TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Chicago panoramas and other shots (LOTS)
Pages (21): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel How does having a higher or lower FPS have anything to do with the quality of the shots? Those people are fucking idiots. More fps just means smoother motion. You know like 60hz and 120hz refresh rates? Exactly the same concept.

no, its a valid issue, they are not idiots, they are pros. movies are shot at 24fps (23.976 to be exact) and this gives them the "film" look. you might have to do some reading on it to understand what they're talking about. it's a pretty big difference.

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo no, its a valid issue, they are not idiots, they are pros. movies are shot at 24fps (23.976 to be exact) and this gives them the "film" look. you might have to do some reading on it to understand what they're talking about. it's a pretty big difference.

If I am not mistaken, this has NOTHING to do with FPS, and has EVERYTHING to do with the sensor.

If I am correct in my assumption they are talking about the FOV problems where EVERYTHING is in focus, you have no depth, etc? If that is the case, FPS is a lame excuse. It is NOT FPS, but sensor design.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel If I am not mistaken, this has NOTHING to do with FPS, and has EVERYTHING to do with the sensor. If I am correct in my assumption they are talking about the FOV problems where EVERYTHING is in focus, you have no depth, etc? If that is the case, FPS is a lame excuse. It is NOT FPS, but sensor design.

no, that's not what they're talking about.

have a look here:
http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/09...24p-please.html

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo no, that's not what they're talking about. have a look here: http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/09...24p-please.html

...23.975 vs 29.997 has good arguments if you are outputting for film use, but who is? 29.997 is fine (Yes I saw that they were complaining of the retiming and ghosting issues associated with resampling, etc) but that doesn't change the fact that 50fps and 100fps will have no effect on color gamut, fov, depth, clarity (except in high motion), etc. It is strictly adding more frames per second. Sensor design has a huge effect on how it deals with higher frame rates, and the quality, but strictly blaming fps is a crock of shit.

You should check out the RED ONE if you haven't read up on it.

lots of people want the "film" look, on their computer screens. which is possible with 24fps. I'm one of em. I know about the Red One - kinda an entirely different ballgame.

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo lots of people want the "film" look, on their computer screens. which is possible with 24fps. I'm one of em. I know about the Red One - kinda an entirely different ballgame.

I still don't get this "film" look that you are talking about. I am fully aware of the obvious color gamut, depth, fov, etc differences in movies at the theater (I do see it there), but that has to do with the quality of the film cameras compared to the digital counterparts (excluding the RED ONE of course) sensors when comparing the raw video. Is the "film" look referring to the motion blur, the color reproduction or what? There has to be some tangible way of explaining this. Or give me the exact same video; one at 24p, and one at 29.997p (or even 30p whatever works) and prove that it really is different aside from frame-rates.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel I still don't get this "film" look that you are talking about. I am fully aware of the obvious color gamut, depth, fov, etc differences in movies at the theater (I do see it there), but that has to do with the quality of the film cameras compared to the digital counterparts (excluding the RED ONE of course) sensors when comparing the raw video. Is the "film" look referring to the motion blur, the color reproduction or what? There has to be some tangible way of explaining this. Or give me the exact same video; one at 24p, and one at 29.997p (or even 30p whatever works) and prove that it really is different aside from frame-rates.

no this is purely having to do with frame rate - not anything else. It's tricky to explain the difference. Ever watch a soap opera? Do you know how the speed of the motion (framerate) looks different than say, a show like CSI or something? It looks like a home video, not a production. That's the difference. You can see it in the Laforet video too, it's basically "too" smooth and that gives it a "shot by a video camera" look which is not a "pro" look. Read around on it, there's probably some awesome comparisons out there showing side by side videos and such. I have to run out now otherwise I would do it myself.

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo no this is purely having to do with frame rate - not anything else. It's tricky to explain the difference. Ever watch a soap opera? Do you know how the speed of the motion (framerate) looks different than say, a show like CSI or something? It looks like a home video, not a production. That's the difference. You can see it in the Laforet video too, it's basically "too" smooth and that gives it a "shot by a video camera" look which is not a "pro" look. Read around on it, there's probably some awesome comparisons out there showing side by side videos and such. I have to run out now otherwise I would do it myself.

Ahh so you want that old look. The traditional 1950s style annoying flickering. I have always hated that. I can see it in theaters of all types that use film. I fucking get so annoyed with it.

edit//fucking traditionalists!!!!!!!!!!

el o' el..

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel ...23.975 vs 29.997 has good arguments if you are outputting for film use, but who is? 29.997 is fine (Yes I saw that they were complaining of the retiming and ghosting issues associated with resampling, etc) but that doesn't change the fact that 50fps and 100fps will have no effect on color gamut, fov, depth, clarity (except in high motion), etc. It is strictly adding more frames per second. Sensor design has a huge effect on how it deals with higher frame rates, and the quality, but strictly blaming fps is a crock of shit. You should check out the RED ONE if you haven't read up on it.

Sensor design has nothing to do with what delobbo is trying to explain.

23.98 is the film industry standard. period. Film shoots at 24fps. It has been deemed this provides the most natural motion to our eyes...created by what is called persistence of vision.

