I have no idea about broadcast standards. Is everything shot on DV these days? Are there accepted formats for TV and cinema in terms of resolution?
Are films being made at 50/60Hz these days? Seems odd that cinema has hung on to the ugly 25 fps for so long.
Digital video (creating a video for a tune)
-
- KVRAF
- 3588 posts since 13 May, 2004 from montreal
That would be 720x480 @ 29.97 fps for NTSC, 0.9 pixel aspect ratio; and 720x576 @ 25 fps, 1.07 pixel aspect ratio for PAL.
That's all for TV/Video. For film I'm not sure - have to go ask our editing guy.
That's all for TV/Video. For film I'm not sure - have to go ask our editing guy.
-
- KVRist
- 102 posts since 10 Apr, 2003 from Bed, mainly
Cinema's still 24 fps (and has been for billions of years), though each frame's normally shown at least twice, so the rate at which you're actually seeing images is normally 48 or 72 frames per second.
Although the advent of digital cinema has upped the resolution massively (I've recently been playing with a 4k movie camera which is about 4000 x 2000 pixels!) the frame rate's still very much 24 for cinema use.
It IS actually possible to shoot film for replay at higher framerates (such as IMAX-HD, MaxiVision or Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated Showscan) but it just doesn't look like film any more - all of a sudden, M's office in the new James Bond film looks like a crap set from BBC's "Yes Minister".
...don't get me started on this, Chagzuki, or I'll have to start telling you my theories of "persistence of vision vs. brain rate"...
Philip
Ex-Head of Cinema Frame Rates
Raw Material Software
Although the advent of digital cinema has upped the resolution massively (I've recently been playing with a 4k movie camera which is about 4000 x 2000 pixels!) the frame rate's still very much 24 for cinema use.
It IS actually possible to shoot film for replay at higher framerates (such as IMAX-HD, MaxiVision or Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated Showscan) but it just doesn't look like film any more - all of a sudden, M's office in the new James Bond film looks like a crap set from BBC's "Yes Minister".
...don't get me started on this, Chagzuki, or I'll have to start telling you my theories of "persistence of vision vs. brain rate"...
Philip
Ex-Head of Cinema Frame Rates
Raw Material Software
-
- KVRist
- 102 posts since 10 Apr, 2003 from Bed, mainly
...try watching something like "Matrix Reloaded" or "Attack of the Clones" in IMAX. Firstly the left and right of the widescreen image are cut off (to make it fit the not-very-wide IMAX screen) so when something whip-pans across the screen at 24fps it 'leaps' in gaps of a couple of feet between each frame.
I tried to watch this and my brain melted and ran out of my nose. Really. 24fps is simply too low for large-format projection... but anything higher than about 48fps just looks like a home movie (i.e. it looks like video, not film). If you go up to about 60-72fps with high-res moving images, it looks like a "hole in the cinema wall" - it actually starts to look 3D, which is very weird indeed...
What you want is variable-speed projection - 24fps for most shots, upping to 32 or even 48 for action shots - but this is still a way off yet (and it'd be an absolute cock to try and show it on TV or release in on DVD).
Oh, by the way, widescreen TVs are exactly the same resolution as 'normal' TVs - they just stretch (or zoom in on) the picture to fit the screen. With analogue TV transmissions (and most DVDs) the picture is already letterboxed at the top and bottom, so when the widescreen TV zooms in on it, you lose most of the bars, but the picture quality is a bit worse. With digital TV transmissions, a lot of stuff is broadcast as 'anamorphic' - the same video standard, but before transmission the wide picture is horizontally squashed (so everyone's all tall and thin). A fuzzly-bit in the signal header lets your set-top decoder box know if it's widescreen or not, so that if you've got a widescreen TV, it just horizontally stretches the picture and it fits the 16:9 screen, but without losing any quality.
Nice.
Philip
Ex-head of Aspect Ratios
Raw Material Software
I tried to watch this and my brain melted and ran out of my nose. Really. 24fps is simply too low for large-format projection... but anything higher than about 48fps just looks like a home movie (i.e. it looks like video, not film). If you go up to about 60-72fps with high-res moving images, it looks like a "hole in the cinema wall" - it actually starts to look 3D, which is very weird indeed...
What you want is variable-speed projection - 24fps for most shots, upping to 32 or even 48 for action shots - but this is still a way off yet (and it'd be an absolute cock to try and show it on TV or release in on DVD).
Oh, by the way, widescreen TVs are exactly the same resolution as 'normal' TVs - they just stretch (or zoom in on) the picture to fit the screen. With analogue TV transmissions (and most DVDs) the picture is already letterboxed at the top and bottom, so when the widescreen TV zooms in on it, you lose most of the bars, but the picture quality is a bit worse. With digital TV transmissions, a lot of stuff is broadcast as 'anamorphic' - the same video standard, but before transmission the wide picture is horizontally squashed (so everyone's all tall and thin). A fuzzly-bit in the signal header lets your set-top decoder box know if it's widescreen or not, so that if you've got a widescreen TV, it just horizontally stretches the picture and it fits the 16:9 screen, but without losing any quality.
Nice.
Philip
Ex-head of Aspect Ratios
Raw Material Software
-
- KVRAF
- 2401 posts since 29 Dec, 2002 from In the dark
Try http://www.videohelp.com/
There are too many standards. There is one for Europe, one for the US and another lot for DVD.
