Interesting article on 24P.... at DVinfo.net

Eric Lian · June 27th, 2003, 11:32 PM

http://digitalfilmmaker.net/Vinson24P.html

Zac Stein · July 7th, 2003, 08:20 AM

What the hell was the point of that article? He was honestly just changing his opinion and approach all the way through it, it was a complete and utter waste of time. Why write something if you have nothing to say. And on that note i will stop writing as well.

Zac

Brad Simmons · July 7th, 2003, 03:38 PM

hmm, having just read through that article - twice, I honestly can't say what the author's point was. What exactly is he arguing? On one hand he says there is no difference between 24p and 60i, then he goes on to say how no audience will accept narrative shows shot in 60i because of the look. This man has no coherent argument in this article.

Mark Monciardini · July 8th, 2003, 01:56 PM

Sorta reminds me when they came out with the first Digital controlled analog keyboard. Because the real analog keyboard sound is what everyone is after.

Actually if not done right, the film look can look out of style. Plus he also forgot to mention lighting. Lighting is key to making something look good. Go rent your self a movie done in video (like Personal Velocity) and it will change your mind about film. Film can not get the detail Video can. The future is video, not film.

my 2

Richard Alvarez · July 8th, 2003, 02:10 PM

"Film cannot get the detail video can"

Not sure I follow your logic. In what sense do you mean video can capture more detail.

Mark Monciardini · July 8th, 2003, 03:52 PM

During macro close-ups, video wins over film for detail. Because film is to soft. Just because it's a digital image, it's flawless and more clearer.

For a good example of macro shots, see that film I mentioned called Personal Velocity. There is shot at the end where the you can see right thru the girls cornea in her eyes. Also there is a car seen in the rain and you can see so much detail in skin texture and hair. They look digital. Done with the PD-150.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/mgm/personal_velocity/medium.html

The cleanest movie I have seen yet on film is new one out now called "The Hours" with Nicole Kidman.

http://www.thehoursmovie.com

Jake McMurray · September 15th, 2003, 04:32 AM

I always thought film would be sharper because its equvilent to like 12 million pixels, and the highest digital or hd camera goes up to like 2million pixels, but they will get higher pretty soon. I would think that more pixels would yield more detail but I could be wrong and am curious as to how.

Barry Green · September 15th, 2003, 10:36 AM

You're not wrong, film is capable of capturing much more info and detail than any video format currently available.

Video cameras usually have a "sharpening" circuit in them to overcome their otherwise way-too-soft picture. This sharpening circuit enhances and defines edges, and it's possible to apply the effect in post as well, usually there's a "sharpen" filter available in the NLE. The artificial sharpening is what makes video look like it has higher detail, and you could apply that look to film if you wanted.

Ted Springer · September 15th, 2003, 06:09 PM

Mark, just because an image is digital makes it flawless and "more clearer"? If that were true, than any MPEG or digital video file I download from the internet would be flawless and kill film as far as image quality is concerned. After all... it's digital.

I've always had the thought of "If it was produced on video, it'll look best presented on video". You are comparing Quicktimes from Apple's site and using them to judge the difference between video and film.

FWIW, 35mm film can have what would approximate to 4,000 "lines" of resolution in video terms... meaning that's how high video resolution would have to be to match film. How do I know this? Studies at Kodak have proven it. Do I have a link? No, sadly I do not. :(

Anyway go rent a movie shot on video like, say, Blair Witch Project.... or better yet Full Frontal. Now go out to the theater and watch, oh I dunno, Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm.

Peter Jefferson · September 18th, 2003, 07:00 AM

if film was THAT inferiro to DV/HD/DVCam etc, ALL filmakers would have already made a switch.

Each have their own uses and purposes...

