24p Mini DV on the way! - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic DVX / DVC Assistant

Panasonic DVX / DVC Assistant
The 4K DVX200 plus previous Panasonic Pro Line cams: DVX100A, DVC60, DVC30.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 22nd, 2002, 10:48 PM   #31
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rockwall, TX, USA
Posts: 77
afterburnerDV,

I have no idea who Steven Soderburg is. Perhaps you could elighten me as to what he has done. Regardless I think you are taking my comments too personally when I am just trying to make a general statement regarding frame rate. Thus, I think you are missing my point (perhaps I have worded it poorly), so let me try to reword.

My argument is that video at 30FPS will always look like "video". Video to me looks amateurish and cheap. Why? It is because of that 30FPS frame rate. I have seen FILMS shot and projected at 30FPS and it carried that same "cheap" look to it. Thus I am not saying that no one on this forum should ever bother taking the lens cap off of their video cameras again. What I am saying is that 30FPS looks to me and everyone I have ever shot film with like a home video movie. Sure some look better than others when coupled with a good camera, good lighting and so forth, but it still has that homemade look to it. Does that make sense?

To further elaborate, on one shoot in particular when I first started shooting on film, 30FPS was actually an option for us and was recommended by a fellow at the video transfer shop for a precise "frame by frame" transfer to video (which was to be it's final mastered format). Intrigued by the theory, we shot a test roll and HATED it. All of unanimously said "we mine as well be shooting video". So I'll say it again, I seriously believe that 24FPS will take over once people see it with their own eyes. THAT's my point. ...and I'll be the first in line when Panasonic releases this camera! :)

As far as your preceived threat of losing professional videographer's input to this board because of my statement earlier, that is ludicrous. Any true professional should be able to understand the point I am trying to make and they should already understand the limitations of any given format (video or film as well as any budget reasonings). If my comment above scares professionals off, then I will truly be shocked.
Bradley Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2002, 11:07 PM   #32
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Brad,

Steven Soderbergh is a filmmaker. He has won numerous awards including back-to-back Oscars for Best Picture (Traffic and Erin Brokovich). Some of his other films are The Limey and the recent remake of Ocean's Eleven. His Hollywood breakthrough was in 1988 with Sex, Lies & Videotape. His next film, due out this summer, is Full Frontal with an A-list cast and is shot 85% with a Canon XL1S and transferred to 35mm.

I submit to you that the vast majority of the moviegoing public doesn't know and wouldn't care about 24fps vs 30fps. What matters is the story... Content is King. And compelling talent and expert direction. That's all that really counts.
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2002, 11:14 PM   #33
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rockwall, TX, USA
Posts: 77
The films you listed that I am aware of were shot on film at 24FPS. It will be interesting to see how his new movie looks.

I agree with you most people don't know the difference, but I also think there is a subliminal thing going on too in favor of 24FPS. I don't ever recall saying that everyone in the world would agree that 24FPS is better than 30FPS. I only said that I, me, personally find 24FPS far superior to 30FPS, and I furthered that comment with an honest statement that everyone I have ever worked with feels the same way. These are opinions that were stated as opinions. I don't know who "afterburnerDV" is, but he is overreacting as if it is some kind of personal attack.
Bradley Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 07:46 AM   #34
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: santa fe, nm
Posts: 3,264
Images: 10
Brad...

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I will also concur that people I know who are dedicated to film have the same opinion as you. I will suggest, however, that it isn't too smart to step into a forum dedicated to the professional use of video and bad mouth the format. In this case, I would suggest you consider your motives. Yes, you worded that rather badly and rather inconsiderately. Your negativism isn't appreciated, at least by myself.

I would disagree with you on the difference being related solely to the frame rate. If this were the case, PAL would be a logical choice. PAL still looks like video. Why? I submit that's because video CCD's have less latitude than film. Given that, whites wash out easily, blacks get muddy or the image is underexposed. If the lighting doesn't fill properly to reduce the contrast, all kinds of effects pop, not the least of which is banding and posterization...that's what I find disagreeable about porno flicks. Combine that with the tendency to hand hold a video camera, beacuse it's light and portable, and you get the home video look.


The positive side of the format has already been pointed out in posts above. Not all of us have the resources of Spielberg. Given that film and video each have their drawbacks and advantages, I think this forum should concentrate on what makes the DV format better, not worse.

