Varicam for feature?

[Max Jacoby]

35mm DI 4K scan to 2K process = 10.000

35mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 9.750

RGB cameras = 9.300 ? 9.600

Varicam 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 9.100

F900R 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.900

35mm DI 2K Telecine scan to 2K process = 8.600

Varicam tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.500

F900R tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 7.800

35mm old analogue way = 7.600

16mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 5.250

16mm DI Telecine HD to HD process = 4.500

DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700

16mm old analogue way to 35mm blow-up = 2.500

Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000

Sorry, but this list is riduculous. I think you have a serious bias towards digital acquisition. '35mm old analogue way' (your choice of words says it all) still gives the best quality, bar none. I'd like to point out that for 'Batman Begins' Wally Pfister refused to do a 4K to 2K DI because in his opinion you lose too much of the original anamorphic cinematography compared to the 'old analogue way'. Even on 'Little Children' which had a 4K DI all the way through, the cinematographer said that something still got lost compared to straight contact printing. And don't get me started on your statment that DV is better than '16mm old analogue way'.

 

Ludicrous!

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

I'm not going to get into a prolonged argument with you since I didn't see your tests, but I have a hard time believing that a 2K 10-bit Log RGB scan of 35mm color negative under-performs something shot in 8-bit HD, regardless of how you processed the information.

 

8-bit HD camcorder photography has: (1) less exposure information, (2) less color information, (3) less resolution, and (4) more compression than a 2K RGB scan of 35mm -- that's not my opinion, those are just basic facts.

 

You can't create information that didn't originally exist, and color negative is capable of capturing more information. So in theory, whatever special processing you do to improve 8-bit HD origination should work even better when starting out with more information all-around. So I can only theorize that the 2K scanning of the 35mm frame for your test was poorly done, or there was some other flaw in the post chain.

 

I mean, a 2K scan of 35mm means each color record is 2048 x 1556, whereas a Varicam frame recorded to 4:2:2 DVCPRO-HD is something like 1280 x 720 (actually I think less than 1280 horizontal) just for green, and half that for red and blue (640 x360). Not to mention the compression of DVCPRO-HD versus uncompressed for the 2K scan.

35mm DI 4K scan to 2K process = 10.000

35mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 9.750

RGB cameras = 9.300 ? 9.600

Varicam 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 9.100

F900R 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.900

35mm DI 2K Telecine scan to 2K process = 8.600

Varicam tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.500

F900R tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 7.800

35mm old analogue way = 7.600

16mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 5.250

16mm DI Telecine HD to HD process = 4.500

DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700

16mm old analogue way to 35mm blow-up = 2.500

Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000

 

Ok the 8 bit tape is below the 35mm Telecine scan 2K DI and this is for DVCPROHD but if you noticed am referring to TELECINE SCAN meaning 8 frames per sec scanning with no over sampling like a Northlight scanner do.

 

Above is uncompressed 10bit full resolution on set capture which is much better than tape.

 

When I referring to the old analogue way I don?t try to downplay it but everyone knows that the generation?s losses of that workflow in addition to the lack of artistic capabilities of the old methods in contrast to a DI process can make a result inferior to film that was DI properly.

 

Also in the equation is added the argument that DI process always deliver better handling of the Colour Grading than just chemistry does (printer lights etc.).

 

The score is from subjective viewing and it includes the DI advantages so its not only numbers.

 

Finally is understood that since HD Cinema cameras are shooting natively to 1:1,85 all the test are with this type of film (3perf 1:1,85) NOT anamorphic because then everything goes better for Film.

 

But the question remains answered:

 

Has anyone, just one, used Varicam in the workflow described above?

