Axel

Look at my avatar. It's DIY. [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/Griff1.jpg[/img] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/Griff-3.jpg[/img] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/Griff-Detail.jpg[/img]

Beautiful images with strong, vivid colors and contrasts. Let me first assure you that the banding issue you detected is known by all GH2 users. [quote author=npa201 link=topic=786.msg5679#msg5679 date=1338093993]Help would be appreciated in understanding what is happening.[/quote]  I'll try my best. The AVCHD used by the camera is an 8-bit codec. It allowes for 256 steps in luminance between "black" and "white" (actually less, but let's keep it simple). An image that was just recorded with this codec without any intelligent redistribution of values (called "quantization") to where the finest definition is needed, would only show crushed blacks, clipped whites and doughy skin tones. So the processor analyzes all the values and keeps bending the curves - you probably heard about those curves in connection with so-called [i]flat styles[/i]. The quantization is applied to the whole picture. Dark grades ([i]almost[/i] black or [i]almost[/i] uniform) and blurred parts are simplified too much and this causes the banding. The banding described above is often confused with compression artifacts related to the bitrate. It has nothing to do with it. You will also get banding with a too low rate, but not at 24 mbps (actually lower, but sufficient). I like to emphasize this: The banding won't disappear with a hack! [quote author=npa201 link=topic=786.msg5679#msg5679 date=1338093993]Unfortunately, I don't have these files in MTS anymore (perhaps I should save those from now on) but when I've shot test footage after noticing these issues and watching it direct from camera to TV and then importing it onto my computer I've noticed these issues are not on the original mts files.[/quote]  I doubt this, because the phenomenon is typical for the areas and situations where you see the banding. iMovie transcodes AVCHD into the Apple Intermediate Codec (AIC). The original and the copy should be visually indistinguishable. AIC is also 8-bit. When does it cause problems, compared to ProRes (FCP) or original files (Premiere, Vegas, Edius)? Clear answer: When you grade. When you change luminance, hues or saturation. Because iMovie is not able to perform these changes with the proper accuracy, it will [i]then[/i] produce artifacts. How can you avoid banding in your original files? You must understand that an obviously perfect image is a compromise. If you continue to use iMovie (and you can!), you must try to get the "perfect image" in-camera. It looks as if you have used film-mode settings with high contrast, sharpness and saturation to produce these gorgeous images. This forces the quantizer to rob too many values from the seemingly simple parts. Dial down the values (you have to test it, you should at least never go over zero). For dark scenes use only nostalgic. For these sunny scenes, I would have tried smooth or standard. Try yourself. These are the things you [i]can[/i] influence. There are more: Avoid too high contrast. [url=http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-52LC1-52mm-Contrast-Filter/dp/B001U3ZVLE/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1338100222&sr=8-6][color=blue]This[/color][/url] filter reduces contrast without influencing the sharpness at all (Tiffen won an Oscar for it). Of course there is a problem with stacking filters, especially with a fader-ND (to avoid reflexes then, you would need a mattebox, the only practical excuse for such a device). It's not easy. But if it where, where was the fun? > A pro DP would have had the shadows bounced with a reflector to lighten them just a tiny bit, and the banding would disappear, problem solved. > The bokeh-banding can probably be avoided by another film mode or film mode setting. One last thing: Any layman who is not obsessed with video technique won't notice the banding. You set yourself high standards for an amateur.

It's caused by the sensor's rolling shutter. Just when [i]part[/i] of one frame has already been scanned, the flash happens and divides the image in a dark and a bright half. Could you do s.th. to stop it? I'm not sure. When I used to make wedding videos I had an XH A1 with a CCD. But then as well flashs were annoying. > Forbid them  ;) > In the registry office (if that's the right word) use a headlight (not appropriate in a church. If not forbidden, it destroys the atmosphere). The brighter your image, the less brutal is a flash. > You could try out in advance, if there is a shutter speed at which the effect of the 1/60th second a flash lasts produces the least disturbance. There should be such a speed, but I never checked it myself. > If the photographer is any good, he will flash at complementary moments, and not too many. Here is a solution in post I once used: Make the overexposed frame a longer freeze frame, with which you substitute the following three frames, then make a freeze frame of the first normally exposed frame, make it flash-bright and fade it to normal during the next three frames. Download the sound-effect "old flash-bulb exploding" (or so, the flash-transitions-sounds of cinema-trailers) and synch it with the six-frame flash. The flash is exaggerated, but now it looks cool. > shrug. There were flashs, so what? Fucking bad idea to hire a photographer additionally to a videographer in a dark church. The ceremony will look like flak fire of hell, even more so if you are forced to use high iso and everything flickers in radioactive fallout. I hope this won't happen to you. But always prepare for the worst.

[quote author=eosjames link=topic=770.msg5594#msg5594 date=1337806447] I really like the idea of the anamorphic cinemascope mode! I hope this is something we'll see in all future dSLRs. [/quote] If my logic skills don't deceive me there is no anamorphic wizardry. There is a simple crop. One you could also - and better! - perform by dragging a 1920 x 1080 clip into a 1920 x 803 desktop sequence (not cinemascope, but the modern scope, this AR is a common preset in digital cinema processors). Correct me.

An ND 2-4-6 needs the exact same time to be screwed on as a Vari-ND, and it never causes vignettes (asymmetric ones too). You will quickly learn to know the right strength for the situation, and a slightly too strong or too weak ND is anyway better than none. Your wife and your girlfriend may be right again. Personally I find it a sad situation if you have to bargain about the purchase of a filter, no matter how wise it is to control your budget.

Obviously it's serious hardware for astronomers, not a hoax. The mount, however, would be suitable for Godzilla, and some with subjectively unsuffiicient penis size might be attracted by the concept. Cinema quiz: Which film contains a commercial for the "6000 SUX" ?

Assumed you left the appearance of the viewer/display on default values, you more or less get what you see only during recording. The live-view in between is just a preview. This is particularly puzzling with the EX-tele mode, which looks grainy and rainy before, but instantly turns brilliant once you hit record. Tip: Learn to estimate the difference, hope for an improvement with the GH3, use EX-tele a lot.

As a matter of fact, autofocus is not smart. If you use a steady-cam, you will need it. There are some problems to be adressed: > in too dark OR too bright places the autofocus won't find the outlines and starts pumping. Solution: Use a wideangle with the so-called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance][color=red][i]hyperfocal distance[/i][/color][/url]. Disable autofocus. > the best chance to get continuous autofocus is in an evenly and well-lit place with the focus area set to center (the multiple-point measuring - sorry, don't know the english name - gets distracted more often) > unfortunately, the autofocus' server is often loud enough to be audible in quiet scenes. Sounds as if Robocop was operating the cam. Manual choices are better. If someone is not experienced enough to make the right decision, he becomes so quite fast, so that his decision then is better than the program's. True for all automatic parameters.

[quote author=rjett link=topic=679.msg4985#msg4985 date=1336173848] I can't get past a Error sign that says "Wrong file or trying to use already patched file" Is someone running a website or string on this forum that can help me out? Thanks, BH [/quote] You have managed to open PTool. Those questions have to be checked: 1. Is is the right (the newest) PTool for your Firmware? 2. Do you have the file of the unhacked Firmware (GH2__V10 or GH2__V11) unzipped and ... 3. ... in the same directory (i.e, the same folder, the patch also has to be in the same place)? I bet you had one of these wrong.

It's arbitrary. There is, for example, no scientific reason why t-shirts should be labelled S,M,L,XL. But you know which size could be the right for you. Crop factors are even more exact. EDIT: Better yet, if all people were born in XL size, it had been so forever, and suddenly some mutants were only half as big, you would call them half-sized (relative to the standard). There would be no specially tailored t-shirts for the mutants, the "shrink-factor" of 2 only describes how funny the folks will look in a standard t-shirt.

I don't know, I think this may not be the bitrate. Use the free [i]Videospec[/i] (Google), which also has the useful [i]Bitrate-Pro[/i] calculator on board. There you see, that vanilla seldom goes over 22-28 mbps, one might think the hack was not successful. But without hack the actual bitrate stays mostly below 20 mbps. It's called Vanilla because it's not Chili.

[quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=675.msg4962#msg4962 date=1336004698] None of that was what I was looking for, sorry  :P I am fully aware of all of that but I wanted to know WHY, scientifically speaking. [/quote] It's a norm. Your question is as if you asked, why is it 50 cent, why not one euro/dollar? They made smaller sensors because they could make the cameras smaller.

