I've noticed a recent trend with a lot of videos shot 24p with 1/48th shutter. The trend being that they don't look very film-like at all! I am not sure whether I am mistaken about 1/48th shutter = film like in appearance, but it just seems a bit silly?

I mean, I can understand a bit of motion blur on film looks quite good, but in HD, at 1920x1080 it just looks tell-tale video like in both motion and appearance. It is manageable under most static circumstances, but the second there is a bit of motion in the frame it just seems a complete giveaway.

The people become distorted, movements take on a very video like smooth and blurry motion that eliminates the clarity that HD can offer, yet it offers none of the advantages of looking even remotely like film. It cannot be, that something like that is sought after as a desirable look, or can it?

Is the footage in low light?

1/60 shutter and capturing 24p is the real "Film-look" combination. 1/48 adds too much blur.

That's news to me. Film cameras capture 1/48th a second (24 fps with a 180 degree shutter).

[24p + 1/48] just looks tell-tale video like in both motion and appearance.

I haven't seen that. I don't know how I could even begin to critique subtle differences in motion (if any) when there are dozens of other much more important differences, though:


Oversharpening.
Colors.
Aliasing and other artifacts.
Low resolution.
Depth of field.
Noise / grain.
Dynamic range, contrast.

I haven't seen that. I don't know how I could even begin to critique subtle differences in motion (if any) when there are dozens of other much more important differences, though:


Oversharpening.
Colors.
Aliasing and other artifacts.
Low resolution.
Depth of field.
Noise / grain.
Dynamic range, contrast.


Oversharpening, Noise etc. aren't a trend though, the 48fps "film look" is. A crapy one at that.

The whole "film look" thing is such a joke. What is the "film look"?
shallow depth of field and motion blur?

The real advantage actual film has is its high dynamic range, something video doesn't have, no matter what settings you use in your video camera.

Unless you have a 35mm film camera and a steep budget, I'd say shoot the best video you can and make it look the way you want it to, but just intentionally adding motion blur and a DOF adapter doesn't qualify as a "film look" in my book.

BTW, I've worked at a telecine house for the past 3 years, the end of film is coming soon. Eventually the end of the desire to copy the look of movies shot on film will end too.. then what look will everyone want to copy? Why not create your own look?

wow. seems to me if the content of a particular presentation is worth noting, the frame rate, over-sharpening, motion blur, DOF, or its straight-up video look, would be universally irrelevant.

maybe the OP didnt pulldown?

but i agree, 24P+1/60th is golden. generally. adjust to the conditions mate

BTW, I've worked at a telecine house for the past 3 years, the end of film is coming soon. Eventually the end of the desire to copy the look of movies shot on film will end too.. then what look will everyone want to copy? Why not create your own look?

Ironically I think that's exactly what people are doing, creating a new look. It may not be a look that YOU like, but in their attempt to emulate they are of course choosing qualities they personally find desirable.. even if these qualities share nothing with film they are obviously finding them to their liking, so this is the new look they have created

Personally I love playing with the DOF adapters and shutter speeds to get different looks and effects.. I actually like the slower speeds - 24 and down, sub-24 ones are mostly only good for a drugged out type scene obviously, but 24 can also look cool for some more regular scenes, though I wouldn't shoot an entire project locked at these speeds

I think you're confusing 1/48th with 1/24th. 1/48th emulates the standard film shutter speed. 1/24th, however, is an ungodly pile of crap. ... ... Can you tell I feel strongly about that? LOL

So help me understand guys (and gals).. why is the film-look so important first of all.. and second, can't I add something like Film Magic Pro AE effects to my film and get the same "coloring" of film? Is it the colors, the slower framerate that gives a different appearance, or what?

