From: Bower, Sara (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Feb 04 2010 - 16:54:46 PST
The question is far to broad. Volumes have been written on each of your points.
Treat a Telecine as a variable input constant output device. The constant output is the TV standard of the target country, the variable input is the frame speed. PAL is simple, the film runs at 25fps and is line scanned by the raster, or CCD and frame scanned by the raster field motion or just film motion for CCD machines.
At any other speed ( between preset limits ) the film is run at the desired speed and frames are repeated or dropped in the frame store to match the target TV standard.
At 24FPS the interlaced frame output is a 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 or 12 field are repeated every 25 fields.
It would be difficult to produce multiples of scan speed as such modes are not supported in the more common systems.
NTSC is far more complex with 3:2 pull down being required, but the pattern will change with film speed and can make some speeds to give a juddery effect. This is form of spatial and temporal aliasing. It is a combinations of film speed and the speed the image is changing across the frame. To this end the contents of the film will effect the smoothness of the varispeed operation.
courtesy of my friend Dave.
--best Sara
SARA BOWER
ACCOUNT MANAGER
116 JOHN STREET, SUITE 701
NEW YORK
NY 10038
USA
T +1 212 385 2077 ext794
F +1 646 792 4668
M
E email suppressed
http://WWW.ITNSOURCE.COM
P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
________________________________________
From: Experimental Film Discussion List [email suppressed]
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:56 PM
To: email suppressed
Subject: Re: Dialogues between film and digital
Thanks Bryan, I think that starts to point me in the right
direction. Is it then advisable to make the initial transfer to a
hard drive rather than to mini dv? Is this 24 progressive frame per
second a readily available setting at most telecine (Rank?) transfer
services?
On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:16 PM, bryan mckay wrote:
> When you slow something down in Final Cut, for instance, you have
> to turn off "Frame Blending" or else it will start interpolating
> new frames.
>
> Also, if you're using Mini DV as your source, you're working with
> 29.97 fps material, so you're already adding extra frames. There
> are a lot of variables when moving from analog to digital. The most
> important thing if you want to keep from adding any extra frames is
> to output 24 progressive frames per second during telecine.
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
>
>> My limited experience with this has led me to believe that the
>> quality is better if the "slow down" process takes place at the
>> telecine stage. Seems like rendering the speed change in Final
>> Cut Pro didn't look as good when I tried that. Not sure I started
>> with a 24 "fps" transfer though, and the file was was transferred
>> initially to a mini dv.
>> I need to learn more about all of this.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:27 AM, bryan mckay wrote:
>>
>>> While I don't have specific answers to your questions, I can tell
>>> you it would be a hell of a lot easier to just telecine/scan your
>>> film to a true 24p digital source—most post-houses can transfer
>>> your work to a Quicktime file on a hard drive—and perform these
>>> manipulations in your NLE. You'd have better quality and more
>>> control. It's a lot easier to double frames after the fact.
>>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am curious about how film telecine machines work. What is the
>>>> scan rate of a telecine machine? If one wanted to "slow down" a
>>>> film, analogous to say printing every frame twice with an
>>>> optical printer which would be 12fps if projected at 24fps, is
>>>> there an "optimum" slow down speed in the telecine process
>>>> which would minimize digital "artifacts" (frames that did not
>>>> reallly exist on the film). Are there some speeds with the
>>>> telecine process which are exact multiples of its scanning rate
>>>> such that there would result a minimum of these "artifact"
>>>> frames. I am not sure how to articulate this question, but
>>>> hopefully I have conveyed it.
>>>>
>>>> Myron Ort
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Mark Toscano wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fred Worden's brilliant and hilarious video 'Amongst the
>>>>> Persuaded' (2004) is, among other things, all about his
>>>>> uncertainty about what it is to make movies on digital video
>>>>> versus film.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Brand made some films that combined optical printing with
>>>>> computer generated travelling mattes, a very unusual
>>>>> aesthetic. Works in the Field (1978) and Split Decision (1979)
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Robinson's And We All Shine On (2006) treats a filmed
>>>>> landscape and a computer generated landscape in certain terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could look at certain flicker films as, in a sense,
>>>>> breaking down film into binary digits of on/off, especially
>>>>> Arnulf Rainer by Kubelka.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of John Whitney's computer generated films (beginning in
>>>>> 1967 with Hommage to Rameau) used monochrome computer animated,
>>>>> optical printed with color filters and occasional changes of
>>>>> speed to create the final films, which are ultimately hybrids
>>>>> of the two forms (though they were finalized in film). Might
>>>>> be not interesting enough an interaction of the two for you,
>>>>> though. (Other main titles in this vein are Permutations
>>>>> (1968), Matrix (1970), Matrix III (1972), and Arabesque (1975))
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken Jacobs has been making dozens of pieces in the past several
>>>>> years that would be well worth considering. There are digital
>>>>> "animations" of stereoscopic still photos, digital
>>>>> manipulations of early film footage, digital manipulations of
>>>>> his own earlier footage, and even pieces which attempt a sort
>>>>> of (visual) stereoization of nonstereo (non-3D) footage. I
>>>>> would contact him directly rather than try to suggest specific
>>>>> titles myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to think of some more...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Toscano
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Thu, 2/4/10, Kim Knowles <email suppressed> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Kim Knowles <email suppressed>
>>>>>> Subject: [FRAMEWORKS] Dialogues between film and digital
>>>>>> To: email suppressed
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 5:19 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> Apologies for yet another question. This time
>>>>>> I'm looking for experimental works that involve a
>>>>>> dialogue between film and digital technology for a looped
>>>>>> film programme at the Scottish Gallery of Modern Art.
>>>>>> I'm thinking of films that go beyond simply shooting on
>>>>>> film then transferring to digital, but rather where the two
>>>>>> formats somehow comment on each other, such as Shambhavi
>>>>>> Kaul's 'Scene 32' that screened at Rotterdam
>>>>>> this week, and Thorsten Fleisch's 'Wound Film'.
>>>>>> Any suggestions would, as ever, be greatly
>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Kim
>>>>>> We want to hear
>>>>>> all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell
>>>>>> us now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> _
>>>>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
>>>>>> <email suppressed>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
Please Note:
Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify email suppressed
Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business,
we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
Thank You.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.