The Film Effect

The way I get it they remove all the odd or even frames. Ian’ll probably be able to explain it better.

It’s not a case of removing any *frames*. That would be ridiculous. Red Dwarf is shot on glorious PAL video tape, and it runs at 25 frames per second. Now, the way this technology works is that each frame is comprised of two *fields*. So of the 625 vertical lines that make up a PAL TV signal, half of them are in one field and half in the other. This is what’s known as interlaced video; when a signal is transmitted, your telly scans the odd numbered lines first, then the even numbered ones. Of course, to the naked eye, this is all instantaneous. (NB. All of this refers to old analogue technology, as used in late 80s sitcom production. It’s all painfully obsolete now.)

So, your 25 frames per second video is comprised of 50 fields per second. The film effect, or Field Removed Video, simply removes one of the fields, so in effect you’re only getting half the picture information. That’s it. The way it’s simplified anecdotally on the DVDs is a tad confusing. Yes, they get rid of half the picture, but it’s *fields* and not *frames* that get removed. You’re still getting 25 frames per second, it’s just that those frames only have half the fields. So although the video still exists, it’s no longer an event in space time. It is a non-event video with a quantum probability of zero.

I actually quite like the film effect, as used in Series VII. I suppose it helped that because it wasn’t shot in front of an audience they could light it a lot better. It just brings out the detail in everything. I remember seeing the Series VIII trailer for the first time and thinking, ‘Oh no, they’ve got rid of it!”

I think that that’s partly why I didn’t like the last series, it just made it look a bit cheap.

I’m pretty sue SOME version of the FRV thing, or equivalent, is done, because the Who deleted scenes look…well, pretty much like Series VII’s deleted scenes.

Who is shot standard video, and then treated in post production, as per VII. A lot of people on the Doctor Who Restoration Team forum – including Restoration Team members themselves – criticise Who for this, and say that if they shot native 25p rather than fucking around in post production, the show would look a lot better…

As a matter of terminology, “progressive” and “interlaced” don’t actually mean “video look” and “film look” respectively – although the confusion is understandable, as it’s often how things end up being currently. What’s important is the frames or fields per second – in other words, its temporal resolution. What gives video its video look in terms of movement (forgetting about other aspects of the image for the moment) is the fact that it’s 50 fields per second. And what gives film its look is that it runs at 24/25 (depending on whether you’re shooting for cinema or television) frames per second. The film look in terms of movement is an artefact – albeit an artefact that a lot of people happen to like. This is why movement on video looks more realistic than film – it more closely resembles what your eyes see!

‘Progressive’ and ‘interlaced’ are just terms used to describe how your image is stored, transmitted and then rendered on-screen – interlaced piccies render every other line with each render of a field, wheras progressive renders each frame in its entirely. (Interlacing was designed as a bandwidth-saving measure.) And where I’m going with all this is: the recommended standard for future TV production is 1080p50 – that is, progressive, but at 50 frames a second. This will give video-like movement.

> I just assumed Who would shoot progressive.

Thus making an ass of U and MPTION,

I would have said ‘arse’, only it doesn’t work that way.

So Torchwood and other BBC HD shows are shot in 1080i25, am I right? You still wouldn?t get a natural film effect from that, would you? In post production wouldn?t they digitally ?sample? the tape at 25Hz thus getting the film effect? I don?t fucking know it?s too confusing?

Torchwood is shot in 1080p25 – which gives film-look movement without any post-production effects. (Remember – 24/25 is film look movement, 50/60 is video – whatever else you’ve got in front of it.) However, it’s actually post-produced in 1080i50 – which means effects shots, captions, and so on have video-look movement to them.

Some BBC HD shows are shot in 1080i50 – Strictly Come Dancing, for instance. This gives a video-like movement.

Personally, I think they’d be better off shooting Torchwood at 1080i50. You could still make the picture look like film through the lighting, lenses used, direction, etc – but you could take advantage of the increased temporal resolution of video, and improve the look of the movement. The best of both possible worlds.

But the problem is, viewers – and to be fair, programme-makers – associate the film-look movement with “expensive” – because traditionally, film has been expensive and TV has been cheap. I’m aware that a lot of people love the look of film movement in its own right – and that’s absolutely valid. Someone once said film had the “storyteller’s flicker”, and likened it to the old tradition of telling stories around the campfire – and whilst I think that’s a tad overblown, there’s a grain of truth there somewhere.

