Film of Ferrari driving at up to 140mph through Paris

Well, I gotta say. when a vehicle is parked at the side of the road and
you are passing it at 140 MILES per hour, I is kinda blurry, even on
camera. Especially when you consider that it was obviously a digital
recording ( video tape recorders require larger mounting apparatus
because they are heavier and create a lot of shake at 140mph) and being
a digital recording the CCD within the camera could not possibly take
that many frames per second to create the clarity of the film, also to
do so would require a huge aperture on the camera (hence bigger
camera=more shake) which even at the early hours at which it was filmed
(due to the empty streets) would appear much brighter. Unless altered
in a cutting room (which would have to be film) all in all, unless the
maker of this film has either some form of digital camera well beyond
the current capacity of all known devices or has found some way to
absolutely eliminate shake from the camera while driving, this film is
exagerated to the point that only the gullible will believe it.
Or maybe I play with cameras and watch CSI too much.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article . com>,
> slas > wrote:
> >He should have driven through Italy. Italian police do not ticket nor
> >bother to chase Ferraris for speeding.
>
> Do they ticket anyone for speeding?
> --

Yes. Ferraris get a free pass... because they're -- uh - Ferraris.

In article .com>,
Scott > wrote:

>Especially when you consider that it was obviously a digital
>recording ( video tape recorders require larger mounting apparatus
>because they are heavier and create a lot of shake at 140mph) and being

The film was made in 1976. It was NOT digital.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article . com>,
>> gpsman > wrote:
>
>>>Hardly anything matches the audio.
>
>> When I saw it on videotape, it did.
>
> Why was there no wind noise?

I have a feeling the soundtrack was recorded separately and cleaned up.
It just seems that way... like a professionally made movie of the era.

It was a lot more in sync than the soundtrack for "Bullitt" and we know
that chase scene was real stunt work....

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2006 20:05:01 -0700, "Scott" >
> wrote:
>
> >Well, I gotta say. when a vehicle is parked at the side of the road and
> >you are passing it at 140 MILES per hour, I is kinda blurry, even on
> >camera. Especially when you consider that it was obviously a digital
> >recording ( video tape recorders require larger mounting apparatus
> >because they are heavier and create a lot of shake at 140mph) and being
> >a digital recording the CCD within the camera could not possibly take
> >that many frames per second
>
> Hate to break this to ya, but digital video and CCD video cameras did
> not exist in 1976.

Yeah, well, it's easy to get confused when you're looking at digital
video and thinking video must be as old as film simply because both
have been part of your ordinary life experience since birth. And the
frame rate for video is pretty much fixed at either "drop frame" (30
fps) or "non-drop frame" (29.97 fps). Video "shutter speed" can be
altered on professional cameras for high-speed frame capture.
Sometimes you see computer monitors in video than don't have the "roll"
because the camera operator has synced the shutter speed to the video
display rate.

This clip was shot on film. Video simply doesn't have the dynamic
range to produce the level of detail that's apparent in those low
lighting conditions and to the trained eye (mine) it has the
unmistakable, unduplicatable look of film. Today film is commonly
dumped to digital, edited and effects added, then dumped back to film
for distribution.

The audio has oh so obviously been dubbed over. Ignoring the fact that
the acceleration is a bad mismatch for the audio... at the very least
the front of the car to which the camera was affixed would move up and
down just a tad during the hard acceleration, shifts and braking
supposedly occuring. The camera is obviously gyroscopically stabilized
but stabilization wasn't then what it is now, or anywhere close.

I'm sure it was plenty good enough to fool audiences in the '70's,
especially in a theater environment with the audio blasting. It seems
audiences are still quite willing to suspend belief of what their eye
sees and believe what their ears hear in the 21st century.
-----

- gpsman