![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Max Demian wrote:
Ironically, CGI programmers have put a lot of effort and CPU into making the "right" motion blur in each frame, whilst the film makers seem to be losing it. Since when? My experience of making videocaps from feature films would suggest that the shutter speed remains a constant proportion of the 24 fps regardless of lighting conditions A lot of "films" these days are not actually made on film at all, but electronically from television cameras. One of the effects available with modern cameras is an extreme shortening of the exposure time, giving a sort of jerky effect that some directors seem to like. Effects in electronic cameras (unlike film cameras with physically moving parts) can be done so easily that many directors do them just because they can. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Apr, 09:05, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article , Max Demian wrote: Ironically, CGI programmers have put a lot of effort and CPU into making the "right" motion blur in each frame, whilst the film makers seem to be losing it. Since when? My experience of making videocaps from feature films would suggest that the shutter speed remains a constant proportion of the 24 fps regardless of lighting conditions A lot of "films" these days are not actually made on film at all, but electronically from television cameras. One of the effects available with modern cameras is an extreme shortening of the exposure time, giving a sort of jerky effect that some directors seem to like. Effects in electronic cameras (unlike film cameras with physically moving parts) can be done so easily that many directors do them just because they can. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software fromhttp://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ Hi I think I'm going with a samsung UE32D5520, any comments or experience of this gratefully appreciated. Rog |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rog" wrote in message
... On 22 Apr, 09:05, Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , Max Demian wrote: Ironically, CGI programmers have put a lot of effort and CPU into making the "right" motion blur in each frame, whilst the film makers seem to be losing it. Since when? My experience of making videocaps from feature films would suggest that the shutter speed remains a constant proportion of the 24 fps regardless of lighting conditions A lot of "films" these days are not actually made on film at all, but electronically from television cameras. One of the effects available with modern cameras is an extreme shortening of the exposure time, giving a sort of jerky effect that some directors seem to like. Effects in electronic cameras (unlike film cameras with physically moving parts) can be done so easily that many directors do them just because they can. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software fromhttp://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ Hi I think I'm going with a samsung UE32D5520, any comments or experience of this gratefully appreciated. Rog If that is a LED set think about buying a set of computer speakers to go with it. LED sets are very think and so correspondingly are the speakers therein. -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article
s.com, rog scribeth thus On 22 Apr, 09:05, Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , Max Demian wrote: Ironically, CGI programmers have put a lot of effort and CPU into making the "right" motion blur in each frame, whilst the film makers seem to be losing it. Since when? My experience of making videocaps from feature films would suggest that the shutter speed remains a constant proportion of the 24 fps regardless of lighting conditions A lot of "films" these days are not actually made on film at all, but electronically from television cameras. One of the effects available with modern cameras is an extreme shortening of the exposure time, giving a sort of jerky effect that some directors seem to like. Effects in electronic cameras (unlike film cameras with physically moving parts) can be done so easily that many directors do them just because they can. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software fromhttp://sourceforge.net/proj ects/virtual-access/ Hi I think I'm going with a samsung UE32D5520, any comments or experience of this gratefully appreciated. Rog Well said my piece earlier but seriously suggest you check out the newer Sony's!.... -- Tony Sayer |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Moving from 60Hz to 50Hz | Marko Rauhamaa | High definition TV | 1 | September 16th 07 07:41 PM |
| Moving from 60Hz to 50Hz | Marko Rauhamaa | High definition TV | 7 | April 23rd 07 09:13 PM |
| 50Hz or 100Hz | Staiger | UK digital tv | 31 | July 12th 05 04:31 PM |
| HDTV CRT at 1080i can this only be 50hz? | Pedro | High definition TV | 5 | June 11th 04 11:00 AM |
| 100Hz v 50Hz | Justin Evans | UK home cinema | 22 | November 19th 03 10:22 AM |