DV
As far as I'm concerned 'filmic' negates all the efforts being made to improve picture resolution and develop HDTV. 'Clean' Video is far more superior and clear.
It's deliberate degrading and when irrelevant to the context should be avoided. The only reasonable excuse for using it would be for internal studio shots being processed to add to filmed external ones in period dramas (something that in it'self is becoming rare).
Chris.
It's deliberate degrading and when irrelevant to the context should be avoided. The only reasonable excuse for using it would be for internal studio shots being processed to add to filmed external ones in period dramas (something that in it'self is becoming rare).
Chris.
JH
In what way? A film frame is technically superior to a television frame in almost every respect, and by an enormous margin too. I completely agree that there's been far too much use of adding the 'filmic' effect to TV productions for no particular reason recently, but from technical standpoint television is not superior to film!
And there's not necessarily any correlation between shooting on HD and the 'filmic' effect. You can generally chose to shoot in progressive or interlaced on HD, so you're not necessarily forced to use progressive scan.
DVB Cornwall posted:
TV is far more superior to film so why downgrade it to be Film like.
In what way? A film frame is technically superior to a television frame in almost every respect, and by an enormous margin too. I completely agree that there's been far too much use of adding the 'filmic' effect to TV productions for no particular reason recently, but from technical standpoint television is not superior to film!
And there's not necessarily any correlation between shooting on HD and the 'filmic' effect. You can generally chose to shoot in progressive or interlaced on HD, so you're not necessarily forced to use progressive scan.
DV
Some Clarification ...
I agree that native film is better than Video and can provide spectacular results, but programmes such as 20th C Roadshow are not produced on film but using video. These video produced programmes are in my opinion 'degraded' by the use of the 'filmic' technique.
Television is instantaneous, film is not, the use of the technique tries to mask the vivacity of live events and as such should be avoided.
Chris
I agree that native film is better than Video and can provide spectacular results, but programmes such as 20th C Roadshow are not produced on film but using video. These video produced programmes are in my opinion 'degraded' by the use of the 'filmic' technique.
Television is instantaneous, film is not, the use of the technique tries to mask the vivacity of live events and as such should be avoided.
Chris
JH
Fair enough (and I agree that the 'filmic' effect masks the instantaneous nature of television), but there does need to be a distinction made between "degraded" meaning a subjective dislike for the technique, and "degraded" as in a technical lowering of quality or resolution! Sometimes other grading techniques are used on video, but essentially the 'filmic' effect is largely a factor of the combination of persistence of vision and subjective frame rates, ie: progressive or interlaced scanning.
Another thought: you say that programmes produced on video shouldn't use the technique. What about programmes such as dramas that might ordinarily have been shot on film that could now use graded video as a cheaper production method? Surely that merits the use of the 'filmic' effect?
DVB Cornwall posted:
I agree that native film is better than Video and can provide spectacular results, but programmes such as 20th C Roadshow are not produced on film but using video. These video produced programmes are in my opinion 'degraded' by the use of the 'filmic' technique.
Television is instantaneous, film is not, the use of the technique tries to mask the vivacity of live events and as such should be avoided.
Television is instantaneous, film is not, the use of the technique tries to mask the vivacity of live events and as such should be avoided.
Fair enough (and I agree that the 'filmic' effect masks the instantaneous nature of television), but there does need to be a distinction made between "degraded" meaning a subjective dislike for the technique, and "degraded" as in a technical lowering of quality or resolution! Sometimes other grading techniques are used on video, but essentially the 'filmic' effect is largely a factor of the combination of persistence of vision and subjective frame rates, ie: progressive or interlaced scanning.
Another thought: you say that programmes produced on video shouldn't use the technique. What about programmes such as dramas that might ordinarily have been shot on film that could now use graded video as a cheaper production method? Surely that merits the use of the 'filmic' effect?
DV
Another thought: you say that programmes produced on video shouldn't use the technique. What about programmes such as dramas that might ordinarily have been shot on film that could now use graded video as a cheaper production method? Surely that merits the use of the 'filmic' effect?
