50P/60P Shutter Angle Question

[Guest]

This would be the first time I've heard of this.  It still seems very special interest though with lots of sports potential.  You would of course have to light for high speed by default.  Not a big deal for sports though.

 

I must have been thinking of this (from Trumbull's website statement):

 

"I have been developing a new technical approach to digital photography and projection, which is now enabled by both digital cameras and digital projectors. For the sake of compatibility, I have used 60 as the most comfortable and compatible frame rate in order to retain long-term viability. However, I have been shooting at 120 fps, using a 360-degree shutter in the camera. This makes it possible to digitally merge any number of adjacent frames in order to recover the appropriate amount of blur necessary for 24 fps display. Keep in mind that the movie medium we are accustomed to has used a 160-200 degree shutter, resulting in the "texture" that we know as movies (not television). Having shot material at 120 frames with a 360-degree shutter, it is a simple and perfect conversion to digitally merge three frames into one, and delete the next two frames, thus resulting in a 24 frame movie without any artifacts, and while retaining the normal blur. This patented process will provide a compression of visual data that will bring immense improvement to the viewing experience, and also offers the unique opportunity to "embed" 60 fps object motion within a 24 fps overall "look", thus preserving the cinematic texture while enabling unblurred fast action."

 

Not as revolutionary as I had remembered perhaps, but actually quite interesting in relation to my original questions about shutter angle and playback ...

[markm]

I must have been thinking of this (from Trumbull's website statement):

"I have been developing a new technical approach to digital photography and projection, which is now enabled by both digital cameras and digital projectors. For the sake of compatibility, I have used 60 as the most comfortable and compatible frame rate in order to retain long-term viability. However, I have been shooting at 120 fps, using a 360-degree shutter in the camera. This makes it possible to digitally merge any number of adjacent frames in order to recover the appropriate amount of blur necessary for 24 fps display. Keep in mind that the movie medium we are accustomed to has used a 160-200 degree shutter, resulting in the "texture" that we know as movies (not television). Having shot material at 120 frames with a 360-degree shutter, it is a simple and perfect conversion to digitally merge three frames into one, and delete the next two frames, thus resulting in a 24 frame movie without any artifacts, and while retaining the normal blur. This patented process will provide a compression of visual data that will bring immense improvement to the viewing experience, and also offers the unique opportunity to "embed" 60 fps object motion within a 24 fps overall "look", thus preserving the cinematic texture while enabling unblurred fast action."

Not a revolutionary concept perhaps, but actually quite interesting in relation to my original questions about shutter angle and playback ...

I disagree Trumbulls idea is revolutionary also regarding your opening thread Why didn't you do some tests before you came on here?

[Guest]

I disagree Trumbulls idea is revolutionary also regarding your opening thread Why didn't you do some tests before you came on here?

What I meant to say was 'not quite as revolutionary as I had remembered' - i.e. in the context of my previous post. It was badly put. 

 

Regarding tests, I've done plenty. I came here to discuss the theory. So that I could maybe understand that side of things better.

 

Your response hasn't helped me to do that. 

 

Thanks.

[markm]

What I meant to say was 'not quite as revolutionary as I had remembered' - i.e. in the context of my previous post. It was badly put. 
 
Regarding tests, I've done plenty. I came here to discuss the theory. So that I could maybe understand that side of things better.
 
Your response hasn't helped me to do that. 
 
Thanks.

Heh heh. Now why don't you do some tests with your camera and answer your own OT

[Guest]

Heh heh. Now why don't you do some tests with your camera and answer your own OT

That doesn't make sense as a response to what I said.

[markm]

That doesn't make sense as a response to what I said.

What part don't you understand? I thought you had a PHd? Oh I see where you changed the text and I laughed in the face of your superior intellect? Yes very clever but most of us don't need a PHd to be deceptive. Its called cheating.

[Guest]

I understand it fine. I understand that it doesn't make sense as a response to what I said. I said I've done tests. I don't have a PhD in understanding nonesense. 

[markm]

I understand it fine. I understand that it doesn't make sense as a response to what I said. I said I've done tests. I don't have a PhD in understanding nonesense.

Just cheating Lying arrogance rudeness and character assassination. Maybe you don't like it when someone fights back eh? So add wannabe Bully to the list too.

[Guest]

Just cheating Lying arrogance rudeness and character assassination. Maybe you don't like it when someone fights back eh? So add wannabe Bully to the list too.

You have me to a tee.

[markm]

You have me to a tee.

In truth Matt I don't think you are a bully But the pen is mightier than the sword and I suggest you dwell on that before you take the decision to crap on people in defence of what you perceive as your peers. Seriously its not a good look. Nor is it the right thing to do.

[Guest]

Note to others: the above bickering is fallout from another thread. Apologies, please ignore it.

[Bruno]

Jesus... it's about time this forum gets an option to make markm's posts invisible, this was a perfectly informative and interesting thread until he came in.