From: bryan mckay (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Feb 04 2010 - 13:16:33 PST
When you slow something down in Final Cut, for instance, you have to
turn off "Frame Blending" or else it will start interpolating new
frames.
Also, if you're using Mini DV as your source, you're working with
29.97 fps material, so you're already adding extra frames. There are a
lot of variables when moving from analog to digital. The most
important thing if you want to keep from adding any extra frames is to
output 24 progressive frames per second during telecine.
On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
> My limited experience with this has led me to believe that the
> quality is better if the "slow down" process takes place at the
> telecine stage. Seems like rendering the speed change in Final Cut
> Pro didn't look as good when I tried that. Not sure I started with a
> 24 "fps" transfer though, and the file was was transferred initially
> to a mini dv.
> I need to learn more about all of this.
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:27 AM, bryan mckay wrote:
>
>> While I don't have specific answers to your questions, I can tell
>> you it would be a hell of a lot easier to just telecine/scan your
>> film to a true 24p digital source—most post-houses can transfer
>> your work to a Quicktime file on a hard drive—and perform these
>> manipulations in your NLE. You'd have better quality and more
>> control. It's a lot easier to double frames after the fact.
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
>>
>>> I am curious about how film telecine machines work. What is the
>>> scan rate of a telecine machine? If one wanted to "slow down" a
>>> film, analogous to say printing every frame twice with an optical
>>> printer which would be 12fps if projected at 24fps, is there an
>>> "optimum" slow down speed in the telecine process which would
>>> minimize digital "artifacts" (frames that did not reallly exist on
>>> the film). Are there some speeds with the telecine process which
>>> are exact multiples of its scanning rate such that there would
>>> result a minimum of these "artifact" frames. I am not sure how to
>>> articulate this question, but hopefully I have conveyed it.
>>>
>>> Myron Ort
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Mark Toscano wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred Worden's brilliant and hilarious video 'Amongst the
>>>> Persuaded' (2004) is, among other things, all about his
>>>> uncertainty about what it is to make movies on digital video
>>>> versus film.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Brand made some films that combined optical printing with
>>>> computer generated travelling mattes, a very unusual aesthetic.
>>>> Works in the Field (1978) and Split Decision (1979)
>>>>
>>>> Michael Robinson's And We All Shine On (2006) treats a filmed
>>>> landscape and a computer generated landscape in certain terms.
>>>>
>>>> You could look at certain flicker films as, in a sense, breaking
>>>> down film into binary digits of on/off, especially Arnulf Rainer
>>>> by Kubelka.
>>>>
>>>> Many of John Whitney's computer generated films (beginning in
>>>> 1967 with Hommage to Rameau) used monochrome computer animated,
>>>> optical printed with color filters and occasional changes of
>>>> speed to create the final films, which are ultimately hybrids of
>>>> the two forms (though they were finalized in film). Might be not
>>>> interesting enough an interaction of the two for you, though.
>>>> (Other main titles in this vein are Permutations (1968), Matrix
>>>> (1970), Matrix III (1972), and Arabesque (1975))
>>>>
>>>> Ken Jacobs has been making dozens of pieces in the past several
>>>> years that would be well worth considering. There are digital
>>>> "animations" of stereoscopic still photos, digital manipulations
>>>> of early film footage, digital manipulations of his own earlier
>>>> footage, and even pieces which attempt a sort of (visual)
>>>> stereoization of nonstereo (non-3D) footage. I would contact him
>>>> directly rather than try to suggest specific titles myself.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to think of some more...
>>>>
>>>> Mark Toscano
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 2/4/10, Kim Knowles <email suppressed> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Kim Knowles <email suppressed>
>>>>> Subject: [FRAMEWORKS] Dialogues between film and digital
>>>>> To: email suppressed
>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 5:19 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> Apologies for yet another question. This time
>>>>> I'm looking for experimental works that involve a
>>>>> dialogue between film and digital technology for a looped
>>>>> film programme at the Scottish Gallery of Modern Art.
>>>>> I'm thinking of films that go beyond simply shooting on
>>>>> film then transferring to digital, but rather where the two
>>>>> formats somehow comment on each other, such as Shambhavi
>>>>> Kaul's 'Scene 32' that screened at Rotterdam
>>>>> this week, and Thorsten Fleisch's 'Wound Film'.
>>>>> Any suggestions would, as ever, be greatly
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Kim
>>>>> We want to hear
>>>>> all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell
>>>>> us now
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
>>>>> <email suppressed>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.