From: Mitsu Hadeishi (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2006 - 17:48:53 PST
On Sunday 05 March 2006 20:15, Pip Chodorov wrote:
> I have absolutely no
> incentive to shoot HD and use a film-grain look - that's
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting using a "film-grain look" with HD --- I
am saying that the light responsiveness of a film camera is something that
one should eventually be able to get with digital cameras; I tend to agree
that the default way that CCDs capture light is somehow less satisfying
visually than the way film captures light --- but one can play with that in
post, and get a much nicer looking result (not just mimicking film, but lots
of other effects). Adding film grain, on the other hand, that does strike me
as a bit bizarre.
> Film creates time through
> space (consecutive frames 24 times a second) while video creates
> space through time (flying spot over a trellis of lines).
This is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about --- times have changed,
and this is not the way video projectors work these days. Yes, an old tube
TV uses a scanning mechanism to create images --- and I actually do think
that has a subtle deleterious effect on the way the images look. But a
recent video projector shows images full-frame at once; it does not use a
moving phosphor. In fact, unlike a film projector which relies on
persistence of vision to fool the eye into thinking the moving image is
continuous even though you're watching blackness half the time, an LCD
projector shows a continuous image (which is partly why I prefer the more
fluid look of LCD versus DLP projectors).
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.