 

Because your experience is probably based in bad examples also we have to understand that HD material is delicate and it has to be handled with great care as is happening for decades with Film.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Sorry, but this list is riduculous. I think you have a serious bias towards digital acquisition. '35mm old analogue way' (your choice of words says it all) still gives the best quality, bar none. I'd like to point out that for 'Batman Begins' Wally Pfister refused to do a 4K to 2K DI because in his opinion you lose too much of the original anamorphic cinematography compared to the 'old analogue way'. Even on 'Little Children' which had a 4K DI all the way through, the cinematographer said that something still got lost compared to straight contact printing. And don't get me started on your statment that DV is better than '16mm old analogue way'.

 

Ludicrous!

As for 16mm compared to DV you can read American cinematographer article something like five years ago that concludes to that result.

 

And someone 100 years ago when he was asked to leave horse towed carriage and ride an automobile he was refused so what?

 

Regards,

Edited April 6, 2007 by Evangelos Achillopoulos

[Max Jacoby]

As for 16mm compared to DV you can read American cinematographer article something like five years ago that concludes to that result.

Is this you again, Charlie Seper?

 

Sorry mate, but 16mm/Super 16mm have more resolution, more color depth and better highlight handling than DV.

 

I'd be happy to check out that article in AC if you give me the year and the issue.

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Is this you again, Charlie Seper?

 

Sorry mate, but 16mm/Super 16mm have more resolution, more color depth and better highlight handling than DV.

 

I'd be happy to check out that article in AC if you give me the year and the issue.

I have to dig to find it, but I will try in the next few days. It was back in 2001 to 2002 a big technical article with 35mm camera 16mm and DVX100 when it was just introduced.

 

But is so hard to cut the BIG words and answer to my question?

 

Has anyone, just one, used Varicam in the workflow described below?

 

"To shoot with Varicam (at least how we setting the Camera) you have to use your light meter as if it was positive film (in negative it would be better to overexpose 1 stop but HD is positive so it?s vice versa) tungsten or daylight (the settings that we load are pre-balanced) with EI 640 (-3db, MG0,35, DL500%), keep iris under 4 to 2.8, no white balance only black balance and look the monitor just to frame and check focus. Light as it was a film camera with over 10 stops of latitude (YES Varicam has over 10 stops of latitude!) and never light using the monitor. Better to use your eyes (HD monitors doesn?t have the latitude is like video assist in film cameras). Use lenses as it was 16mm and that?s all the rest is on the DI suite. You can sleep confident that everything is OK.

 

Do the editing in your favourite Avid. Export an OMF from the timeline and bring it along with the original tapes to us.

 

In the DI suite we are rebatching the whole material from original tapes in uncompressed 10bit native resolution 1280x720. We reconstruct the whole timeline in FCP and then we sending it to Final Touch 2K. We working in a Log 10 bit colour space by loading a special cineon reverse Telecine curve in CFX room of FT. We colour grade as a 2K film DI with Cinespace and our custom LUTs. And the trick is from that point on. We render using RGB colourspace instead of YUV at 32bit per colour in the same time that we up-resing the images to 2K. This technique is forcing the FT to resample everything in 32bit per colour at that point the image gets tremendous tonal clarity and compressing the noise. Is like, we using during recoding to tape a pre-emphasis and during rendering a de-emphasis like Dolby is doing in audio for years. At the final stage during film printing we add sharpening because during shooting the detail was off."

 

Regards,

[Thomas James]

Many of the naysayers love to point out that the concept of temporal resolution does not exist and temporal resolution cannot be considered resolution. However according to the basic laws of physics and Einstiens theory of relativity spatial resolution and temporal resolution are interchangeable and temporal resolution is spatial resolution since time and space are interchangeable. This fact of physics means that time simply does not exist and is only a result of human perceptions which is incapable of seeing the universe as it really exists which is a static universe composed of 4 dimensions of space defined by 4 coordinate lines each of which are 90 dgrees apart from the other 3 coordinates. Thus traveling through time is merely traveling through space and if we can travel at the speed of light we can see all history happening at once or the same time.