29.97(30fps) is what was adapted by the USA for shooting video because of our shitty NTSC standards. Where Europe got a much better looking 25fps for video.

24 vs 30 has do with motion and how the eye perceives it. Go watch a Soap Opera...it doesn't look natural. Something is off. Much like the short film shot with the beta 5DmII.

Now, go watch a popular TV show you like...I don't know...Heroes? It was shot on film at 24fps. 90210...it shoots on HD at 24fps. Knight Rider....HD at 24fps.

We shoot on a 24fps timeline because of the look it creates with motion. Anything shot from a 24fps timeline at a different framerate creates high or slow motion.

With the RED...much like any of the pro HD cameras you can select the base timeline you wish to shoot. And 99% of the people I know shoot on a 23.98 timeline and shoot 24fps. Why? because visually through motion it looks and acts the most like film.

quote:

Originally posted by Sarlacc Sensor design has nothing to do with what delobbo is trying to explain. 23.98 is the film industry standard. period. Film shoots at 24fps. It has been deemed this provides the most natural motion to our eyes...created by what is called persistence of vision. 29.97(30fps) is what was adapted by the USA for shooting video because of our shitty NTSC standards. Where Europe got a much better looking 25fps for video. 24 vs 30 has do with motion and how the eye perceives it. Go watch a Soap Opera...it doesn't look natural. Something is off. Much like the short film shot with the beta 5DmII. Now, go watch a popular TV show you like...I don't know...Heroes? It was shot on film at 24fps. 90210...it shoots on HD at 24fps. Knight Rider....HD at 24fps. We shoot on a 24fps timeline because of the look it creates with motion. Anything shot from a 24fps timeline at a different framerate creates high or slow motion. With the RED...much like any of the pro HD cameras you can select the base timeline you wish to shoot. And 99% of the people I know shoot on a 23.98 timeline and shoot 24fps. Why? because visually through motion it looks and acts the most like film.

NTSC = Shitty, I agree.

And I am aware of the rest of the standards.

I guess being that I still see flicker even at 29.997 and I can't stand it, I don't see any "benefit" of shooting at a lower fps. And how slower is better I have no clue. Especially with motion.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel NTSC = Shitty, I agree. And I am aware of the rest of the standards. I guess being that I still see flicker even at 29.997 and I can't stand it, I don't see any "benefit" of shooting at a lower fps. And how slower is better I have no clue. Especially with motion.

where are you seeing flicker? if you are watching television and you see flicker then you brain must process the signals your eyes are sending them in a very odd manner.

If you are watching these test videos from a D90 and you see flicker...that is an effect called rolling shutter and its an aberration that no one likes.

If you see flicker when you are watching a movie then your theater is probably not running up to standards (bulbs about to go bad, etc)

24fps is the standard. It was around long before NTSC or ATSC.

The notion is how persistence of vision works with 24fps vs 30fps.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel 18k for the RED ONE camera. That is the purchase price. To rent a Panavision camera it is usually 25k for 4 weeks. Needless to say, the RED ONE is stealing the show. The guy who founded RED is also the founder or Oakley.

First of all you have to decide if you are shooting film or HD.

2nd of all Panavision is known and desired for their lenses. They have amazing optics. They also build some great relationships with us, and they are set up to handle size of the jobs we do through them.

RED One...costs 17.5k for the body ONLY. By the time you get everything you need to shoot properly you are closer to 30-35k. That is only for the camera. Optics...you quickly hit 100k or more at an alarming rate if you purchase.

And then, if you rent...assuming you didnt buy. Then, you have to hope the rental house supports 19mm rod configurations...which none of the big rental houses do. They only support 15mm and they wont be changing that. So, that limits a lot of the RED acces. you can even use in terms of how you set up the body...plus you need to get a 3rd party accessory that allows the use of 15mm rods.

And what happens if your RED goes down in the field (because lets face these things are still new, and they have issues, and they do go down.) RED is over an hour outside of LA. Panavision is staffed send out technicians to the field when emergencies happen.

I'm not knocking the RED, I happen to like it, its a nice HD camera, another tool in the box. But its not as simple as saying heres RED, its blowing everything away, it only costs 18k etc etc etc....there is a lot more to the story. They have made their presence known, but they are not stealing the show. But because of RED is and who founded it and the fact that Jim is a marketing genius, they have gotten a lot more exposure to the public then most pro cameras ever get.

And stating 25k for 4wks for a camera from Panavision...what are you including in that number, because at that price you are listing way more than just a camera body.

And FOV stands for field of view...which means what a lens sees in relation to its size.

The FOV of a 40mm lens is such and such.

The way you keep using FOV....you actually mean DoF...Depth of Field. That becomes an entirely different discussion and whole new can of worms when it comes to the theory of shooting video.

quote:

Originally posted by Sarlacc And FOV stands for field of view...which means what a lens sees in relation to its size. The FOV of a 40mm lens is such and such. The way you keep using FOV....you actually mean DoF...Depth of Field. That becomes an entirely different discussion and whole new can of worms when it comes to the theory of shooting video.

