UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panasonic!

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Unless I'm wrong, there's no 1/50th of a second of darkness.
Is it a stupid conclusion I made ?
Click to expand...

No, you're exactly right, but you're mixing mediums. You have to compare film after it's been transferred to video, or DVX footage after it's been transferred up to film.

The DVX, on tape, renders footage the same as film that has been transferred to video.

Film, on video, doesn't have any period of blackness. And DVX footage on video renders out the same as film footage that's been transferred to video.

Of course, DVX footage transferred to film will have a 1:1 relationship and will undergo the same dark period between frames that film does.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

After a hard search in my archives to find an example of a modern clip shot on 16 mm film with
fast panning over hard contrast -I found it .On my HDTV monitor there is strobing in progressive film mode and buzz and halos on the PAL monitor - exactly as I described.
if anyone has an upload spot I would upload it for demonstration
Its an mpg 2 file - 9 MB
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

So, let me understand what you're saying: you're saying you have a film clip that is displaying the exact same artifacts, strobing, buzz and halo's as the DVX footage, right?
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Hello, I have never posted before, but I have something to add. I have recently purchased a dvx that I have not had the chance to use it much yet. However, when I first put it on 24pn, I noticed a very subtle strobing look that looked slightly different than film transferred to video. After changing the shutter to 1/32, it looked much better, definitely useable. (again, I haven't tried it out much yet though). 1/24 seemed to fuzz the picture too much. I am obviously not the only one to notice this difference. A coworker who also bought the camera noticed the same issue, and he suggested trying a 1/30 shutter, which works for him.

But I don't believe this is a DVX issue. I think it's a 24p video issue. After all, film and video are very different. It's not surprising that they should look a little different no matter how hard you try. I also don't believe the interlaced look on vertical lines that some complain about is not the issue, since I see exactly the same thing in video to film transfers. The problem is just a slightly different motion look that is so subtle it is almost indefinable. About a year ago, I even heard an HD DP complain about the slightly different motion look to 24p video. And he was referring to HD material. He in passing mentioned something I think is very interesting.

He postulated that perhaps the problem stems from the butterfly shutter of a film camera as opposed to a video chip.

Now that I think about it, maybe he's right. The way a film shutter works, the top (or is it the botom??) of the frame is exposed first. as the piece of metal turns it goes down uncovering the rest of the frame, bottom last. Then, it covers up the top, moves down and covers up the rest, bottom last. The top of the frame is just slightly ahead of the bottom.

I assume a mini-dv camera like the dvx exposes the whole frame at once, at the same time. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.

An interlaced TV scans a field from the top of the screen down. Similar to the way a film camera works with the top ahead of the bottom. More similar than a DV camera. Perhaps this creates just a slightly smoother look between the two formats. Not a whole lot, just a tiny bit; that only people who have spent far too much time looking at these things might notice.

I am quite happy in my limited tests with the camera. I wasn't expecting a perfect film look, and slowing the shutter looks great enough for me. Again, the difference is damn subtle. I also haven't seen the PAL camera, and hope they don't have any extra problem. My comments are based only on working with the NTSC version, which some are complaining about on this thread.
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1077903628;start=100#102 date=03/07/04 at 16:55:09]So, let me understand what you're saying: you're saying you have a film clip that is displaying the exact same artifacts, strobing, buzz and halo's as the DVX footage, right?[/quote]

to a certain aspect yes
 
Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

Re: UNHAPPY *25p PAL* users: LET'S WRITE to Panaso

"He postulated that perhaps the problem stems from the butterfly shutter of a film camera as opposed to a video chip. "

I remember bringing that up about a year ago on 2-pop.  At the time I thought there could be something to it.  One artifact of shooting film is that a horizontal pan across a vertical line can actually bend that line (because the top is exposed before the bottom, and the bottom will be in a different place due to the panning motion).

Most film cameras use some sort of rotating shutter, whether it's a butterfly or a half-moon, and that shutter will typically expose one corner of the frame first, and the diagonally opposite corner last.  There are variations though -- Beaulieu's use a "guillotine" shutter, and the Eclair ACL used something I can only describe as a "pendulum" shutter, IIRC.

Could that have a bearing on a perceived difference in motion rendering?  At the time I thought so, but nowadays I just don't see the difference, so I don't know.  Maybe.

The Dalsa (or is it the Viper?) digital camera is supposed to include a physical mechanical shutter.  It'd be interesting to see footage from that and see how it compares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top