|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Ebert Praises Maxivision 48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-16-2003 03:20 PM
quote:
48 frames per second is too fast for a drama. It would work only for a documentary.
i see no reason that a filmmaker couldn't tailor the "realism" of the photography to the film's dramatic intentions. early dramatic films (and documentaries) were ~18fps. now they're 24fps. 30fps has been done, and is done on tv in several countries. "drama" as a medium in its own right has been performed for millennia at an infinite "frame rate". why limit ourselves to the current convention?
quote:
That is totally counter to the whole idea of scope in the first place. Hmmm. Smaller picture when watching scope...
while many films utilize scope to increase the horizontal aspect of the image for a more sweeping, epic look (eg. lean's), with more "spheres of activity" (eg. altman's), it seems most scope films nowadays don't really have too much motivation for using it. i can think of at least one film that actually uses scope for its vertical narrowness, to crop down rather than to expand out. for that film, it's entirely appropriate.
there are many reasons that a "large" film might work better with flat photography. a skyscraper drama, for example, with the vertical orientation of its settings, might opt for flat. the original king kong needed its single behemoth to dominate the screen, hence the academy ratio is appropriate (and was the only option at the time). the effect of a tight close up in academy ratio is something that cannot be duplicated in 1:1.85 or scope. each aspect ratio should be projected optimally in a given space. one need not be inherently bigger than another. for modern first run theaters, i think a good compromise is to have movable top and side masking.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
Don E. Nelson
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 138
From: Brentwood, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 04-16-2003 03:26 PM
...I think there is more to 48 fps than meets the eye.(no pun intended) I took(snuck) a video camera into the Showscan Theater at the Vancouver Expo in 86' and filmed the screen showing a skier going down hill at 60 frames a second. I also filmed another pavillion movie shown in 35mm at 24 fps. (Gordon probably remembers the Showscan pavillion if he went to this Canadian Expo.)
Back at the hotel I played back both video tapes on the monitor.
Guess what movie fans?
The 24 fps footage looked like I had snuck a video camera into a theater and filmed the screen, and it was horrible , but....,,,,,,,,
the Showscan footage looked like I went to the top of a mountain and held my video camera, pretty darn still, as I skied down the mountain. I even panned the camera horizontally a couple times for effect, It fooled the video camera into thinking it was looking at something close to real. The frame rate of a normal home video camcorder is actually 60 fps because it takes two 30 fps interlaced fields to make up one frame or scene.
So the video camera taping the Showscan image was a perfect sync.
Now my brain watching Showscan is an even better psychological sync.
The more information the brain processes per second, or millisecond, the more real the image appears until you have what looks like reality.
Kick me hard if I am wrong but I think there is a place in this world for special format hyper reality movie playback systems.
Now if we just had someone who could write and film a hyper reality movie using this process???????????
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-16-2003 09:01 PM
Joe: huh?
Shows and commercials that are shot on film at 30fps still look like film. Stuff that was shot on PAL at 25fps and shown in the USA at 24fps (with 3:2 pulldown, just like film) still looks like video.
Frame rate is part of the "film look," but I think it's a minor issue when compared with many of the other advantages of film origination over electronic (NTSC, PAL, or HDTV) origination, which include greater shadow detail and exposure latitude, better color reproduction, lack of interlace scanning artifacts, and higher resolution (among other factors).
I'm completely in favor of higher frame rates for film. I loved the way that "Oklahoma" looked in 30fps Todd-AO and would be overjoyed if the higher frame rate were adopted as a standard (ignoring compatability issues with existing hardware).
Oh, and to clarify some issues for those who aren't familiar with NTSC television: an NTSC picture has 525 horizontal "lines," although some of these aren't actually "visible" on a conventional monitor. For B&W transmissions, there are 60 "fields" per second (59.94 for color), each of which consists of 262.5 lines. For each "frame" (30 per second for B&W or 29.97 per second for color), the set will scan all 525 lines (in two cycles of 262.5 lines). This is why NTSC resolution is cut in half whenever anything in the picture moves.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic