ok, a change of quality then. If you do it deliberately, it's not a defect.
But if you can tell the difference between 24f/s and 50f/s (it depends on age, sobriety etc), then I would think 50f/s was better for most purposes. On 25/08/07, Derek McTavish Mounce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > -- Regards, Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IT: http://methodsupport.com Personal: http://thereisnoend.org
