I don't really know where the reducing quality bit came from, because that's not what I was talking about 'tall. I was talking about 24 frame per second second progressive footage, which hasn't anything to do with technical quality.
-=Derek P.S. Good idea, this new thread. A bit off topic the last... > Interesting idea, reducing quality as an artistic effect. I suppose some > people indeed might want it, so we could make it an option. Not for me > though. > > On 25/08/07, Derek McTavish Mounce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I'm know, I'm brining this thread monstrously off topic, but there are a >> few more things I need to respond to... :) >> >> >> > To me, the "distance" theory sounds too much like rationalisation. >> >> Think about it this way: The smooth motion of 50hz and 60hz is far >> closer >> to what our eyes see in reality, so when we see that smooth video on >> screen, our minds bring us more directly and literally into what we see; >> we are the camera. Artistically, as a director, you don't want that >> most >> often. Proper camera shots are always symbolic and meaningful, and >> truthfully, quite far from reality. The audience isn't literally >> directly >> above the action, looking down in a constrained and ordered view, but >> constrained and ordered --that's what the audience is supposed to feel >> about what they're seeing. When the smooth motion brings the audience >> into the lens --oops, no, stop flying. >> >> >> > For decades, smooth motion and low production values went hand in >> hand. >> >> True true, the inexpensiveness of video allowed many people who >> shouldn't >> be behind a camera to be, and the efforts they created were horrifying. >> Are still horrifying. But have you ever seen a something done with high >> production values shot on video --even just one shot or two out of many >> 24p? It's a very strange moment when that smooth motion kicks in. More >> than just the sudden contrast from the 24p, that literalness of "you are >> the lens" is aesthetically inappropriate in almost all cases. >> >> >> Again, I'm not at all arguing that Cinelerra needs to work well with >> interlaced video; it does indeed. I'm just, at this point, trying to >> stress the validity of 24p. >> >> And, by the way, that's a very interesting though about the >> split-the-fields-into-frames-apply-fx-then-back (errh?) you had. I've >> thought of splitting the fields into frames for slow motion purposes, >> but >> never going back to interlaced. In fact, I've never seen this technique >> in any existing editor, no matter the level of professionalism or cost. >> >> 'twould be an interesting and notable contribution to Cinelerra. >> >> >> -=Derek >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cinelerra mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Martin > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > IT: http://methodsupport.com Personal: http://thereisnoend.org > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
