-settling experiment. Check back in a hundred years, and maybe by then we'll have an answer! Cheers, Adam "well, *my* 15 minutes are done!" Wilt What's the difference betwen D - Adam Wilt > Could someone explain to me the technicals differences betwen DV & DVCAM? http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html#DV formats http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-tech.html#Details Cheers, Adam Wilt (diese posts stammen von der DV-L Mailingliste - THX to Adam Wilt and Perry Mitchell :-) [up] |
 slashCAM  News HD Camcorder database One-on-One Cam comparison About our tests About us |
|
|
