Digital prjection vs. blow up projection....

[Nigel]

I know that people will settle for substandard products because they are cheaper. But like I stated in another post--There are more drive-in theaters in the USA than Digital ones. I don't think that film will be pushed out of the theater.

PS--Three's Company was still shot on 35mm. Just the same as every other prime time show. And it will be that way forever--I hope.

------------------

[MovieStuff]

Nah. Three's Company was shot on video, not 35mm, just like every other prime time sit com. But thanks for making my point. You accepted the lack of quality despite its obvious flaws.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 08, 2001).]

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
I know that people will settle for substandard products because they are cheaper. But like I stated in another post--There are more drive-in theaters in the USA than Digital ones. I don't think that film will be pushed out of the theater.

PS--Three's Company was still shot on 35mm. Just the same as every other prime time show. And it will be that way forever--I hope.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what the split between video and film is for prime-time in the U.S.

But of all People, Bill Cosby shot video for his sit-coms, while other sit-coms like Cheers or Frasier use film.

Most if not all Detective/Police/Law shows are film-based.

Ironically, all these new "reality" shows may make the delineation real simple in the future....all reality/live TV shows are video, the rest are film.

And the upstart networks tend to have more videos for their sit-coms than CBS or NBC.

-Alex



------------------

[technicolour]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
I don't know what the split between video and film is for prime-time in the U.S.

But of all People, Bill Cosby shot video for his sit-coms, while other sit-coms like Cheers or Frasier use film.

Most if not all Detective/Police/Law shows are film-based.

Ironically, all these new "reality" shows may make the delineation real simple in the future....all reality/live TV shows are video, the rest are film.

And the upstart networks tend to have more videos for their sit-coms than CBS or NBC.

-Alex



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alex is right here, generally american police/detective shows are done in film such as the A team, Quincy, Diagnosis murder and I think the X files are done in film too, it certainly looks like it.

Sit coms usually have a live audience, like bill cosby show, fresh prince of bel air etc etc and are recorded using TV camera and taped onto video as Alex and Roger have said.

However, the main reason that the police and detective programs are done in film (this applys mainly to late 70's and 80's shows) is because of the poor quailty of NTSC video when video cameras first came around. With PAL you can get the picture pretty much perfect, some of the older PAL recordings look a bit iffy but the older NTSC recordings do look bad although they can vary.

------------------
Jim

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mattias:
[B]digital projection *does not* clip your image (why on earth would it?). even if the contrast ratio would be much lower than that of a typical film print (it isn't), the image would just be compressed."

Sorry, you're wrong on this.
35mm film has over 12 stops, Digital Video has 5. That's called clipping, compression has nothing to do with contrast ration, just resulution. When you telecine, you're losing that extra information.

As far as what and how many TV shows are shot on film or video, I don't know all the numbers, but all sitcoms are NOT shot on video.
I've read a few articles in American Cinematographer on this, and Friends for one thing, is shot on 35mm. I eve nsaw the photos of a nice big Panavision on set!).

I think most sitcoms actually ARE shot on film.
Games shows & talk shows are not.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[MovieStuff]

Whether we like it or not, digital projection will thrive not because it is superior, but because it's more cost effective for the theaters and the distributors, just as video tape thrived for the same reasons on television. Remember, when television first started, there was no such thing as video tape. It didn't come about until years later, DESPITE the fact that the industry had the art of Kinescopes (where a monitor is recorded by a film camera) down perfectly. I've got some old Spike Jones Kinescopes and they really blow doors off early black and white video tape.

So why did the industry blow off Kinescopes if they were so obviously superior to early video tape? Because is was cheaper and they knew if they put their collective money behind the technology, it would not only get better, but would end up surpassing Kinescopes in terms of image quality.

The same thinking is at hand regarding digital projection. The quality isn't as good as film NOW, but it is good enough to satisfy test audiences. Over time, I am sure that digital projection will equal or surpass 35mm film projection, just as video tape finally overcame Kinescopes.

So, yes, I understand that some shows are shot on film and some are shot on video; the ratio of each isn't the point nor is the REASON they are shot on each. My point was that the one of the most popular shows in television history (Three's Company) was not only a piece of crap, content wise, but it was shot on video, not film. The fact that Nigel remembers it as 35mm quality only proves my point that quality is a relative thing to the viewing audience and that the things we hold dear to our hearts as "film makers" doesn't mean squat when it comes to the market place and economics.

Roger

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Previously, Alex wrote:

"It's almost as if the digital 8mm was mimicking the characteristic of film, it looked like it had more resolution in playback mode than when stilled ....however, a film frame would never dengenerate the way the 8mm digital video when put in the freeze
frame mode."

