Received: from mail.webcom.com (mail.webcom.com [206.2.192.68]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.4/8.7.4-MZ) with ESMTP id QAA14387 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:07:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA115838584; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:09:45 -0800
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:09:44 -0800
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <1138@scribendum.win-uk.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Stephen Benson <stephenb@scribendum.win-uk.net>
To: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Film to Video Conversion
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
>>>The reason, as most are aware I'm sure, is that nasty reality of
>>>transferring the film rate of 24fps to video 30fps. Essentialy doubling
>>>every fifth frame is not the way this was intended to be viewed. Normal
>
>>I don't disagree that filmed motion looks different when viewed in its
>>original 24 fps format than after being converted to 30 fps video, but I've
>>never seen a "2 frame hold every fifth exposure" used to translate the frame
>>rates. The technique generally employed is refered to as a "2-3 pull down".
>
>Just to remind everyone of the existence of the PAL system!!! I never bothered
>comparing a movie smoothness with video, but I think that we can't loose that
>much since we just have to convert from 24fps to 25fps.
>
I'm just about to get to grips with recording to video here in the
UK (buying a PAR or renting time), and I've found this discussion
pretty interesting; can someone translate its implications for me?
Or are the theory and implementation pretty similar?
