The King is Alive
 

I just saw the King is Alive on DVD and was wondering why the motion in the movie is so “ghostly.” When the characters quickly move they seem to be very blurry. Is this the drawback of taking 50i footage and converting it to 24p (for a film transfer)?

an educated guess
 

I'm not familliar w/ The King is Alive, but since you say it waw transferred from 50i, the answer is most likely yes.
Basically, every two frames, each of which being 1/50 of a second, had to be combined/coupled onto each single frame of film, so it's as if they were shoting film w/ a 360 degree(1/25 second) shutter i.e. a shutter that is twice as long as what is normally used for films so that fast movement would show a lot of motion blur.

ok, thanks. So I guess the DVX100 (shooting in 25p or 24p)wouldn't suffer from this motion blur, would it?

Hold on a second. The reason that indies are using PAL cameras is specifically because the PAL frame rate is closer to film's 24 fps. One of the complaints about video is that it lacks the motion blur of film. Deinterlacing 50i can't be a big deal.

I haven't seen TKIA yet, but want to. I suspect that if it is too blurry it is because of some "magic" done in the video to film transfer to make it more film-like. Sounds like they overdid.

I believe the reason why DV to 35mm indies are using PAL is because PAL is the lesser of two evils. Since PAL is 50I you are essentially taking 50 fields and converting them into 24 frames per second, which is where the problem lies. I’m not up on my technical stuff to explain to you why this motion irregularity occurs, but it is not exclusive to just The King is Alive. In fact, if you watch Tadpole, pay attention to the motion, and you’ll see the same problem. For me, the limited resolution of DV is not a major hindrance, it’s the ghostly/jerky motion which annoys me the most.

I know enough about tape to film transfer to know that I am really confused. I have read that PAL is important, that it doesn't really matter and that NTSC is just fine. I do know that folks work to introduce motion blur to simulate the blur of film. This is both in DV transfer and in high end FX. I saw an interview with Spielberg where he was talking about how to get computer generated dinosaurs to look like his film stock.

So far I haven't noticed ghosting or blur but the flatter color space in seeral films shot in DV has been real obvious. If the story and the acting are good, of course, none of it matters.

My Explanation
 

Here we go...

50i is used because it's simpler than 60i, but not perfect or the best.
W/ 50i you simply take pairs of FIELDS and make frames out of them and then it is run only 4% slower (25 to 24), so all you have to do is raise the pitch/frequency of the audio to compensate. Because you are using two(2) fields for each(1) movie frame, you have to shoot w/ a 1/50 shutter so there is no gap between the fields that are composited together, but there is also no gap in exposure between fields of succeding frames either.
W/ 60i you also take pairs of fields and make them into 30 frames and then drop every sixth frame or use some other wacky trick to get 24p, then fix your audio, transfer to film and you've got 24fps.

Whether it's PAL or NTSC, you're still looking at two fields composited onto one frame, not one progressive image transfered onto one frame. in other words, you've got two, count 'em 2, with no gap between the end of the first exposure and the begining of the next, but they are on separate fields and that means w/ motion you have a comb effect (it looks like two combs w/ interlocking horizontal teeth). In an attempt to fix this ugly comb, often transfer facilities use a program to interpolate the two fields (they fill in what's mising in field 2 from field 1, and fifill in what's missing in field 1 from field 2, so that they sort of look like one 1/25sec exposure instead of two 1/50 exposures from two different fields stacked together. Unfortunately, the interpolation also makes the image blurrier

The DVX is totally different, you are actually getting 24(23.975 NTSC) or 25 (25 PAL) progressive, solid-frames per second, not 60 or 50 (respectively) alternating, quasi-half-frames. It also lets you have more artistic freedom, because you can use fast shutters (ala Gladiator). If you tried fast shutter w/ an interlaced camcorder, each composited frame would look like a double exposure i.e. two of everything that moved durring the exposure, because there is a big gap between the end of field 1's exposure and the beginning of field 2's.

Sorry it was so long, but I hope it's clear to everyone.

BTW people also use PAL because it has more VERTICAL resolution than NTSC (720x576 compared to 720x480); although personally, I don't think vertical resolution matters much because A: we have more resolute vision and spacial perception in the horizontal, and B: movie screens are larger horizontally than they are vertically anyway.

That was an excellent explanation, thanks.

No problem
 

.

Yes, I know what de-interlacing is. I think you are overstating the problems with de-interlacing. There are a number of labs out there doing some very good work in video to film transfer.

Not all there is to it
 

No, I'm not saying that's it's that much due to the deinterlacing, but even if you were shooting w/ the DVX100 on 1/24 shutter or could shoot film w/ a 360* shutter, both would have a very similar blurry motion because you're using a longer than normal exposure w/ no gap between one frame's exposure and the next, i.e. it just won't look "normal" if you aren't using a 1/48.

Besides, TKA may also have a particularly bad transfer or deinterlacing.

the film was also shot dogme style. only natural lighting and handheld cam work.

Trey:
 

Your signature...Shakespeare is rolling in his grave:)

I don't think we're watching a 50i to 24P at all. I think they cut corners to bring the DVD to the US (which took forever to do anyway). In doing so, they took the 50i and did a PAL to NTSC transfer. That's why it looks so bad, and also looks interlaced still. That's my theory on it. PAL to NTSC transfers are tricky sometimes, and some broadcast equipment doesn't do it as well as a simple computer program. Witness: Michael Jackson Documentary. Once again, only my theory.

you could be right
 

And the Michael Jackson interview looked better than many I've seen (take a look at some of the middle east footage from recent years)