Real or Fake, You Decide.

Post by **RET80** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:34 am

This is an image of a celluloid. Real or fake, you decide and state your reasons why. This is just for fun and to see if it trully is real or fake.

Enjoy, happy guessing!

Post by **Blin** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:47 am

Wow. There sure are a lot of perfs in that frame. Looks fake to me.

Post by **Scotness** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:09 am

Gee I was expecting to see a pair of breasts

okay the photo:

I think it's a pretty good fake:

the sky colours look like film
the softness etc looks like a poor lense

but the wood on the hut looks too video-like to me
there's an obvious hot spot effect which I guess is designed to simulate projection but it should not be there on the film frame itself

Still I reckon it's a pretty good fake - I find now the main difference between video and film isn't the colours but the exposure lattitude and the movement properties - try as they may on Top Gear it still doesn't look like film.

Scot

Post by **Patrick** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:51 am

I thought that Top Gear did use some film in their show for select segments (don't quote me 100% on that)....even though shows like that would generally be shot on video.

Post by **mattias** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:37 am

why would it be fake? it may very well be but i don't understand the question?!? anyone can take any image and paste it over the real image in a scan of a film frame, what's the purpose? what am i missing?

if it's real i'm amazed how somebody managed to make a 70mm frame (or whatever exact gauge that is) that grainy, it should be impossible. i also think it's impossible to get deeper blacks than the perf area, which should always represent d-max, no? the frame line is too sharp as well. no gates can do that.

/matt

Post by **jpolzfuss** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:41 pm

It's impossible to decide anything when the image is in jpeg-format and hence has got all those compression artefacts... .

JÃƒÂ¶rg

Post by **Blin** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:47 pm

Patrick wrote:I thought that Top Gear did use some film in their show for select segments (don't quote me 100% on that)....even though shows like that would generally be shot on video.

I agree. On the episode of Top Gear that was on the other night here in Oz, I saw a speed-ramp that looked like film as well as what looked like an authentic film run-out compete with fogged film look.

Post by **audadvnc** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:21 pm

Fake. This frame is transverse 8 perf. 35mm MP frame is 4 perf wide. 35mm still frame is 8 perf, but the frame is longitudinal, turned 90 degrees. Maybe this is a mockup of a 65mm frame (except no room for soundtrack), but I thought the standard was 5 or 6 perf on those?

It might be a real image though. Looks like an image.

Website · Post by **BigBeaner** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:59 pm

If 65mm/VistaVision type etc. it would have 8 perfs but the image and perfs would be run horizontal. It's hard to say what it is, but that fact and the way the sky looks and the grass, it looks like a digitally manipulated image, look at the tree leaves to the left of the frame just don't look right, a bit clipped, whatever. Something about the house just doesn't look right either, looks like there's a box around the house a lil bit thats been manipulated to be lighter than the rest of the image that's a lil darker/contrastier.

Post by **wado1942** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:56 pm

Definitely fake. I've never heard of a 70mm 8-perf vertical format. At any rate, 70mm would look much sharper and less grainy unless it was a blow up from 16mm. I've never seen 50mm but even if this was it, I think it'd be sharper.

Post by **reflex** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:07 pm

For comparison, here's what 70mm IMAX looks like held over a light box. You can see a surprising amount of grain when shot like this, and the frame line appears pretty sharp:

The problem I have with RET80's frame is that the image is too low-rez to see any detail.

There have been a number of 8 perf vertical formats in various gauges, so that alone isn't reason to count this frame out. Of course, most of those formats were anamorphic and this shot clearly isn't.

Post by **wado1942** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:24 pm

I have a few IMAX frames myself and they are NOT grainy. But if you scanned them and saved them as a GIF image with dither, then it would appear grainy.

Post by **reflex** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:09 pm

wado1942 wrote:I have a few IMAX frames myself and they are NOT grainy.

I agree, but you wouldn't know it from the photo above. The same may be true of RET80's image, because it sure looks like it has huge grain for such a large format.

Post by **RET80** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:27 pm

Remember, keep in mind guys, this is just for fun.

It is indeed a fake image. My goal was trying to mimic a celluloid type image, and what threw it off was the perforations on the side. I didn't notice until after I posted the image that it was FAR too many for 16mm or even 35mm. That was my major goof up. So besides that, if I were to remove the perforations, what would you guys think about the image? (if you want I can upload it again without the tracking on the sides).

My goal with this was just to see if I could mimic using a low grade shooting technique. I was using an Aiptek GO-HD consumer camera. The picture was not shot by me, just manipulated.

Post by **yolia** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:08 am

The perfs definitely gave it away but could've fooled some folks otherwise. Next time, simplify your question. "Real or fake, you decide and state your reasons why." is WAY to complex for mattias who didn't understand the question. :lol: [/u]