"Who cares about 24P when coming to HD? That is not even an HD standard!"

Not true. 1080/24p and 720/24p are both legal standards. Ok, well 23.97p. Filmmakers want it and I'm gonna go postal if CE manufacturers don't start delivering soon. At least the next Panasonic DVX100 generation will likely have it.

I can understand why you'd want 24p if transfering to film, but other than that I just don't get it either. What's wrong with 30p? When you go postal I hope I'm not on your "list"!

Don't worry, only the manufacturers will be on it. :)

I just love the look of 24p DVDs. I would use an HD camera mainly for that reason - excellent transfers (with 2.35:1 matting) to 24p DVD. And then yes there's the transfer to film issue. Very few 30->24p transfers look good. So having that option makes the prospect of your film getting picked up slightly more likely.

You know how they pick most B-movies? They turn on the timecode, place the tape in fast forward and check to see if heavy action, shooting, car wrecks, etc., occur at least every 5 minutes. If it does, then it's a candidate.

I do believe that content is still the most important thing. 24 or 30 fps sourcing is way down the list of issues for a movie.

That does't negate your desire for shooting in 24 in any way. I just don't think it is a factor on the acceptance side. It may well be a major and reasonable factor on your side.

You are correct, they literally clock the action and certain things that can be "cinematic".

Here is the #1 rule for making a film - have ONE moment that is pure "cinema". It has to be something that can be described in ONE phrase, or ONE poster, or ONE short scene...it's "THE" moment they can "sell".

Marlon Brando stroking his head in Apocaypse Now.

Superman flying.

Indiana Jones smiling with a whip.

Jaws coming up to kill the girl in the ocean.

Spaceship speeding through orbit in Star Wars.

The hand reaching down to control the word "Godfather" like a puppet.

Anyone care to keep this going??

A friend of mine shot, "American Yearbook," on a DVX-100. Didn't get into Sundance but mainly because he was blindsided by two other high-school violence movies, one of which was done with a lot more money and bigger actors.

Another friend shot his first feature on a GL1. Sold it for $250,000 to the distribution company owned by Tom Cruze. His second movie (Narc) was shot in 24 fps on 35mm. He is now directing Tom in Mission Impossible 3. 24 fps on 35mm is a safe bet.

"They turn on the timecode, place the tape in fast forward and check to see if heavy action, shooting, car wrecks, etc., occur at least every 5 minutes. If it does, then it's a candidate."

That's sad.p

Anyway, it's just a personal issue. I don't plan on directing Tom Cruise anytime soon. :) Nor would I want to!!! :O)

<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher C. Murphy : You are correct, they literally clock the action and certain things that can be "cinematic".

Here is the #1 rule for making a film - have ONE moment that is pure "cinema". It has to be something that can be described in ONE phrase, or ONE poster, or ONE short scene...it's "THE" moment they can "sell".

The hand reaching down to control the word "Godfather" like a puppet.

-->>>

Hello, what does the poster have to do with filmmaking? Do you really think Coppola had that poster in mind when he was making the film? He was a hire. He had nothing to do with the marketing for the Godfather. Where was that moment in the film?

You know what I meant, you are just trying to be difficult. I forgive you.

Murph

> Hello, what does the poster have to do with filmmaking?
> Do you really think Coppola had that poster in mind when
> he was making the film?

I guess if you look at a film from a marketing perspective, this is quite correct. A simple, highly visual idea is easier to sell. However I do not feel this is valid considering film as an art form. Some films can bo both, but they don't have to.

i guess you guys are talking about the "hook" as in... what's the hook?

Brian Ging's "American Yearbook" was shot with the dvx100, but they used 30p, even thought it looks pretty decent. It also had no bankable stars, which allow you to get a distribution deal....although it still might, you never know. But Gus Van Zant's "Elephant" was the high school killer category killer...

Joe Carnahan's first flick was for under 10k, shot on 16mm. I have it on DVD as an instructional guide.. ;-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Struthers : Brian Ging's "American Yearbook" was shot with the dvx100, but they used 30p, even thought it looks pretty decent.

------------
That's what I thought too as I was there for the first night of shooting in the Pawn Shop. But I thought Brian said they shot in 24 p, just not it the 'correct' 24 P, which I took to mean that they used interlaced mode, not progressive.
--------------

It also had no bankable stars, which allow you to get a distribution deal....although it still might, you never know. But Gus Van Zant's "Elephant" was the high school killer category killer...

-----------
Absolutely right. He was doing quite well with some very good actors, not name-brand actors, but he needed to be out there first. Panasonic was giving him a lot of publicity because he was shooting the first feature on the dVX100.

-----------

Joe Carnahan's first flick was for under 10k, shot on 16mm. I have it on DVD as an instructional guide.. ;-) -->>>

Interesting. The story from his instructors was that he used a GL1 and the cost was $7K. I met Joe just before he started production on Narc and the subject of the camera did not come up.

However, the cost of 16mm is around 50 cents per second of developed camera master now, maybe 40 cents when he did it. If BGB&O is 90 minutes long and he shot on a 3:1 ratio, he could just get the camera masters developed for a little over $8K.

Well, he's supposed to visit the school when he gets back from New Zealand. Maybe I can remember to ask him about that.

Murph

I sware we watch the same films!


Keith

I also forgive you for trying to be difficult!


Mike

I'm digging Joe Carnahan. I read your post and was like "Oooh, oooh! Joe Carnahan!" He also did a nice episode on THE HIRE with Don Cheadle. My favorite of the series in fact.