The official word from Sony on the CF modes of the Z1 translated from the Japanese are as follows

::

The cinema frame 24 which expresses the judo kana movement like the film 25 30 (*)

-Cinema frame 24
Atmosphere of 24 scenes/the second when it is used with the film movie is created.

-Cinema frame 25
At the time of 50i setting it is selection possible.

-Cinema frame 30
It is faced to the image which has, movement such as CM and promotion video.
* In each case the image pickup of CCD is 60i. Also record to the tape becomes 60i.


Combining the cinema tone gamma black stretch cinema frame, actualizing the expression like the film movie. You answer the demand of the digital cinema and the promotion video production person.

::

everything else is in the eye of the beholder


Frankly my opinion is that 24P worship has more to do with union and job protection than anything else.

That's why Chris is in charge.

heath

"Frankly my opinion is that 24P worship has more to do with union and job protection than anything else."

I am neither in a union nor a professional filmmaker. I prefer 24p over 30p and 60i. I think we have the right to make that artistic decision without it being belittled.

I agree with that. I feel 24p is great for my films, 30p and 60i is great for my video work.

heath

<<<I am neither in a union nor a professional filmmaker. I prefer 24p over 30p and 60i. I think we have the right to make that artistic decision without it being belittled.>>>>

Agreed. It's an artistic choice, and you shouldn't feel like you're making a poor choice.

That said, 24p is indeed highly overrated just on the "buzz" value of the number. A lot of people shoot with it because they're told they're filmmakers for using it, when other choices make for emotional expression very well too. Those that know what they're doing with it make great images, and then there are those that just make great messes. But they are THEIR messes, and no one can tell them it's right or wrong.

I believe it's just a sensitive issue regarding this particular camcorder, and it's easy to make it be an issue since so few people have played with it.

I like the look of 24p, personally, for my movies, but I've shot on 60i for years and 30p on my most recent short (HDV).

heath

Come to think of it, I prefer 18fps from Super 8 or 8mm reels. They truly have a magic quality to them. More so than 24fps film. Sometimes I look at old home movies they show on TV of just some guy walking on snow around his cabin and I find that so engaging. It evokes such a nostalgic feeling mainly because of the slower pace of 18fps.

Actually, I think most people would have trouble distinguishing between 24P and 30P in a comparison test if you show them one after the other. I know I would miss at least some of the time.

"Actually, I think most people would have trouble distinguishing between 24P and 30P in a comparison test if you show them one after the other. I know I would miss at least some of the time."

Not only that, Ray, but most of those ridiculously expensive film commercials you see on the tube are shot in 30 fps, as well as many music videos.

Yup, 30 fps looks great on tv. Expect to see more of it as high def matures in broadcasting. HiDef widescreen concert footage at 30P with 5.1. Yummy.

Wayne Orr, SOC

If you took an alien or a person from a culture that had never experienced movies or television, put them in front of a nice HD monitor and showed them the same material originally photographed first as 60i and then as 24p, I think there'd be no question they would prefer the 60i. It would look "more real". Heck, I think we all would, if we could see with fresh new eyes.

However...

...We live in a world where close to 100 years of experience with 24fps has told us that this is "quality".

The temporial step of video is equated with "live" or reality, or inexpensive, or news. That is just the way it is, like it or not. You can dress up 60i with the best lighting, the best photography and it will still scream out "This is video!!!" Even a grandmother can tell the difference on some level, and come to a conclusion about the "quality".

Several years ago when the Spirit DataCine first came out, we shot some 35mm 30fps film for a client and transfered on the Spirit to video. The Spirit produced a remarkably clean, steady image. An image that the client then turned to us and said, "Why did you shoot video?". The film footage was lacking most of the "film clues". Even with the dynamic range, DOF, etc. it was the temporial beat and the lack of grain that bothered the high end client the most.

24fps, viewed either in a movie theatre or as transfered to video with 3:2 is burned into our collective brains as the choice of a high quality production. Fair? Who cares, it just is. Having a 24/25fps ability just removes one of the many hurdles between you and the audience when shooting dramatic programming.

Maybe this will shift away at some point in the future, but today isn't the day that will happen.

My two cents...

Jim Arthurs

The arrogance of the statements made here often astonishes me.

I guess photographs are preferable to oil portraits? Heck, I guess oil portraits are better than stone sculptures? Stone sculptures are better than frescos? Etc.?

If all that matters to your eyes are pretending that you're seeing it live, then I guess 60i or 60p is the way to go. Fortunately "realism" is not the be all and end all for most artists and audiences. I think even aliens would recognize that, unless they've become so dependent on their "realistic" technology that they can't appreciate art anymore.

Additionally, the human eye's physical response to 24fps and 60i is very different. 24 frames per second is said to invite the dream state, or at least a relaxed state, which aids in creating the feeling of entering another world, while video at 60i has been proven to be more jarring and less apt to 'carry you away." This isn't just a meaningless debate. It comes down to how our eyes work and respond to moving pictures, and is therefore not just arbitrary or the product of cultural conditioning. It's pure and simple science! Both 24p and 60i could be used to exploit the respective physical responses they generate, but they are definitely not the same. And for my money, 24 frames per second, or other close variations thereof, such as 18 frames per second, will always be preferable to 60i.

I think it can be safely said that 60i vs. 24p vs. 30p or whatever, it's all a *choice* that you can make. There is no one single definitive way to do it. It's an aesthetic decision one way or the other. Fortunately these cameras provide these kinds of options.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr :
Not only that, Ray, but most of those ridiculously expensive film commercials you see on the tube are shot in 30 fps, as well as many music videos.

-->>>

What? Which ones? No way.

Way!

Careful there John, Wayne is an SOC working in Hollywood and he knows what he's talking about. I'm sure he'll be happy to give you some examples though.

<<The arrogance of the statements made here often astonishes me.<<

Peter... are you referring to me? I'm PRO 24p. Read my post again, carefully, if you think not. But, no, I wouldn't agree that fresh eyes would think 24fps necessarily better or more esthetic to view. I don't think fresh eyes would post ANY esthetic value to either until some time had past and the various uses of each were demonstrated.

I never used the word "artistic" to describe 24p, but of course it can be. I prefer it. I use it.

BTW, everyone agrees that stone sculptures ARE better than frescos. It's common knowledge. :)

Joel, science eh? No wonder I'm feeling sleepy... :)

Jim Arthurs