A&P Digital versus traditional ?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by JazzHound, Jul 29, 2002.

  1. JazzHound

    JazzHound Guest

    I have more of a specific question than a debate between the two.

    Firstly I have a coworker who is in film school and as an amateur (that's pushing it) photographer, I was asking about the use of tradiitonal films versus digital. I know that Star Wars 2 was shot digitally and I assumed the cameras were fitted to harddrive devices for storage. The benefits of digital is pretty obvious as it gives the producers/editors infinite possibiltiies for post shooting work. He also said the movie or digital filming (one or the other) is shot in 24 frames per second, where as traditonal film requres 30 frames for smoothness (minimum is 30 as I understand it).

    So is 24 digitally the equivalent of 30 frames for conventional film? and if so, why is this ? Why would digital be smoother at lesser frame rates.

    Thanks in advance!
     
  2. MA70

    MA70 Guest

    most film is shown at 24 frames per second....NTSC (the format your TV displays) is 30 interlaced frames per second....unless you saw Star Wars 2 at one of a few select digital theatres (I don't know the projection rate at those theatres), you saw it on traditional film. While they may have shot digitally, it was printed to film stock for just about everyone to watch.
     
  3. Joe

    Joe 2015 :x: OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Messages:
    116,620
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    nocal
    DV is shot at 29.97 frames per second... starwars 2 was shot on DV tapes that are roughly 6 inches large... i think i read somewhere on sony dsr-200 cameras...

    it's not that traditional film runs smoother or anything, but due to the film exposure sensitivity
     

Share This Page