I downloaded the file from my cache, it was 640 x 360. Please check where you got the 720p from. And of course you get aliasing. You can't tell if it was in the 4k original, but it is produced by downscaling, where one pixel must represent 3, 4, 5 original pixels with different values. If the patterns overlay, you get moire. Come on, this can't be news to you. I just wonder why so many people seem to believe it's magically going to stop with the introduction of 4k.

"Story is all that matters ... " ;D ;D ;D I don't like to see this idiot every time a new camera system comes out, but this time the texts are really top-notch.

The [i]crop factor[/i] is always relative to full frame. Full frame meaning the old analogue 35mm negative and slide film, which had a size of 36 x 24 mm, aspect ratio 3:2 (3x12:2x12). The Canon 5D's sensor has this size. If you put a 50mm lens on a 5D, it more or less shows a view you would also have with the naked eye from the same distance. It is therefore called the standard lens. Anything wider is wide angle. Up to 80mm are portrait lenses, and over this you call them tele. The focal lengths of all the recommended lenses (and of [i]any[/i] lens, because the values are absolute) have to be mulitiplicated by 2 (or 1,86, as Andrew writes, but the wider the AR, the wider the lens should be, so 2 seems in order for 16:9) to give everybody an idea of how wide the angle will be. BTW.: The 35mm of a film camera once also had the crop factor of 2, because it was 24 x 18 (which is exactly half-frame, but magically changed the aspect ratio to 4:3 - 4x6:3x6) and was transported vertically through the camera. Many of the reasons why things are how they are can be answered by history.

[quote author=MaxAperture Films link=topic=657.msg4904#msg4904 date=1335812930] I don't see Star Wars as having ruined anything from a big-budget standpoint ($11 million film that grossed over $400 million!), but everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect yours.[/quote] I just say that the blockbuster movies are kitsch, and that the cinema they represent has lost it's right to exist long ago. I am no snob, but for the sake of my argument I throw Jackson, Bay, Spielberg, Emmerich and Cameron together. Imho there is no need to imply conspiracies, it's enough to realize the mainstream as dull, viscous and shallow river. [i]Avatar[/i] for example builds up pseudo civilisation critique to squeeze out one or two tears (excuse my weird idioms, germanisms), that is more and less than solid entertainment at the same time. It's cynical and detestable. Compare it to [i]Soldier Blue[/i] from 1970, a film flawed in many ways, but what a statement! Too long the industrie exploited the "good old cinema magic". The filmmakers (to quote Stanley Kubrick) [i]indulged themselves with the audience[/i], they pushed the usual buttons to trigger the good old pawlovian reflexes and let the masses applaud. And we, the DSLR filmmakers, aspiring amateurs as well as low budgeted pros, fell for it too. The last film camera has been delivered, the last 24p-bound film projector is getting disassembled for scrap, what are we lamenting about? If this isn't the hour of the re-invention of cinema! So Jackson now is tamed and rows back. The better to conceal the fact that the golden calf we're dancing around is hollow, and the chocolate inside rotten and full of maggots. 24p never meant anything.

[quote author=MaxAperture Films link=topic=657.msg4896#msg4896 date=1335791154] Tough to see the genius of LOTR replaced by 3D gimmickry.  Maybe they can drop every other frame and apply a 180 degree shutter in post to conform to 24fps... perhaps release it as a "2D cinematic version" for dinosaurs like myself who love the look of film and hate getting "flickered" by 3D glasses. [/quote] Film is business more than craftsmanship. And cinema certainly is a dinosaur. I have a film review from 1977 on [i]Star Wars[/i], predicting the end of cinema as it had been until then. No longer would audiences be satisfied with little, cheap movies of the kind of a Roger Corman shocker. No more experiments with subversively playful plot-turns. Star Wars was the first of the openly stupid big blockbusters. Films that no longer offered an alternative to the collective conscience of TV (which Huxley portraied as Big Brother in [i]1984[/i]). There still is a lot to love about cinema, but it's roots have already been cut off. Let 48p come. Why not 480p? Why not 40k? Does all this matter at all?