If you don't crave the "film look" don't worry about it, it's just a semi-obsession some people have to emulate the look of film while shooting with the much cheaper format of video

Some of it leads to a healthy learning experience though as a lot of what people perceive as "film look" is simply proper lighting, composition and photography techniques

Shutter speeds are simply fun to play with for the different effects they achieve, anything below 1/24 might be good for a drugged out or strange horror type scene, very stuttery and blurry, 1/24 might be good for a dream sequence, 1/48 or 1/60 for "film like" video, and anything above that good for sports or faster action

You can use effects in post but personally unless it's a drastic effect I like to achieve as much in camera as possible

The only people who knock 24p are those who don't understand it.

24p is not some fad or trend. Wake up and look at what most high end productions have been using for a very long time. Most of the TV drama and comedy you watch is shot at 24p. It isn't a trend but the norm in the high end production world. It is the 60i crowd with their cheap cameras that has broken this norm and made people think 60i is the norm. Just because it is more common for common folk to use doesn't mean it is the best. It's more like the Apple vs. PC debate. 90% of the world thinks PC is better and will tell you to your face you are dumb for wasting money on a Mac. 10% of the world will laugh and say you are not a true artist. Both groups are fools and should just worry about getting their work done and use what works for them. The same is true of 24p vs 60i. Both are very valid professional formats that are broadcast standards. To say one is inferior just shows your lack of understanding of the production world and how to cover all aspects of it. In this business you have to be able to work with all flavors of video.

There are two kinds of people who use 24p.
1. Those who do not understand it and think it is some sort of magical filter like mosaic or sepia on their camera.
2. Those who are used to shooting 24p in the high end world be it in HD or film.


A lot of time goes into high end productions to get them to look right. A cinematographer doesn't just grab a camera and point and shoot. A lot of care and planning goes into each shot which makes it look the way it does. Take a few classes or read a few books on the subject of cinematography to learn how to really make use of 24p. It isn't designed to be easy. That's what 60i shooting is for, the easy video solution.

Please do a search here and anywhere else on this subject. It has been debated for years and you could compile together a book on all the posts dealing with 24p.

Just remember there is no right answer. Some people prefer 24p and some prefer 60i. Just like how some painters prefer water colors over oils. Oil painters are not superior to water color painters just because they decide to use a different medium to paint with. It is all about telling a story with a picture.

The only time I really obsess about film look is with my short...well...films. Other than that, the film look is just another tool in the belt. It definitely does not work for everything.

I produce media primarily for a church (aside from my aforementioned short films). Generally, for documented stuff, like interviews that are going to be archived, or dramatic heart wrenching testimonies (you know, serious stuff), I shoot 24p with film gamma.

For fun skits involving giving our pastors a hard time or a quick Youtube video telling folks about an upcoming event, I'll usually do 60i (for live playback) or 30p (for web).

Most of the TV drama and comedy you watch is shot at 24p. Well, no, most Network drama is shot on *film*, which happens to be 24fps, but that isn't for any aesthetic reason (as has been well-established here and elsewhere, it was and is purely economic), and the 24fps isn't the only reason, or even the most important reason, that film looks like film. Most of the "film look" is due to the different physical properties of film stock itself, as well as the lighting, lenses and camera moves that film shooters use.

Studio comedies are in fact shot at 60i on tape. One-camera comedies are shot like dramas, on film.

Virtually no network shows are shot on tape at 24p.

I'm not knocking 24p; if you like that look, good for you. Just be careful you don't fool yourself into thinking that's all you need to do to make your video look like film.

Pretty sure The Office is shot on HD, and that's 24p. :)

Not according to this:

"The Office" (2005) - Technical specifications (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386676/technical)

...and note that this is a show that's *supposed* to look like tape, not film...

But if that page is accurate, to the extent the show looks like film, it just goes to show you can create a film-like look without 24p.

I think that's after the pulldown to 60i. I'm pretty sure the footage originates in 24p mode.

Also, I believe on RED's website they are boasting that the new Southland show (is it still on, lol) was/is shot on the RED camera. That's not tape, not film...but still, not film. :D

It's certainly possible. Perhaps someone directly involved in the production of those shows who knows for sure can chime in.

