Coast - awful filmic effect

In message , Chris Packman
writes
In .com chumpster
wrote:

Many's the time, as I'm finishing an edit, the client will wince at
the 1:1 interlaced footage I've digitised material, rather than the 4:
1 single field footage I've been playing to them for the past six
weeks.

It's funny. Yet, somehow I see where they're coming from.

Shields up for incoming fire. Brace brace brace.

I started a grade once and the client burst into floods of tears ! As
she sobbed uncontrollablly she protested that I had made her programme
into video and that she had promissed that her programme would be film
effected ! After a while I managed to explain that the conform had
turned her programme into video (she had been used to watching it hevily
compressed at off line quality on the Avid) and that once I finished
grading it I would film effect it. In order to calm her down I had to
get the ARC early and show her a bit filised, after that she was over
the moon and we had a good booking.....

You should "405-line"-effect it and see what they say
--
Chris

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:54:08 -0000, "Martin Underwood" [email protected] wrote:


On interlaced video, the two fields are different both in the sense of
containing different parts of the scene (as for film) but also they are
exposed at different times, with adjacent lines (as seen on the screen)
being exposed 1/25 second apart.

1/50th of a second.

Steve

The Doctor Who Restoration Team Website
http://www.restoration-team.co.uk

Steve Roberts wrote in message
:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:54:08 -0000, "Martin Underwood" [email protected] wrote:


On interlaced video, the two fields are different both in the sense
of containing different parts of the scene (as for film) but also
they are exposed at different times, with adjacent lines (as seen on
the screen) being exposed 1/25 second apart.

1/50th of a second.

I can't believe I typed "1/25" second :-(

My brain said "1/50" and my fingers typed "1/25"!

Martin Underwood wrote:
Chris Packman wrote in message
:

In Matti Lamprhey wrote:
"Chris Packman" wrote...
[...] I do admit that it was a long time ago when
film effect was a new idea......
Can someone please explain what this is all about?

Matti

Ok I will try.....

[snip]

I'm sorry it's a bit technical but I hope it explains what everyone is
on about...

The only thing I'll add to this excellent description is...

[snip]

Ah, so this process is precisely what would be called deinterlacing in
the world of PC video processing, I think?

In that case I'd like to ask one question. For material shot interlaced
intended to be played back on a device which handles interlaced material
(such as a CRT), I can see why you'd want to keep the material that way
in many if not all cases. Rendering it on the display, due to the
temporal blurring of the phosphors, will effectively merge the fields.

However, when it comes to rendering on devices which natively handle
material progressively, doesn't deinterlacing make more sense, either
converting 50i to 25p or even to 50p (though I realise the latter
wouldn't be referred to as filmising)?

I've fiddled about with some of this stuff via avisynth on my PC &
conversions from video often seem to give best results with 50p output
using motion compensation & spatial/temporal interpolation to create the
extra data.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t

In message , Chris
writes
In message , Chris Packman
writes
In .com chumpster
wrote:

Many's the time, as I'm finishing an edit, the client will wince at
the 1:1 interlaced footage I've digitised material, rather than the 4:
1 single field footage I've been playing to them for the past six
weeks.

It's funny. Yet, somehow I see where they're coming from.

Shields up for incoming fire. Brace brace brace.

I started a grade once and the client burst into floods of tears ! As
she sobbed uncontrollablly she protested that I had made her programme
into video and that she had promissed that her programme would be film
effected ! After a while I managed to explain that the conform had
turned her programme into video (she had been used to watching it hevily
compressed at off line quality on the Avid) and that once I finished
grading it I would film effect it. In order to calm her down I had to
get the ARC early and show her a bit filised, after that she was over
the moon and we had a good booking.....

You should "405-line"-effect it and see what they say
I think the one thing that is missing in the film effect is hop and
weave!
--
Chris Booth BBCVT 1963 to 1993

"Martin Underwood" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Steve Roberts wrote in message
:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:54:08 -0000, "Martin Underwood" [email protected] wrote:


On interlaced video, the two fields are different both in the sense
of containing different parts of the scene (as for film) but also
they are exposed at different times, with adjacent lines (as seen on
the screen) being exposed 1/25 second apart.

1/50th of a second.

I can't believe I typed "1/25" second :-(

My brain said "1/50" and my fingers typed "1/25"!

It's easily done. This morning my brain said 'We'd be grateful if you could
settle the account as soon as possible' and my fingers typed 'Look, pay up
you little scrote or I'm come round and kick the **** out of you'.

Bill

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Bill Wright typed this :

"Martin Underwood" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Steve Roberts wrote in message
:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:54:08 -0000, "Martin Underwood" [email protected] wrote:


On interlaced video, the two fields are different both in the sense
of containing different parts of the scene (as for film) but also
they are exposed at different times, with adjacent lines (as seen on
the screen) being exposed 1/25 second apart.

1/50th of a second.

I can't believe I typed "1/25" second :-(

My brain said "1/50" and my fingers typed "1/25"!

It's easily done. This morning my brain said 'We'd be grateful if you could
settle the account as soon as possible' and my fingers typed 'Look, pay up
you little scrote or I'm come round and kick the **** out of you'.

