Jump to content


Photo

from 25 progressive to 50 interlaced

super8 footage

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Roberto Pirodda

Roberto Pirodda
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Italy

Posted 19 December 2012 - 06:37 AM

hello all
the goal is to lower the grain appearance of super8 telecined footage at 25 fps . if i put the videotrack on the timeline, then overimpose the same video track but shifted of one frame and with opacity set at 50% i got a smoother grain due to averaging of frames ( In fact i am mixing the same video track with itself). If the camera and object is stationary this system works fine,the grain is very close to 16mm, moreover there is a sort of stabilization. but if there is panning or movement i get a sort of ghosting/strobo effect of course. NOW, is it possible to weave , or for better to say, interlace these frames ? In this case i shouldn't get ghosting effect , moreover moore smooth in movement action. Another improvement should be higher vertical definition. In few words, we pass from 25 progressive to 50 interlaced, isn't it ? I am utilizing powermac g5 and FC studio2 (FCP 6)
  • 0

#2 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:13 AM


interesting.


Seems to me first thought as that you're always going to have some kind of motion weirdness with a post interlace effect (there is even weirdness with interlacing at acquisition ;) ...


Maybe have a think about shooting at 50fps progressive then blend to 25fps progressive.


Funny thing in that case is that you'd end up using twice as much film per frame, and probably get the same result in grain reduction as if you'd used twice as much film area in the spatial sense (i.e. a larger frame as opposed to two sequential temporal frames).


I wonder if PJ's hobbit could achieve lower noise in the blacks by this approach in any 24fps presentations ?

  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 December 2012 - 09:51 AM

You can get noise reduction plugins, including ones specifically intended to mitigate film grain, which will do more or less what you describe, only better. They generally have various tolerance and threshold controls to try and better identify what's grain and what's detail, but it is never a precise science.
  • 0

#4 Roberto Pirodda

Roberto Pirodda
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Italy

Posted 19 December 2012 - 09:52 AM

Hello Chris
yes, i have already shot at 50fps and it is great ( show scan, is it ?) but you end up eating too much film, unfortunately :(
I have read here that it is possible, i tried it but it didn't work. May be am i missing something ?
  • 0

#5 Roberto Pirodda

Roberto Pirodda
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Italy

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:00 AM

hello Phil, i have already utilized those noise reduction plugin, but to me they give an artificial look, that shift the beloved film look to hated video look :angry:
  • 0

#6 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:53 AM

Hmm, are you sure you weren't mistakenly applying a filter in an interlaced environment? They can end up sort of interpolating between frames, sometimes, which does wreck a progressive look.
  • 0

#7 Roberto Pirodda

Roberto Pirodda
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Italy

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:10 PM

no, i have used these filters on 25P telecine footage. i have used many and many settings but i get the best results with very slight setting, otherwise get artificial look
  • 0

#8 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:13 PM

Hmm, are you sure you weren't mistakenly applying a filter in an interlaced environment? They can end up sort of interpolating between frames, sometimes, which does wreck a progressive look.


Isn't that what Roberto outlined in the first post?

Roberto, while I'll agree sometimes there are 'something for (next to) nothing' algorithms out there (hashtables for instance) - thing is there is usually an element of amortised cost involved (hashtables) or the gain you've achieved has been made at the cost of another factor which is usually hidden/or they fall below a threshold in our senses (compression etc...).

Your idea as far as I can understand it so far is trying to do is break the rule of:

more film = less grain

(all the while keeping other things equal, such as the 'film look')

Yes, it'll work, two ways - use more film in the spatial sense, 16mm vs. 35mm - use more film in the temporal sense, 24fps vs 48fps with frame blending

As for another method that uses the same amount of film in the first instance - good luck!

If you do manage to crack it careful you don't ruin your patent rights by publishing the results here ;)

Aaton digital has an interesting and as far I know new approach, though its obviously off topic
  • 0


Abel Cine

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Opal

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

The Slider

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Opal

Visual Products

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC