|
|
Posted by David McCall on 01/31/06 21:24
"gavf" <gavf@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:drojjb$5dl$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Just a thought for the 'purist' - what does real slow motion look like!!!!
> or is it what we want it to look like or is it what we've been told it
> looks
> like ??
>
> Just maybe it does look like 2 tennis balls glued together - wow the
> realism!
>
> Think on.
>
What do you mean by real slow motion?
Until recently, the only way to get what I would call real slow motion
is to shoot on film. With film, and the appropriate camera.
If you want to slow down the motion to 1/5th of the speed, then
you just up the frame rate to 5 times the normal rate. That
way, when the film is displayed at normal speed (as film not video)
everything should look normal and clean, but slow.
With video your options are severely limited. There are a couple
video cameras that can run at double speed which will slow the
motion to 1/2, but that's about it for video cameras. There are
specialized systems that are used for analyzing high speed
motion. Many of those systems have variable frame rates, but
the information is recorded directly to a computer, and the
computer directly controls the camera.
This is certainly one of the areas where film is stronger.
Video shot at normal frame rates can be slowed down.
In it's simplest form the software just dissolves from frame
to frame at the appropriate rate. Usually not very pretty.
There are programs (Retimer is the best known) that essentially
morph from one frame to the next. Perhaps it has gotten better,
but the version I own requires that you manually set up any
desired morphs. It worked, but it was a royal pain.
The effect of a double ball almost sounds like you were watching
progressive material on an interlaced display, or visa versa :-)
David
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|