The Sony XDCAM look vs. Panasonic Look vs. Canon Look ( or Frame Judder in 24p )

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

Nothing about a Bond film has anything to do with what we see in real life - so what is to be gained by trying to more closely approximate the way the eye sees reality?

I just want the motion to look realistic so the artifacts of low frame rates don't detract from watching the movie. But we've covered all that already, so let's talk about the cameras...do you think the EX1 will produce a pleasing result at 24 fps recording?

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

I just want the motion to look realistic so the artifacts of low frame rates don't detract from watching the movie. But we've covered all that already, so let's talk about the cameras...do you think the EX1 will produce a pleasing result at 24 fps recording?

Yes!

Although, as others have mentioned here, I don't think the EX1 will produce any different result in 24fps than any other 24p capable camera - given the same scene, camera motion and shutter speed I would expect little difference in motion rendering between different cameras, and I've never noticed the differences the original poster mentioned. I'm assuming that the differences he saw had something to do with differences in the pulldown each camera uses for display in a 60i stream - and I'm also assuming that won't be an issue with the EX1 as I don't expect I'd ever use anything other than the native progressive modes from acquisition through post and delivery.

[Thomas Smet]

I love how people that have never worked in the film industry seem to know everything that is wrong with it. Since when has everybody become the experts?

I'm sorry but seeing as film and 24p is the highest production standard in the world and a lot of much more talented artists then many of us work with everyday and earn a lot more money then most of us I am putting my faith there.

Some people say the framerate doesn't matter but then they knock 24p. If it doesn't matter then why can't some of you except the fact that 24p works very well if it is used correctly?

Clearly if you hate 24p that much you will never be working in the film industry. Sure you can be a rebel if you want but it is hard enough to break into the biz without going against the grain.

The fact is a lot of talented people love 24p and work with it every day so please do not knock it. If it doesn't work for you don't use it. It is as simple as that. Just don't knock other people who do love to use it.

[Simon Wyndham]

Clearly if you hate 24p that much you will never be working in the film industry.

Tell that to a certain Jim Cameron :-)

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

That's just semantics to describe something which wasn't present in the original scene but is visible on film, hence it's noise. Some people like the film grain look because it's nostalgic, but if you started seeing real life like that you'd go see a doctor.

Yeah and I wouldn't go see a doctor if I started to see pixels, or smear or macroblocks either I guess.

Film or video is not perfect. They both use a fake way of creating a way to show how people see the world. It doesn't matter if it is film, analog or digital it is all fake.

This topic is starting to get out of hand. It is once agin turning into a "what the heck would you like that for?" sort of a thread.

The fact is film like video is a tried and true medium that works very well. I'm sorry Kevin but I am going to have to choose the view of people like Steven Spielberg over yours anyday because I just feel he has a lot more knowledge on the subject because he has actually worked with the material. I have worked with film for compositing and it has it's pros and cons but it is in no way an inferior medium. Try telling that to the extreme highend production industry that uses film everyday.

Both formats are great and have their uses which is why you will never see me knocking a certain format. I like 24p and 60p equally and use them based on the subject. I tend to prefer 24p a little bit more because to me it sends the same exact message but with less frames which means less cost and less rendering time. If somebody wants 60i or 60p I am more then happy to give them that.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Tell that to a certain Jim Cameron :-)

Well he isn't trying to break into the biz either is he? He is a well known director who can stir the pot a little bit every now and then. He has earned the right to experiment a little bit and have people follow him. That isn't to say it would work for him though. There have been other well known people in history that tried to change things that never really worked out. Just because one director in hundreds wants to play around with changing things up doesn't mean it is going to happen. I can name you dozens of people who do not want to move to 48p and think it is a waste of money.

Besides we already have 50p which is pretty much the same thing. We have had 50p for a very long time now and I don't see people rushing out to shoot their movies as 50p. If 48p or 50p became the standard then how would PAL HD be any different then movies? What point would there be to go out to a movie anymore?

[Simon Wyndham]

50p is not around in 1080 form yet. And distribution is not at a point for HD whereby it is the standard.

Rest assured that as HD reaches saturation, and I have to say that 1080p at 50/60fps is where things are going, 24p will look decidedly hideous by comparison.

I don't like interlaced footage in SD. But I actually think it is okay in HD. 1080p at high framerates will be even better.

[Barlow Elton]

I'm for 36p as a standard. Just enough frame rate to not strobe so much, but not quite enough to look like reality.

Less filling yet tastes great. ;-)

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

50p is not around in 1080 form yet. And distribution is not at a point for HD whereby it is the standard.

Rest assured that as HD reaches saturation, and I have to say that 1080p at 50/60fps is where things are going, 24p will look decidedly hideous by comparison.

I don't like interlaced footage in SD. But I actually think it is okay in HD. 1080p at high framerates will be even better.

But what is so wrong with 720p 50p? A lot of people shoot 720p 24p with JVC or Panasonic cameras that transfer to film or digital cinema projection and they love it. For those people very few are actually shooting 50p unless they want slow motion. For the current 720p shooters they already have the option of shooting a higher framerate but most film people do not. Most people are used to watching 60i/50i or 60p/50p broadcast TV but yet they do not think 24p movies are hideous like you said. Moving to 1080p doesn't change that either. It terms of framerate everything is still the same as it is from 480p or 720p except there is now more resolution. How is 1080p 50p any different then 720p 50p? Most people watch 720p channels with some shows made from a 60p source such as sports and then some commercials or TV dramas made from a 24p or 30p source and it isn't really a problem at all. So I don't agree with your argument that 1080p 50p/60p will make 24p look hideous because it isn't any different then how people are used to seeing the different formats now.


And what about slow motion? If everything moves to 50p then we will need cameras that can shoot 100p or higher for slow motion. Even if we do manage to push out 1080p 50p through a large enough pipe how long do you think it will take before we can get a 1080p camera that can shoot 100p or 120p?