24p with FX1000

William Ellwood · December 28th, 2008, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

There's nothing "good" about 24 fps; it wasn't chosen for any aesthetic or artistic reason.

Why do people insist on using tools they don't understand and then complain about the results?

The reason people look at this is because the big companies promote it as being really good. Whilst I haven't ever tried progressive mode, we get bombarded from company advertising that this 'look' is really worth having. See the progressive mode spiel from this sony ad - the English accent is weird mind- and tell me that they aren't making progressive mode out to be wonderful. It does look good on my computer screen.

It is on about 25p, maybe there's a major difference...
Sony : HVR-Z5E Product Preview Video : United Kingdom

Chris Barcellos · December 28th, 2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

.

I like Greg Leves' post - excellently put.

tom.

Since I think this is pointed at my comments, I will repond by saying my posts were in response to specific 24p questions. I never stated that these are only aspects of gettign to "film" like video. Greg's post assumes those of us interested in getting the film look do not address other issues like depth of field, extension of latitude, color grading, etc., etc. While I will admit I am still in that learning curve. I haven't quit on the potentials it provides. The attitude exuded by some seems to be advancing is its not worth the trouble, so I don't want to learn about it. That's fine, but don't put other who are advancing the medium in that direction down.

Frankly, as I practiced with a play I shot a week ago, I probably wouldn't use 24p or 30p in the event type shoot. However, I applaud the original poster's willingness to experiment with his craft, and develop his own style.

Chris Barcellos · December 28th, 2008, 04:56 AM

William Ellwood:

As I stated earlier, Sony resisted 24p for years, until market pressure from the pro and prosumer community forced it to include it in its most recent cameras.

William Ellwood · December 28th, 2008, 06:00 AM

I just commented that people might be using 24p maybe because Sony are vigorously marketing it. It was a resonse to something Adam said. Ok, they are marketing it to compete with their rivals. And if people are trying it out, not liking it, then fine. Seems to me that it's a tool that can be part of our creative arsenal.

Billy

Tom Hardwick · December 28th, 2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Since I think this is pointed at my comments, I will repond by saying...

No, not pointed at your comments at all Chris. I said I liked Greg Leves's post, that's all. If I'd been pointing at you I would have made that plain.

Wacharapong Chiowanich · December 28th, 2008, 10:52 AM

For aesthetic reasons alone, I think progressive recording and displaying at 60p (or 50p in PAL areas) are superior to 24p or 30p in all respects. The video just looks so good. Shooting is also easier as camera movements can be faster, shutter speed can go up to 1/120th or even 1/240th with almost imperceptible strobing effects, thus allowing still frames grabbed from the video, aside from the video itself, to look sharper. Other positives go on and on.

I have tried shooting (true)60p from Sanyo HD1000, Panasonic HVX200 and Sony EX1 and can say that the footage always looked better in this mode than the lower frame rate options from the same camera.

Greg had it right. The only reasons 24p video exists are the continued existence of film format display infrastructure and most important, the obviously superior economics of 24p over 48p, 50p or 60p.

For Jeff, your 24p video wouid definitely look better if the FX1000 could shoot the same scene at 1080/60p, all other things being the same. If money is no object, a camera in the form factor of the FX1000 or EX1 that shoots 1080/50-60p could be here by now.

Wacharapong

Greg Laves · December 28th, 2008, 08:31 PM

Chris, I looked at the section in the video that you mentioned. 1:39 - 1:43 and there is no distortion of the columns there. The pan was abrupt and Jeff rocked the camera some. But there is no distortion or bending of the columns at all. There is some motion blurring but the edges are straight.

Ken Ross · December 28th, 2008, 11:34 PM

Greg, glad to see I wasn't the only crazy one. I must have replayed that thing 4 times and saw nothing but straight columns!

Scott Brickert · January 2nd, 2009, 07:27 PM

My two cents--

I use 24p, delivered to the computer in the 60i HDV wrapper, whether from the HV20 or V1U, because I like the look.

It also provides a slight but noticeably brighter image in low light situations.

It looks cleaner with the pulldown removed.

It takes alot of practice, particularly panning and moving the camera, to keep the movement slow and smooth enough to avoid the choppy look. Even the big boys wrestle with this (witness noticeable choppiness in the huge pans in the Fellowship of the Ring).

The files sizes are smaller after running the Inverse Telecine process. This saves resources through the rest of the pipeline all the way out to delivery. There are ways to remove the pulldown other than Cineform, eg JES Deinterlacer on the Mac.

December 28th, 2008, 04:56 AM	#33
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	William Ellwood: As I stated earlier, Sony resisted 24p for years, until market pressure from the pro and prosumer community forced it to include it in its most recent cameras. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

December 28th, 2008, 06:00 AM	#34
William Ellwood Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Consett UK Posts: 110	I just commented that people might be using 24p maybe because Sony are vigorously marketing it. It was a resonse to something Adam said. Ok, they are marketing it to compete with their rivals. And if people are trying it out, not liking it, then fine. Seems to me that it's a tool that can be part of our creative arsenal. Billy __________________ Billy Ellwood is on Vimeo. Film club www.newcastleaca.co.uk i7 7700k, Asus z270f, 32gb ram, Windows 10, Premiere CS6.

January 2nd, 2009, 07:27 PM	#39
Scott Brickert Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Crested Butte, CO Posts: 576	My two cents-- I use 24p, delivered to the computer in the 60i HDV wrapper, whether from the HV20 or V1U, because I like the look. It also provides a slight but noticeably brighter image in low light situations. It looks cleaner with the pulldown removed. It takes alot of practice, particularly panning and moving the camera, to keep the movement slow and smooth enough to avoid the choppy look. Even the big boys wrestle with this (witness noticeable choppiness in the huge pans in the Fellowship of the Ring). The files sizes are smaller after running the Inverse Telecine process. This saves resources through the rest of the pipeline all the way out to delivery. There are ways to remove the pulldown other than Cineform, eg JES Deinterlacer on the Mac. __________________ Scott Shot-By-Scott

December 28th, 2008, 10:52 AM	#36
Wacharapong Chiowanich Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Bangkok, Thailand Posts: 400	For aesthetic reasons alone, I think progressive recording and displaying at 60p (or 50p in PAL areas) are superior to 24p or 30p in all respects. The video just looks so good. Shooting is also easier as camera movements can be faster, shutter speed can go up to 1/120th or even 1/240th with almost imperceptible strobing effects, thus allowing still frames grabbed from the video, aside from the video itself, to look sharper. Other positives go on and on. I have tried shooting (true)60p from Sanyo HD1000, Panasonic HVX200 and Sony EX1 and can say that the footage always looked better in this mode than the lower frame rate options from the same camera. Greg had it right. The only reasons 24p video exists are the continued existence of film format display infrastructure and most important, the obviously superior economics of 24p over 48p, 50p or 60p. For Jeff, your 24p video wouid definitely look better if the FX1000 could shoot the same scene at 1080/60p, all other things being the same. If money is no object, a camera in the form factor of the FX1000 or EX1 that shoots 1080/50-60p could be here by now. Wacharapong

December 28th, 2008, 08:31 PM	#37
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	Chris, I looked at the section in the video that you mentioned. 1:39 - 1:43 and there is no distortion of the columns there. The pan was abrupt and Jeff rocked the camera some. But there is no distortion or bending of the columns at all. There is some motion blurring but the edges are straight.

December 28th, 2008, 11:34 PM	#38
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Greg, glad to see I wasn't the only crazy one. I must have replayed that thing 4 times and saw nothing but straight columns!