Are you shooting 30p or 24p
 

Hi Gang,

About to start a low budget feature.

What are most of you doing with frame rate? I know that the chances of going to film are slim.

All of the stuff that I've done in the past, even though originated on film, did well on video and never ended up in theaters or had very limited runs.

I'm bothered by the jutter when panning, but what I've been doing so far is making sure that there is something moving with me when I pan to hide the jutter.

Let me know what you think.

Tom Chaney

www.tomchaney.com

I would rather shoot in 720/30P than SD 24P because of how good the picture looks since I can't edit 720/24P without major workarounds.

If you have no problem editing 24P, then go with it if you want it.

There is more to makeing film looks than film frame rates. I think it would be more important to make a better looking movie. If you can't shoot it because of motion to your "standards" and it ends up looking amatuerish, whats the point.

I believe Steve Mullen stated a while back that 30P actually has potential to look more like film because of flicker. Maybe someone else can clarify.

The important thing is that it looks good, and that you are happy with it, not someone else telling you how to shoot your film.'

Good luck.

Thanks Steve,

I'm currently shooting HDV24p and I have to do all the workarounds (which is the primary reason I'm throwing out the question).

We're handling the project like we would film so it all looks great, composition, lighting, camera moves - but I was just wondering what everyone else was doing - and for what reasons.

Thanks again,

Tom

We have started to shoot more 720/24P (but with PPro no workflow issues also). You can shoot lower light at 24P with better results than 30P, smaller file sizes, native to DVD and less frames when streaming content over the internet (thats a big one for us). All good reasons that have proven worth shooting 24P... when the project allows.

I personally prefer the look of 24p when doing narrative work. It's what people expect and it might subconsciously add a little more credibility in the viewer's mind because it's not obvious it originated on video. Of course 30p is not as far from 24p as 60i (that would look cheap), but if you can go to 24p, why not?

That being said, it really is what you prefer and is more feasible. I personally greatly dislike the hoops of the current 24p workflow and that alone is a big reason to stick with 30p. (Apple, where's the update???).

In the end it is your story that has to sell the movie and as long as you tell it well, people should have no problem being sucked in whatever the frame rate.

Thanks guys,

It looks like we are sticking with 24P and hoping for the "imminent" upgrade to come sooner than later.

Tom

I shoot everything in 30p and have got many compliments on the look, I dont think I will shoot in 24p even when apple supports it. If its not going to film the look of 30p is just as good and most people wont even notice the difference.

"I believe Steve Mullen stated a while back that 30P actually has potential to look more like film because of flicker. Maybe someone else can clarify."

24p has been the rage for years in the DV world, however, I will throw in this tidbit that many high-end film "glossy" tv spots are shot on film@30p...often for the slightly faster frame rate (i.e. less flicker) as well as for easier conforming in the U.S. for ntsc broadcast.

Tom,

Distributors want filmlook. If you don't shot 24p then you need to shoot 60i and convert to 24p. Then you need to add a film look in post. I shot a feature in 30p that looks great and every distributor complained that it didn't look like film. If you want distribution, I recomend doing everything you can to make it look like film.

It's great you are open to both options. And, the fact you already have found that panning with a moving subject is the key to reducing judder.

Thus, the issue comes down to ease of production. While we all know Apple will eventually deliver 24p support, we don't now HOW it will do so. Likewise, we expect Avid to deliver 24p next fall, but we don't know HOW it will be implemented. Therefore, it might make sense to shoot 30p until you have a 24p solution on your computer.

Conversly, if you use Premiere Pro with CineForm or Avid Liquid, you have a 24p solution right now so there's no reason to not shoot 24p. THe former lets you work with an Intermediate codec while tha latter lets you work native.

Beyond, post issues -- 24p gives you more light sensitivity while 30p gives you a bit more temporal resolution (less judder).

Thanks Steve,

I have been an Apple guy for quite a long time, but I am seriously considering a PC solution so that I can do the 24p natively!

I hate to "switch" but I'm not sure how much longer I can wait for the "imminent" release (which now looks like it may be August).

Tom

The New Apples (Intels) can run Windows on them, so why not get the best of both worlds.

Yeah, the imminent release that so many people (well intentioned) have been prediciting for a while now is getting old. It would be nice if there were some actual channel of info from Apple regarding this but it's all supposition at this point and it is frustrating preparing to shoot work with no idea if you'll have 24p editing.
I'm really not interested in third party solutions.
Equally frustrating is not being able to shoot to disk at this point either with Focus saying basically the same thing as we're hearing about Apple...it's coming anytime.

The real problem is that we have been spoiled by these guys, Apple and Focus, with great stuff.

But unfortunately, we all saw, or heard about, the demo of FCP that was working with our beloved camera at NAB.

(And it is talked about on the JVC website)

Tom

That was not a demo of what they plan to ship. It was a version hacked so 24p could be used as thought it were 30p. They were, at least honest about it not being any kind of prerelease version.

Avid has confirmed Liquid running 720p24 on a MBP. So, that may be the best of both worlds.