Film and videotape. - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

Off Topic

Film and videotape.

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Film and videotape.
JT Pilot	posted 03-02- 09:54 AM When watching something on TV, who here can tell the difference between something that was shot in film and something that was shot in video. I can tell the difference, but I was surprised to find out recently that a lot of people can't. I wonder why this is. IP: Logged
goth Pilot	posted 03-02- 11:08 AM I see the difference too. It seems to deal with saturation of color, and depth of information. Since film is analog and, depending on the grain of the film, more detailed than standard video, I think that's where the difference comes in. Of course, high definition video is likely more than your eye can see, and likely better than film. As for why many people don't see the difference, I'm guessing they aren't looking for the difference. They are watching the content of the film, not the picture. Like reading a book on fine paper or regular pulp. Most don't notice the diference of the paper stock when the book is really engrossing to them. I bet if you were to set up a test of very short segments of the same scenes on film, and standard video, that most would prefer the film over video. And that most would see the difference. Whereas if you ask them to compare the quality of most video'd soaps to a film version of a movie, they couldn't remember a difference as they would only remember the content. IP: Logged
goth Pilot	posted 03-02- 11:08 AM whoops, double post...sorry [This message has been edited by goth (edited 03-02-2000).] IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 03-02- 12:04 PM JT - How old are you? It used to be that everything on TV was either live or on film. I remember when they first started using video (60's? 70's?..."All In The Family" really stands out for some reason). It was very noticable then and I still notice the difference. My guess is that younger people who grew up with both don't notice the difference as much. IP: Logged
Mighty Pilot	posted 03-02- 01:10 PM I haven't researched this to find out if it's true, but my impression is that the main reason you can tell the difference is they light them so differently. Film has a much wider dynamic range than video, and film cinematographers have learned how to use all of that range to add visual dynamics. Those trained on video have learned that there's not much fidelity at the low end, so they tend to light their scenes much brighter and with less contrast. Also, since straight to video tends to be cheaper it gets used on the less expensive shows, which often means less expensive crews and smaller less expensive sets. All of that gives shows shot on video a noticably different look than their siblings on film. Most people aren't very interested in the technical aspects of making a show. They never noticed because it never occurred to them that there was a difference. IP: Logged
Sv Pilot	posted 03-02- 01:18 PM Also I think most film is shot at 24 fps, right? Video if 30, at least in the US I think. -Sv IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 03-02- 11:17 PM I'm with SV on this one, but I think resolution and the way video handles are contributing factors. The reason I think the difference is framerate is because I've noticed that when I play SDOE and the framrate is around 20, it kind of looks like film, but when it's around 30 it looks like video. Also, when I run something shot in video in slow-mo mode on my VCR, it looks like film. IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 03-02- 11:21 PM >My guess is that younger people who grew up with both don't notice the difference as much. Actually, it's been my experience that the opposite is true. People who grew up with TV are very keen on the difference, eventhough they may take it for granted. Meanwhile, people who grew up with film can't see the difference at all. My parents, who I guess are fairly old now, have no idea what I'm talking about when I ask them if they can see the difference. I have no idea why this is the case, but it's pretty darn interesting. IP: Logged
goth Pilot	posted 03-03- 09:24 AM Film is shot at the rate of 32 frames per second. Film is superior to standard video in the information conveyed and the frame rate. When you see something that looks very smooth and richly colored, it is usually film. If you see something which seems nearly pastel in comparison, or a little "off" in the fluidity of motion, its video. I must distiguish cheap video with the new gear for video. Some sporting events are shot at very high frame rates, with great optics too. Enough so that they seem to strobe as they follow action. When they stand still , they have very realistic motion capture in my opinion. but when they pan to follow high speed action a weird strobing effect occurs. I'm guessing it has to do with nearing the frame rate of the 60 cycle lighting in the arena. Unfortunately I haven't studied the hi-definition video to know what its frame rate is. IP: Logged
Spyder Pilot	posted 03-03- 05:03 PM It's all in the size of the film. 8mm vs 16mm See, size does matter! ------------------ IP: Logged