In that case I would agree to it's use providing it's done well. Drama is the exception - for all other types of programme it should NOT be used.
Jonathan H posted:
Another thought: you say that programmes produced on video shouldn't use the technique. What about programmes such as dramas that might ordinarily have been shot on film that could now use graded video as a cheaper production method? Surely that merits the use of the 'filmic' effect?
In that case I would agree to it's use providing it's done well. Drama is the exception - for all other types of programme it should NOT be used.
SI
In what way? A film frame is technically superior to a television frame in almost every respect, and by an enormous margin too. I completely agree that there's been far too much use of adding the 'filmic' effect to TV productions for no particular reason recently, but from technical standpoint television is not superior to film!
And there's not necessarily any correlation between shooting on HD and the 'filmic' effect. You can generally chose to shoot in progressive or interlaced on HD, so you're not necessarily forced to use progressive scan.
I'll bite, but just a little bit.
Is video not superior to film in a couple of ways. I suppose the obvious way is that it updates at 50 half frames per second so movement on video is much better than film.
Also is colour not closer to reality on video than it is on film? However film produces a warmer picture that people prefer to watch but it is less true as it were.
I've heard of film being shot at 50fps and people complaining it looks like video. Isn't it just the case that people psycologically associate 24fps and warmer colour with film and therefore higher budgets and quality. So this drives producers to go for this look, sadly.
Jonathan H posted:
DVB Cornwall posted:
TV is far more superior to film so why downgrade it to be Film like.
In what way? A film frame is technically superior to a television frame in almost every respect, and by an enormous margin too. I completely agree that there's been far too much use of adding the 'filmic' effect to TV productions for no particular reason recently, but from technical standpoint television is not superior to film!
And there's not necessarily any correlation between shooting on HD and the 'filmic' effect. You can generally chose to shoot in progressive or interlaced on HD, so you're not necessarily forced to use progressive scan.
I'll bite, but just a little bit.
Is video not superior to film in a couple of ways. I suppose the obvious way is that it updates at 50 half frames per second so movement on video is much better than film.
Also is colour not closer to reality on video than it is on film? However film produces a warmer picture that people prefer to watch but it is less true as it were.
I've heard of film being shot at 50fps and people complaining it looks like video. Isn't it just the case that people psycologically associate 24fps and warmer colour with film and therefore higher budgets and quality. So this drives producers to go for this look, sadly.
JH
Movement is indeed smoother on video than on film, although this is more to do with the refresh rate of the display than the actual separate action frames per second. For example, I believe that most modern 35mm feature films are of course shot at 24fps, but projected at 72fps, ie: each single frame on the film is effectively displayed three times due to a three bladed mechanical shutter on the projector. If you were to genuinely project just 24fps, it really would look jerky.
Having said all that, it could indeed be argued that video copes with movement through the frame better than film, because of its effectively higher frame rate.
I really wouldn’t agree than video is inherently better at reproducing colour than film, though. Clearly the tonal and contrast range of film is far superior to video, and in the end Hollywood nearly always spend time grading their movies to look how they want you to see them, not how things really were. On a smaller scale it's the same with video: if you don’t white balance correctly (or you intentionally shift the white point of the picture) you might end up with more pleasing results, but it won’t be true to the original scene.
That said, I'm sure that film has the potential to offer far more natural and realistic results than a video picture. In the end, though (and this really comes back to the point of this thread!) a lot of this is highly subjective!
simpfeld posted:
Is video not superior to film in a couple of ways. I suppose the obvious way is that it updates at 50 half frames per second so movement on video is much better than film.
Also is colour not closer to reality on video than it is on film? However film produces a warmer picture that people prefer to watch but it is less true as it were.
I've heard of film being shot at 50fps and people complaining it looks like video. Isn't it just the case that people psycologically associate 24fps and warmer colour with film and therefore higher budgets and quality. So this drives producers to go for this look, sadly.
Also is colour not closer to reality on video than it is on film? However film produces a warmer picture that people prefer to watch but it is less true as it were.
