 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 20, 2017 - 3:28 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
While working in a university TV studio I had a running debate with a guy in the film department that electronic systems would eventually replace film. He kept insisting it would never happen, yet astronomers had already switched to CCDs and CMOS because of their far greater sensitivity, and digital video and HDTV were already on the horizon.
Now HDTV is firmly entrenched, "4K" is coming on fast, and higher resolutions and HDR (high dynamic range) are well underway. In my opinion, I won that old argument. Although one might make an aesthetic argument for film. (I wouldn't agree with it...)
I've bought a couple thermographic cameras for my smartphone. They're hardly the finest on the market, but they are impressive toys, and I have used them in my work.
The most recent stunner for me is the X27 "night vision" camera. We've all seen the night vision segments on the news, provided by the military. It's monochromatic and noisy, and easily prone to blooming and clipping when something bright enters the scene (such as an explosion). This was the first X27 video I ran into. Ah, nice daylight shot, blue sky... with stars showing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bTgG2Ft4xQ
Then I saw the infomercial version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_0s06ORTkY
What's next? Being able to see the air currents, like sniper Saito from Ghost in the Shell?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 20, 2017 - 5:45 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
An early HD camera from Panasonic had a "film-like" grain to it due to the dithering applied to the DSP to avoid banding and other artifacts. An employer I worked for had two of those cameras, and the results can be seen in the fan film Ryan vs Dorkman 2 http://www.ryanvsdorkman.com/rvd2.html
(The current YouTube file blurs the grain with compression. Check the posting on Vimeo, instead.)
So, getting a "film-like" look would mean degrading the output of digital cameras. Digitals now exceed the dynamic range of any film. It's always amused me that engineers will bust their butts trying to overcome the limitations of a medium only to have all those artifacts re-created in a "retro" filter considered stylish. For example, NLEs (computer video editing packages) may include film-look filters for scratches, bloom, dirt, hair in the aperture, or video distortions like rolling, weak horizontal synch, static, etc.
While working for a multimedia company, I had one client that preferred a "film-look" effect that I could add to their computer animations. That is, I rendered my animations at 24 fps, then applied a 3:2 pull-down in post to give them the staccato effect they wanted.
Believe me, whatever artifact you consider "film-like" (even stroboscopic effects like 3:2 pulldown) can be re-created with video. VFX guru Doug Trumbull discovered that 60 frames-per-second is the "frame rate of the brain." He wanted to use the technique, called Showscan, in the movie Brainstorm, but it never happened. So in a way, Trumbull re-created one aspect of video with film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 20, 2017 - 6:54 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
I run the Microsoft flight simulators at 60 fps. This is only made possible because of a quad core platform and graphics card I obtained specifically to run that type of software. So, even though FSX (2006) and the older FS9 (2004) were intended for earlier Pentiums and the like, the hardware to run that software only really became fleshed out a good 6 years after its advent. You may agree, you may disagree.
Being able to pan at 60 fps is a bit more pleasant on the eye than 15 to 25 fps, as was the case with the older hardware platforms. The extra fidelity is certainly pleasing.
As for 'film', I do not like the imagery from digital cameras used to make 'motion pictures' as at this time. The use of color is abysmal in most cases for one thing, and for another, I've yet to see a movie made that can recapture in complete exactness, the Technicolor look and feel of a movie from the 50s, for example. There seems to be a problem - is it because the color palettes of the so called superior current technology are being deliberately constrained to perpetuate the drabness of digital images we're forced to endure these days? Or could it be the total number of possibilities for different shades are so numerous as to be problematic to users who can't assimilate all that content - that's how it seems to me. Someone came up with a formula for generic usage and every other film maker has adopted that as a standard. Hence, all the garish turquoise, greens and red/browns, not to mention the prolific 'gun metal' greys adorning the typical 'motion picture' frame nowadays.
Several movies also seem to have been filmed monochromatically, then selected colors have been applied in post production. An example is The Imitation Game, which fielded the B&W postcard 'colorised' look. That is to say, only a few major colors were applied to give the resultant image a flat, hand-tinted look. In other words, the movie was deliberately set up to look that way to give it a sort of 'sepia' period look. Even if that was the case, the effect simply didn't work for reasons difficult to completely explain because the film had other problems, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 20, 2017 - 7:18 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
Comparing one artificial color tech to another can be slippery. Could a formula for "Technicolor" be created with digital "color timing"? Sure.
The current vogue in "grading," as it is called, is "teal & orange." (Search for it—you'll hear lots of grousing.) It produces a comic book-like contrast—"across the color wheel"—that some think makes a movie look more dramatic. And there are other color formulas, as well as movies that go for a desaturated effect.
So, digital video doesn't "still have a way to go" to catch up to the look of film. It has surpassed film. The problem for many, aesthetically, is extreme fidelity. The tools exist to create any kind of warmer, softer, grainier or whatever sort of look. The problem isn't the technology, but the way artists are using it. And I'll agree with many of the "film looks better" arguments because they're really aesthetic complaints. Directors, editors, VFX artists, etc. are a different breed today, but there are some who rejuvenate what was best in older artforms. (e.g. I feel that Pixar put Disney back on the path set by its founders.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