It’s a difficult issue, which involves many different factors – and complicated by the fact that the sharp lines between how video and film looks just don’t apply anymore. Personally speaking, whilst I think a lot of the look of film is well worth hanging onto, I’m not entirely sure that the film look movement is. 24fps was a physical limitation that was the best technology could manage at the time, and whilst it’s produced a million and one gorgeous images in the past – I’m not sure we need to hold onto it now.

Either way, I’m certainly not sure that every single fictional programme on telly needs to use it, which is exactly the way it’s going…

> You can forget digital on a LSD

When you’re on LSD, man, you can forget, like, eeeeeeeverything…

> The biggest selling point for me is the HD/ Blu-Ray disks is the DTS HD Master Audio at 25mbps!

That’s all good and well, well and good if you can get the audio to sync with the video. It really pisses me off that if I want to listen to anything better than normal 5.1 my amp won’t do the audio delay function. Also, for DTS HD you need an amp that will actually decode it. My amp detects it but it doesn’t output the quality (if you didn’t read the instructions well you might be fooled into thinking it DID output it).

This is using a PS3 for Blu-ray, by the way. Do normal Blu-ray players have an audio delay option built in?

This is using a PS3 for Blu-ray, by the way. Do normal Blu-ray players have an audio delay option built in?

It’s a case of some of them do, some of them don’t, price the factor here, as in most cases. More of the newer machines do have the timing delay built in, as with the amps. You tend to get this most when upscaling a DVD, both signals, picture and audio are cut and seperated far more effectively with HDMI cable, but this causes the delay problem you speak about. The standard for HD and Blu-Ray is Dolby Digital plus, basic Dolby Digital 5.1 doesn’t always decode well on a PS3. Routing your audio as directly as you can through the amp does help, but I know there have been quite a few issues with delay timing on many machines.

There are about 3-4 amps available right now that can actually decode the full HD Master audio, well that are worth the money.

I think one of the most joyous moments in my entire life was when I realised if you rubbed it for long enough…er wrong moment, the other one was when it hit me that I could fit a surround system in my small room with minimal fuss (just putting up one small shelf to accomodate a speaker). I’m just a twat making sure I’m sitting in the right place to fully appreciate the surround, which pisses my gf off somewhat. They just don’t get it do they? lol…

Exactly, if you didnt’ read between the lines,they’d presume you’d have to GUESTIMATE!!

WTF?!

It’s a Wii, a piece of precision excellence. You HAVE to get it right.

Further to my comments above about frame rate:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1

“For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it’s like you’re standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It’s like you never saw it before, when in fact it’s been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It’s also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem.

The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that’s already installed or being installed.

Increasing the data-handling capacity of the projectors and servers is not a big deal, if there is demand. I’ve run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren’t we doing it, as an industry?

Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second … with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won’t. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don’t solve them at all.

If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn’t that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself? Something you can’t get at home. An aspect of the film that you can’t pirate.”

I think he’s generally spot-on – although the last paragraph is on varying degrees of wrongness, depending on how you look at it (he seems to be hinting that part of the reason cinemas going to 48 frames a second is that home equipment can’t do it yet – when, in fact, the *opposite* is true – home equipment does higher frame rates all the time, wheras cinemas don’t yet! Maybe I’m just misreading that bit, as I can’t imagine it would be something he would get wrong.)

But he’s right – people have got *used* to 24 frames a second. TV can do higher frame rates, and *now*. Why chuck it away by either applying a film effect, or shooting at 24/25 frames a second? You can still make the image look like all *other* aspects of film, after all.

At some point, the change will happen – and I think people will look back and ask why the hell we’re not taking full advantage of the technology waiting in people’s homes any more, when we always used to. Shooting at 50 frames a second would still benefit people with standard def TVs too, after all!

Yes, there is definitely that issue with film. So anything shot for the cinema, or for telly but on film, will have that problem.

But I’m really talking shows shot on tape for telly here – which is now the way the vast majority of drama is shot – which is a far less of an issue. Doctor Who actually shoots at 50 fields a second, and then throws half the information away. My point is that if James Cameron is talking about wishing film had a higher frame rate… why do TV productions chuck away the opportunity to actually *improve* (albeit only in one way) on film?

At worst, it’s people thinking “film-look motion = expensive”. At best, it’s that people have fallen in love with the look of movement in film, and want to replicate it – and I do understand people falling in love with things, even though there are technically better solutions, as I’m like that with a lot of things myself. Most likely, most of them do it because “it’s the way things are done nowadays”, and don’t give it a second thought. But at some point, for new productions, you have to move on.

