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

Re: TIG Re: film look vs video look

>C.Bacon wrote: a large part of the film look is due to randomness of film

	I am not sure, I would say 10% only, 90% is motion and blur. When I
work on a neg with almost no grain and I eliminate the rest of it with NR, it
still looks very much like film.

>J.Fencher wrote: Electronic production cameras should have the user option to
limit frame rate with a proportional savings in data volume.

	We could call this camera "Data Camera", a hi-res/SDTV camera that
would give you a data output.I wish people like Kodak could tell us what is
going on in their R&D dept. about that if they wish to do so.

>B. Kertesz: Polaroid camera has a video look.

	I saw the Polaroid camera at NAB, the problem is that Polaroid have
made it work 60 fps full progressive and this is why I think it looks like
video, if they had made it 25/30 fps it would look much better. I agree that 30
fps looks more like video than 25 fps, 60 fps is even worse.They have also to
improve the look of the image and take example from Sony who is doing better
and better. "S16mm quality video camera" as they say, it made me laugh one year
ago, not anymore.

	Regards to all, I will be on holidays for the next 3 weeks.


	Telecine manager/colorist