[quote author=weltenbummler link=topic=534.msg4563#msg4563 date=1335177433] MENU There are two options for Camera/Video: CREATIVE MOVIE (with "M") and MOTION PICTURE( without "M"). CREATIVE MOVIE (with "M") offers: Man. Video mode - HBR (high bitrate) - CINEMA (24p) - Variable Video mode => Andrew does not recommend the last one. [b]First question:[/b] What s the setting for the 44mbit: HBR or CINEMA? if both, what s the difference?[/quote] HBR = High Bit Rate 25fps, disguised as 25i (compatibility for BDs or no idea), a laugh for serious hackers, but reliably up to 24 mbps Cinema: 24fps (actually 23,9 something, but don't worry), distinguished in the menu "video" between "24L" for "Low", meaning inferior, meaning [b]l[/b]ess than 17 mbps, and 24H for [b]H[/b]igh, 24 mbps or whatever he current hack forces the camera to do. [quote author=weltenbummler link=topic=534.msg4563#msg4563 date=1335177433][b]Second question:[/b] Man.Video mode: it seems this is the choice for 720/60p settings. But how do I know?[/quote] Know what? 60p is NTSC framerate. It's a general menu setting, where you choose between 50p (Pal) or 60p (NTSC). Only possible when hacked. Restriction: On one SD-card can only be either Pal-Video or NTSC, never both. [quote author=weltenbummler link=topic=534.msg4563#msg4563 date=1335177433]Third question: MOTION PICTURE( without "M") offers: Film mode - Rec Mode - .... Here in Rec Mode one can find AVCHD (1080i) - AVCHD (720p) - Motion Jpeg I assume, that this has to be set to AHCHD (720p) to set it for  "manual movie mode" in CREATIVE MOVIE, right?[/quote] All that creativity, manuality and motion confuses me as well, but I think you got it right. I lent my GH2 to a friend, and can't check things now. I won't ruin my day by looking in the Lumix manual, I hope you understand  ;)

[quote author=shijan link=topic=660.msg4880#msg4880 date=1335743565] Dynamic range regarding to zacuto tests: [/quote] That the EOS show over 11 stops is misleading. This is relevant for a raw photo, not for the movs. Color-pick different values below 15 in 8-bit (i.e. 0/0/0 compared to 11/6/10) and see if you can distinguish them. That makes the row 16-32-64-128-255, five stops. As long as Magic Lantern doesn't change it (and I bet it can't be changed), videos from the common DSLRs will never have a DR worth mentioning. Given you had a raw recording and had to deal with it in your 8-bit environment. Within the same contrast ratio (always assuming you work under optimzed circumstances) you only can shove around curves. Compared to your usual H.264, nothing is baked in, but also nothing is reliable. Certainly for many this is no spoiler. They [i]want[/i] to have more freedom. That reminds me of [i]Spiderman[/i], where great power means great responsibility. At the end, staying 8-bit, [i]you[/i] have to bake in the values. Ever color-corrected a series of raw photos, one by one? Quite tricky to get them look the same (to "grade for consistency"), isn't it? If you use a preset, a LUT, the raw video on your monitor will look more or less like your detested H.264. The latter, distorted for look-purposes in your CC-application with 32-bit accuracy, will look [u]the same[/u] in the end. Fact. Of course, only if you exposed as dynamic as possible and as flat as necessary (that means, preserving values for all parts of the image). That makes raw for 8-bit an excuse for sloppy exposure and white balance. Imho the DR [i]of the camera sensor[/i] right now is of importance to very few of us. The correlations of exposure, lighting and the ability of our current hard- and software regarding the optimization of DR are very important, on the other hand. If the awareness for finer rendering of hues and colors becomes common in near future, if people finally develop "an eye" for those, we will abandon 8-bit and leave them for office computer monitors and never look back. [quote author=Simco123 link=topic=660.msg4886#msg4886 date=1335761051] Yes dSLR such as the 5D2 has high DR that is why you see highlight roll off unlike the GH2 were it clips highlights. Had a hard time convincing some on here to accept that ::) [/quote] The sensor reads more stops, in both cameras. What we see as sudden clipping, banding or posterization (perhaps not the right term, I just named it after a filter that simplified colors to provide a pop-art-look) is caused by the quantizer, a software-based tool of the camera-processor, dynamically bending the curves according to the needs of the image. A cut off (clipping) has too few steps, a soft roll-off enough (taken from the image parts that currently don't need them). Influenced by picture styles / film modes also, possibly influencable by hacks, but I'm not sure. Hardly by higher bitrates, as the GH2 recently proved. Problems tend to occur more often with dialed up contrasts [u]and[/u] the contrary, a too flat curve (banding i.e. is typical for soft grades with the Lumix' [i]cinema[/i] film mode). You can very easily shoot too flat. Never give away dynamic range! More suggestions?