 

Of course we are all limited by human perceptions that of course tend to see time and space as being seperate entities having nothing to do with each other. However as I have suggested increasing the temporal resolution of photography is bound to have some effect on spatial resolution or the overall dynamic resolution so I have concluded for fast action photography only 720p is real high definition because 1080p lacks sufficent temporal resolution to be considered high definition for this particular high spped application.

[Michael Nash]

Thomas, are you okay? Seriously? Because otherwise I don't get the point of these posts. I hope you can tell these odd statements come across as very strange, and don't seem like a joke...

 

No one said there's no difference in "temporal resolution." That's the reason behind the perception of 60P as "video," remember?

[Scott Fritzshall]

However according to the basic laws of physics and Einstiens theory of relativity spatial resolution and temporal resolution are interchangeable and temporal resolution is spatial resolution since time and space are interchangeable.

:lol:

[Max Jacoby]

so I have concluded for fast action photography only 720p is real high definition

Good for you. Now please stop bothering the rest of us with the same endless argument.

[Andy_Alderslade]

As for 16mm compared to DV you can read American cinematographer article something like five years ago that concludes to that result.

 

This is insane, American Cinematographer never 'concludes' on technology, especially something as blatantly wrong as that.

 

Go to your video store, and you'll be suprised how many films on the shelf made in the last five years have orgininated on Super16, and the average person doesn't notice.

If that average person picks up a DV originated film (the few that are there) they will notice. I'm not saying that all DV cinematography is bad, but it always looks different or what many people associate with being cheap or gritty - that can be good for a film, but it will always look that way.

 

You can even get an answer from your tv, how many drama's and comedies are shot on Super16 compared to how many are shot on DV (i.e. none.)

[Thomas James]

I just saw I Robot in high definition and I never saw such a blurry action movie in my life. The fact is that 24 frames per second just can't keep up with fast paced action and I don't care what anyone says. The naysayers say that the Panasonic Varicam is not real high definition but the fact is that the 720p format with its 60 frames is the only real high definition format for the action movies.

[Thanasis Diamantopoulos]

35mm DI 4K scan to 2K process = 10.000

35mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 9.750

RGB cameras = 9.300 ? 9.600

Varicam 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 9.100

F900R 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.900

35mm DI 2K Telecine scan to 2K process = 8.600

Varicam tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.500

F900R tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 7.800

35mm old analogue way = 7.600

16mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 5.250

16mm DI Telecine HD to HD process = 4.500

DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700

16mm old analogue way to 35mm blow-up = 2.500

Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000

 

Ok the 8 bit tape is below the 35mm Telecine scan 2K DI and this is for DVCPROHD but if you noticed am referring to TELECINE SCAN meaning 8 frames per sec scanning with no over sampling like a Northlight scanner do.

 

Above is uncompressed 10bit full resolution on set capture which is much better than tape.

 

When I referring to the old analogue way I don?t try to downplay it but everyone knows that the generation?s losses of that workflow in addition to the lack of artistic capabilities of the old methods in contrast to a DI process can make a result inferior to film that was DI properly.

 

Also in the equation is added the argument that DI process always deliver better handling of the Colour Grading than just chemistry does (printer lights etc.).

 

The score is from subjective viewing and it includes the DI advantages so its not only numbers.

 

Finally is understood that since HD Cinema cameras are shooting natively to 1:1,85 all the test are with this type of film (3perf 1:1,85) NOT anamorphic because then everything goes better for Film.

 

But the question remains answered:

 

Has anyone, just one, used Varicam in the workflow described above?

 

Because your experience is probably based in bad examples also we have to understand that HD material is delicate and it has to be handled with great care as is happening for decades with Film.

 

Regards,

As for 16mm compared to DV you can read American cinematographer article something like five years ago that concludes to that result.

 

And someone 100 years ago when he was asked to leave horse towed carriage and ride an automobile he was refused so what?

 

Regards,

 

Did you apply this technique in Oikonomides film?

