[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 480P - Anyone know what this is?
- To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
- Subject: RE: 480P - Anyone know what this is?
- From: Mike Most <mmost at encorevideo.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:49:08 -0700
- Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:49:56 -0700
- Resent-From: telecine at alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"2qiqgC.A.NpF.c0jr1" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: SmartList account <slist at sun.alegria.com>
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
> >Why 48 FPS? Why not 16 or 18 FPS? Played back at the speed it was
> >won't it look nice? 24 FPS was only introduced for sound reasons ( SO
> >been lead to understand)
>>Dont you think IMAX looks better?
Only if you're looking for an image that more closely mimics
reality, which is not necessarily "better" if you're trying to present a
dramatic narrative. In previous discussions, many of us here have discussed
the "departure from reality" that film presents so elegantly. Frame rates
slower than human eye perception help to achieve this. Personally, I think
if you're trying to mimic reality for electronic presentation, you should be
shooting video, which has more "immediacy." If you're trying to tell a
story, film is often a better visual storyteller. At 24 FPS.
> >I must admit to never doing a comparison of images shot at 24 versus 48,
> >I'm not sure what you are after.
>>Its motion portrayal and aliasing issues here. Any one have idea
>>perceive grain structures at higher frame rates? My guess is it
Please refer to the previous paragraph.
Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.
Thanks to James Erickson & Dennis Mahaffay for support in 1998.
No product marketing allowed on the main TIG. Contact rob at alegria.com
998 subscribers in 39 countries on Thu Jul 16 10:49:11 PDT 1998
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/