Returning to the original thread, I think 24p is a step in the wrong direction for DV. 30 FPS is limited in its ability to stop motion. 24FPS is even more limited. Instead of DV trying to be a wannabe film format, why not concentrate on making it its own venue, focusing on what makes it uniquely "video". I think trying to get the "film look" with video is like trying to make plastic perform like aluminum. It just ain't gonna happen. That's only my opinion, and I accept that.

P.S. here's an interesting thread on this subject:
http://www.dv.com/db_area/community/Forum13/HTML/000509.html

Last edited by Bill Ravens; February 23rd, 2002 at 08:25 AM.
Bill Ravens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 08:58 AM   #35
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brunn am Gebirge, Austria
Posts: 161
Just to put a little more oil into that fire here: ;-)

Why watch any shot-on-film movie on TV? They are all aired at 30fps and will get this ugly video-camera look! Oh, my god! Titanic will look like a home-made amateur-video on my TV!

Sorry, but I have to make fun of this.

And here comes the bonus question:

Why buy the 24fps panasonic if you have to cinvert it to 30fps to to be able to play it on your TV at home?

In the US a transfer to film for showing in real theaters the framerate might justify buying it, but not if you donīt plan to air it elsewhere than your TV. But on the other hand, will the framerate matter at all? Even if shot at 24fps a blind person will see that this is just a blown up video. Or did anyone believe the Blairbitch, ehm, Blairwitch was shot on Eastman 35mm stock?


Here is my definition:

Film:

To be used for release on big, big screens by people with $$$ where video has not got a chance with its lower contrast ratio and lousy resolution.

Video:

Everything else and everyone who has no plans getting his work on a big silverscreen.

Looking forward to getting stomped onto my head for this ;-)))

Cheers,
__________________
Peter Koller
Vienna, Austria http://www.kop11.com
Peter Koller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 10:01 AM   #36
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chigasaki, Japan.
Posts: 1,660
Hold your head up proud Peter. You are doing what you love and video allows you to do it. Make the movies you want, try new things, stuff it up, learn from your mistakes, make the next one better. Use everything you can possible get your hands on, imagination is the secret, don't ever be afraid to use it. That's the beauty of video, you can try something and if it dosen't work you can tape over it.
Adrian Douglas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 10:48 AM   #37
RED Code Chef
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
One thing that I find interesting about multi FPS cameras
is slow or fast motion, not saying that this camera would
be ideal for that. Just an interesting option to have. Some
slow motion footage can look incredible cool, if shot in
slow motion (higher FPS).

Just my two $
__________________

Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com
DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef

Join the DV Challenge | Lady X

Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors
Rob Lohman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 12:15 PM   #38
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rockwall, TX, USA
Posts: 77
"Why watch any shot-on-film movie on TV? They are all aired at 30fps and will get this ugly video-camera look! Oh, my god! Titanic will look like a home-made amateur-video on my TV!"

This comment only proves the impression that I have been receiving over the last 24 hours...the people here (at least the ones who have posted negatively against my comments) don't understand how this all works and instead seem to think that I am bashing THEIR production.

It is clear now with this mis-informed quote and the intentionally rude post above it by billravens that the "professionals" on this board still do not get my point and at least Peter for one has no idea technically as to the reason why 24FPS looks like it does, even if projected at 30FPS. Sorry for rustling everyone's feathers. I had no idea the people on this board could not handle a discussion between the two formats and instead would take any comment with the word "film" as some sort of direct personal attack. This is insane, and I hope that all of you who have been replying with anger from my posts that shoot in 30FPS "frame movie mode" will stop doing so immediately, because you are shooting in that mode to achieve a certain look, a look of which this new Panasonic camera will improve on even further. Why is it that no one seems to understand this? Any professional videographer should understand the difference, whether they like the look or not. So why all of the anger? If you like the 60i look, then why not post that along with your reasonings instead of just getting angry? Maybe you like 30FPS, but don't feel anything lower would give you the look you want. Fine, then why don't you post that? Maybe there are other people on this forum that feel exactly the same way that I do with regard to frame rate motion (which by the way I already know there are), but they are afraid to post because they don't want to get in the middle of a big foolish argument with people who apparently don't understand technically what the difference is.

