Carlos- That isn't entirely true. Phillips is utilizing the persistence of vision to fix the weirdness that LCD's have in relation to motion.They use a strobing,scanning backlight to relieve eyestrain.
Film is shot in 24 frames per second for a variety of reasons. The main one is that it is the slowest frame rate that produced acceptable results. Film costs money, lots of money there are 5400 seconds in a 90 minute film. That can mean 129600 frames or 162000. Film costs about $1-3 a frame. You also shoot around a 2-10:1 ratio of raw footage. You are talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
As time went on people got used to this film look. This is a cultural issue. Americans expect this "film look" cinematographers also do. This is not the norm in Asia as they prefer higher frame rates. They run the American ones because we tend to produce the equipment and film standards. All of the European standards for framing and aspect ratio were replaced with the American ones. There is pretty much one standard globally right now.
It's part cost saving, part history and part art direction. Even though blair witch was captured on video it had to be converted on a telecine into 24 frames per second because it had a theatrical release. Video like Blair Witch look hyper real due to the use of video as a source. Video is extremely sharp and has high contrast with a low dynamic range compared to acquisition film stock. Intermediate and print stocks have very tight grain structures (ASA 1 ) and thus are sharp enough to reproduce the sharpness of video.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
joe @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:22AM
Carlos- That isn't entirely true. Phillips is utilizing the persistence of vision to fix the weirdness that LCD's have in relation to motion.They use a strobing,scanning backlight to relieve eyestrain.
Film is shot in 24 frames per second for a variety of reasons. The main one is that it is the slowest frame rate that produced acceptable results. Film costs money, lots of money there are 5400 seconds in a 90 minute film. That can mean 129600 frames or 162000. Film costs about $1-3 a frame. You also shoot around a 2-10:1 ratio of raw footage. You are talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
As time went on people got used to this film look. This is a cultural issue. Americans expect this "film look" cinematographers also do. This is not the norm in Asia as they prefer higher frame rates. They run the American ones because we tend to produce the equipment and film standards. All of the European standards for framing and aspect ratio were replaced with the American ones. There is pretty much one standard globally right now.
It's part cost saving, part history and part art direction.
Even though blair witch was captured on video it had to be converted on a telecine into 24 frames per second because it had a theatrical release. Video like Blair Witch look hyper real due to the use of video as a source. Video is extremely sharp and has high contrast with a low dynamic range compared to acquisition film stock. Intermediate and print stocks have very tight grain structures (ASA 1 ) and thus are sharp enough to reproduce the sharpness of video.