But in any event, this would represent just a small handful at most of the hundreds of shows being produced for broadcast.

Again, I'm not bashing 24p or saying it doesn't have its uses, only clarifying the erroneous assertion that "most" shows on TV are shot that way.

I'm going to chime in here on this topic. I hear "Film Look" bandied around alot by folks looking for the "Magic Formula" that will instantly make the footage they shoot instantly Hollywood like. They are specifically ignoring the fact that the camera is the smallest piece of the puzzle involved in the "Hollywood" look.

I've seen tons of real film that is poorly exposed, composed and focussed... it looks nothing like the "Film Look".

I've also seen 60i video at 1/60 shutter that has so much production work done out side the camera and is exposed well, sharply focussed and composed with brilliant camera blocking, which they've spent tons of time in preproduction choosing colors, makeup, lighting, costume, location, set dressing, acting, blocking that is nearly indistinguishable from real film.

The "Film Look" happens outside the camera... period! Capturing at 24fps, 1/24 is the icing that finishes the effect.

I've recently spent a bunch of "think time" on the physics of motion capture of images. It seems to me that 1/48 shutter is actually more important than 24fps to recreate the actual look of the physical manifestation of light on real film. Specifically, the physical amount of motion captured in a single frame defines a specific amount of blurring. That seems more important to me than the number of still images projected per second. Technically, film in theater is projected at 72fps (each frame is projected 3 times, with just a hint of black as the shutter passes the lens and interrupts the beam of light - someone correct me here). Since output is part of the puzzle, the only way to get the actual effect of projected film is to output at 72fps with black intermediate space between frames. Some developer could probably provide this somehow... that'd be pretty neat.

I'd like to see a test to see if adding a 1/48 sec of black (48FPS) could perhaps better emulate the effect of a real projector.

I'd also like to see a more practical side by side test of 24fps vs. 30fps both at 1/30 and 1/24 shutters with the same shot happening in camera to see if the frame rate or shutter makes more difference all thing being equal.

I've noticed a recent trend with a lot of videos shot 24p with 1/48th shutter. The trend being that they don't look very film-like at all! I am not sure whether I am mistaken about 1/48th shutter = film like in appearance, but it just seems a bit silly?

I mean, I can understand a bit of motion blur on film looks quite good, but in HD, at 1920x1080 it just looks tell-tale video like in both motion and appearance. It is manageable under most static circumstances, but the second there is a bit of motion in the frame it just seems a complete giveaway.

The people become distorted, movements take on a very video like smooth and blurry motion that eliminates the clarity that HD can offer, yet it offers none of the advantages of looking even remotely like film. It cannot be, that something like that is sought after as a desirable look, or can it?


this is the most ignorant post i've ever read about 24p, no offense.

ALL high end professional feature films use 24p with 1/48 giving it a 180 degree shutter angle (except for the rare cases where they change the shutter speed on purpose to give a SPECIFIC look, a la saving private ryan) whether the feature is in FILM or HD. it doesn't matter. they ALL use 24p with a 180 degree shutter angle.

the experts know what they are doing and they are doing it for a reason. you can either get with the big boys or stay in the shadows of the indie consumer HD camcorder forum world where every little kid complains about the importance of 24p and 1/48 because they simply don't understand it whatsoever. they think that having 24p and 1/48 will give them an instant film look. lol


there are MANY different aspects that give the film look. the framerate and shutter speed are just one aspect of the film look. if you really want the film look, you should start learning more about filmmaking. in fact i would suggest start off learning the basics of photography first. then move to cinematography.

and to all the people complaining about 24p 1/48 looking "bad" on HD... you do realize that movie theaters have been showing movies at 24p 1/48 for almost 100 years at a much higher resolution than your 1080p television screens give. and no one has ever complained about those in the threatre before. in fact the best way to view a film is in a theater where it displayed in beautiful 2-4k. puts 1080p to shame.

