<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : 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. -->>>

Whoa! Schwing!

I had no idea. :O

<<<-- Originally posted by Joel Guy : 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! -->>>

I wonder who the subjects of these studies were? Had they ever seen or been exposed to movies and tv before? If so, the jury pool, so to speak, is tainted.

Who's to say that their experiences in the past, setting in darkened movie theatres vrs watching the hectic pace of the world as revealed through video images isn't subconciously influencing their responses to the studies based on the image cadence? Maybe the fact that story telling via 24fps entertainment has pre-disposed the subject to a lulled, dreamlike state... culture influencing the outcome of the scientific test.

Just food for though...

Jim Arthurs

Jim,

I agree with your logic. However, there weren't really "tests" at all, rather a biological evaluation of how the human eye sees, and what it is used to, what it responds to, the level at which 24fps and 60i create something "natural to the human eye." Interlaced frames are not exactly comforting to our eyes, which progressive frames are. I'm simplifying of course, but that was my basic point. That beyond just what we are used to, our bodies react in certain ways to different frame rates. I think if cinema had started out as 60i, we would have grown used to it, but I do think it would have evolved in slightly different ways, as the physical reaction to it would have been slightly different. I'm not talking about huge changes, but maybe just small, unconscious ways in how we would think of the cinema, which is associated so much with dreams, and might not have been. I might be going too far...

"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 understand your post. It's just a bold statement to say that anyone would objectively (or should) prefer one over the other, even with fresh eyes.

The point above about the dream state is fascinating. I wonder if that would explain why some people, at least I, find 24p very pleasing but 30p very ugly.

If we're going to keep talking about 24p and its merits, I suggest we take the conversation over to our Film Look page. We're WAY off topic.

heath

<<<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, I don’t mind 30P (or 60i) at all. In fact, I think video has an esthetic all of its own which is often overlooked and under-exploited. If the subject matter and presentation techniques (mainly cinematography and set design) are right, then a 30P production can display a gritty reality that are more real than real. I think some of the original CSI shows point in that direction.

Anyway, a film can feel like a video but still won't detract itself from its artistic merits. For example, Stanley Kukricks' 2001 A Space Odyssey feels more like a video (especially the space craft sequences) whereas Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut feel more like a film. A Clockwork Orange (with its clean and futuristic setting) leans towards being a video. All are great productions no matter how filmic and video-ish they are being perceived. My personal opinions anyway.

It's all art, right? And at the end of the day, that's all that matters, because you created it. People might trash it, they might smash it, they might cry or laugh at it, but it's ultimately yours.

> What? Which ones? No way.

Most of the ones I have worked in. 30 fps por NSTC (or 29.97). 25 fps for PAL.

When talking about what "feels more like a video or film", I think this is absolutly impossible to quantify.

Truly, its a very personal thing. The greatest films of our time have been great because they've affected a massive amount of people in more or less the same way. Whatever that way may be.

But as to if the FX1 feels more like video or film, well...
I suppose thats difficult to say. Context~ Its all about context!

Anyways, thats my two cents...

Which ones? Thanks Chris. (groan) I'll get back to you with some specifics, after I hunt them down.

BTW, Chris, I haven't forgotten that other matter. More soon, if you are still interested.

Wayne

Sucks to be called on the carpet, doesn't it? Happens to me all the time!

Still interested!

Hope to see you at DV Expo at the L.A.C.C. -- I'm there only on Dec. 10th though.