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


In a message dated 97-01-20 21:16:54 EST, telecine at sun.alegria.com writes:

<< Perhaps it's just me, but I have never felt the difference between 30 fps
and 24fps to be earth-shattering---even on material that has a lot of fast
    I am always surprised to see people taking such strong stands on this
 issue.   Objectively, I see many points for argument.  Subjectively, I do
 not. >>

I had a viewing experience once that proved the dramatic difference 6fps can
make. It was a screening seminar at the Ziegfeld Theatre in New York City
presented by Doug Trumbull.

Before the Showscan format was invented, Trumbull was campaigning for a
worldwide change to a 30fps theatrical format. In the demonstration, side by
side cameras photographed a variety of scenes at 24fps and 30fps
simultaneously, and then the 35mm prints of those negatives were projected at
their native frame rates onto the screen at the Ziegfeld. The difference was
dramatic. Not only was the 30 fps image brighter, it was clearly superior for
action oriented camera work, exhibiting far less strobing and increased
overall clarity. The difference was immediately apparent.

I've edited 2 ABC series that were originated on 16mm 4x3 30fps, and both
productions decided on the route following tests at 24 and 30fps. In each
case the clarity of the image, decreased grain patterns, and less strobing in
moving camera made the choice easy. Many commercial productions forced into
16mm have gone the 30fps route with very good results.

Basil Pappas
CBS Television