You guys whining do realise you're basically repeating the HD TV revolution, don't you?
Besides, with digital 'filming' there isn't any motion blur, hence the damned annoying flicker affect on sweeps.

This is blatantly incorrect.

Sorry can you explain this further?

Benicio...?

You were in a teleconference to decide whether or not to end the internet? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo.../confused1.gif

Guillermo

You haven't watched a digital film? I'm shocked!
The 'exposure' is far too short to get a blur - any blurring would be down to the projector and even the analogue ones have a very short duration and won't produce a speed blur.
What you do get is a series of individual images.

People were complaining that the picture looked funny and was too sharp - they were unhappy because they could see all the flaws.

lol that is completely dependant on the speed of the subject matter.

I was attempting to be funny. Apparently I circumnavigated that island with room to spare.

Who was complaining that the image on their TV looked too good?

Did bungle finally get a DVD player or something?

No offense, but you need to acquire a basic knowledge of film and video before complaining about others whining.

As far as the "annoying flicker on sweeps," I suggest you start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#Telecine_judder

.

You do realise cubase is a film maker who shoots digitally...
If you did know this then gee you're an ass. [rolleyes]

With that said if a digital camera is setup to film at 24fps then it will capture motion blur naturally through it's exposure. I'd be excited to see 3D caught at a higher frame rate since I notice the juddering frames whenever I go see a 3D movie.

Yes, I have watched a digital film. I also film, direct and edit them as Lenny said.

Exposure (iris), shutter speed, frame rate, focus and pretty much any other technique involved with capturing an image is no different on a digital cinema camera compared to a film based one. They even use the same lenses. Digital simply refers to how the image is received and stored. Film exposes the image coming from the lens onto a piece of film as a negative, and digital does it into a CMOS or CCD chip that translates it into data.

Here are some examples from a film I recently shot, digitally:

http://www.mattyler.com.au/Projects/TE/TE_10.jpg
http://www.mattyler.com.au/Projects/TE/TE_12.jpg
http://www.mattyler.com.au/Projects/TE/TE_16.jpg

...they were shot on a Panasonic HPX172, which is a digital film camera, at 25fps with a shutter speed of 1/50 (thanks Serial Carpens for clarifying the shutter theory). As you can see there is indeed plenty of motion blur captured in those stills.

So essentially if you have any camera (digital or film) capturing a fast moving image and your frame rate is 24fps, regardless of what format you are recording if the shutter for a single frame stays open long enough to capture a blur in the motion of the subject it will be captured by the camera. It has nothing to do with exposure, and I don't even know where you got the word 'short' from?

The only time you would refer to 'exposure' and 'short' in the same sentence would be to explain how a more open iris (greater exposure) helps to achieve a shorter (narrower) depth of field when separating foreground from background in a shallow focus or focus pull.

Actually, that is incorrect. If you truly want to duplicate the look of a film camera, you need to emulate the 180 degree shutter of a film camera— which means you need to set your shutter to 1/48 if you're shooting at 24fps.
Shooting with a 1/24 shutter speed at 24fps is equivalent to a 360 degree shutter in a film camera, which is essentially impossible.

This explains the concept in great detail:

http://blog.tylerginter.com/?p=385

Of course, shooting at 48FPS is not the same as shooting at 24fps with a 1/48 shutter (in case anyone gets confused). [rofl]

That's a good point, you're right. But note that the article there explains the theory with video on DSLRs, where an actual physical shutter is present on the camera. Most digital video cameras (that are not DSLR based) do not use a physical shutter. It's all controlled on-chip, and the 'shutter' speed will refer to how often the CCD or CMOS will charge for exposure. If you were to get a special shutter attachment for digital video cameras (such as a Mini35) which actually has a mechanical shutter you place on your camera between the lens and the chip, then this rule would definitely need to be more conscious of that and put it into practise, but otherwise the consequences are far less prevalent on non DSLRs. But you are right, I stand corrected on that point that double the frame rate is the most efficient. That part always confused me with digital because of the lack of a physical shutter. I assumed it would default to 1:1, but in actual fact we were shooting at 1/50 (not 1/25 as I said), because its default was correctly set to 1/50... I have fixed it now.

Well at least some 'part' of The Hobbit is being filmed in 24 fps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ERg...layer_embedded

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/smile1.gif

What people? I've never heard of anyone viewing HDTV for the first time and saying "My television picture is so much clearer, that must be a fault. Bring back SD!".

As for the other stuff; there must be a point when you realise that you're not actually an expert on the subject you think you are?

I can believe it, we still keep a decent SDTV in the house for general telly viewing, the missus wants a plasma or lcd for downstairs but I don't like them at all for standard definition.

I think maybe he's thinking of the 120Hz post-processing effect making everything have that 'soap-opera effect.' Or maybe that actors and television personalities themselves being worried that it would bring out their own flaws on HDTV.