24fps vs. 30fps at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Techniques for Independent Production
The challenges of creating Digital Cinema and other narrative forms.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 21st, 2003, 09:57 AM   #1
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Scottssbluff, Nebraska
Posts: 11
24fps vs. 30fps

Hello folks,
Can anyone here put their finger on , really, why they like the look of 24 fps rather than 30 fps, other than the fact that we were all raised watching big screen movies at 24fps?
Does anyone here think that the 24fps is actually, for some reason, a "more preferable" film speed than 30 fps?.
Perhaps this is a little sorta metaphysical question, but do children prefer the view of 24 fps rather than 30fps???
Is it more of a "raised with" preference than an actual preference???
I think that video gives more realism than film, and maybe we all just want that 24fps thing because we were brought up with it. Perhaps video is actually better and more realistic and kids now growing up would appreciate the video forum better than film. I dunno. Just wondering.
Russ
Russ Evenhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2003, 03:23 PM   #2
RED Code Chef
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
I have moved this thread to the more approriate forum, namely
the "Towards a Film Look Using DV" forum. Please browse and
search this forum because your question has been talked about
a lot of times already.

Just for your information, the Canon XL1 camera range cannot
do 24fps.
__________________

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 October 21st, 2003, 10:30 PM   #3
Hawaiian Shirt Mogul
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: northern cailfornia
Posts: 1,261
i prefer 30P for NTSC ... i find NTSC camera's that shoot 24p when viewed on 29.97 TV distracting ( i dislike added pull down) ...
i think 30p ( 1/60shutter) is more "film like " then 24p with either pull down on NTSC monitor ...

i haven't been able to put my finger on it yet but to me 24fps FILM transferred to NTSC feels different ( motion) then NTSC 24P camera with either pull down ... i know normal pull down is the same BUT ????

i do like the HD 24p camera's on 24fps HD monitor.

i like mixing 30p with 60i ...
Don Donatello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2003, 12:17 AM   #4
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Glendale CA
Posts: 328
With regards to 24fps vs 30fps (or 60fields per second), I think that since 24 frames per second requires more "imagination" from your brain to "fill in the gaps", it seems more dreamy, or more flowing if you will. 30fps also seems to be able to achieve this somewhat. Programs that run at 60 independant fields per second like television newscasts leave little to nothing for your brain to fill in. Therefore it seems cold, real, and cheap. This is my personal theory.

Before anyone posts a response saying something like "NTSC is ALWAYS 60 fields per second even when you are watching 30fps material etc etc etc..." ad nauseum, I'd like to say that I am comparing images per second when I am talking about 60i above. Newscasts have 60 different images captured per second. I do not consider "Frame Mode" to be 60i, even though technically it is, it isn't. It does not have 60 different images per second, only 30. Get muh drift? :)
Ted Springer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2003, 01:59 AM   #5
Outer Circle
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,527
What about 25P? Never mind the 24P and 29.97P. :)
Frank Granovski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2003, 12:06 PM   #6
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Glendale CA
Posts: 328
No one likes 25p for anything serious. Why not? Because 25fps immediately reminds people of PAL. And PAL immediately reminds people of Mr. Bean. So unless you want to shoot a quirky English comedy, 25p won't do! :)
Ted Springer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2003, 01:04 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 202
Not necessarily metaphysical, but I do enjoy the philosophical questions. You have to remember the difference is SUBTLE and only professional geeks like us can readily tell the differance. I agree with you though, that it's a creative choice we make depending on what we think looks good. If you think 30 fps looks better, then by all means do your project 30fps.

But adding to what Ted said, it is definately different than reality and I think that is the attraction. It's not slow motion, but it definately has a that look, i.e., when a woman tosses her hair or the spashing of water. These two very beautiful images look entirely different at 24fps than at 60i. 30p gets us closer.
Alex Dunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2003, 01:17 PM   #8
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Glendale CA
Posts: 328
Quote:
Alex wrote:
You have to remember the difference is SUBTLE and only professional geeks like us can readily tell the difference.
Not so sure on this one. I was showing home videos shot with an XL1 in farme mode dubbed down to VHS to family a long time ago. Their first comment was "That doesn't look like camcorder footage". They didn't know why. I did. :)
Ted Springer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2003, 03:16 PM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 202
Ted,
If you're family is like mine, their idea of "camcorder footage" is a Sony Handycam Hi8. I'm the first to agree that the XL1 is far superior to "camcorder footage", especially in frame mode. I own a Sony Hi8 that I hadn't picked up in years, when I did I was amazed at how bad the resolution was and that I had at one point thought it was good. The XL1 will spoil you.
Alex Dunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2003, 10:04 PM   #10
Great DV dot com
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lewisville, NC
Posts: 78
No one likes 25p for anything serious. Why not? Because 25fps immediately reminds people of PAL.

Was this intended as a joke? If so it needed a smiley.

I guarantee you that you can't see the difference between 25p and 24p. PAL is 25i, or 50 fields per second, has just as much interlaced look as NTSC video.

Having worked on this issue a lot -- see my DV Mag article at:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/feature/2002/jackman1202

the various Hollywood film DPs I've had involved in testing all agreed that 30p is so close to the look they want that going the extra step to 24p isn't necessary -- IF you're staying on video. The only preference they had for 24p was to preserve the potential for a film print.
__________________
John Jackman
www.johnjackman.com
John Jackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2003, 10:17 PM   #11
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,781
Regarding the above: agreed.
__________________
Charles Papert
www.charlespapert.com
Charles Papert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2003, 12:26 AM   #12
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
<<<-- Originally posted by John Jackman :The only preference they had for 24p was to preserve the potential for a film print. -->>>

... or converting to PAL for international distribution. 30P makes for a lousy PAL conversion, 24P makes for a great PAL conversion.
Barry Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2003, 01:29 AM   #13
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Glendale CA
Posts: 328
Yes, John, that was a joke. I was under the impression that Chris Hurd does not like smilies on his site, but I'll give one anyway. :) I didn't think it could be taken seriously since the following comment of "and PAL immediately reminds people of Mr. Bean" is just so crazy.
Ted Springer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2003, 03:51 AM   #14
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 745
Obviously it was a joke. Kinda funny too. :-]
__________________
Breakthrough In Grey Room

Shawn Mielke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2003, 12:32 AM   #15
Tourist
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2
My personal feeling on the matter is that film's 24fps (and more importantly, its associated 1/48th-second shutter speed) results in a motion blur ratio that, complemented by persistence of vision, most closely resembles the way the human eye actually perceives reality. That is to say, it looks like we are looking at something real, and not a sequence of projected still images.

This as opposed to video. With its higher framerate and faster shutter speed, motion blurring is lessened, and the detail is clearer on objects in motion. We are not actually looking at objects in motion, we're looking at still frames, and that means our eyes don't have the motion information needed to make the video appear "natural." Video looks crisp, crisper than the way real life looks, and so the illusion, at least to some extent, of looking through a window onto reality, is betrayed.

I'm all for 24p.
Michael D. Scott 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 > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:24 PM.


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