The question I would like to ask is exactly how many of these threads on this forum do we really need? It always starts out as a question and quickly turns into an argument. It then goes away after a few months and one of two things happen.

1. Some new person comments many months later in the old thread(if it has not been deleted) and the mud slinging starts again.

2. A whole new thread with the exact same question and the same exact arguments starts up.

The other question I have is why is it such a big deal to you anti 24p people? Am I hurting your feelings by using 24p or is 24p such an abomination that the simple act of using it should be considered some sort of sin? Why can't you just let professionals continue to use 24p and stop complaining about it already? If we are all dumb for using 24p then let us continue to be dumb fools and collect pay checks for being dumb.

This whole subject is really starting to become pure political and has very little basis in facts anymore.

Thomas, you're certainly right that this has been beaten to death, and it wouldn't surprise me if the moderators closed this thread at some point. I think the reason it comes up so often is that a lot of new users don't bother to read back or do a search and they may think they're the first person to ask about this.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not anti-24p and I don't see too many people here who are. It's a tool we use to tell our stories, and if it's in the best interest of the story, of course we should use this tool. Just as you can build a house with nails, screws or glue, you usually use all of those depending upon the application. If you're going out to film, or you like the look, of course 24p is a valid tool.

What many posters here are responding to, I think, are those who just wander around, chanting "24p.... 24p...," zombie-like, as if it's the panacea for everything in trying to make your video look like film, when you and I and everyone else have pointed out that, of course, it isn't. Yet many shooters continue to drink the 24p Kool-aid and make really foolish and just blatantly non-factual assertions (or at least implications) like those made by Chris, above.

Chris implies (although does not say explicitly) that 24p was chosen for some artistic reason 100 years ago and everyone agrees it's great and no one complains, and all of that is false. Just for the record, and one more time:

--Standardized frame rates did not exist until the late 20s and early 30s, when electric motors became widespread and sound was incorporated. Until then, films were hand-cranked at varying frame rates.
--Film stock, being made of silver, was very expensive. 24fps became the standard frame rate because it was the SLOWEST possible rate you could use (thus using the least amount of expensive stock) without getting a massive headache. Some stories say it was because this is the slowest rate you could record sound in the camera on single system sound devices and have it still sound okay. But no story attributes the selections of frame rate to an artistic reason of any kind.
--Films are called Flicks -- short for Flickers -- because of the horrible flickering they used to have. Today you do not, in fact, see films projected at 24 pictures per second, not really. Today's projectors use multi-bladed shutters to flash each picture two or three times, so you are in fact seeing 48p or even 72p.
--As Doug Trumbull demonstrated in the 70s, there are many, many other frame rates that make your films look "better." But his company, Showscan, could not overcome the inertia of zillions of projectors all over the world that only show 24fps. 24p hasn't survived because everyone loves it, only because it's too expensive to change to anything else.
--That being said, filmmakers have adapted and accepted 24p and used it to great artistic advantage, and this can be done if you are skilled enough. But there are strict rules involved -- detailed elsewhere -- that we don't have time to go into now.
--While yes, it is technically correct that nearly all movies and TV are shot at 24p, because they are shot on film and film is 24fps and is inherently p(rogressive), it's misleading to say everything is shot 24p because it implies, and most people will infer, that it means 24p video. So it's important to be specific.

If I'm off-base on any of this, then a very expensive film-school education went to waste many years ago.

As Thomas and others have pointed out, 24p is not the only way, or even the best way, to make your video look like film. As digital projection and content creation s-l-o-w-l-y become widespread, I think at some point in the future we will look at 24fps as horribly outdated and antiquated, and it would in fact likely be used only for artistic reasons in special circumstances, when trying to achieve an "old-fashioned" look, like B&W photography or Super 8mm film.

