Talk:Filmizing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

Was Brookside filmized in its latter years? It did seem to have an awkward, cinematic atmosphere that seemed really out of step with its earlier cosy soap feel. jamesgibbon 30 June 2005 23:55 (UTC)

Contents 1 Merge 2 Final sentence meaningless? 3 Home & Away is shot in HD 4 The term "Filmizing" 5 Doctor Who is filmized 6 Is Porridge Notable?

[edit] Merge

Merge with Field-removed video?

[edit] Final sentence meaningless?

HDTV offers the ability to natively transmit progressive scan video to the home, meaning many filmizing techniques will become obsolete.

I don't see that transmission has anything to do with the filmizing process. If you shoot on SD interlaced video, it will still need to be filmized before (or possibly after) being scaled up to HD.

And if you shoot 1080i with a full frame rate, you'd still need to filmize for transmission at (effectively) 1080p (the lines are still encoded and transmitted interlaced but they come together to make a single frame). Of course it'd probably be much easier to shoot on 720p, but then the sentence should say that HD offers the ability to natively [i]shoot[/i] progressive scan video, which some SD cameras already do.

Or have I got something mixed up? David 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home & Away is shot in HD

While it's possible that Home & Away is shot in 1080i50 and filmized to 1080p25, it's also possible that it is shot in 1080p25.

Either one would produce a similar result in 576p50 (seen in Australia) and 576i50 (seen in Australia and UK). Whophd 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The term "Filmizing"

I have never heard this term used in the industry. Can we get some sources? I have heard "get the film look" or more profressionally, "cinematic", but never "I want it filmized". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.55.37 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps the expression is less common in the USA, but it is certainly used (at least informally) in professional circles in the UK. 80.93.170.99 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

An awful name, if I may say so. Why not stick to good old "film look" or "film emulation"? I do this stuff and I have not heard "filmizing" once. It's funny, because Americans are usually the ones to make verbs out of nouns (to google, etc.); this time it's the British. Even funnier is that they opted for the American "-ization" suffix. How times have changed! Speaking of Google...I found 300,000 hits for "film look" and under 2000 hits for filmizing--and I bet half of them are from Wikipedia. I thought maybe this was being unfair since there are more American Web sites than British ones, so I restricted the domain to .uk, and what did I find? "film look" still trumps "filmizing" by a factor of twenty. I think this article should be moved unless a good case is made to the contrary. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who is filmized

I've reverted, again, the removal of the 2005 series of Doctor Who as a filmized production. The contributor stated:

"This isnt true. TV guide and TV Times (from the UK) both say Doctor Who is filmed"

I presume they were using "filmed" as a simile for "shot" - TV Guide and TV Times aren't exactly trade publications. If you watch Doctor Who Confidential you can see quite clearly that the series is shot on Sony video cameras, and the Outpost Gallifrey FAQ (http://www.gallifreyone.com/newseriesfaq.php) will tell you the tape format is Betacam.

Or even better, the Doctor Who page itself tells us:

The current series is recorded in 576i25 DigiBeta widescreen format and then filmised to give a 25p image in post-production using a Snell and Wilcox Alchemist Platinum.

David 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what i recall being from TV Guide,

Unlike the old Doctor Who series which was shot largely on videotape, the new Doctor Who is entirly filmed

When I have time I am going to go through my collection and find the exact issue and give a direct quote and volume and issue numeber so it can be confirmed. Nevilledad 00:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any publication is infallible; it's possible that one or the other has made a mistake, and this is one case where simple references probably won't be enough. Fourohfour 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think TV Guide was being, for want of a better phrase, simple (and/or mistaken). What better reference do you need than behind-the-scenes footage from Doctor Who Confidential showing Sony DigiBeta cameras being used to record the new series? And, come to think of it, one of the old WhoSpy photos on the website was of a box of videotapes (which I thought were DVCPro at the time). David 11:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Porridge Notable?

I query this bit:

The 1970s BBC TV show Porridge provides a stark example of the visual differences between film and videotape. The show employed videotape for scenes inside Fletch's cell, whereas film was used for scenes outside of the cell. The difference in lighting style and frame rate is very noticeable ^[1].

Reason is that it really isn't that notable. It was very common for UK (and Australian) television productions of the 1960s through to the late 1970s to use the integrated method mixing 16mm film location work / videotaped in studio interiors. It is not like Porridge was the only show to do this. Doctor Who, and plenty of comedies like The Goodies, Man About the House all did this. The list goes on and on. Melbn (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)