[Patrick Neary]

I just saw I Robot in high definition and I never saw such a blurry action movie in my life. The fact is that 24 frames per second just can't keep up with fast paced action and I don't care what anyone says. The naysayers say that the Panasonic Varicam is not real high definition but the fact is that the 720p format with its 60 frames is the only real high definition format for the action movies.

 

Maybe the way to look at this is if digital projection allows multiple framerates for exhibition, we'll all have one more tool in the kit.

 

In spite of my game-show comment, I do remember watching a 60i HD documentary on the antarctic a year or two ago (in a theater, not on tv), and noticing that the projection itself seemed to impart a progressive look that tamed down the "live" video feel.

[David Mullen ASC]

720p format with its 60 frames is the only real high definition format for the action movies.

 

I think Thomas has a macro key that types that out over and over again...

 

This ignores the fact that not only have we had 100 years of the greatest actions movies ever made at 24 fps, but that no action movie has yet been made at 60 fps. So for some reason a frame rate that has yet to be used for an action movie is the only legitimate one...

 

If 24 fps was such a bad frame rate for action movies, then why has the genre been so popular? Clearly people have been willing to spend billions of dollars watching action movies shot at 24 fps over the years.

 

I think there are more realistic goals to spend one's time on rather than trying to change the standard frame rate for the motion picture industry. No one is going to spend real money shooting an action movie at a frame rate that only plays on HDTV (not to mention that Europe is going to a 50P/50i standard for HDTV.)

 

There may be exceptions over time, but honestly, this is definitely one of those "what if" discussions without much immediate practical value. 60P is not a shooting frame rate that distributors of narrative fiction features in various mediums want because it's not very compatible with 24/25 standards. No one is going to spend 40 million dollars on an action movie that he can't release theatrically or has conversion issues, with when 24/25 fps is accepted worldwide, both technically and aesthetically. If you make a movie, generally you have to deal with all the ways it will be distributed. Plus we get back again to the fact that 60P has a non-film look because we're used to 24 fps.

[jan von krogh]

24-30p speed

1080p & 2K depending on aspect ratio are >2 Mpixels

720p is 0.921 Mpixels, less than half.

 

50/60i@1080, 50/60p@720

at 50/60i, 1080i still has higher spatial resolution than 720p, 1,036 Mpixel for 1080i, 0.921 Mpixel for 720p. so 1080i leads ~10% over 720p.

 

1080@50/60p, 1080 has again >2 Mpixel, so 1080p50/60 lead with over the double resolution again.

 

for 24/25p, which is >95% of all featurefilms made in 2007, 1080p or 35mm 2K is suitable, 720p is good enough, especially compared to s16 films, but inferior.

 

for HD broadcast, especially live sports or other "fast" genres, 720p is just 10% less resolution than 1080i, so no real difference.

 

i fuly i agree with the observation that especially features in the action genre would benefit a lot from higher framerates than 24/25p.

These higher framerates are specified inside the DCI, so we will be able to show 48p in digital movietheathers. however, these are just slightly over 5000 screens at the moment, most of them in the usa. so it will take several years until 48p or higher 24p/25p can be used for standard international distribution.

 

the icebreakers and pioneers for higher framerates are at this moment in time typically 3D animated features (robinson 3d etc) and are rather "special venue".

all of those are 2k@48p, not 720@60p. the dci specifications dont include 720p. so even if you can benefit of the higher frametrate, you still don´t have the full resolution.

 

the low resolution in most movietheathers (below 800 lines measurable) sadly is true for most of the screens and has be often reproduced by several independent studies.

 

however, as mr. mullen mentioned, this is no reason to produce below 2k.

#1, even consumers can see their entertainment at 1080p, so to make your footage futureproof, 1080p and up is recommendable.

#2 even when the average cinemascreen usually doesn´t show the full 2k or 1080p - there are plenty, not only 10% of finetuned, carefully adjusted cinemas who -absolutly- show 1200 and more lines.