I've heard of film being shot at 50fps and people complaining it looks like video. Isn't it just the case that people psycologically associate 24fps and warmer colour with film and therefore higher budgets and quality. So this drives producers to go for this look, sadly.
Movement is indeed smoother on video than on film, although this is more to do with the refresh rate of the display than the actual separate action frames per second. For example, I believe that most modern 35mm feature films are of course shot at 24fps, but projected at 72fps, ie: each single frame on the film is effectively displayed three times due to a three bladed mechanical shutter on the projector. If you were to genuinely project just 24fps, it really would look jerky.
Having said all that, it could indeed be argued that video copes with movement through the frame better than film, because of its effectively higher frame rate.
I really wouldn’t agree than video is inherently better at reproducing colour than film, though. Clearly the tonal and contrast range of film is far superior to video, and in the end Hollywood nearly always spend time grading their movies to look how they want you to see them, not how things really were. On a smaller scale it's the same with video: if you don’t white balance correctly (or you intentionally shift the white point of the picture) you might end up with more pleasing results, but it won’t be true to the original scene.
That said, I'm sure that film has the potential to offer far more natural and realistic results than a video picture. In the end, though (and this really comes back to the point of this thread!) a lot of this is highly subjective!
NG
noggin
Founding member
HDTV is not really relevant directly in the "film flicker" effect discussion.
The BBC shoot quite a lot of stuff in HD - the HD OB truck is deployed for standard def shows - and apart from slightly better picture quality most people won't notice... (Did anyone think the snooker looked flickery? That was shot HD...)
HD can be shot at 1080 lines 50 or 60Hz interlaced, 720 lines 50 or 60Hz progressive, as well as the same resolution but lower frame/field rates (30, 25 or 24Hz)
Home and Away is shot 1080/25p (25 frames per second) - but edited using standard 576/50i video kit (DigiBeta). However there is no interlace filtering, so a 576/25p full res image survives, which is then frame doubled to 576/50p for Aus "HD" transmission... The choice of 25p was made at the same time as the move to HD - but 50i could have been chosen (as indeed it was for some Holby episodes shot in HD a year or two ago)
It is possible to shoot standard def 576/25p video with some cameras these days - though undoubtedly the bulk of "flim flicker" material is shot 50i and post-produced. (Dr Who is processed this way - quite well)
The BBC shoot quite a lot of stuff in HD - the HD OB truck is deployed for standard def shows - and apart from slightly better picture quality most people won't notice... (Did anyone think the snooker looked flickery? That was shot HD...)
HD can be shot at 1080 lines 50 or 60Hz interlaced, 720 lines 50 or 60Hz progressive, as well as the same resolution but lower frame/field rates (30, 25 or 24Hz)
Home and Away is shot 1080/25p (25 frames per second) - but edited using standard 576/50i video kit (DigiBeta). However there is no interlace filtering, so a 576/25p full res image survives, which is then frame doubled to 576/50p for Aus "HD" transmission... The choice of 25p was made at the same time as the move to HD - but 50i could have been chosen (as indeed it was for some Holby episodes shot in HD a year or two ago)
It is possible to shoot standard def 576/25p video with some cameras these days - though undoubtedly the bulk of "flim flicker" material is shot 50i and post-produced. (Dr Who is processed this way - quite well)
GM
nodnirG kraM
TELEVISION posted:
I take it this is the same thing which ruined the two episodes of the Vicar of Dibley at Xmas and New Year.
No that was trying to turn the progamme into a charity telethon.
EQ
No that was trying to turn the progamme into a charity telethon.
I agree. It was cringeworthingly bad. I remember switching it off in disgust. Bloody Dawn French.
nodnirG kraM posted:
TELEVISION posted:
I take it this is the same thing which ruined the two episodes of the Vicar of Dibley at Xmas and New Year.
No that was trying to turn the progamme into a charity telethon.
I agree. It was cringeworthingly bad. I remember switching it off in disgust. Bloody Dawn French.