Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Movie Projection FPS (was :Re: HP Compaq...) References: <9n6iee$gf3$1@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> <9p7iv7$nv4$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <8tv8p9.e9j.ln@escape.shannon.net> <3bba021b.273322@netnews.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: mschaef_ng@mschaef.com Organization: mschaef.com X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) From: mschaef@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) Originator: mschaef@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) Lines: 11 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:50:03 CDT X-Trace: sv3-qOezSMMdLef/OCJhHjoOjLLgR8r31R2+B7wddcCrZ+nKZoWwsunP0ztYD1FDjICcRHGLY6gTsLUWSBr!VSS21h8vXalHb+qe9wx9F8V/tC1rOHi8Xrs8myEuZ2SV5f+T5q1zKs9Dk5aNBn8UI0OPUtuJjbnC!iRGuxWWIG2Kflp1ylw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:50:03 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nf3.bellglobal.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:91720 In article <3bba021b.273322@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Woolf wrote: > >Movies are actually projected at 48fps by showing each frame twice. Why is this better than simple 24fps? -Mikw -- http://www.mschaef.com ###### From: "Don Chiasson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <9n6iee$gf3$1@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> <9p7iv7$nv4$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <8tv8p9.e9j.ln@escape.shannon.net> <3bba021b.273322@netnews.worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Movie Projection FPS (was :Re: HP Compaq...) Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 22:37:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.42.241.65 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news3.rdc2.on.home.com 1002062278 24.42.241.65 (Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:37:58 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:37:58 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!24.0.0.38!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news3.rdc2.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:91832 "MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message news:v%nu7.89527$hh.7913130@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > In article <3bba021b.273322@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, > Woolf wrote: > > > >Movies are actually projected at 48fps by showing each frame twice. > > Why is this better than simple 24fps? > Because the flicker at 24 fps would be *really* bad. But, 48 fps would use twice as much film. TV does a similar thing. For left pondians, the picture rate is 30HZ, but it scans twice, one scan doing odd lines and the other doing even lines giving an effective rate of 60Hz.For right pondians, read 25Hz and 50Hz. Don e-mail: it's not not, it's hot. ###### From: butting@ihug.co.nz (Bryce Utting) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Movie Projection FPS (was :Re: HP Compaq...) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 22:52:34 GMT Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 46 Message-ID: <3bba410d.1775309@news.akl.ihug.co.nz> References: <9n6iee$gf3$1@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> <9p7iv7$nv4$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <8tv8p9.e9j.ln@escape.shannon.net> <3bba021b.273322@netnews.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p14-max1.puk.ihug.co.nz X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1002063272 12349 203.173.221.206 (2 Oct 2001 22:54:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:54:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!usenet.net.nz!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:91802 mschaef@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) wrote: >In article <3bba021b.273322@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, >Woolf wrote: >> >>Movies are actually projected at 48fps by showing each frame twice. > >Why is this better than simple 24fps? Persistence of vision. 24fps is readily visible to the naked eye; 48fps far less so. I'd dig out some of my references to bore you with details of early (c. 1910-1920s) high-frame-rate schemes (including one by Edison, IIRC) but you probably don't want to know! Early standard (FSVO) hand-cranked rates tended to be around 18-22fps, sometimes even lower, making a doubled-frame system even more necessary. Shooting at 24fps and screening at 48fps (using a butterfly-shaped shutter) halves the amount of film stock required. Even today, film stock is a *huge* percentage of a film's budget. Of course, if the blanking period is too long, or a particular viewer's eyes particularly sensitive, or (personal theory) you're sitting so close that camera movements past large white objects are going to flicker anyway, you'll get a glimpse of the technology at work. The original poster (I've lost track) mentioned deliberate flicker-effects in action sequences (Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator and Hannibal come to mind); this is done at the camera end by altering the shutter angle. The ancestry is Kubrick's Dr Strangelove, in