Just a thought. I've been learning a lot about television technology lately, and one of the tricky things about it is the difference between video and film. It's generally well known that movies and film are at 24 fps, supposedly because that's the frame rate at which we can't distinguish it from real motion. (That's bullshit by the way, and has nearly nothing to do with why film is at 24 fps.) Video, on the other hand, is run at 25/50 fps (PAL interlaced or progressive) or 30/60 fps (NTSC interlaced or progressive). This means that video has a very distinctly different look from film, and film never ends up looking quite right on normal televisions. The introduction of 120hz LCD TVs on the market is partly intended to combat this problem, and show film sources at their true frame rate.
Continue reading at Ventspace...
Advertisement
Latest Entries
DanceForce V4 DIY DDR Pad Build Thread
8855 views
Games Look Bad, Part 1: HDR and Tone Mapping
8776 views
Sony A77 Mark II: EVF Lag and Blackout Test
2787 views
I Am Dolphin – Kinect Prototype
2588 views
Advertisement
Advertisement
On top of frame rate and grain effects (some of which are missing in newer releases, e.g. Zodiac which was shot digitally), colour also plays an important part of the "film" look. Oh, and don't forget lens flare! [wink]