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=654.msg4860#msg4860 date=1335690926] [quote author=Axel link=topic=654.msg4859#msg4859 date=1335689687] ● The 320p size on YouTube and the 1080p size don't have different quality. They have different size. Same with 4k. Full stop. [/quote] So it is the same shit just bigger? 4K does have at least one advantage, you can crop. This helps hand held shot and crop to 1080p for stability. [/quote] To export a raw signal for Sony is the easiest thing to do. It's not done out of generosity. It spares them the need to process the shit properly so that it fits into the 1080p frame it was originally designed for (and, judging by the demos we saw so far, didn't reach. Please, sit closer to your monitor. Try to "sit in row five", like cineasts do, let the monitor's edges frame your field of vision). You want to use the bigger image for downscaling? You see that the internal downscaling in the camera doesn't work too well, and now they let [i]you[/i] do all the work. Downscaling as well as upscaling means interpolation, and measured by the only reliable resolution measuring method - a test chart - upscaling and downscaling by the same factor makes an upsettingly little difference. Once the expensive external recording device for 4k is out, we'll see what's left of the resolution. And of the quality.

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=654.msg4858#msg4858 date=1335686720] The FS700 video shown on the first post did'nt have great DR :o [/quote] Let me try to sort things out: ● There are no devices to show us 4k images. ● The FS700 doesn't have 4k resolution yet and won't have it ever. All con- and prosumer resolution values are fraud. ● The 320p size on YouTube and the 1080p size don't have different quality. They have different size. Same with 4k. Full stop. ● The bigger the size the more poor image quality becomes apparent. ● [u]True[/u] 1080p allows for a relative size big enough to show the shortcomings of 8-bit. 8-bit suffices for 720p. ● Blooms boxer film above we judge in 8-bit. 8-bit allows to reproduce a maximum of five stops. ● You can achieve the same result on an 8-bit monitor from an 8-bit-source as from a 12-bit-source for 720p. ● You do so by levering extreme contrasts with lights and shadows before the lens. You shoot flat. You grade. ● HDR looks interesting (i.e. if developed out of a series of differently exposed photos into one tone-remapped 8-bit), but: ● A 12-bit image with perhaps 13 stops, watched on a 12-bit monitor would not look like HDR, it would resemble the 8-bit on 8-bit - as long as you don't get closer and see the falling tomatoes not as red puddles ... Comment.

I agree with you all. Only that, all of a sudden, average video quality like from a brave Sony camcorder (and one with DoF-choices too), is called [i]shitty[/i], makes my heart bleed for all those, who recently sacrified a vacation or continue to drive a shitty car to be able to afford such a shitty camcorder. I feel pity for myself  :'(

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4837#msg4837 date=1335638417] One thing that I find mildly amusing is that we think of today's audience as sophisticated, what with the dynamics, the flash cuts, breaking line rules, etc. All of these would be unthinkable back in the days of the silents. On the other hand, we now take the frame rate of cinema for granted - and we are a bit afraid of changing it, or introducing alternatives - while back in the silent days frame rate was all over the place.[/quote] The very best examples of cinema didn't care about continuity, lighting rules, framing rules and the like. They were made with intuition and empathy, they were inventive and changed a lot of what was accepted as the trade of filmmaking. As you see in [i]Hugo Cabret[/i] (I liked the 3D, which I is rare), film in it's early days was a box of toys and silly tricks. The simple stories that were told used bold mental leaps, jump cuts. The frame that held together all the elements was not the film frame, it was time. Time for cinema is what the soul (or what it is that lets us live) is for life. Sounds pompous, I know. [quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4837#msg4837 date=1335638417]Btw, [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/TheHobbit/comments/sthk5/so_there_have_been_a_lot_of_negative_48fps/][u]here is a scene[/u][/url] shot in both 24fps and 48fps. Makes a good reference.[/quote] As an amateur I have no problems using 50p or 60p, if I want to *record* something handheld. The 48p version is exactly what I have expected. Yes, it looks cleaner. But it also looks dead. The motion is not accentuated, not dramatic. It looks like a reality soap about compulsive hoarding with some grungy guy (Jackson?) kicking things around. I must admit that the 24p version is only a little better. The typical cinematic situation is someone who is in a hurry, pressed for time. He has to reach the bus, for example. There is a bomb on board, and he knows it will explode if ... you know. Does this work in sedate 48p? The framerate that stops motion aesthetically by smoothing out it's "aura" (motion blur).