 

still, there are many highly successful dv, 720p and 16/s16 featurefilms. so it is no showstopper to produce on 720p for feature. it is not ideal, but possible. however, there are several broadcaster in the EU already now who require 1080 for their HD networks or don´t accept 720p and even 16/s16mm, BBC being certainly the most prominent example.

[Sam Wells]

Is this you again, Charlie Seper?

 

Sorry mate, but 16mm/Super 16mm have more resolution, more color depth and better highlight handling than DV.

 

I'd be happy to check out that article in AC if you give me the year and the issue.

 

I read it and previously commented here that I did not agree (even the frame grabs on the AC web site belied the conclusions !)

 

You can tweak a DVX-100 from now till next year and cannot do anything _fundamentally_ different to it's image capture right out of the box.

 

(nice little camera for what it is)

 

-Sam

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Did you apply this technique in Oikonomides film?

No it was to early the ?soul kicking? or in Greekenglish ?I psihi sto stoma? was our first film transfer two years ago? There are some shoots that the highlights clipping this were due to the lack of knowledge by that time? But the film went to Cannes and was identified at the Variety Magazine. This way of working is just being discovered the last four months and am amazed of the results even Dimitris Katsaitis the DoP of ?soul kicking? is amazed? am just going to finish a demo print to be able to demonstrate it

 

Regards,

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

The link to the AC mag. For the compere of DVX100 with 16mm

 

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm

 

When judging what am writing please read cerfully.

 

35mm DI 4K scan to 2K process = 10.000

35mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 9.750

RGB cameras = 9.300 ? 9.600

Varicam 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 9.100

F900R 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.900

35mm DI 2K Telecine scan to 2K process = 8.600

Varicam tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.500

F900R tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 7.800

35mm old analogue way = 7.600

16mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 5.250

16mm DI Telecine HD to HD process = 4.500

DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700

16mm old analogue way to 35mm blow-up = 2.500

Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000

 

As is very easy to understand that the 16mm was ?The film was processed at Moving Images, coordinated by Domenic Rom, and transferred on a Spirit by Milan Boncich at Tape House Digital Film as 2K DPX data files. No grain management was done at time of capture.? This is putting 16mm to the fifth row equals 5.250 which is very different from 2.700 that DVX is.

 

Moreover for 16mm the three to four generations that needed in order to do release prints in 35mm without having the ability to manipulate film with digital processing (just chemistry) this is making the final product inferior of a fully digital processed DVX footage.

 

That?s why the ANALOGUE processed 16mm to 35mm blow up is inferior in my listing.

 

Why the Varicam is better from Cinealta is just the extra latitude and the tonal reproduction that matters not the resolution since as I state previously in the regular theatre it?s not visible due to the bottleneck of the projection system as Mr. jan von krogh is mentioning in his post, sad, but a reality. Someone can say that there are cinemas that are very well tuned and can show 1200 lines, but this is the 5% ? I don?t know if its existing any in Greece?

 

For areas in the world that they can?t afford to pay a ?Hollywood style? budget this is NOT considered as an argument.

 

It?s understood that the winner for me, of the new digital 4K cameras will be the one that has better latitude better color reproduction and as for resolution for me is just the size of the imager 24/18 mm 2K is winning over a 24/13 mm 4K because of the anamorphic advantage. This is not static argument, am expecting to see first before I buy.

 

As for the broadcast 720p or 1080i argument read my EBU articles

 

Regards,

[Sam Wells]

The link to the AC mag. For the compere of DVX100 with 16mm

 

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm

 

When judging what am writing please read cerfully.

