Frage von catchafire:
Sorry that I have again this vexing issue must dig ...
But understand one thing I still do not. Why do I s.einem film, whether a scene was digitally rotated always s.den movements? I can understand the frame-rate settings and full output. What is it?
Antwort von MacPro:
Quite simply: You can not. Small example: parts of "Jumper" has been rotated with the RED. The rest on conventional film. If until now but apparently nobody hingekriegt the pictures to identify them.
Antwort von catchafire:
well then the VMA redcam digitally record and you do not recognize it. But what makes the redcam differently? or what was in the post of jumper done differently?
Antwort von MacPro:
different than what? As someone who's wedding video with its 25p recording in Konsumerknipse and later wonder why everything is so jerky?
Or as other digital film production with the same budget?
Antwort von catchafire:
than other digital film production with the same budget
Antwort von MacPro:
And where you take the knowledge that you can see there? I can not, at least.
Antwort von catchafire:
As I've mentioned above you can see it s.den movements.
Antwort von LarsProgressiv:
Hello!
I think it is s.der exposure time.
The movements often appear choppy when short exposure times in relation to the selected frame.
So around 30fps at 1/200s exposure time.
Then rather synonymous with 1/30s halved to a
maximum refresh rate (1/60s) exposure.
Regards
Lars
Antwort von catchafire:
times but this is an answer
but unfortunately I do not understand ...
I can but just as many frames to include as a film camera (abgesehn of any high-speed vehicle), I can run in the receptive or join in the post.
Is not everything that is crucial to moving the show?
Antwort von Thore Rehbach:
Well, if the exposure time 1 / 200 is, the movement in each frame is as follows and frozen at normal playback speed as a restless Picture if you 1 / 30 and expose the movement by a natural "motion Bluring" receives.
Antwort von catchafire:
s.ok now hab ichs savvy with the exposure time
but that still does not explain exactly my problem. a videocam is not just expose how a film camera?
I guess this is yet possible. So you should but the "film movement" can immitieren
Antwort von Thore Rehbach:
If you are in your Shutterspeed adjust the cam can get quite synonymous wonderful Motionbluring. I had recently grad, where ichs garnicht could use - at the Blue Screen Studio, hmpf.
Here's a link: http://www.mediacollege.com/video/camera/shutter/
Antwort von MacPro:
a videocam is not just expose how a film camera?
I guess this is yet possible. So you should but the "film movement" can immitieren Of course this is possible. That's why you see so synonymous no difference!
Antwort von Chrissigorn123:
... and why all want the film look silly manage? Video is much more realistic ^ ^
Antwort von catchafire:
@ MacPro obviously see a difference in many big films one sees immediately the digital shots.
Antwort von Eugen von ...:
I can but just as many frames to include as a film camera You shall not coincidentally, the shutter speed with frames per second the same?
Antwort von catchafire:
I put no nothing except the same with a video camera all the settings are possible it synonymous with a film camera there.
Antwort von MacPro:
Then give a look at an example.
@ MacPro obviously see a difference in many big films one sees immediately the digital shots.
Antwort von catchafire:
miami vice, for example
Antwort von B.DeKid:
s.ok now hab ichs savvy with the exposure time
but that still does not explain exactly my problem. a videocam is not just expose how a film camera?
I guess this is yet possible. So you should but the "film movement" can immitieren So I think you mean the result of analog vs.. digital footage.
And a video camera so now exposed not as a film camera with film it is doing.
Chip technology can be only compared with negative Shooting.
Solo Chemical processes during the exposure and everything about the development, is fundamentally different to digital images.
But I think just today but through the multitude s.Effekten and finishing the opportunities, we can not say we could
here to imply a difference.
How often is probably the most negative after digitises to edit it and put some accents.
Movies are sometimes deliberately in a "different look" rotated, and the spectator sees and he likes.
...........
So I would say .... movies are made so that a difference in the "film" looks that is intentionally made ....... (or they knew it not be better;)
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von MacPro:
But I think just today but through the multitude s.Effekten and finishing the opportunities, we can not say we could
here to imply a difference.
How often is probably the most negative after digitises to edit it and put some accents.
Movies are sometimes deliberately in a "different look" rotated, and the spectator sees and he likes.
...........
So I would say .... movies are made so that a difference in the "film" looks that is intentionally made ....... (or they knew it not be better;)
MfG
B. DeKid That's right.
Antwort von catchafire:
I'm still not satisfied;)
http://www.diefettenjahre.de/trailer/trailer.html
Here is the trailer for the film The Edukators. As you can see here very clearly is the digitally rotated been.
times we forget deep unschärfe, körnung, contrast volume, saturation and what do I know what it still plays everything. Alone in the motion picture betrays already, that it is digital. although a digital camera the same settings like a movie camera has (according to this thread). So the makers have thought, come on let it look like video.
for aesthetic reasons?
Antwort von MacPro:
As you can see here very clearly is the digitally rotated been.
Can you "super obvious" times to quantify somehow? You mean all of a serious Briefmarkengroßem trailer to you on a monitor with 60Hz Bildwiederholsequenz most likely anschaust, to be able to recognize that the aesthetic movement is somehow different than a material shot on film ?????