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4825#msg4825 date=1335597689] [quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4809#msg4809 date=1335568567] I've addressed this in an article on my site (partly inspired by this discussion) on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/frame-rate-artistic-choice-silent-movies/][u]frame rate as artistic choice[/u][/url], which also expands a bit on the topic of silent films. [/quote] 48 fps feel more realistic, because the time is fluent, (almost) uninterrupted. I appreciate you have an analogue background, the name Shutter Angle of your site seems to refer to the 180° shutter of classic film cameras. They didn't record the whole motion, they threw away 50% (OMG, it's hard to find the right words that early in the morning, excuse germanisms). And we continue to do so. This is one of several reasons for the film-judder one endures particularly with pans. [i]The Hobbit[/i] was filmed with a "shutter angle" of 270°, that means with a exposure time of [color=red]1/36[/color] second per frame (please correct me, mathematics are also not my hobby over my first cup of coffee), throwing away only one-fourth of the motion-phases. [/quote] Wrong of course. @48 fps 360° would be 1/48, 180° (the standard) would be 1/96, and 270° would be 1/72. The rest of the explanation was correct. EDIT: Wrong again, I have just learned. 270° would mean 1/64 s. But then again, the Epic [i]has[/i] the shutter preset of 1/72 ...

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4809#msg4809 date=1335568567] I've addressed this in an article on my site (partly inspired by this discussion) on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/frame-rate-artistic-choice-silent-movies/][u]frame rate as artistic choice[/u][/url], which also expands a bit on the topic of silent films. [/quote] Your arguments are flawless. I like to stress the difference between [i]realistic[/i] and [i]realistic feel[/i]. Not to contradict you, just to nail down why there is such a problem at all. 48 fps feel more realistic, because the time is fluent, (almost) uninterrupted. I appreciate you have an analogue background, the name Shutter Angle of your site seems to refer to the 180° shutter of classic film cameras. They didn't record the whole motion, they threw away 50% (OMG, it's hard to find the right words that early in the morning, excuse germanisms). And we continue to do so. This is one of several reasons for the film-judder one endures particularly with pans. [i]The Hobbit[/i] was filmed with a "shutter angle" of 270°, that means with a exposure time of 1/36 second per frame (please correct me, mathematics are also not my hobby over my first cup of coffee), throwing away only one-fourth of the motion-phases. You could say "live" instead of "realistic". Higher framerates, bigger shutter angle (or interlaced video) make the images look like continuous real-time. I doubt that this is only a viewing habit. Will it disappear after a period of acclimatization? I don't think so. Because 24 fps, as coincidentally as they became standard, [i]now[/i] are accepted as narrated time, in the same way that a novel is coincidentally told in past tense. [i]Once upon a time[/i] promises a story that's worth listening to, we accept that it's logic is completely arbitrary, and only because we accept it early on, we engage with it. In modern literature, european more than american, novels are sometimes narrated in present tense. This is exhausting, because there is no relative future. Godard said, the cinema showed death at work. In a movie we are like passengers in a train who sit in the travel direction. You see things coming, you watch them develop, unfold. Would you sit opposing the direction of the train, every object that passes your field of vision would almost shock you, because it jumps into the scene. It means adrenaline, but there is no realism to it. By pretending that you don't know about the future while you narrate, you take an impossible position. So in a narration, it can't be kept over longer passages. You don't follow, you get bored. What higher framerates are good for, imho: Stephen King (to name a widely known author) often uses present tense for some scenes to make them feel live, breathless - how would [i]Breathless[/i] (À bout de souffle) look in 48 fps? Once all digital projectors have the presets for 48 fps, it should be easy to change the framerate also within one film, according to the feel of the scene. I must say, I enjoy this conversation. Very interesting topic.