I seem to recall reading somewhere that the 24FPS, was a rate in an acceptable ballpark but may have been determined by conveniently available mass-produced reduction gear sets suited to single phase AC 60Hz induction electric motor speeds.

This was apparently also the case when the 78rpm record standard was created.

I could be wrong.

I more remember what others are saying, that 24fps was selected as a cost-cutting measure. There was experimentation done with filming at 60fps in the eighties but it was just too much film and people didn't like watching it.

Mmm, no...The human eye most closely equates to the FOV and DOF of a 50mm lens, however filmmakers use wide angles and telephotos all the time. The DOF effect is a dramatic effect, used to tell a story or provide emphasis on a subject. 35mm adapters don't look fake, they look different. Some even look spot on.

I recalled the 24fps thing being related to sound.... after a quick interwebs search:

16 & 18 fps
 

It's true. 16 and 18 fps were very common in the pre-sound days. And 24 fps mag (or optical) did offer better sound quality. But even though 24 fps would (and did) offer better sound fidelity, 24 was still, after all, a(n) historically agreed upon convention. For what it's worth, 60 fps (in either mag or optical) has tremendously more fidelity than 24. So if that's the argument, why not 60?

35mm adapters are fake ;)

Is it really fair to compare apples and oranges here? I mean 35mm Film vs a dvx100 and Letus35? I've talked about it with my friends who own adapters (I own said package), and it's basically 35 adapters have a special look - it's unique to adapters and even more unique to each different adapter. I actually thnik it looks more like 35mm still photography than motion film (maybe cuz the lenses).

If you're running around with a video camera and don't like that "video" look, this is a great way to go. If you are shooting 35mm Film, you probably wouldn't even be on this forum with the rest of us DIYers to begin with! :P

My Letus vignettes, it has a huge hotspot, there's barrel distortion, it gets dusty, the image is upside down - but I love it. Ok, check out the look I was able to get using a TRV900+Letus35a! Quyen and all the other guys rule.

http://www.flickr.com/gp/65712140@N00/S23LOZ

We can never please everyone. When the first adaptor was showcased by Agus (ie. Agus35) everybody was like 'WOW!' that is amazing. DOF and all that. Everyone drooled over the film look. But it didn't stop there. Then came the specially made glass disk that gave really good film look, fine grain and no hint of any grains when rotated or vibrated, in fact far better than the first version of Agus35, and everyone goes 'WOW!' thats great film look. When the dust settled, someone says hey! the image is upside down, very annoying. Then came the Letus35. Everyone goes 'WOW!'. now we don't have to bother with complicated LCD screen turned upside down and magnet trick. But when the dust settled, hey the 'Bokeh' isn't right. It just doesn't look real. Hhmmm, what else is going to come up when the dust settles on the bokeh issue. But then again is it going to be over? I think not. Bokeh is so subjective. One person may like it and another one hates it.

This thing is just going to go on and on. No end in sight I tell you, no end. Can never please some people. Sigh!

This process of frustration with just good enough is otherwise known as product improvement or research and development, in this case, a sort of open source collective one.

The hard yards were done by P+S Technik and many home builders are making their own independent innovation on the general principle, some playing catch-up, some not catching up and some actually getting past the benchmark.

Has anyone looked at the bokeh produced by P+S? I haven't so thats why I am asking but I doubt if theirs look anything like the 35mm films if we look at it carefully and I mean very carefully.

I am no expert on bokeh, I just feel as far as it is concern, can we not say its pretty good and move on to improving other areas of the adaptor. There are so many types of GG and focusing screens out there and each with its characteristic bokeh. There is no such standard. Is there? I mean beside using 35mm as the benchmark.

Open Water was a good example of how a film maker can make tons of money by using this simple adaptors (I think. Please correct me if I am wrong. I know they used Canon XL1 to shoot). Their film look is really not up to par but I guess their contents sold the film to a large audience. Just my two cents on the topic.

Many people who shoot film also have used these adaptors, and also have worked with 1/3" cameras by themselves. One of my first experiences with the P+S was on a shoot that otherwise would have definitely been a 35mm shoot considering the people involved (read about it in the archives, here). This was the old version of the adaptor with the "spinning vortex of death" and using XL1 cameras (pre-XL1s even), yet the results were shown in primetime, just before the last episode of "Friends"!

Don't fret too much about "bokeh" folks (I put it in quotes because it's a term I've never heard used outside of internet forums--I swear that most cinematographers working in the studio system would have no idea what this refers to)...as Alex says, probably best to move on and focus on other issues.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that "Open Water" was shot with straight-up cameras (Sonys, I thought?) and no adaptors.

"Open Water". - PD150s I think and direct-to-camera, no 35mm adaptor. May have used Century 16:9 anamorphics?

I just have to make an insert to this ongoing discussion,
There has been experiments to mimic the human visual perception and the
most convincing test (according to a majority of regular people, not filmmakers) was done with a 65mm celluloid with a motion of 60fps, and this was what people thought looked like reality.
Besides, even though 50mm is to very near the human FOV, I have been thought that beeing longer or shorter then reality is a way to persuade the imagination of people.

