soorejmg Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 There is some difference in look between a film we see in theatre and a video shot at home.I heard from somewhere that its because of the difference in the tape used for recording .Is this true????Can any one expalin in detail??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Your question contains the key words: film and video. What you're watching at the cinema isn't video; it's 35mm film projected on a screen. Film is vastly different to video in terms of the contrast ratio it can handle, the resolution (sharpness) it can handle and the general look. Usually, the things you watch at the cinema have actually been shot on film and stayed in that format throughout, but just to confuse things, there ARE electronic cameras and tape that can imitate the film look and quality. A few films, particularly those that use lots of special effects, are now shot and edited electronically, then transferred to film for cinema distribution. However, the cameras used for this are a far cry from a home video camera. They're many times the size...and exponentially more expensive! Hope this helps. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Also film grain is random and 1/25th sec later ther is a different random on the screen. Digital projectors have a fixed regular screen pattern, which can sometimes be seen! The image on a 35mm movie frame needs about 45Meg for a digital equivalent. Video never gets close to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick S Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 That's interesting...you mean to say the digital projector adds the grain rather than it being added in post? Very intersting.... To complicate the issue further, some TV shows (and a lot of commercials) use 16mm film - as do some lower budget movies - which is then digitised and enhanced before being printed to 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 The image on a 35mm movie frame needs about 45Meg for a digital equivalent. Video never gets close to that. That's a heavily compressed data rate used only for programme distribution. The original data rate of HD-SDI (SMPTE 292M) is 1.485Gbps. That's what's used during the production process where things are shot on the Sony CineAlta system like Star Wars. However, as per my original post, the vast majority of cinema releases are still shot on film with video not actually coming into the process. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick S Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Maybe not the process of actual shooting, but it's not uncommon to have an entirely CG vfx shot with no live action source material, in which case you'd be working with video all the way until the final print... We can certainly expect more and more films to start being shot on video, particularly if things like the Red Camera are as good as is claimed by the manufacturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Indeed. There will almost certainly be a major shift, both to shooting on HD Video and distribution to cinemas electronically over the next decade or so. However, for now the percentage of cinema originated on video is considerably under 1%, probably even if you include sequences originated as CG/vfx. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soorejmg Posted July 28, 2006 Author Share Posted July 28, 2006 hey friends,till now I dint get a clear idea.I will tell u in detail my problem.I am an indian.Here we have teleserials and films.When I see a film ,I see that they are ddiifferent in look from the film.I dont know if its same in other sountries coz sometiime I see some english teleserials,I cant understand much differwece .But here we can clearly understand the difference in look between a teleserial and film.Can any one explain the real basic idea behind this?Not about other camera used all...I CaNT UNDERSAND IT.pLEASE EXPLAIN IN A WAY THAT EVEN WHO DONT KNOW ANYTHING CAN UNDERSTAND Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 soorej In india you use a PAL television system. Aproximatly there are 575 lines of picture shown 25 frames a second. To fake a higher frame rate the TV displays every second line once then every other line. This simulates 50 frames a second at half the resolution. This is known as "Interlacing" Films are recorded by taking 24 photographs a second. To fake a higher frame rate each one is projected twice. frame 1, light on , light off, light on, light off, frame two, light on , light off, light on, light off, frame three etc.... This is known as progressive scan. teleserials will be interlaced, films are progressive, films shown on TV are progressive shown interlaced. Hope this helps James ps - apologies for the huge generalisations and simplifications here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.