 

35mm DI 4K scan to 2K process = 10.000

35mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 9.750

RGB cameras = 9.300 ? 9.600

Varicam 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 9.100

F900R 10 bit Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.900

35mm DI 2K Telecine scan to 2K process = 8.600

Varicam tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 8.500

F900R tape Cinema Log DI to 35mm = 7.800

35mm old analogue way = 7.600

16mm DI 2K scan to 2K process = 5.250

16mm DI Telecine HD to HD process = 4.500

DV from DVX100 to 35mm = 2.700

16mm old analogue way to 35mm blow-up = 2.500

Digital beta to 35mm blow-up = 1.000

 

As is very easy to understand that the 16mm was ?The film was processed at Moving Images, coordinated by Domenic Rom, and transferred on a Spirit by Milan Boncich at Tape House Digital Film as 2K DPX data files. No grain management was done at time of capture.? This is putting 16mm to the fifth row equals 5.250 which is very different from 2.700 that DVX is.

 

Moreover for 16mm the three to four generations that needed in order to do release prints in 35mm without having the ability to manipulate film with digital processing (just chemistry) this is making the final product inferior of a fully digital processed DVX footage.

 

That?s why the ANALOGUE processed 16mm to 35mm blow up is inferior in my listing.

 

Why the Varicam is better from Cinealta is just the extra latitude and the tonal reproduction that matters not the resolution since as I state previously in the regular theatre it?s not visible due to the bottleneck of the projection system as Mr. jan von krogh is mentioning in his post, sad, but a reality. Someone can say that there are cinemas that are very well tuned and can show 1200 lines, but this is the 5% ? I don?t know if its existing any in Greece?

 

For areas in the world that they can?t afford to pay a ?Hollywood style? budget this is NOT considered as an argument.

 

It?s understood that the winner for me, of the new digital 4K cameras will be the one that has better latitude better color reproduction and as for resolution for me is just the size of the imager 24/18 mm 2K is winning over a 24/13 mm 4K because of the anamorphic advantage. This is not static argument, am expecting to see first before I buy.

 

As for the broadcast 720p or 1080i argument read my EBU articles

 

Regards,

[Michael Nash]

I just saw I Robot in high definition and I never saw such a blurry action movie in my life. The fact is that 24 frames per second just can't keep up with fast paced action and I don't care what anyone says. The naysayers say that the Panasonic Varicam is not real high definition but the fact is that the 720p format with its 60 frames is the only real high definition format for the action movies.

 

Gee, you don't think the blur might have anything to do with the fact that so much of it was computer generated, do you? And if I Robot was the blurriest, what frame rates were the other action movies you're comparing it to?

 

I think we got the idea long ago that you "don't care what anyone says." But if you want anyone to care what YOU say, you've got to offer some kind of legitmate argument and confront the challenges posed to your statements. Simply repeating your opinion as though it were fact doesn't convince anyone of anything, except maybe a compulsive condition.

[Max Jacoby]

Moreover for 16mm the three to four generations that needed in order to do release prints in 35mm without having the ability to manipulate film with digital processing (just chemistry) this is making the final product inferior of a fully digital processed DVX footage.

 

That?s why the ANALOGUE processed 16mm to 35mm blow up is inferior in my listing.

I suggest you have a look at a proper optical 16mm to 35mm blowup done by a lab that knows what it's doing. I have seen them and they look much better than crappy DV.

[Max Jacoby]

The link to the AC mag. For the compere of DVX100 with 16mm

Compare indeed, but unfortunately I cannot find a statment in this article which says that the DVX100 is actually BETTER than 16mm, like you claimed.

[Thomas James]

I think people are asking the question that if shooting at 60 frames per second is so great for action movies how come nobody is doing it? The answer is very simple and that is that until as recently as 2006 there has been hardly any infrastructure for the delivery of films shot at this frame rate. Most projectors at movie theatres simply cannot run at 60 frames per second and even if they did film distribution costs would double a cost which already runs into tens of millions of dollars. However Blu-Ray and HD-DVD media has changed all of this because now we have a 720p distribution format fully capable of 60 frames per second as well as the majority of high definition televisions which can display 60 complete frames per second. The old format DVD for the most part was simply incapable of displaying any more than 30 frames per second. DVD could display 480i at 60 fields second using interlace scanning but this resulted in a destruction of picture quality as to make it inferior to 480p at 30 frames per second. So what this means is now we have a 720p high definition distribution format with truly awesome progressive scanning and the capability of 60 frames per second which is very much needed to keep up with the pace of fast action movies. And we have a format far superior to the interlaced 1080i format.