I guess every roof aerial could be equipped with a weeny wireless device
that you could make go "Clik ... bzzzz ...." if the buggers don't cough
up.
--
Roger Hunt

Chris Booth said the following on 11/11/06 18:21:
In message , Chris
writes
In message , Chris Packman
writes
In .com chumpster
wrote:

Many's the time, as I'm finishing an edit, the client will wince at
the 1:1 interlaced footage I've digitised material, rather than the 4:
1 single field footage I've been playing to them for the past six
weeks.

It's funny. Yet, somehow I see where they're coming from.

Shields up for incoming fire. Brace brace brace.

I started a grade once and the client burst into floods of tears ! As
she sobbed uncontrollablly she protested that I had made her programme
into video and that she had promissed that her programme would be film
effected ! After a while I managed to explain that the conform had
turned her programme into video (she had been used to watching it hevily
compressed at off line quality on the Avid) and that once I finished
grading it I would film effect it. In order to calm her down I had to
get the ARC early and show her a bit filised, after that she was over
the moon and we had a good booking.....

You should "405-line"-effect it and see what they say
I think the one thing that is missing in the film effect is hop and weave!

Well, I suppose they could copy Speilberg's idea of taping a power drill
to the side of a camera for an explosion effect if they're too cheap to
buy the lens to do that.


Richard.


--
"Naturally the common people don't want war, but they can always be
brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
endangering the country. It works the same in every country."
Reichsmarshall Herman Goering, Nuremberg, 1946

The message
from "Martin Underwood" [email protected] contains these words:

wrote in message
:

Whenever I complain about HD 24/25p to suppliers I get this blank
expression and the response "but its the filmic look". Why do we have
to be constrained to bad motion reproduction at a low frame rate when
we are able to look to the future! Don't get me wrong, I love films,
but the 'effect' doesn't translate to the digital age. Give me 50p at
least!

Presumably 25p and 50i are the same data rate, whereas 50p is twice
the data
rate. The broadcast network (analogue, DTTV, Dsat, Dcable) is geared up to
transmitting 50i, so it would need major chages to allow it to
transmit 50p.
Mind you, 50p would look great: the fluidity of 50 fps without the
interlacing "comb effect" on stills.

If 50p became the norm, I bet there are some idiots who would still
want all
their work down-converting to 25p (transmitted as pairs of identical 50p
frames) on the grounds that 50p doesn't look like film - in the sense
of "it
looks too smooth to be film". ;-( Mind you, there is a precedent for
frame-doubling: don't some cinemas project each frame twice to give less
flicker, even if there is still the same 25 different images per second so
the movement is still as jerky.

Not _some_ cinemas, _all_ cinemas project each frame twice (and
possibly thrice, but that's just an extrapolation of the basic idea of
increasing the refresh rate from 48 to 72 Hz on my part).

Interlaced scanning was a means of conserving bandwidth that was
obviously inspired by the cinematic practice of showing each frame twice
to double up the flicker frequency to 48Hz.

The problem with 50Hz interlaced scan rate was that it was still too
low to avoid flicker induced headaches (CRT display technology). It
benefitted scenes that were motion busy but was dire for static images
with horizontal edge detail.

Once the analogue system is finally put out to pasture in favour of
digital, interlace scans should also, likewise be consigned to the
scrapheap to remove the temptation to 'economise' on bandwidth.

Digital video storage and presentation techniques when tuned to how our
visual sense actually works will not need the permanent compromise of
interlacing to economise on bandwidth. There are far better ways to
trade high detail off against fast motion content (high detail during
motion busy scenes would be wasted on our sense of vision).

I'm sure most viewers must have realised that SD analogue only looked
really crap whenever static content filled the screen for more than a
few seconds. Human vision doesn't look for detail in rapidly changing
scenes (basically on account it takes time for the visual cortex to
analyse the scene, a luxury absent when there are rapid changes taking
place).

In fact, with extremely rapid changes (such as casting one's view over
various parts of a scene) the visual cortex will discard the jumbled
images on the retina that occur as a result of our flicking our view
from one point to another in the overall scene. In this case, the brain
knows it's going to produce 'garbage images' due to the rapid shift of
gaze and so blanks it out.

Our visual cortex automatically analyses the scene for detail when it
isn't otherwise occupied with movement related scene content that in
real life would be a matter of health and safety.

There are limits to how much information the brain can handle from
moment to moment. Evolution has had hundreds of millions of years to
fine tune the eye brain interface for an optimal sense of sight.

It's perhaps been only a matter of the last 100,000 years or so that
the human brain has reached that stage in its development where it has
been capable of contemplating the very nature of sight and maybe a mere
10,000 years ago when human society could allow such contemplation to be
shared, yet only in the last hundred years or so that any real
understanding of the process has emerged.

In spite of the above observations, today's arguments over the merits
of interlaced over progressive scan techniques in digital video systems,
suggests extreme short sightedness. It should be quite obvious that
interlaced scanning has no place whatsoever in a modern digital system.

The only problem with digital video broadcasting is probably best
described by that dialogue in the opening credits of the origional
series, "The Twilight Zone", being voiced by a "Bean Counter"(tm).

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

In message , Chris Booth
writes
[snip]
I think the one thing that is missing in the film effect is hop and
weave!

Magic Bullet certainly has weave! May even have hop as well.

Mind you Magic Bullet covers everything from someone wanting a simple
film effect right through to heavy processing if (say) you wanted to
mock up some fake 50 year old footage that looks like it has been
through the wars.

--
Marcus Durham