Truth be told, whilst I firmly believe that all new productions should be using 50 frames/fields a second except in certain circumstances where you’re deliberately trying to replicate the look of an old programme or film (Life On Mars was right to shoot 25 frames a second, as it’s replicating the look of 70s cop shows) – the whole thing wouldn’t bug me so much if there was a variety of looks for drama productions, with some using 25 frames, and some using 50. But there isn’t. It’s ALL – with the exception of soaps – 25 frames a second. And that’s really beginning to bug the hell out of me.

Forgetting about the grading and other stuff to do with image quality (which is a whole separate issue) – Coronation Street actually has a better image resolution than New Who. Surely that’s not right?

Still, I *do* think it will change at some point. But the way it’s going, it’s the cinema that will increase the frame rate first, and then telly will follow in an effort to look as good as cinema will. Whereas technically, telly has the opportunity to do it first. (And, until fifteen or so years ago, was doing it routinely – albeit without the rest of the look of film. But now, telly can do both.)

And the worst thing is – at least in the episodes I watched – it’s one of the worst film effects I have EVER seen. It doesn’t look like film – it looks like a blurry mess. (And the fact that the show doesn’t suit the effect AT ALL doesn’t help either. WHY would you want Chucklevision to look like film?)

A shame, as – when I’m in the right mood – it can be a quite enjoyable show. But I had to turn off the last one I watched, because I found it unwatchable. And not because of the script.

Mind you, Chucklevision is a bloody mess technically anyway. Horrible captions, and worst of all – the title sequence is the old opening in 4:3, blown up and cropped for widescreen in the most hideous way that gives it the most appalling image quality. I honestly don’t know how the show passes tech review. (And that opening has been in place for 20 years now! Surely it’s the longest-running title sequence on telly? That’s an achievement, I suppose…)

What I find odd is that ever since Neighbours moved to Five it’s had this weird filter applied to it. I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be a film effect or what, but I’m confused as to why a change in broadcasters would bring this about. Did they just choose to buy the ‘crappy filter’ versions of the show, or something?

When it comes to UK dramas, I think it’s likely the continued use of film effects probably has most to do with the drama coming from the US, most of which are shot on proper film and look completely yummy. It seems to be UK drama is trying to like US drama more than it’s trying to look like cinema.

What I find odd is that ever since Neighbours moved to Five it?s had this weird filter applied to it. I can?t tell if it?s supposed to be a film effect or what, but I?m confused as to why a change in broadcasters would bring this about. Did they just choose to buy the ?crappy filter? versions of the show, or something?

Can’t speak for Neighbours, but Home and Away is actually shot in HD, at 25 frames a second, with no film effect applied. And it looks APPALLING – I genuinely find it hard on the eyes to watch.

I honestly don’t know what they’ve done with it. Australia is PAL, so there’s no conversion problems. The movement shouldn’t look that bad, even at 25p. It’s an utter mystery. Maybe they’ve downconverted it to SD really, REALLY badly…

When it comes to UK dramas, I think it?s likely the continued use of film effects probably has most to do with the drama coming from the US, most of which are shot on proper film and look completely yummy. It seems to be UK drama is trying to like US drama more than it?s trying to look like cinema.

This is true, although I believe that US drama is bit-by-bit moving to shooting on HD rather than film. (I know Lost is still done on film, though.) Still, you’re right – I think UK drama DOES probably aspire to look as much like US drama as it does the cinema. Still, US drama itself wants to look like cinema, of course – so indirectly, it’s the same thing.

FWIW though, whilst I think US drama DOES look gorgeous, I maintain that technically, it’s not taking full advantage of the medium. The quality of HD cameras are getting better and better, and it’s pretty much as good as film now, if you’re at the higher end, and using the correct lenses. I wish US dramas would shoot things EXACTLY how they do now, and look EXACTLY the same… but with an increased frame rate. It would look odd at first, as we’re not used to it – but once you ARE used to it, I think it’d look amazing.

Ear cataracts?!

Etc

> I?m betting that when Five acquired Neighbours it was in the deal that they had to show it as per Australian broadcast.

I’ll bet the opposite – that Five chose to go this way. If it’s perceived as ‘better’, why not? Correct me if I’m wrong, but they’re in a strong negotiating position because the UK sale of the show is worth more than any other broadcaster’s to the production…including Australia’s.

>Certainly, five gets a say in the storylines of Home and Away now

Really?! I haven’t watched it in many a year (round about the time that Chloe left) but can you give an example?