MTV Music Awards
 

Does anyone know what they used to give the awards that look they had. Filter,setting or ???????

looked to me like 1/30 shutter speed.

It looked like they used a live feed of 24p HD.?.

^^ you are probably right didnt think of that

thought i might have seen a pd150 on a glidecam or something being held by a guy near the front row seats?????

I think it was HDTV. The picture looked super rich even on my simple standard def tv. If anyone knows for sure I would like to find out, just to satisfy my curiosity.

Yes it looked as if it was shot with film....but since it was a broadcast then i
would have to say a 24p HD or something of that genre.

I know that MTV has previously used the Filmlook process on some of their shows including "Undressed". This is a proprietary black box that allows realtime emulation of 24 frame footage converted to 30 with a simulated 3:2 pulldown. It was the first of its kind, having been around for close to 15 years. It is distinct from software-based plug ins like Magic Bullet and Cinelook in that it works real time with no rendering, just video in and video out. It's certainly not cheap to have a video Filmlooked, however! (there's more information at www.filmlook.com).

My guess is that MTV hired their services to process the video.

what is 24p HD? i've seen people mention it around alot, It seems to be the daddy of film-look video.

Anyone know a webpage with good details?

OK, cool so it was not imagination. I just got the cd from film look. I will check it out.

Some one mentioned magic bullet, how pricy is that software. Does anyone know some great video/editing stores in greater Los Angeles? Stupid question but I do not know where to look.

Woody: (or Mr. Fang?)

There's a zillion sites about 24p HD, try checking out Sony's resource center at http://www.sonyusacinealta.com/.

The current system captures roughly twice the resolution of broadcast video, at 24 full resolution frames per second rather than 60 interlaced fields per second which is standard NTSC. The result is footage that can be transferred to motion picture film at a 1:1 frame rate rather than go through an interpolation process, or can be converted by that same process for broadcast delivery in the same way as film. The result is digital video that comes closer to recreating the effect of film than previous formats.

I finally saw some clips of the MTV Movie Awards and remain pretty convinced that what I was watching was a standard definition broadcast that had been realtime processed through Filmlook. If I see any information about it in the trades I will post it here.

Thanks, I'll have a look. Is this the same system the last star wars film was shot on? HDCAM or something?

Woodyfang is a joke on the nickname I used when first logging on to the web 6 years ago. I keep it for posterity!

Charles,,

So your saying that it was shot with a standard NTSC broadcast
camera, then filtered REALTIME through a "filmlook" process
which made it 24p but then back to NTSC with 3:2 process???

what would give the effect of the "film-look" if the frame rate
wasnt modified?

Adam:

That's essentially the process, although I don't remember if it involves de-interlacing to create true 24p--it may be more of a "24i" that is then worked through a 3:2 pulldown. In addition, the gamma curve is altered to more resemble film (hence the somewhat "darker" look of the broadcast) and grain added to taste. I'm not sure if they added grain or not, it looked to me like they might have, but it could have been a compression artifact through the digital cable.

I had a few projects that I shot run through Filmlook starting around '91 or so. A couple of years ago I got to go to their facility to supervise the process, and was surprised to see how few controls were actually present on their custom console. The option of 24 fps or 30 fps emulation (in case there was too much strobing at 24), several levels of grain and gamma. They also had a simulated film weave control which we added subtly for a few static shots, which I don't see mentioned in their web site any more. I imagine they are constantly upgrading the process, it does look even better than it used to (less motion artifacts). And yes, it is real time.

The question of how crucial is the frame rate amongst other parameters is when attempting to create a "film-look" has been discussed at incredible length in other threads here, and there are several distinct schools of thought on this. I feel that the motion characteristic is the primary factor in effecting a film look; others have argued depth of field, resolution or contrast as being more important. My belief is that if all of the processing with exception of the frame rate had been implemented on this program, the look would not have been exceptional enough for anyone to post about it here.

Woodyfang (I don't even quite know how to reproduce your signature!): Yes, "Attack of the Clones" was shot on the Sony Cinealta HDCAM system, with Panavision lenses. HDCAM has already been theoretically supplanted in the high-end acquisition market by non-compressed systems that offer greater resolution and dynamic range. I have read that ILM had to generate artificial compression artifacts and add them to the computer generated backgrounds to match those present in the HDCAM-captured live action footage, which is pretty bogus if you ask me, considering how Lucas and his cronies are bleating about the supposed superiority of the format.

That is interesting!

I'm sure I read a post where someone was complaining about artefacts in dark areas of some shots in scenes of the movie.

I haven't seen the film myself, and have probably missed my chance to see it on a big screen now. I was so put off by the script of the first film, especially the ten minute sequence (at least it felt like 10 minutes) of Luke 'deciding' if he should leave his mother and run off and become a jedi. I cannot watch a film if it has bad script, it makes me want to get up and leave.

CNN announced yesterday it was 24p HD.
Bruce