[Scott Fritzshall]

I think people are asking the question that if shooting at 60 frames per second is so great for action movies how come nobody is doing it? The answer is very simple and that is that until as recently as 2006 there has been hardly any infrastructure for the delivery of films shot at this frame rate. Most projectors at movie theatres simply cannot run at 60 frames per second and even if they did film distribution costs would double a cost which already runs into tens of millions of dollars. However Blu-Ray and HD-DVD media has changed all of this because now we have a 720p distribution format fully capable of 60 frames per second as well as the majority of high definition televisions which can display 60 complete frames per second. The old format DVD for the most part was simply incapable of displaying any more than 30 frames per second. DVD could display 480i at 60 fields second using interlace scanning but this resulted in a destruction of picture quality as to make it inferior to 480p at 30 frames per second. So what this means is now we have a 720p high definition distribution format with truly awesome progressive scanning and the capability of 60 frames per second which is very much needed to keep up with the pace of fast action movies. And we have a format far superior to the interlaced 1080i format.

I think we should create a new subforum just for Thomas, so that he can repeat himself over and over in response to the hordes of naysayers who slander the good name of the Varicam. It would be a wonderful reference source for those with questions about 720p.

[Stuart Brereton]

Many of the naysayers love to point out that the concept of temporal resolution does not exist and temporal resolution cannot be considered resolution. However according to the basic laws of physics and Einstiens theory of relativity spatial resolution and temporal resolution are interchangeable and temporal resolution is spatial resolution since time and space are interchangeable. This fact of physics means that time simply does not exist and is only a result of human perceptions which is incapable of seeing the universe as it really exists which is a static universe composed of 4 dimensions of space defined by 4 coordinate lines each of which are 90 dgrees apart from the other 3 coordinates. Thus traveling through time is merely traveling through space and if we can travel at the speed of light we can see all history happening at once or the same time.

 

Of course we are all limited by human perceptions that of course tend to see time and space as being seperate entities having nothing to do with each other. However as I have suggested increasing the temporal resolution of photography is bound to have some effect on spatial resolution or the overall dynamic resolution so I have concluded for fast action photography only 720p is real high definition because 1080p lacks sufficent temporal resolution to be considered high definition for this particular high spped application.

 

Barking.

 

Absolutely, Properly Shot away.

 

 

I just saw I Robot in high definition and I never saw such a blurry action movie in my life. The fact is that 24 frames per second just can't keep up with fast paced action and I don't care what anyone says. The naysayers say that the Panasonic Varicam is not real high definition but the fact is that the 720p format with its 60 frames is the only real high definition format for the action movies.

 

Woof!

 

Woof woof!

 

Woof woof woof!

 

:blink:

[Thomas James]

What they don't teach you in film school is a basics physics class in the theory of relativity which means that a film look frame rate is completely relative to the speed of the motion. In otherwords if you photographed a snail you would find that if you shot at 24 frames per second your film would look like video because 24 frames per second is way too fast to handle the slow motion of a snail. So for a film look you may need to shoot your snail at 12 frames per second. And yet if you film fast action shots you may find that your filmrate of 24 frames per second is too slow to capture the motion. So for fast action 60 frames may be just right for a film look and 120 frames is what would make your movie look like video. With the Panasonic Varicam you can adjust your framerate relative to the motion so as to achieve the perfect film look relative to the speed of your motion. Other cameras that just shoot at 24 frames per second assume that motion is constant which in real life is not the case. What we can realize is that at very fast panning speeds even 60p strobes just like 24p at slower panning speeds. So at fast panning speeds 60p maintains the film look.