An interesting thing on "TV" HDV/HD vs. film-like HDV/HD

Ron Evans · August 3rd, 2006, 11:25 AM

Ken , I agree about interlace TV too. They used the AC frequency to avoid paying for an oscilator, sent half the image at a time and then arranged the phosphors to decay at a rate to mask the image changes. Makes you realize that we now use modern technology, handicaped with scalers so that we can see film technology and TV technology from decades ago!!!!!!. Bit like taking a modern car and installing beam axles, friction dampers and wooden wheels!!!! On a smooth road with the stereo on and airconditioning you may not notice the difference!!!!

Ron Evans

Heath McKnight · August 3rd, 2006, 02:00 PM

People think film with 24p (plus shallow depth of field, lighting, movements, etc.), TV news/documentaries with 60i (and all that applies).

I showed a short film I did in 60i with all the other features mentioned above that's found in films and most people said, "It looks like film," except it was a little too smooth in that 60i way.

A short I did with Jon Fordham, Release Me, was shot in 30p and it had that slight TV but film-ish quality.

On the other side of the spectrum, a quasi-dogme 95 film I did in 60i (Canon XL1) without any of the film aesthetics was very "home video-ish" until I changed it to 24p. That helped it a bit.

heath

Ron Evans · August 3rd, 2006, 02:28 PM

For me its the stutter of 24p that I find very annoying. The other effects are just fine and do create the NOT REAL look that fiction needs. I am all for using any effects available to create the emotion for a feature. But when I am watching something for knowledge or to remember detail a would like NO effects, highest detail and highest frame rate ( I want to be there, like looking through a window at most). This will look like home video to some because there will be no masking of detail and large depth of field just like being there!!!
If the desire is to produce something that is better than the typical home video ( shot on automatic) then clearly better focusing, exposure/lighting, framing will make the video look better than the average home video. If this is an event then steady tripod use, better editing will all make the difference to the average home video. Just like most people can tell the difference between local TV channel coverage of an event and one taken by a spectator with his Handycam. HD will bring even more challenges and create a differentiation too. Focus will be more critical, compression will bring some of the same problems of film at 24p in panning etc...... One doesn't need to cripple the source video with 24p to create a difference.

Ron Evans

Heath McKnight · August 3rd, 2006, 02:37 PM

You summed it up perfectly for yourself...do what you like.

heath

August 3rd, 2006, 02:00 PM	#32
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	People think film with 24p (plus shallow depth of field, lighting, movements, etc.), TV news/documentaries with 60i (and all that applies). I showed a short film I did in 60i with all the other features mentioned above that's found in films and most people said, "It looks like film," except it was a little too smooth in that 60i way. A short I did with Jon Fordham, Release Me, was shot in 30p and it had that slight TV but film-ish quality. On the other side of the spectrum, a quasi-dogme 95 film I did in 60i (Canon XL1) without any of the film aesthetics was very "home video-ish" until I changed it to 24p. That helped it a bit. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 3rd, 2006, 02:37 PM	#34
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	You summed it up perfectly for yourself...do what you like. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 3rd, 2006, 11:25 AM	#31
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	Ken , I agree about interlace TV too. They used the AC frequency to avoid paying for an oscilator, sent half the image at a time and then arranged the phosphors to decay at a rate to mask the image changes. Makes you realize that we now use modern technology, handicaped with scalers so that we can see film technology and TV technology from decades ago!!!!!!. Bit like taking a modern car and installing beam axles, friction dampers and wooden wheels!!!! On a smooth road with the stereo on and airconditioning you may not notice the difference!!!! Ron Evans

August 3rd, 2006, 02:28 PM	#33
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	For me its the stutter of 24p that I find very annoying. The other effects are just fine and do create the NOT REAL look that fiction needs. I am all for using any effects available to create the emotion for a feature. But when I am watching something for knowledge or to remember detail a would like NO effects, highest detail and highest frame rate ( I want to be there, like looking through a window at most). This will look like home video to some because there will be no masking of detail and large depth of field just like being there!!! If the desire is to produce something that is better than the typical home video ( shot on automatic) then clearly better focusing, exposure/lighting, framing will make the video look better than the average home video. If this is an event then steady tripod use, better editing will all make the difference to the average home video. Just like most people can tell the difference between local TV channel coverage of an event and one taken by a spectator with his Handycam. HD will bring even more challenges and create a differentiation too. Focus will be more critical, compression will bring some of the same problems of film at 24p in panning etc...... One doesn't need to cripple the source video with 24p to create a difference. Ron Evans