June 27th, 2003, 11:32 PM	#1
Eric Lian Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sonoma County, CA Posts: 61	Interesting article on 24P.... http://digitalfilmmaker.net/Vinson24P.html

July 8th, 2003, 01:56 PM	#4
Mark Monciardini Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 158	Sorta reminds me when they came out with the first Digital controlled analog keyboard. Because the real analog keyboard sound is what everyone is after. Actually if not done right, the film look can look out of style. Plus he also forgot to mention lighting. Lighting is key to making something look good. Go rent your self a movie done in video (like Personal Velocity) and it will change your mind about film. Film can not get the detail Video can. The future is video, not film. my 2 __________________ Best Regards, Mark T. Monciardini Riverlight Studios www.riverlightstudios.com DVX100/Final Cut Pro 4/Mac G5 Dual 1.8

July 8th, 2003, 03:52 PM	#6
Mark Monciardini Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 158	During macro close-ups, video wins over film for detail. Because film is to soft. Just because it's a digital image, it's flawless and more clearer. For a good example of macro shots, see that film I mentioned called Personal Velocity. There is shot at the end where the you can see right thru the girls cornea in her eyes. Also there is a car seen in the rain and you can see so much detail in skin texture and hair. They look digital. Done with the PD-150. http://www.apple.com/trailers/mgm/personal_velocity/medium.html The cleanest movie I have seen yet on film is new one out now called "The Hours" with Nicole Kidman. http://www.thehoursmovie.com __________________ Best Regards, Mark T. Monciardini Riverlight Studios www.riverlightstudios.com DVX100/Final Cut Pro 4/Mac G5 Dual 1.8

July 7th, 2003, 08:20 AM	#2
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	What the hell was the point of that article? He was honestly just changing his opinion and approach all the way through it, it was a complete and utter waste of time. Why write something if you have nothing to say. And on that note i will stop writing as well. Zac

July 7th, 2003, 03:38 PM	#3
Brad Simmons Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Washington DC Posts: 304	hmm, having just read through that article - twice, I honestly can't say what the author's point was. What exactly is he arguing? On one hand he says there is no difference between 24p and 60i, then he goes on to say how no audience will accept narrative shows shot in 60i because of the look. This man has no coherent argument in this article.

July 8th, 2003, 02:10 PM	#5
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	"Film cannot get the detail video can" Not sure I follow your logic. In what sense do you mean video can capture more detail.

September 15th, 2003, 04:32 AM	#7
Jake McMurray Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Bellingham Washington Posts: 102	I always thought film would be sharper because its equvilent to like 12 million pixels, and the highest digital or hd camera goes up to like 2million pixels, but they will get higher pretty soon. I would think that more pixels would yield more detail but I could be wrong and am curious as to how.

September 15th, 2003, 10:36 AM	#8
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	You're not wrong, film is capable of capturing much more info and detail than any video format currently available. Video cameras usually have a "sharpening" circuit in them to overcome their otherwise way-too-soft picture. This sharpening circuit enhances and defines edges, and it's possible to apply the effect in post as well, usually there's a "sharpen" filter available in the NLE. The artificial sharpening is what makes video look like it has higher detail, and you could apply that look to film if you wanted.

September 15th, 2003, 06:09 PM	#9
Ted Springer Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Glendale CA Posts: 328	Mark, just because an image is digital makes it flawless and "more clearer"? If that were true, than any MPEG or digital video file I download from the internet would be flawless and kill film as far as image quality is concerned. After all... it's digital. I've always had the thought of "If it was produced on video, it'll look best presented on video". You are comparing Quicktimes from Apple's site and using them to judge the difference between video and film. FWIW, 35mm film can have what would approximate to 4,000 "lines" of resolution in video terms... meaning that's how high video resolution would have to be to match film. How do I know this? Studies at Kodak have proven it. Do I have a link? No, sadly I do not. :( Anyway go rent a movie shot on video like, say, Blair Witch Project.... or better yet Full Frontal. Now go out to the theater and watch, oh I dunno, Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm.

September 18th, 2003, 07:00 AM	#10
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	if film was THAT inferiro to DV/HD/DVCam etc, ALL filmakers would have already made a switch. Each have their own uses and purposes...