There are too many standards. There is one for Europe, one for the US and another lot for DVD.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3409 posts since 26 Mar, 2002 from london
So in what format are pop videos shot? Is it a higher than broadcast resolution for future-proofing? I've seen music videos shown on cinema screens and I didn't notice any pixelation.
Every day takes figuring out all over again how to f#ckin’ live.
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
Hmmm, I wonder... do they bother to dither 
But seriously, if I got a widescreen TV connected with a normal (non-digital) areal/cable, the wide-screen broadcasts actually only use 3/4 of the scanlines?
That's outrageous. Now I understand why that guy went into the Philips headquarters a couple of years ago, tried to get some hostages and then killed himself
But seriously, if I got a widescreen TV connected with a normal (non-digital) areal/cable, the wide-screen broadcasts actually only use 3/4 of the scanlines?
That's outrageous. Now I understand why that guy went into the Philips headquarters a couple of years ago, tried to get some hostages and then killed himself
-
- KVRer
- 15 posts since 21 Jul, 2004 from Sweden
chagzuki - you would probably not see pixellation, but it should look a bit blurrier than super high res footage.
I've been playing around with a DV camera - mid priced consumer type which is a few years old - and it's very hard to get nice results... The main work seems to lie in lighting and post processing.
TV's have a 50-110hz refresh rate of the image, which has nothing to do with frame rate. The reason it's desireable with a high refreshrate is that the percieved flickering is reduced. Above 80hz (which is a ususal PC monitor setting) you'll probably not notice any flickering - the image looks more stable and simply feels better.
Framerate is one thing... Then there is shutter speed. High shutter speed is used in footage like Saving Private Ryan's action scenes - where the feeling becomes very adrenaline-like and every frame is crispy clear. With high shutter speeds you need more light to stimulate the sensors since they recieve light in much shorter bursts, the end result are frames with very little motion blur.
Low shutter speeds allow more motion blur and sort of blends the frames together much more. These thing also contribute to the general feel of the clips... It's not all about frame rate.
If you plan on using only computer generated graphics it becomes much easier - 25fps for PAL 29.97fps for NTSC. Most editing programs have these settings as templates ready for instant use.
I've been playing around with a DV camera - mid priced consumer type which is a few years old - and it's very hard to get nice results... The main work seems to lie in lighting and post processing.
TV's have a 50-110hz refresh rate of the image, which has nothing to do with frame rate. The reason it's desireable with a high refreshrate is that the percieved flickering is reduced. Above 80hz (which is a ususal PC monitor setting) you'll probably not notice any flickering - the image looks more stable and simply feels better.
Framerate is one thing... Then there is shutter speed. High shutter speed is used in footage like Saving Private Ryan's action scenes - where the feeling becomes very adrenaline-like and every frame is crispy clear. With high shutter speeds you need more light to stimulate the sensors since they recieve light in much shorter bursts, the end result are frames with very little motion blur.
Low shutter speeds allow more motion blur and sort of blends the frames together much more. These thing also contribute to the general feel of the clips... It's not all about frame rate.
If you plan on using only computer generated graphics it becomes much easier - 25fps for PAL 29.97fps for NTSC. Most editing programs have these settings as templates ready for instant use.
Rest begards,
Joakim
Joakim
-
- KVRist
- 328 posts since 30 Jan, 2004
With regard to letterboxing on an analogue signal, I seem to remember there were extra lines 'hidden' in the black bars (by broadcasting their colour, but no luminance, the two are separate parts of the signal).
Somehow a widescreen telly adds them to the horizontal resolution. Don't know how.
Somehow a widescreen telly adds them to the horizontal resolution. Don't know how.
-
- KVRAF
- 3964 posts since 31 Aug, 2003 from In a foreign town, in a foreign land
Pop videos are usually shot on 35mm or s16mm, although digital formats are quickly catching on.chagzuki wrote:So in what format are pop videos shot? Is it a higher than broadcast resolution for future-proofing? I've seen music videos shown on cinema screens and I didn't notice any pixelation.
Videos on DV/CAM/CPRO or DigiBeta or whatever are usually "filmlooked" (ie has interlacing removed, color/brightness correction applied) to make it look less cheap.
//edit
The Next Big Thing is 24P HD, which (if I'm correct) is 2k High Definition video. P stands for "progressive", so it has part of this "filmlook" built in.
Also:
<voice type="Angus Deyton"> ...is the right answer. </voice>joakimlinden wrote:The main work seems to lie in lighting and post processing.
Groet, Erik
Pop music delenda est.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3409 posts since 26 Mar, 2002 from london
Shot on film - but then it must be digitized for editing, so there must still be issues about choice of resolution.
I'm looking forward to experimenting with some of this.
I'm looking forward to experimenting with some of this.
Every day takes figuring out all over again how to f#ckin’ live.
-
- KVRAF
- 3964 posts since 31 Aug, 2003 from In a foreign town, in a foreign land
Budget-dependant.chagzuki wrote:Shot on film - but then it must be digitized for editing, so there must still be issues about choice of resolution.
A cheap transfer is doable, but you don't want to see this on anything bigger than a TV.
For projection, 2k is pretty standard. Expensive and stupid amounts of data. You're not going to edit this on a home-computer (yet. May be feasable within a year or two).
I'm sure there's formats in between this (several HD formats). These will look OK-ish on a big screen.
Borrow/rent a good DV or DVCAM machine and have fun.I'm looking forward to experimenting with some of this.
Messing with video is really cool.
Groet, Erik
Pop music delenda est.