Phil Rhodes is a Cinematographer, Technologist, Writer and above all Communicator. Never afraid to speak his mind, and always worth listening to, he's a frequent contributor to RedShark.
If you're one of the people who's preordered a Blackmagic Cinema Camera, unless you're very lucky, you will probably have noticed that you don't actually have one yet. RedShark, in common with the rest of the world’s media, is eagerly awaiting the arrival of a camera to put through its paces.
For most of the history of film, if you wanted to insert something into the picture that didn't exist, the camera had to be stationary. Motion tracking allows artificial objects to be inserted convincingly into real footage. Phil Rhodes explains
If you've read the previous two parts of this analysis of frame rates, you'll be aware that what we're all doing is chasing a standard that wasn't picked for how it looked, on the basis of how that standard compares with something else that also wasn't picked for how it looks. Regardless of how much sense this makes, it does lead to a few regional variances in the way this stuff works, principally involving the interaction of 24fps film with local television standards.
Last time, we looked at why we ended up with 24 frames per second for narrative filmmaking. Having recovered from the shock of realising that it wasn’t actually chosen for any reason to do with the picture at all, it’s worth looking at the fallout of that historical decision and how it affects us today.
This is the first of three articles on concsecutive days that explores the reasons for using 24 fps. As our ability to capture and display much higher framerate that this has blossomed, so has the debate about which number of frames we should show per second. On the face of it, higher framerates should look more real - but in practise, instead of the expected reality, we see cheap-looking TV. 48 fps makes everything look like a soap opera, apparently.
Counter intuitive. Puzzling. What's going on here? Phil Rhodes explores.
If you or I were asked, given current technology, to create a system to record and display moving images, we probably wouldn’t build what actually exists right now. We'd do it completely differently, says Phil Rhodes.
- Sunday 18 Mar 2018 - (34635) This may be the most important lesson about colour you'll ever see
- Sunday 11 Mar 2018 - (31178) How To Edit. Part 1: Preparation
- Wednesday 14 Mar 2018 - (28192) Opinion: Will all cameras eventually have to have Global Shutters?
- Wednesday 21 Mar 2018 - (22908) Why put a camera on your shoulder?
- Wednesday 21 Mar 2018 - (7099) AI can make photos fake in a way that Photoshop never could. And it may take all of us by surprise.
- Friday 23 Mar 2018 - (268) Why multicam is possibly the best way to shoot drama
- Friday 23 Mar 2018 - (718) Freedom of movement will create the ultimate VR experiences
- Friday 23 Mar 2018 - (1320) This could be the best way to get top software without destroying your bank account!
- Thursday 22 Mar 2018 - (1163) How to create wonderful natural looking light for a corporate shoot [Video]
- Thursday 22 Mar 2018 - (2770) A total revolution in processor design is just around the corner