Best Quality workflow 1080p 30fps on blu-ray.

[Graeme Nattress]

Martin, you make some good points. And given that none of us can really divorce ourselves from our cultural upbringings, we'll never really know, other than we know what we like

Personally, I'm looking for the day where we don't have a fixed fps per programme and can free form work with time as just another creative tool.

Graeme

 

[P Andersson]

keeps itching in my brain on this one

maybe graeme or another tech savvy person can explain

is it possible to allow for high framerates while allowing for slow shutterspeeds, of course it wasn't possible before as the film had to be transported away before the next picture started to get exposed, but now, perhaps one frame can start reading the sensor before the previous frame is finished, don't know at all if the technology allows for this

made a little illustration to explain the question

 

[GlennChan]

I don't believe this increases sensitivity.

When you read a photosite, you take the charge out it. In between reads, the photosite is 'exposing'. The exposure time on each photosite is inversely proportional to the frame rate / read rate. Reading the photosites faster just decreases exposure time.

2- I think your scheme would have problems with motion. Assuming your shutter is fully open, all the photosites are always exposing but there will be a time offset between the photosites.

Related:
http://www.pixelink.com/support/oem/cameras/common_to_firewire/image_capture/rolling_shutter.htm

3- Another approach is to simply use a lot of light!

 

[P Andersson]

thanks glenn

if the information must leave the photosite on reading, this idea doesn't work

it was about adding blur to an image without having to use low frame rates

or having to make it a post thing

 

[Martin Jäger]

hej graeme - about the psychology thingiy

hej graeme - about the psychology thingiy

.. i understand your point about cultural habits of looking at somehing - but never the less you'd have kind of a strange, unconcious feelling if you'd watch the recent news on telly with 30fps instead of 60fields.. as Martin said,
higher framerates feel more real also because it's closer to our "internal" framerate of the brain. try to look at it like that: the longer the gaps between frames are the more information is missing - puting it to the extreme would mean you'd look at one take of a scene and you only show the first and the last frame... what happened in between? it'd be like looking at 2 photographs
- meaning - you have less gripp on what is "really" happening. - just my philosophy man i'm not claiming that i'm right..


martin

 

[Stuart English]

The Cinematic "look"

The Cinematic "look"

The good news is with RED we'll be able to experiment with the look of our images in a way not previously open to film or video cinematographers.

Having seen non-interlaced "smooth" video - albeit from a Varicam - I have a suspicion that 24fps ISN'T the key to a cinematic experience (heretic!)

Rather its the dynamic range, smooth and creamy tonal and color response, and lack of sharpened edges.

However, such a theory will soon be able to be tested.

 

[Greg Voevodsky]

As I said before seeing Showscan (google it) 70mm at 60 frames per second on a roller coaster, the front rung in front of the roller coaster was sharp just like its high shutterangle and not blurred having ridden the coaster in real life. It strobed. The psychology of film is how the eye retains a latient image so that we don't really see the strobe at 24 frames (actually 48 fps - half black) (being borderline) real life blur probably is around 30 frames.

I can tell you 60 frames unless you compensated for the shutter is way off. If it feels right in motion blur in real life and on digital cinema then it is... film is a bit slow. Video maybe a bit high... but I'm sure motion blur can be scientifically measured in the brain and on digital.