Blurovision

On 2009-10-03, Bill Wright wrote:
"Ivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Watson wrote:

Lee Soft or Promist by the look of it

Cheers, a quick google told me everything I wanted to know..
http://www.tiffen.com/promist.htm.
Funny that, because normally you look at an advert and the 'before' picture
is crap and the 'after' picture is good, but on there it's the other way
round.

I thought the same... then wondered how their picture-destroying filter
also managed to move the subject around, in the first three pictures at
least.

--
David Taylor

In message , Mike Henry
writes

Couple that philosophy with the idiots that like to chuck away every
other field in the name of 'art', and we're buggered ?

These days you don't even need to throw it away - all you need to do is
shoot at 25p

Er yes, and that misses the whole point! It's not about how you arrive at
25 frames/sec which is half the temporal resolution we should be getting.
It's the fact that our TVs are capable of beautifully smooth 50Hz motion,
but the cretins are trying to make that a thing of the past and only give
us 25Hz motion.

I fully understand that, thank you - but you no longer have to throw
anything away - just not record it in the first place.

I understand that also, thanks :-). It still leaves us with the idiots who
want to show us low temporal resolution 25Hz motion when we should be
getting double that temporal resolution motion, ie 50 different pictures
every second.

There's a perception amongst certain groups that because flim is shot at
25fps (for telly anyway) and is a higher cost option, that only things
of higher quality are afforded that expense. As a result they infer that
if ordinary telly is shot in the same manner (25fps), that some people
will be conned into thinking that the product is of higher quality that
it really is.

This leads to the requirement to shutter cameras at 1/50 to reduce
motion blur (I once gave up trying to explain to an idiot about 180
degree shutters and how they affect the way flim is shot (and indeed he
took some convincing that the image on the retina was in fact
inverted)), and then to doubling the light levels or opening up a stop.
If the latter cue complaining that it's really hard to keep focus.

--
"All religions bear traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual
immaturity of the human race, before it had learned the obligations to speak
the truth. Not one of them makes it the duty of its God to be truthful and
understandable in his communications" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Paul Heslop wrote:
Ivan wrote:
I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on BBC one
Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was unusually soft
and lacking in the usual detail for this program, switched over to HD on
chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it looked near as good as the Ross
show usually looks, even in standard definition, I have my own thoughts on
this, however any clues anyone?

yes, soft focus Barbaravision


Star Trek (classic) vision?

BugBear

Watch 5 seconds - irritating - stopped the recording and watched something
else.

He needs more interesting guests I think

"Ivan" wrote in message
...
I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on BBC one
Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was unusually
soft and lacking in the usual detail for this program, switched over to HD
on chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it looked near as good as the Ross
show usually looks, even in standard definition, I have my own thoughts on
this, however any clues anyone?

Graham. wrote:
I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on BBC one
Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was unusually
soft and lacking in the usual detail for this program, switched over to HD
on chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it looked near as good as the
Ross show usually looks, even in standard definition, I have my own
thoughts on this, however any clues anyone?



Probably has a clause in her contract or something.
I saw something with Angela Lansbury, Murder she wrote probably,
all the close-ups of her were soft-focus and all other shots, cut-aways or
even 2-shots that included her, were shot without the filter.
The end result, to my eyes looked silly.


Wasn't it Ann Robinson who always insisted on an up-pointing camera
headlamp to disguise the wrinkly neck?

Mike

"m" wrote in message
...


Graham. wrote:
I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on BBC
one
Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was unusually
soft and lacking in the usual detail for this program, switched over to
HD on chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it looked near as good as the
Ross show usually looks, even in standard definition, I have my own
thoughts on this, however any clues anyone?



Probably has a clause in her contract or something.
I saw something with Angela Lansbury, Murder she wrote probably,
all the close-ups of her were soft-focus and all other shots, cut-aways
or
even 2-shots that included her, were shot without the filter.
The end result, to my eyes looked silly.


Wasn't it Ann Robinson who always insisted on an up-pointing camera
headlamp to disguise the wrinkly neck?

Goes with her winkley eye.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%