About Filming.

Question No.1: Why are film since the talkies arrived are being shot at 24fps,is it a technical reason?
Question No.2: in slow motion scenes do they shoot at faster framerates?

1) movies were standardized at 16 fps during the silent era. however, the 16 fps speed did not run sound quickly enough for quality audio reproduction. 24 fps was the minimum needed for sound to sound "normal". frame rates have never been upped because you don't want to use more film than is necessary (film stock is expensive).

2) for slow motion, you shoot faster than 24 fps because when you project at 24 fps, you draw out the action. however, if you shoot at 96 fps but project it at 96 fps, then it would appear to be normal motion.

The opposite is also true. if you shoot slower than 24 fps and project at 24 fps, then everything looks speeded up. this is why very old movies appear to be "fast", because idiots run 12 or 16 fps movies at 24 fps. however, if you run a 12 or 16 fps movie at 12/16 fps, then the action will appear to be "normal", too.

Another question about connections,
Hdmi is an audio/video option much like the SCART connection we have today...only digital. But to connect it with my surround Amplifier i suppose i must use another hdmi cable to export audio...since my tv has no surround receiver inside, right?

On digital Satellite receivers, what specifications i should be aware of concerning image quality?

And, finally, anybody knows a good dvd authoring Software that supports dts encoded files aswell? (except from DvdLab/pro)

thnx in advance

well, there is a feature in windvd6 called trimension...it makes the film look as if it was filmed in 40 or more fps....its impossible to watch a movie like that...its like watching a sitcom. Lower speeds add credibility...i wrote down this again on another post in this site...i tried to watch gladiator....everything from the battle scene at the begining till the swordfights...look like plastic. its like watching a porn flick that was meant to copy gladiator. During the swordfights...the only thing that makes you think the swords are real is sound...turn that down and you are watching a soap opera sith good lighting.
Plus Film does not do ghosting if properly adjusted before filming. You can have ghosting on the dvd realease...but not on the film screenings.
As for sound recordings...even if you dont need recordings...you still have to up-mix into surround formats...and remove stuff that went in there by mistake

lucboone,

there is some amount of color correction with just about any movie or tv show. the colors in "collateral" didn't bother me.

i'm talking about the fact that "ghosting" is very apparent (i.e. objects leave a trail as they move) since 1) video lacks decent resolution and 2) a low frame rate produces an unstable image. this is why 24 fps for video makes absolutely no sense to me--why not shoot at 48 or 100 fps? the faster you shoot, the more continuous the motion can appear.

also, what you wrote about not needing post-production sound syncing is NOT true. you still get a lot of ambient garbage with the audio that you capture live, so any professional, top-of-the-line release still needs studio-recorded dialogue.

eddie

Luckily I don't have to worry about its look for the big screen at this stage. It looks good for small screen private screenings at school. By the time the big screen stage rolls around they'll have it nailed down to emulate film without any of the post-production problems. And maybe it's my bias, but there was nothing wrong with the look of Collateral. The color pallete in that movie was meant to look like that, it does not represent the HD format in a general way like you're trying to make it sound. Mann actually adjusted the hue and saturation of all the shots in post-production.

Well,collateral was shot in 30fps...it looks natural, and theoretically due to highest framerate...the "shutter" is now faster, capturing more detail to it. if u apply the same technique on a film camera u will get lots of more information on film it self than digital. DV has the tendency to create artifacts on smooth colors while they move fast...i.e. a close up of the human skin that spins will create a small sea of pixies.
On the other hand whats great on HD is that you can manipulate your color pallete easier while filming without all those technicalities involved (such as film type, chemicalls to dye it in afterwards etc etc)The digital era has allready offered the 3rd dimension in the movie industry allready, and thats sound. Digital technology contributed massively on the multichannel sound arena, creating a more "embracing" enviroment for every scene.
Yesterday i watched the 1st episode from the "web documentaries" found on the STAR WARS EPISODE 2 DVD, the producer himself made it clear that they are not refering to this as art (and i quote) "this has nothing to do with art"
As for good old georgie...i was reading an article on "why are star wars fans making better films than he is" with a link to a 40min long movie called "star wars apocalypse". a completely independent cast and crew that worked around the clock to create this free to download movie, and dont be fooled, we are talking about a good job here, the CGI scenes are great..wooden acting is offcourse guaranteed (you cant have a star wars movie without a wooden role...its just not "star wars" ) Lucas said that the fans can do whatever they want...as long as they dont get money for it.

I agree with Chris.

Funny that "Collateral" should be dragged into this discussion. Even people like Chris say that "Collateral" at least does something artistic with HD, unlike "Star Wars II--Attack of the Blurred Images". However, I thought that "Collateral" looked terrible. If I want to know what having detached retinas feels like, then I'll wait for old age, thank you very much.

The main drawback to HD, of course, is that it still looks like crap.

Which, suffice it to say, is a rather major drawback.

lucboone,

Actually, the NTSC video format uses 30 fps. Shooting video at 24 fps is meant to simulate the look of film.

Eddie