With this new camera (most probably followed by a slew of others), there will be no reason why the MiniDV format playback can not look just as good as a production shot on film and transferred to DVD just like you would purchase at a store. Aren't you people excited??? I most certainly am.

Shame on that new technology. Shame on me for being excited about it.
Bradley Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 02:10 PM   #39
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: santa fe, nm
Posts: 3,264
Images: 10
hmmm.....didn't realize I was being "intentionally rude". My apologies if I've offended you. I thought I had posted some good arguments, but, I didn't get anyone offering information to refute what I said. I would invite anyone who disagrees with my comments to write in....so I can learn. I can accept criticism that's backed by fact instead of ego and testosterone. I can admit I'm wrong when I beleive I have been. I don't resort to name calling, nor do I respond to name calling. If my criticism pushes your button or yours pushes mine, perhaps we should each ask ourselves why that is so. I'm sorry you're not happy here, Brad. But, it's not my job to make you happy. Nor is it your job to please me. That's called co-dependency. Sorry about that.

BTW, I shoot frame movie mode to avoid those horrid DV interlacing artifacts. Now THAT'S something I consider ugly.
Bill Ravens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 03:11 PM   #40
Hawaiian Shirt Mogul
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: northern cailfornia
Posts: 1,261
it's all usable -

lets look at it from another angle on these hand size dv camera's ( most will aplly to ALL camera's - pro, consumer, future)

each FPS progessive/interlaced will have a different "look" , effect = another TOOL to use when we shoot ..

the new panasonic 24P repords to tape using the 3:2 to get it on tape at 30fps ... motion will look different then if you use a 30i or 30P camera .... another tool

so pick your tool .. perhaps for section you may want the interlaced look , other sections 24p ... other 30P ... it still ends up on tape around 30fps ( except the HD24p)

it's all optional ..choose what you like for effects or because that's what you like ...

i do think that if they were inventing the " film" camera today they would NOT choose 24fps ...

i've been out of the "film business" since 1998 ... but when i use to shoot commercials we shot film at 30fps !! and they looked like FILM on TV ......

perhaps digital projectors will give everybody what they want ..
shoot HD , 24P , 30P , 60i , NTSC ,PAL it will project all of them ?
Don Donatello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 03:27 PM   #41
RED Code Chef
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
I think all of us understands that different FPS will always
create a different motion signature, even if it is changed to
a different FPS (although this could change the signature a
bit). It is like math, you can explain it. Wether you like it or
not is your opinion, which is your own to have ofcourse.
I think Brad has some very good points, especially if you
keep in mind that some of the things he writes are HIS
opinion, he is entitled to that (don't forget this).

Then again, some other people have written good things
about it too. I think we can all agree that more cameras
with more options should be a good thing (generally).
Ofcourse some people don't need this, others will. I agree
with Chris that the story is the most important (and I think
Brad agrees with this too), most people will watch it in
30 FPS or 24, the don't know, and see the difference.

Some people will see the difference though, even if they
aren't familiair with the differences. It all ends in what you
like, what resources and equipment you have. I think if
we all had the choice (and I am talking about the people here
who want to make movies that will hopefully be seen in
theaters) we'd shoot on film (at this moment). But most of
us cannot afford this. We all understand there are differences
between the formats, lets just accept this and do what we
love: MAKE INTERESTING MOVIES (Tv series, commercials etc.)
the way we want and can.

Hope I've not stept on any ones toes here, lemme know what
you think...

Enjoy the weekend!
__________________

Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com
DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef

Join the DV Challenge | Lady X

Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors
Rob Lohman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 04:01 PM   #42
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: santa fe, nm
Posts: 3,264
Images: 10
well said, Rob. I'm fallible, perhaps not always expressing myself in the best way. It's great to hear from others who can say it better than I.
Bill Ravens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 04:17 PM   #43
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brunn am Gebirge, Austria
Posts: 161
Brad, please be so kind and give me a technical explanation as I donīt seem to know what I am talking about.

PS: You got at least one thing wrong, I am not negatively responding to your comments, if have a little closer look at the postings youīll see that I posted way before you did. So I make a U-turn and blame you commenting negatively on my comments. :-)

PPS: I already said this is going nowhere, we are discussing taste here. So why argue at all? I like my burger with onions, I donīt care for others. I can only eat what I like. So what?

