|
|
Posted by Johan Stck on 02/01/06 07:41
Martin Heffels wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:07:56 +0000 (UTC), "gavf" <gavf@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>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!
>
>
> It doesn't look like that, sorry :) In real slow-motion you record at a
> high-speed, and thus chopping-up the movement of the ball (in this case),
> in much smaller pieces. If you play this back at normal speed, you will
> only see 1 ball.
> However, if the movement of the ball is very fast, it might move a bit
> while the image is being recorded (captured), and then it will look blurry
> (this is caled motion-blur).
> If you see two balls, there is either an interlacing problem or somebody
> has done the slow-motion as an afterthought.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
Sometimes I have head the expression that "It was shown in ultra-rapid".
In reality it was *slow-motion*. I believe that there have been film
cameras with a setting marked "ultra-rapid" menaing that they captured
more than the normal number of frames per second.
When shown on a projector at normal speed a true slow-motion effect is
obtained.
Myself, I use interlaced DV by de-interlacing it and thus obtaining 50
pictures per second. (PAL)
Often (depending on lighting, colors of the moving obejcts and other
things) the results are quite good giving a true "poor man's slo-mo".
It would be interesting to hear from someone reading this, seeing the
film with this discussion in mind, and reporting back what they saw!
The scene in questing is right at the beginning.
/Johan
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|