As Thomas and others have pointed out, 24p is not the only way, or even the best way, to make your video look like film. As digital projection and content creation s-l-o-w-l-y become widespread, I think at some point in the future we will look at 24fps as horribly outdated and antiquated, and it would in fact likely be used only for artistic reasons in special circumstances, when trying to achieve an "old-fashioned" look, like B&W photography or Super 8mm film.

Thanks Adam. I agree about 24p being on its way out, but for now the snobbery still exists - especially in film festivals, where I intend for my next short film to show. I'd rather pick 30p - which is a nice compromise between the blur of 24p and the jarring sharpness of 60i - but anything looking like video is still frowned upon by the film school flunkies judging those fests.


J.

Thanks Adam. I agree about 24p being on its way out, but for now the snobbery still exists - especially in film festivals, where I intend for my next short film to show. I'd rather pick 30p - which is a nice compromise between the blur of 24p and the jarring sharpness of 60i - but anything looking like video is still frowned upon by the film school flunkies judging those fests.


J.

There was a period when US Cinematographers were trying to shoot their film TV productions at 30 fps, but the pressure was always to save costs.

Film festivals tend to be centred towards productions for theatrical screening where the standard is 24fps. There are successful productions in festivals that have been shot at 60i, however, doing a film out is a bit more complex than one shot at 50i.

On HD, 24p is commonly favoured because it allows easier distribution in both the PAL and NTSC regions. OF course, PAL regions just shoot at 25p and you don't have that interesting little artefact that can happen during pans when 24p being transmitted in the NTSC regions.

At festivals having a good story and great acting usually has more impact than if it's shot progressive or interlace. It's easy to get obsessed with the latter, when it's the former you should really be worrying about.

I know that the surf movie 'Free Ride' used a high speed film camera for the slow motion tube rides, somewhere around 200fps. I'll bet MacGillivray Freeman also used that type of film camera for 'Five Summer Stories'. I'll also bet that their 70mm adventure films were overcranked a bit. Billabong films @ 60p with a Panasonic for action, they also use the timelapse mode to speed through a day. Alby Falzon used an optical printer to repeat frames as many as five times for slow motion in 'Morning of the Earth', which Australia declared a national treasure. He probably would have used a high speed camera if he had it, but found a way around it.
I'm talking a different type of movie than most people on this forum are thinking. However, the 3 movies mentioned above are highly successful cinematic and commercial ventures that are still making big bucks and reviews, and some of the highlight footage is being recycled into new documentary films. The beauty of making movies is having imagination, and a format that you can stretch and pull and mold TO your will, not being stuck IN a mold...
That said I do like the look of 24F on my XHA1, but I also crank it up as needed.

24p isn't going away anytime soon... Not until you can get a bluray player at Kmart for $40 and you haven't even seen a DVD movie or a DVD player in 20 years. At that time maybe. Oh wait... BluRay doesn't support 30p or 60p. So I guess that means this thread is nearly pointless.

I know most commercials are shot at 24 frames. At least years back when I worked in commercials they were all shot in film at 24 frames.

Film may have been originally shot at 24 frames due to economic reason, but the general public has gotten used to that look. Otherwise we'd all be shooting in another progressive frame rate all together.

The other question I have is why is it such a big deal to you anti 24p people? Am I hurting your feelings by using 24p or is 24p such an abomination that the simple act of using it should be considered some sort of sin?

I just don't get people replying "You don't know what you're talking about" without actually offering any clarification or helpful advice. They're like the ten-year-old acting with condescension with the other kids because he's flipped through his dad's Playboy but still couldn't tell you where babies come from. ;-)

Personally, while I strive for a great picture, I put more importance on story (I see WAY too many short films with elaborate cinematography that seemed to have been written during coffee break on a napkin). I'll shoot 24p for festivals where judges seem to use a checklist of what is "art", but I like 30p because it offers the best of both worlds. Whatever, to me it's all just a vessel for the message.


J.