Not really true.... in practice CRT's are a nightmare.
1. Shoot film at 24 fps. Now set your monitor to a multiple of 24. 48Mhz is not really an option, so its 24 * 3 = 72Mhz, if you are lucky enough to find a screen / video card combo with this resolution. When you do, you cherish and preserve it like your first born child.
This problem, and the ones below, also apply to video at 30fps, or 25fps. Don't even get me started on interlaced fields though.
2. Now sync your cameras shutter speed to the computer monitor, taking phase into account. Ever notice that phase varies slightly with the environment over time. The more EM in the area, the more it varies. We have an office next to a high power streetcar line, and we had to switch to LCD near the lines because the monitors strobe so bad in response to fluctuations in the lines that staff were getting sick from looking at the monitors.
Needless to say, a film location shoot is one major source of RF. Stick a few light kits in the region, a few wireless lav mikes and some other toys, and you have a prime situation for phasing. Which means forget about perfect sync.
Solution, you get a device that slaves the shutter on the camera to the shutter on the monitor. NOT a cheap option.
4 Now you arrive on set, having obtained and tested all your equipment, to discover they are running a 'Hollywood Interface' designed in flash running at 15fps (if you are lucky).
You are now doomed. You often end up having to completely remove the interface of the monitor in POST and digitally replace it with a rendered version of the same interface in POST.
Expensive, very expensive.
In most productions, we got to the point of giving up and setting a pure green image in the display. We key it out later and add the interface in post production. It's cheaper when it's planned that way.
The scene in Swordfish where Hugh Jackman dances his little hacker dance - screens were empty (IIRC, I wasn't involved). The scene in men in black where tommy lee jones pines for his lost love, the screen was blank. etc., etc.,
LCD's have made filming infinitely easier. ESPECIALLY for low budget production. It's far from perfect, but I will settle until video card write back performance reaches reasonable enough speeds to allow full frame rate capture of the ikntgerface at high resolutions (1024x768 or above).
Even then I will take a LCD over a CRT for 90% of filming tasks any day. Which is one of the prime reason why you see them everywhere in media. Another is certainly coolness, but I assure you, no comapny has to give me a CRT to make me use it in production. It's more like I beg for them....
BONUS POINTS Exercise 1. Try lugging a complement of CRT monitors around on location shoots. Compare with LCD.
Exercise 2. Power a CRT off a battery pack for a remote location shoot. Time the battery life. Repeat experiment with LCD.
Seems there was a lion stalking the net just last week:->
Re:Seems wasteful to me
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps Not.
This is a paper phone. It contains virtually no plastics, requires no mold forming, and large portions of it are probably biodegradable and / or recyclable.
If you want to make an environmental judgement of the phones impact, you have to evaluate the phones lifetime, and the harmfullness of the manufacturing process.
I don't know enough about how the phone is constructed to say for sure, but it is entirely possible that the process is far greener than current cellphone technology.
Additionally, speaking as someone who loses cellphones at an embarrassing rate, this is like a dream come true.
Is it less environmentally responsible to lose / toss a paper phone, or one composed of plastics, IC chips, and a bulky chemical laden battery?
I have problems with disposable society as well, but this needs to be avaluated properly before jumping to conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
but good hardware, good software and a good service do NOT equal good management decisions!
No? Sounds like a good start to me. What equals good management in your opinion then?
Not really true.... in practice CRT's are a nightmare.
1.
Shoot film at 24 fps. Now set your monitor to a multiple of 24. 48Mhz is not really an option, so its 24 * 3 = 72Mhz, if you are lucky enough to find a screen / video card combo with this resolution. When you do, you cherish and preserve it like your first born child.
This problem, and the ones below, also apply to video at 30fps, or 25fps. Don't even get me started on interlaced fields though.
2.
Now sync your cameras shutter speed to the computer monitor, taking phase into account. Ever notice that phase varies slightly with the environment over time. The more EM in the area, the more it varies. We have an office next to a high power streetcar line, and we had to switch to LCD near the lines because the monitors strobe so bad in response to fluctuations in the lines that staff were getting sick from looking at the monitors.
Needless to say, a film location shoot is one major source of RF. Stick a few light kits in the region, a few wireless lav mikes and some other toys, and you have a prime situation for phasing. Which means forget about perfect sync.
Solution, you get a device that slaves the shutter on the camera to the shutter on the monitor. NOT a cheap option.
4
Now you arrive on set, having obtained and tested all your equipment, to discover they are running a 'Hollywood Interface' designed in flash running at 15fps (if you are lucky).
You are now doomed. You often end up having to completely remove the interface of the monitor in POST and digitally replace it with a rendered version of the same interface in POST.
Expensive, very expensive.
In most productions, we got to the point of giving up and setting a pure green image in the display. We key it out later and add the interface in post production. It's cheaper when it's planned that way.
The scene in Swordfish where Hugh Jackman dances his little hacker dance - screens were empty (IIRC, I wasn't involved). The scene in men in black where tommy lee jones pines for his lost love, the screen was blank. etc., etc.,
LCD's have made filming infinitely easier. ESPECIALLY for low budget production. It's far from perfect, but I will settle until video card write back performance reaches reasonable enough speeds to allow full frame rate capture of the ikntgerface at high resolutions (1024x768 or above).
Even then I will take a LCD over a CRT for 90% of filming tasks any day. Which is one of the prime reason why you see them everywhere in media. Another is certainly coolness, but I assure you, no comapny has to give me a CRT to make me use it in production. It's more like I beg for them....
BONUS POINTS
Exercise 1.
Try lugging a complement of CRT monitors around on location shoots. Compare with
LCD.
Exercise 2.
Power a CRT off a battery pack for a remote location shoot. Time the battery life. Repeat experiment with LCD.
Seems there was a lion stalking the net just last week :->
Perhaps Not. This is a paper phone. It contains virtually no plastics, requires no mold forming, and large portions of it are probably biodegradable and / or recyclable. If you want to make an environmental judgement of the phones impact, you have to evaluate the phones lifetime, and the harmfullness of the manufacturing process. I don't know enough about how the phone is constructed to say for sure, but it is entirely possible that the process is far greener than current cellphone technology. Additionally, speaking as someone who loses cellphones at an embarrassing rate, this is like a dream come true. Is it less environmentally responsible to lose / toss a paper phone, or one composed of plastics, IC chips, and a bulky chemical laden battery? I have problems with disposable society as well, but this needs to be avaluated properly before jumping to conclusions.