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

Re: (Fwd) TIG Re: film look vs video look

On Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:28:59 -0700, you wrote:
> imagine now a
>>manufacturer building a video camera that would work 25/30 frames/s
>>full progressive...  any comments ?
>>        Jean-Clement
>>Duboi  at  Paris.
>I agree. Any taking system should have full spatial resolution for every
>temporal sample. Not unlike film. I would also add that electronic
>production cameras should be capable of frame rates at least as high as 72
>fps. It would then be a user option to limit the frame rate with a
>proportional savings in data volume.
>James Fancher

Polaroid was showing a "high-rez" progressive scan camera both at NAB '96
and the recent Showbiz Expo in L.A.  I saw it in L.A.

Although the images were *very very* good looking, it looked exactly like
high resolution video.  Nothing filmic about it at all.  Zero.

The output was at a 31.5KHz horizontal rate, so in addition to showing it
on a high def monitor they also had it feeding a larger computer SuperVGA
display, with everything running non-interlaced, of course.

The progressive scan nature of the image meant, for the most part, no
sawtoothing on diagonal lines,  especially when the image was moving, in
addition to very little motion blur overall.  Lack of motion blur is, in my
opinion, one of the major factors in making video look like video.  When
film is shot and transferred at 30 fps, it has a lot less motion blur and
tends to look a lot more like video.

There were a lot of ASC members (DP's) gathered around it at Showbiz, but
their main interest seemed to lie in its wide screen aspect ratio, which
was the 1:85 they have been endlessly whining about trying to replace 16:9
with.  They were making appreciative noises, but like most all DP's, I'm
certain that they consider ANY form of video production beneath them.  If
it weren't for the aspect ratio, they would have most likely ignored the
thing totally.

And as a humorous aside, it seems the camera was developed with the help of
several scientific theoreticians at a prestigious Boston university
(Haaavaaahd, I think).  

In typical rarefied-air "I have tenure and don't have to deal with reality"
fashion, it finally came out after I asked  several pointed questions that
there in fact exists no way to record the camera's original signal on any
existing device.  No one from the university considered this to be a
problem.  I guess they just fax Polaroid screen shots around.