Spanky the Mad Dog Pilot	posted 03-03- 05:58 PM Spanky here... No contest. Film is better. Hi definition Video is good but still not as good as film. And as far as i know doesn't stand or any sort of standard. Its just a buzz word for video thats better then regular stuff we are used to. Kinda like HQ(high quality) circuits on a VCR. As far as I know Soaps are shot with Video to speed up and cheapen production time and boy can you see it. They look like shit although I think part of the problem is the lighting and of course acting. And no i don't watch them I have just noticed. Alot of the good prime time Shows are still shot in video as far as I know. Also I remember watching a show about the filming of NFL games and the camera men that do the shooting. It is shot in film and maybe even in a higher speed then normal to catch the action. Thats not what we see on tv though. I'm not sure why they do it. I guess for archives and such. Its kinda wacky but some of the camera work was just amazing. It brings up the issue of TV a bit. Most people also don't know that a VCR doesn't put out as good of a signal as brodcast TV. Broadcast TV if I remember correctly is at around 400-500 lines of resolution. A VCR is only at somthing like 220 while a laser disk is at around 400 or maybe more and a DVD is at 520 or maybe 550. I personally can see that all the time. I have what I would consider a decent VCR (sony hifi) and it has a good picture but its still not what I want. I plan on getting a PS2 and that has a DVD player (which I just learned will read single and double layer DVD and double sided as well, although you have to flip the disk thats 4 to 17 gigs.) So I will be renting DVD next fall. Now I just need a new TV. The new HDTV kinda confuses the issue. They started Using pixels. While reg TV uses lines. The new HDTV will be cool But I think its only 1024x710 or somthing like that. And thats not far enough to me. It is about time though cause the TV standard we use in North america was agreed upon in the 1950s or maybe even as early as the late 30s Again my memory is failing me but ya get the picture. IP: Logged
Spanky the Mad Dog Pilot	posted 03-03- 06:02 PM Spanky here... Oh yeah size matters for sure. Just like the difference bettween large format film and 35 millimeter is a big difference. Although i find 35 mil suits my needs just fine. Did you guys know that portrait photography is done with a telephoto lens at a distance rather then a standard 50mil up at the distance you would take a pic of your honey. So wacky. Somthing to do with lighting and depth of feild. The face (and Body) look much better cause the 50mil which looks great to most actually bends the proportions and makes everything up close a little fisheyed. Just though I would throw that in there. IP: Logged
Sv Pilot	posted 03-04- 08:41 AM goth, Is that true? I really thought film was almost always 24 FPS. Is it always the same? Just curiouse... -Sv IP: Logged
Spyder Pilot	posted 03-04- 09:30 AM Spanks the lines you are referring to are scan lines and is only the way the screen is refreshed or drawn. The actual dots that make up your picture are really quite large. Get up close to your tv and take a looky. The reason the picture looks ok is the amount of colour mixing taking place that hides the low resolution our tvs use. Hdtv though is using pixels that are way smaller than your tv's red, green and blue blobs, couple that with millions of colours and that's why you get, well, high definition tv! Ntsc, well that's why we use the initials to make 'Never The Same Colour' here! The pal system is way better. ------------------ IP: Logged
Spanky the Mad Dog Pilot	posted 03-04- 04:51 PM Spanky here... Yep Yep on the your whole post. I forgot to even mention that. I'm not sure about the pal system though. Its got a slower refresh. IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 03-04- 05:41 PM Goth, Are you sure it's not the other way around. I'm almost positive that video has a higher framerate. IP: Logged
Lothar Pilot	posted 03-04- 08:07 PM Film is shot at 24 fps, NTSC video is ~30(29.97) fps, and PAL is 25 fps. One point about why film transered to video looks better than video shot with a video camera is that the device that transfers film to video (telecine?) does not do it in real time. Therefore, more control is available to create a quality video frame. At least thats how my film buff friend explained it to me. Note that NTSC can also be thought of as 60 fields per second. NTSC's ability to capture motion is much better than film's because of this. Have you ever noticed that at the theater the sideways panning shots always look kind of stuttering? -Lothar IP: Logged
Spyder Pilot	posted 03-05- 04:52 AM Yeah Spanks we use 50hz here but there are more lines in the pal system. I wasn't gloating, it's an accepted fact that Ntsc is behind the Pal/Secam systems electronically. HDTv does away with the multi systems in use and brings us all up to a new standard. cheers ------------------ IP: Logged
goth Pilot	posted 03-06- 10:17 AM I stand corrected. I don't know why I remember 32 fps being film speed, but I was wrong. Standard is 24 or 25. Sorry for the misinformation. IP: Logged
Whirlwind Pilot	posted 03-08- 10:53 AM I can tell the diff between DVD and VHS. You can also tell the diff between film and 'TV productions'. As it was mentioned, film has more clarity and depth, while 'TV' productions have that artificial look to them, even the serious drama. You actually haven't seen a movie until you've thrown it up on your 17" monitor at 1027x768. You can see the lines from the make-up brush on Capt Kirk's face. IP: Logged
Spanky the Mad Dog Pilot	posted 03-08- 04:46 PM Spanky here... My definition of watching a movie would be in a theater off film or off a dvd with a projector and a line doubler or quader IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center