I have seen the effect you are referring to and I assume you are talking about a still frame from the video tape on 'pause' and not from your NLE's hard drive. Once on the hard drive, all your footage is going to act the same way on freeze frame, regardless of where it came from and if it's falling apart, then there's something wrong with your system!

The fact is that true video freeze frames (not a tape on pause) look the same as they do when they are running at full speed. There is no mathmatical, perceptible or asthetic increase in definition or resolution when the frames are linked together in continuous motion.

On the other hand, motion picture film looks much better when it runs at full speed than it does on a freeze frame. Relatively speaking, the film frame DOES look better on freeze than video does on pause OR freeze simply because film has more sheer resolution to begin with!

And (depending on the machine) pausing a video tape interrupts the electronic process that would normally let the entire frame come to completion before being viewed.

So when you say:

"a film frame would never dengenerate the way the 8mm digital video when put in the freeze
frame mode"

isn't really a fair comparison. If a film frame weren't allowed to complete processing in the lab and was viewed prematurely, like a tape on pause, then I can guarantee you it would look just terrible all the way around!

So comparing a tape on pause with a film freeze is comparing apples and oranges. You have to let both the film and the video go through the soup completely before tasting a single frame of either one.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 08, 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said anything about NLE, or capturing by putting on pause, I never capture stills while the tape machine is on pause.

I get great captures via an MX-50.

I only capture in real time off of the tape. I can instantly switch between frame and field mode once I have a still frame captured in the MX, and all color correcting is real time....ahhhhhhhhhhh...the convenience of real time color-correcting with instant switchback to preset mode and back again to the corrected version....don't leave home without it.

So my observations about the Digital 8 footage was based on actual, pristine, bonafide captures done with the video playing at regular speed.

-Alex



------------------

[MovieStuff]

There are only two correct ways to freeze video. One is to grab a field freeze. The other is to grab a full freeze frame. It doesn't matter if you are looking at a freeze frame via a TBC (which actually has full frame capability) or looking at that frame on a NLE system. They will be the same.

If you have grabbed a true freeze frame using broadcast grade equipment, then that frame will look the same as all the other frames around it and will not pick up any additional detail or resolution by stringing them together in a series. The pixels don't change position; that's just a fact of video.

Now, if the camera were moving during the frame of interest, then there would be an "accumulative resolution" effect because the detail would be spread across more pixels due to the movement of the camera, just as one can see more detail past a picket fence while moving than they can sitting still.

Likewise, a freeze of a moving shot will not reveal as much detail to the eye as if the shot were allowed to play at full speed. On the other hand, if it were a stationary shot, then a freeze is going to look the same, resolution wise, as it does with the tape running at speed.

Was the camera moving during the shot or was it stationary?

Roger

[crimsonson]

Roger:
I would disagree with you regarding video stills.
Because some details in video falls between the odd and even field. If both field is displayed at the same time the particular detail would be slightly blurry. If played back at full speed, both fields resolves the detail much better. A good example of this effect is a piece of hair standing up (or a thin border in GraFX). If a video frame grab is shown it looks very choppy. If a full frame is shown it looks slightly blurry. However, if played back the detail is slightly better.

Also, you must consider how a particular hardware/software captures (one field, interlaced, deinterlaced, etc..)

There are handful of shows shot on HDTV (Grounded for Life, Witchblade, Titus, Earth Final Conflict and Fox will be others networks will follow).

Yes most sitcoms are shot on 35mm. Friends uses Pana with 500T as the stock.

------------------

[MovieStuff]

Crimsonson wrote:

"Because some details in video falls between the odd and even field. If both field is displayed at the same time the particular detail would be slightly blurry. If played
back at full speed, both fields resolves the detail much better. A good example of this effect is a piece of hair standing up (or a thin border in GraFX). If a video frame grab is shown it looks very choppy. If a full frame is shown it looks slightly blurry. However, if played back the detail is slightly better."

Yes, I agree 100% with what you are saying. In fact, that is the whole point here: The effect you are describing about the picture being "choppy" is due to fixed pixel placement. Therefore, aliasing is a normal part of the video "look".

However, if the detail is present in only one field, then playing it back at full speed won't change the way it looks, UNLESS the detail is in motion on its way from one field position to another. A hair blowing in the wind would be a good example. A hair perfectly stationary and existing in only one field will still be in only one field, no matter how fast you play the video.

But this really isn't the same thing as a difference in resolution. There is no real "accumulative" effect here beyond a two field summation, which is required NOT to increase the resolution but to simply complete the whole frame. And since two fields are as many as you can add together to max out the resolution when looking at a freeze frame, where both fields are present and accounted for, it won't be any different resolution than the video is capable of providing at full speed.

In fact, the video could run 20 times faster and its resolution won't increase one tiny bit. Film, on the other hand, gets a HUGE benefit from increased frame rates since its grain pattern is no pattern at all and is random.

Roger