Sorry, but you verrennst yourself as something ...
Antwort von MacPro:
Alone in the motion picture betrays already, that it is digital. No, it reveals that there was low budget s.Werk ....
So the makers have thought, come on let it look like video.
for aesthetic reasons? no, because of economic. Give it to himself. You searched the threads you look in the cinema have all read, but for safety's sake again: The smaller the host chip (depth), the more movement (hand-held camera), the more the so-called (film)-Judd at 24/25p. It's operating principle and film professionals to do absolutely everything in order to avoid situations in which this effect is allzudeutlich, but with a
compact digital (because of the large depth of field) is difficult. But this has nothing with digital vs. film to do so.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Cloverfield is probably digital ;-)
Nee So NEN friend of me has been the annual Semi Pro s.Zocken is synonymous claimed he could move s.sich pixels detect when an enemy comes around the corner, and then fired the AWP already synonymous.
I do not know if digital is bad now, or from which you view the movement bothers, but I find Prinziep good movies to digital more expensive than on the film was poorly rotated;.)
Everything kuin ne kind of times I tell if I myself as Planet Terror ankucke can I'll say of her picture makes it a seemingly 8mm Camera Ebay was used ......
I think that you, as I said not really Untwerschied looks.
Kuck Planet Earth as it comparatively with 16 mm material and it can be satisfied with the pictures, right?
Alla
MfG
B, DeKid
Nice discussion meters but look in the forums under Still Image vs. analog. Digital because you'll find hundreds of threads .;.-)
Antwort von duvancam:
@ catchafire:
I know what you mean. did you "apocalypto" view? as you can see the basis of individual scenes, when it digitally and when to have 35mm rotated.
admittedly, I ask your _jahren_ been employed. Even as a child, I wanted to know why movements in the cinema is always a little different than watching TV or in real life. Unfortunately, since I have never had a "right" answer, can I get my parents resent not synonymous, but know that zero out with film and the like.
larsprogressive has for me quite well together, why with the "movement" is: Blurring motion. see you on the internet a bit to the subject and you will see numerous articles about finding why the "real" video look so unnecessary acts, while the movie does look so off.
Antwort von Eugen von ...:
and you will be numerous articles on finding why the "real" video look so unnecessary acts, while the movie does look so off. It is as synonymous repeatedly written, the film look was so desirable because the eye in the cinema long years has got used to. That is why complete crap, because movies no longer the "mass" achieved. The place - plenty of times expressed exaggerated - at home on the couch, searches and RT-Dumm Doof Sat, bangs are cheap beer in the skull and tries s.den not due to visit in Jobcenter think.
Unfortunately (and here make you a zillion exclamation before) is "CINEMA" only for the upper middle class and for the aesthetes since. The rest of the order of the 80-inch flat panel.
This is the evil heresy ;-)
I understand the hype synonymous to 24 images per second is not (synonymous my 25). In fact, it is choppy and not fluid. So why the liquid ausbremsen video? Film has only one real advantage, and that is the possible contrast range (this advantage, he plays but only on the screen off). The rest you get (with a lot of money) synonymous already out digitally as well.
Instead of any hinterherzurennen Look, you should prefer to concentrate on stories. Sometimes there are months, as I try to always have the movie posters line 3482nd remake of ... " to find.
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
So, again very slowly.
Video cameras can be "a movement across multiple images without interruption. Film cameras can not, because the picture window for the film to be temporarily closed.
FILM: At 25 frames per second, we have a maximum exposure time of 1 / 50 sec (at 24fps then 1 / 48)
VIDEO: As the chip is so simple that convert incident light needs are here at 25p synonymous 1 / 25 sec possible (which is longer than 1/50...nur for the case). This means that a falling drop of water pulls on his Picture rail, and sets them on the next Picture s.genau the same point.
In FILM, the path of the water droplet at 1 / 50 for exactly the same length interrupted, as he stands on the frame is exposed.
It has nothing to do with very short exposure times to do nothing and synonymous with the wing panel in the movies (which is the same principle as in the Camera is). Even the linked Page ansich only explains the principle of motion blur.
EFFECT: Film Movement, we have less resolution than is possible with video. For moving critical documents is therefore interesting video - also synonymous yes very high frame rates are possible. The movement resolution of film, however, is coarse, but sufficient. More motion information would be redundant and shows synonymous in some cases a lack of talented actors (!), Because you have more subtleties in the facial expressions and the facial features were discovered.
Scenic movies are so happy to reduce the essential, therefore, enough of 25, or 24 frames per second.
25 frames per second with 1 / 25 exposure time but is usually too vague, so rather Tinnef. The only time I found the Gröning in "Die grosse Stille" quite good, but for films but this bothers me very much. Maybe somebody needs to skillfully use narrative. Yeah, I have not seen.
Antwort von DWUA:
Off the top of "surreptitious Michel 's first paragraph of the basic
you see on a "celluloid" strip black bars
between Diaphanes (transparent) images.
Since this when playing
mitprojeziert are synonymous,
sits the cinema more often in the dark
perceive when he believes.
;)
This time with precision thanks s.alle, chemists and Imagesetter ...
