On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:41:57 +0200, Derek McTavish Mounce
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you are writing from a user's perspective. From the user's
perspective, Cinelerra is "almost there". I agree. In terms of
features, Cinelerra is near-complete. Or so it seems, at least.
True enough, user I am. Though I have enough experience in programming
to be at least slightly informed on the state of Cinelerra's source, and
yes, it is a fair mess and needs cleaning up, but I would still question
ultimate usefulness of a core rewrite.
I'm going to wait and see how the "Cin3" effort progresses the next few
months. Some people here would rather like to start almost from scratch,
after giving both the program and the source code a good look. Let's see
how it turns out.
I know indy film makers tend to lust for the "film like" judder
of 24 or 25 fps. I don't. We're not doing the users a favour
by forcing them to deinterlace.
24fps progressive is the accepted standard for film, and it is quite
widely the opinion that it provides the necessary tone and feel movies
require to properly distance themselves from the viewers' actual
realities.
I've heard that explanation, too, and I don't really buy it. 24 frames
per second was about the slowest they could get away with after the advent
of sound film. Upping the framerate on film is _expensive_, and even if
it offered a major improvement, it would not sway the enormous inertia of
the film distribution business. Two films were shot in Todd-AO at 30 fps,
but striking 24 fps 35mm copies by step-printing them was too much fuss.
To me, the "distance" theory sounds too much like rationalisation.
It is not and indie film absurdity to want to shoot at 24p to
achieve a part of what's known as film look; it is a valid concern and
thing to desire.
That's it! 24p is "the film look". 50Hz looks "like TV". For decades,
smooth motion and low production values went hand in hand. Once the 35mm
film has been replaced with digital cinema in most theatres, maybe 50Hz
feature films may become commonplace. Films which _don't_ try to distance
themselves from the viewer's actual realities.
Of anyone --filmmaker or not- you are officially the
first I've run across to prefer the look of interlacedvideo.
I'm not alone. Amateurs who are not making a movie proper, but rather
compiling family videos on DVD will not perceive deinterlacing as an
improvement. To them, the 'distance' is not a feature, but a bug.
--
Herman Robak
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
[email protected]
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