Cheers, keepin the fire burning and having a lot of fun ;-)
__________________
Peter Koller
Vienna, Austria http://www.kop11.com
Peter Koller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 05:16 PM   #44
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 290
Peter, Brad is not saying that just because you view something on video that it looks amateur. He is saying that things that are SHOT at 24 frames per second have a more "professional" look in his opinion than things that are shot at higher frame rates. It doesn't matter if you are viewing it on video or not. Professionals have been using 24fps for a long long time where consumers have not had this chance. That's the basis of the opinion and I am also excited about the prospect. That's why DVD movies look more professional (one of many reasons, actually) then any camcorder footage thus far. With new 24fps cameras, you can now create footage that looks just as good if not better than those DVDs if you have careful lighting, direction, composition and soundwork.

What I am a bit leary on is that the new Panasonic camera is pretty small from what I gather. It's a handheld unit. I'll have to look at it's 24fps mode and make a true decision then. But until then I am excited that they are offering it. Next I want a MiniDV camera that also shoots 120 or at least 60 full progressive frames per second that, on playback, slow down to normal 30fps for incredible slow motion.
Joe Redifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2002, 05:30 PM   #45
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,781
Hey wow jeepers. This thread certainly has taken on a life of its own!

Ugliness and backbiting aside, it seems to me that the real issue at debate here is whether video is best relegated to its native medium, which is 60i and displayed on a monitor or video projector; or should it move forward and emulate the cinema world, at 24p and possibly transferred to film for projection. Fortunately this new Panasonic camera allows for both possibilities, doesn't that make it a win-win for both camps?

I think that the general public, while not being able to describe perhaps why they feel the way they do, would probably pick a 24p presentation over 60i if they were given a side by side comparison, if the subject matter was theatrical in nature. The 60i look is thought of as representing "reality", i.e. news, live television, sports, cop shows, reality shows, etc. It's what they have grown up seeing, and that ingrained conditioning would be hard to break.

I would also offer that the public has become more visually sophisticated with the introduction of high resolution TV's and DVD's, digital cable and satellite in the past few years. People now demand a sharper, cleaner image where once they were satisfied with an aging console set with tinfoil over the rabbit ears. Another proof that the public is becoming more visually savvy is that a few years ago, letterboxing was scandalous to much of the population--rather than realizing they were actually getting more of the original image of a 1:85 film, they thought they were getting ripped off because there were black bars on their set. Now, most people are comfortable with the look, widescreen DVD's are standard, movies are sometimes shown on broadcast and cable in their original format, and even television series such as "ER" and "The West Wing" are now shot and broadcast exclusively in the 16:9 format.

The point I am rambling around is that yes, I do think there are psychological factors that can trigger a certain effect in viewers, whether they know about it or not, and frame rate is most definitely one of them; and 24 fps is what the movies are about!

Brad, as someone who has shot film, I am surprised that you would say "With this new camera, there will be no reason why the MiniDV format playback can not look just as good as a production shot on film and transferred to DVD". There are plenty of reasons why this is not so, and you have referred to them in earlier posts. Nevertheless, I am hoping and praying that this camera makes lovely pictures, although Panasonics are not traditionally known for this. The single reason I own an XL1 is that I feel it has the most pleasing image quality of all the options out there, especially in Frame Movie Mode.

Finally, I dug Adrian's "@%$# Hollywood" post. It bespeaks to the reason I and perhaps most others are posting here; that DV offers the opportunity to make movies on a virtually non-existent budget, which allows for the kind of experimentation that can be tremendously satisfying and educational. I have in the past shot shorts and features for first-time directors who have taken out loans and gutted their savings just to get their vision on screen, and so far none of them have really achieved the success they were hoping for (and are probably still trying to pay off their credit cards). I'm personally getting involved with DV so that I can finally take my turn in the directing chair, and I know that with this technology I can achieve a look and feel that "sells" as if it was shot on film (while not necessarily looking just like film), and I can do it for a fraction of what those other projects cost. Ironically, Adrian, I do actually own an 35mm Arri and Zeiss lenses (and I even live and work in @%$#'ing Hollywood!); but you can be sure that the Arri will sit in the closet while my DV camera is getting the workout on this upcoming "film"!
__________________
Charles Papert
www.charlespapert.com
Charles Papert is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic DVX / DVC Assistant

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network