I used both FOV and Depth (yeah I didn't add "of field" to that, but you knew what I meant.) I am quite aware of what both of these things mean.

Also, the RED and Panavision thing. The quote was a listed price for rental of everything you would need for 4 weeks of filming. This was from a price list in New Zealand. No one would divulge the price of the US rental cost. I understand that the optics are not included and really are the most expensive part. That is true for ALL photography and videography.

On the durability aspect, yeah I understand shit happens, but when you send a prototype out and never have any problems, that goes to show a lot. Peter Jackson used a 2 prototypes exactly like he does with the Panavisions (this is according to him in the wired article) and they held up perfectly. No down time. So while I hear your concerns, you have to take a risk sometimes.

And yes I do see flicker or the "rolling" in theaters at 24fps. It is fucking shit. I hate it so much. I can't really see it at the 30/29.997 with the really good TVs but I see it in the lower end stuff that a LOT of people have.

NKOTB concert on Sunday night.... biggest sea of 20,000 cougars i've ever seen.

So AJ, does that mean you finally got laid?






lol

ya, but she was 13 yrs younger than I

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie ya, but she was 13 yrs younger than I

Which means she was what? 20?

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Which means she was what? 20?

I'll take that as a compliment

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie I'll take that as a compliment

lol

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel I used both FOV and Depth (yeah I didn't add "of field" to that, but you knew what I meant.) I am quite aware of what both of these things mean. Also, the RED and Panavision thing. The quote was a listed price for rental of everything you would need for 4 weeks of filming. This was from a price list in New Zealand. No one would divulge the price of the US rental cost. I understand that the optics are not included and really are the most expensive part. That is true for ALL photography and videography. On the durability aspect, yeah I understand shit happens, but when you send a prototype out and never have any problems, that goes to show a lot. Peter Jackson used a 2 prototypes exactly like he does with the Panavisions (this is according to him in the wired article) and they held up perfectly. No down time. So while I hear your concerns, you have to take a risk sometimes. And yes I do see flicker or the "rolling" in theaters at 24fps. It is fucking shit. I hate it so much. I can't really see it at the 30/29.997 with the really good TVs but I see it in the lower end stuff that a LOT of people have.

The RED has issues. Its a great camera, but even now at build 16 it still takes 80 seconds minimum to boot up. Which is TOOOO long to sit around and wait every time you change a battery or have a malfunction. And this camera does go down...its basically a computer and the software WILL AND DOES glitch, freeze, and crash. I've experienced it, and sometimes you have to reboot multiple times in a row...thats a lot of hanging around waiting. Despite what Peter Jackson may have said in an interview I know what I myself and other colleagues of mine have experienced in the field.

If you see flicker in the theater you should find a higher caliber theater, or perhaps get your eyes checked. Can't help you with that. When you watch your "really good tv" you probably don't know when you are watching 30p or 60i/60p. I also doubt you know when you are watching 24fps created content via film or video. Because it doesnt matter what format your TV is displaying, if the content originated at 24fps, you are still seeing and getting the visual look created by it.

yeah - what would Peter Jackson know? :P

quote:

Originally posted by Sarlacc The RED has issues. Its a great camera, but even now at build 16 it still takes 80 seconds minimum to boot up. Which is TOOOO long to sit around and wait every time you change a battery or have a malfunction. And this camera does go down...its basically a computer and the software WILL AND DOES glitch, freeze, and crash. I've experienced it, and sometimes you have to reboot multiple times in a row...thats a lot of hanging around waiting. Despite what Peter Jackson may have said in an interview I know what I myself and other colleagues of mine have experienced in the field. If you see flicker in the theater you should find a higher caliber theater, or perhaps get your eyes checked. Can't help you with that. When you watch your "really good tv" you probably don't know when you are watching 30p or 60i/60p. I also doubt you know when you are watching 24fps created content via film or video. Because it doesnt matter what format your TV is displaying, if the content originated at 24fps, you are still seeing and getting the visual look created by it.

I am not saying that the camera is without its problems. The "no problems" I assume is just a purveyor of "no mechanical problems despite its software glitches" that results in no videography problems that degrade the quality.

Also, if I am correct in the info I am aware of, most video is converted (for lack of a better term. I don't know the technical term for that) to 29.997 fps upon mastering for DVD. The "low-end" tvs I usually see it on are the 60hz LCDs. I saw this flicker in CRT and LCD monitors. I see it on my own too. I hate it.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel I am not saying that the camera is without its problems. The "no problems" I assume is just a purveyor of "no mechanical problems despite its software glitches" that results in no videography problems that degrade the quality. Also, if I am correct in the info I am aware of, most video is converted (for lack of a better term. I don't know the technical term for that) to 29.997 fps upon mastering for DVD. The "low-end" tvs I usually see it on are the 60hz LCDs. I saw this flicker in CRT and LCD monitors. I see it on my own too. I hate it.

As I said, the video is outputted for viewing on whatever format it needs. But the original timeline it was shot on (24fps) still retains the look it originally gave the movie. Its different than literally changing the original timeline of the piece.

Harder to explain than to understand once you get it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.