YTread Logo
YTread Logo

Film: the reason some of the past was in HD

Jun 02, 2021
the easiest thing to look for is the soap opera effect. is the name given to the strangely smooth movement commonly seen in soap operas which, I believe, without exception, were always

film

ed on tape. Television programming that was

film

ed on tape will be just as smooth because the 60 Hertz temporal resolution is maintained in contrast to film. It's usually 24 frames per second, even when used for television, so the motion won't be as smooth. If you see the so-called cinematic frame rate for television programming, most likely it was shown in a movie, rarely can you see

some

thing. filmed at 30 frames per second, which is the frame rate I'm using with this camera, but I don't see much evidence that this is a thing in the US anyway, most TVs that were shot on film were made at 24 frames per second and A 3:2 pull-down menu was used to fit the television's 60 Hertz refresh rates.
film the reason some of the past was in hd
Now the refresh rate may not tell you the whole story; For example, many times you'll find

some

thing online that was originally recorded at 60 Hertz interlaced but now exists as 30. Frames per second progress, so it can be hard to tell, but if you ever see the buttery smooth movement of the video true analog, sure it's recorded again, we're talking about old stuff, people seem to like sixty Hertz videos more and more these days, which yeah, sure, whatever. another thing to look for is actual film artifacts, if you see specks or scratches it's most likely film, that kind of thing just doesn't happen on videotape, not that there aren't any artifacts with tape, but they are usually very minor and incredibly brief at least in anything professionally recorded and if you see any kind of grain in the film image, something recorded on tape wouldn't have grain to begin with, so wherever it is it's visible that the footage was at some point in the film.
film the reason some of the past was in hd

More Interesting Facts About,

film the reason some of the past was in hd...

Note that digital noise can look like grain, but you're not likely to see that on things professionally produced for television. Another caveat: Dot dragging on analog video tape looks a little grainy, but it's not. Randomly, one of the easiest film artifacts to spot is known as gate weave because film traveling through a camera is a mechanical affair, the frame can never be perfectly aligned with each exposure. A slight misalignment sands the camera door with the film from one frame to the next. Then create a slight shake in the final result, so if the frame ever seems a little shaky, there's a good chance it was in the film.
film the reason some of the past was in hd
Many modern film restorations have removed the gate we've digitized, so this can't be completely relied upon as a means of detecting a film source, what do you mean this sounds dubbed? It was totally recorded at the same time as everything, much of the television programming of the 60s, 70s and 80s used a mix of film and tape, you often saw tapes being used in the studio and film being used for filming in locations. A particular example is Monty Python's Flying Circus, here tape is clearly used whenever it is on set and film is used whenever it is on location.
film the reason some of the past was in hd
A big part of this is simply due to the fact that video equipment was for many years, huge, monstrous things that weren't particularly portable, so for location shooting, a sixteen millimeter all-in-one film camera. much less bulky and a sound technician on the side will fit perfectly, in this case it is easier to notice the film artifacts. because they used 16 millimeter film and not 35 millimeter film, but even just looking for the difference in motion between the studio sketches and the location sketches will help you spot the difference, but the number one sign of something shot on tape is that it looks which was filmed on tape.
Okay, this isn't helpful, I know, but honestly, after a while, you'll get the idea of ‚Äč‚Äčthis. Analog video is a fluid, smooth, blurry thing, and film is not if you've seen a tape of something that originally was. on a film like say a VHS tape of pretty much any movie you're bound to get that smooth look, but even there you can often tell a film source from a tape source just by looking at it, yeah that's not helpful, well, let's see here. In another example, the cosmos as Monty Python, Carl Sagan, was being filmed on tape in the studio and the film was on location, although this is only from a VHS copy, you can definitely see a difference between the video cameras of the studios and film cameras, is a The big asterisk in this video, of course, is that digital video exists in standard definition.
I've ever heard of DVDs, those aren't analog, but they're still limited to the 480 lines that this thing uses, but now we have each of those lines digitally subdivided into 720 pixels. and many digital recording formats were used professionally in the latter part of the standard definition era, so the look of the tape isn't everything, but the same limitations apply, so what kind of detail can we get from something filmed? Well, this depends on a lot of factors that mainly have to do with film stock, just as consumers used to be able to choose between their Kodak Gold, their Fuji Chrome, and their dollar store brands, different qualities were offered of cinematographic material for use in films. work very well, others not so much, another thing about films that persists even to this day is that the fastest films, that is, the most sensitive to light, tended to have physically larger film grains, so so films used in low light scenes would have a grainier image. just like your camera nowadays looks like shit when you crank it up to twelve thousand eight hundred, which by the way, ISO is literally the same as the film speed you see on a film cartridge, not a fun story for ti, but If you want to get an average, you can argue that many thirty-five millimeter motion picture films have an image roughly equivalent to today's 4k, but it's hard to even say that because the grain is random if you want to digitize a film and To capture all of its quality, you basically need to increase the resolution until it no longer seems to make a difference and at that point you can say the resolution is about this, but I think it's safe to say that only the worst movies would do this. would be incapable of producing an image that today we would call Full HD with 35 millimeter film, if I were in charge I would say that all film transfers should be done in 4k so that the best of the best can be seen to their full potential and Then, for Of course, there are other film formats, like sixteen millimeters, which would probably rarely benefit from anything higher than 720p, or seventy millimeters, which you should probably scan in an 8k or IMAX, which you should skip trying.
Film can contain incredible detail, and while that's certainly not always the case, I'd say it's better to go a little overboard and capture more data than necessary than to have to keep scanning the print every decade or so. That's what old film won't change unless you know it degrades a lot, but our scanning techniques have done it and will continue to do it, one day we will be able to get all the quality possible from it, maybe we already have it, but the electronic signals on tapes for television are just that they are designed to draw 480 lines on a CRT to a standard that was established in the 1940s and as long as that is the standard that we are working with, that is what we are stuck with and that It's the best it's going to be, but of course, here in the 21st century we have the luxury of digital video, which is always perfect.
Hey, while discussing this topic on Twitter, I realized I should have added something to the script, which, well, I forgot to do, so here I am with some handy PostScript. Much of television was made into movies is why many times a Blu-ray reissue of something that was made for television actually makes sense if you thought something like that didn't make sense, well you could always be wrong and when the show was mastered for film before being transferred to tape and those negatives or prints are stored somewhere. A true HD remaster is possible in the case of Star Trek Voyager and shows like this could, in theory, be an HD re-release;
However, it would require essentially doubling all of the post-production work, so it's a fair bet it won't happen, plus we don't even know if those negatives about giving your heart muscle as a Christmas gift and being distraught about the subsidy stuck. I know, I messed up why I keep going there's a I made a mistake this was the only way this was the only way we stopped it worked everything you needed to do yes those 400 those 480 lots those 480 ly and 480 480 the best tape video yes no no no emphasis is

If you have any copyright issue, please Contact