the attack on Burpleson Air Force Base: by shooting like this, the effect of a lightweight hand-held 16mm camera is duplicated fairly well, and the audience (whether conciously or not) gets a feeling of immediacy. Instead of imagining a whopping great Mitchell on a dolly, they'll think of some poor cameraman with his face in the dirt holding the camera up above his head and shooting blind. (Not coincidentally Spielberg and Ridley Scott lead the field in Kubrick homages, with the Coen brothers in close persuit.) Not quite *folklore*, but I was covering a lot of this ground in my (abandoned!) comp sci thesis. There Was A Reason... (Apologies to any camera operators I've given the cringes to with my poor explanation... my speciality is the *other* end.) cheers, butting ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Movie Projection FPS (was :Re: HP Compaq...) References: <9n6iee$gf3$1@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> <3bba021b.273322@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <3bba410d.1775309@news.akl.ihug.co.nz> Reply-To: mschaef_ng@mschaef.com Organization: mschaef.com X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) From: mschaef@bermuda.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) Originator: mschaef@bermuda.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) Lines: 33 Message-ID: <5ytu7.354345$Lw3.22491992@news2.aus1.giganews.com> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 20:08:17 CDT X-Trace: sv3-KXx/SI3KO2kBnclJkr0hahSFZNomoN1EJpOHxSUjuNPpkN9ADwC2x10xgOx1eHm1AvEA8AzANCjgNiZ!vrOtctbxTwa5UdOV3tCLBh2LUegCKhKFmPyI2k+25CX57HvxCt/hmCBB0kzbO+/aHv49E90/iuFH!FybcyTGppOgDU7F0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:08:17 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gblx.net!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.aus1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:91843 In article <3bba410d.1775309@news.akl.ihug.co.nz>, Bryce Utting wrote: >mschaef@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) wrote: >>In article <3bba021b.273322@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, >>Woolf wrote: >>> >>>Movies are actually projected at 48fps by showing each frame twice. >> >>Why is this better than simple 24fps? > >Persistence of vision. 24fps is readily visible to the naked eye; >48fps far less so. The idea being that even if the image stays the same between pairs of frames, since the flicker is twice as fast, it's less obvious? > Early >standard (FSVO) hand-cranked rates tended to be around 18-22fps, Did they have ways to enforce a given framerate? Or did the cameraman have to be precise with his timing? The reason I ask is that I've heard of double cranking (?) to produce slow motion. I didn't know if that was a literal term (crank turns twice as fast) or a figurative (new gearing). >Shooting at 24fps and screening at 48fps (using a butterfly-shaped >shutter) halves the amount of film stock required. I didn't realize that the filmstock itself is as big of a deal as that. I would have (obviously incorrectly) assumed it was relatively incidental. -Mike -- http://www.mschaef.com ###### From: cbh@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk (Chris Hedley) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Movie Projection FPS (was :Re: HP Compaq...) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:26:51 +0100 Organization: Honest Chris' Sysadmin Emporium Message-ID: References: <9n6iee$gf3$1@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> <3bba410d.1775309@news.akl.ihug.co.nz> <5ytu7.354345$Lw3.22491992@news2.aus1.giganews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: teabag.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: teabag.demon.co.uk:193.237.4.110 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1002113061 nnrp-12:18884 NO-IDENT teabag.demon.co.uk:193.237.4.110 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: cbh@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk (Chris Hedley) Lines: 19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newscore.gigabell.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!teabag.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:91765 According to MSCHAEF.COM : > I didn't realize that the filmstock itself is as big of a deal as that. I > would have (obviously incorrectly) assumed it was relatively incidental. Have you bought a 36-exposure transparency film for your camera recently? Imagine the cost of several million of those! They get through an awful lot of film for re-shooting scenes, different camera angles and God knows what else, then have to duplicate many copies of it to be distributed. Okay, it's a simplistic way of viewing things (ha ha) but it gives an idea of the scale. Of course, when they used to use the TechniColor system, the cost would've been tripled; this still used black & white film, but the camera separated the light into red, green & blue, each subset of the spectrum being recorded by a different film, three running simultaneously, then each film was dyed the appropriate colour during development... a bit off topic, but just so we know that the RGB scheme was in use before Photoshop made its debut! Chris.