The reason that the 50mm focal length is commonly thought of as the closest to human vision is that it is essentially a neutral focal length, or 1:1 magnification--if you look through an SLR with your other eye open, objects will appear the same size in both eyes.

However, the actual field of view of human vision is much wider than a 50mm will deliver in most formats. Our perception is probably closer to Cinerama in width, but we have that interesting phenomenon of the focus dropping off in all directions out to the edges of our peripheral vision.

Many people feel that a wider lens than 50mm feels more like the width of human vision; generally between a 35 or a 40. Realize also that a 50mm on a cine camera will deliver a considerably more telephoto effect than on a still camera due to the reduced field of view (i.e. cropping of the edges).

My personal feeling when it comes to point of view shots is that the focal length should absolutely be a function of the emotion and experience that the person whose vision is being replicated is going through. An alert person scanning a room can be represented by anywhere from a 50mm to a 150mm lens as they "zero in" on a detail; a scared person on the run and looking for a place to hide can be simulated as wide as 25mm on a moving camera, darting from side to side. I've had to "get inside the head" of countless actors when shooting their point of views, and will often have discussions with them about the scene to help with this process, as well as closely watching what they do with their eyes as they walk through the scene.

Charles, I completely agree. FOV should be used to deliver a emotion specific
to what is being told, not a scientificly based decision depending on the anatomy of a human eye (while doing POV shots).

All of this field-of-view debate is rather moot when most punters who hold a theatre seat onto the floor for 90 or so minutes don't particularly apply optical science when they choose their bumperch.

Those who park at the front will likely have close to a natural field-of-view to the screen itself including small side areas where peripheral vision begins to come into play. They'll give themselves a headache trying to get some decent resolution. Even film is not that good.

Those who sit in the back rows, get a telephoto representation of the screensize. At least their eyeballs don't have to skitter about to follow the action. Maybe they've got a companion and other things on their mind besides the movie.

I myself try to find a seat position which will give me the natural field-of-detailed-view plus a bit extra on the sides. I then move left to right to find the audio sweet spot as the L-R channels are rarely centred. But then I am a fussy wretch.

My think on creative use of "depth-of-field" is that it is a tool intuitively or subjectively used to compensate for the loss of visual cues due to the confinement of the screen frame. To achieve this, exceptions to the field-of-view expectations occur.

I don't know if it was just me, but the movie MIAMI VICE had to be the absolute worst film in terms of coloring and framing!

I found the entire film lost it's mid tones to black and the framing seemed to always be telephoto'd which was just plain annoying.

Honestly I think it was the worst movie I've ever seen so far for those reasons.

Mid-tones to blacks?

Might be a good case for eliminating digital intermediate and sticking with film to film.

Did the DP use a Cinealta on the previous shoot and become accustomed to the look?

Did they actually shoot it on motion film?

I haven't seen Miami vice the movie. Did I miss anything?

Charles, I had to laugh at your comment about film folks and the term bokeh. I recently had breakfast with the Dean and Technical Director of our College's film school. I was merrily chatting about bokeh, spec. highlights and halation and realized they had a sort of puzzled look on their faces. Finally the Dean stopped me with the question...What's bokeh?

Mann shot Miami Vice using the Viper. He pushed the gain and in-camera look so very little had to be done in post. Personally I loved everything about the movie. I thought it was a risk in filmmaking - especially the night scenes. He wasnt looking to emulate the film look. If so, he would have used it he and his DP stated in interviews. Check out Millimeter magazines archives. There are some interviews there.

I think the adapters are great. I've been using a Letus Flip and very happy with what I've been able to get out of it. I really want one of Wayne's SGPros now too though. I think in terms of budget, if you understand what you have to work with and then design your shots, scenes and composition within those you'll have something that ascetically may be different but at the same time will work. One of the big things that I miss is the ability to frame with DOF but not have to be wide open for a clean shot. The SGPro looks like it does a crazy good job of that. Lenses, the better quality they are, also make a huge difference. Not saying I wouldnt look forward to continuing to see adapters become better and more adaptable.

Do you have a link to the magazine article or archive about Miami vice and the Viper?

heres one:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hd...006/index.html

and one more:
"The notion of giving the movie a video look, they add, was therefore an integral step in a long-standing plan."
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hd...igital_vision/

I doesnt seem like my last post showed up for some reason...

here are the links - sorry if I post twice:

"The notion of giving the movie a video look, they add, was therefore an integral step in a long-standing plan."
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hd...ion/index.html

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hd...006/index.html

Bob beat me to it but Open Water was shot with the Sony VX2000 & PD150 (same HAD CCD sensor in each camera) - no 35mm adapter was used. See www.imdb.com/title/tt0374102/technical

Regardless though Alex makes some great points about how it's never enough for some people! They should just shoot on film and be done with it! Funny though I wonder how many of these people complaining have actually even shot anything with or without an adapter? :)

Jeremy - great of you to post those links, I want to check them out too!