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

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.

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 ...

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? :)

What about 25P? Never mind the 24P and 29.97P. :)

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! :)

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 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,
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.

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.

Regarding the above: agreed.

<<<-- 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.

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.

Obviously it was a joke. Kinda funny too. :-]

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.

That's interesting, Michael! I feel exactly the opposite--that video looks more "real" or similar to our regular vision as far as motion is concerned, and film is successful as a storytelling medium because it looks different, altered from reality.

I think Michael is on to something. Put your hand out in front of you and wave (fingers spread). There's tons of motion blur with the naked eye, and with video (60i) you don't really get that. Therefore, for the purpose of this comparison, the 24p is more real.

Normally, I would argue that video looks more real, because it's definately more harsh and I just assumed the harshness was reality. But I guess I probably shouldn't inject science with philosophy?

if you are going to wave your hand in front of your eyes and then compare it to 24p & 60i whats is your base line for the comparison ?

IE: what shutter speed are you using for 24p and 60i ?

when i do the "wave" my eyes do see a blur and the movement is SMOOTH ... 60i (1/60 ) does not see as much blur but movement is SMOOTH ... 30p 1/60 little blur but jerky movement ... 24p 1/48 blur but jerky movement (viewed 24fps on computer monitor ) .. 24p with normal pull down little blur and odd movement ....

so which matches what i see with my eye ?? IMO - NONE ...
which comes closes ? well if smoothness is high on ones list then 60i ... if blurness is on high on ones list then 24p ....

bottom line 24p /30p/60i all look a little different so why not put those differences to use ...

More very good points Don. That's why I love these discussions.

But, if you maintain that it's just a matter of opinion, are we to assume that hollywood has just always shared the same opinion about 24fps? I know they didn't come to the frame rate arbitrarily. However, I'm not trying to say that there's one way to do things, but I think it's safe to assume that 24p AND 30p are BOTH more pleasing to most people than 60i. If I want to sell something, I'm making it 30p if 24p is not available.

hollywood started with 18fps .... when sound came to be 18fps just didn't do it for sound ... they settled on 24fps using 2 bladed shutter that broke up light into 48 pulses per second ( later they went to 3 bladed shutters for 72 pulses) ... don't know if final reason was just to find a speed that worked (vs finding the BEST speed for image and sound ) ... seems to me they just found a speed that was acceptable ? .. IMO the 72 pulses is the reason 24/25 fps works .. try watching 24fps without the multiple bladed shutter and light strobing will get to you...

IMO if they were inventing a film camera today 24fps would not be the speed .. i think it would be in the 30-48 fps area and BEST would not win = economic's would come into play, can the viewer see the difference and who has the best advertising to get their speed accepted.
note that IMAX /showscan didn't use 24fps they went 48fps & 60fps ...
24/25fps projectors are world standard because they are everywhere and retrofitting them to run at different speed is NOT going to happen today because digital projection is about to come into it's own ...
up until summer 2003 cinema digital projectors ( in theaters ) did not offer 2k resolution projection .. they offered 1280 x 1024 per Red, Green and Blue channels. Equivalent to 3.9 million pixels ( projection to 33ft wide ) ... Barco now offers a 2048 x 1080 per Red, Green and Blue channel. Equivalent to 6.6 million pixels. ( projection to 75ft wide) this projector is not in any commercial USA theaters yet .. it is being used at some film festivals that barco is sponsoring.

now are theaters going to be buying 2K or lower cost 1k resolution ? all cinema digital projectors in theaters today are 1k rez ... time will tell if they buy the 2k ... will theaters decided that 1k has worked up to now ? will they decide that most persons can't see difference ? or maybe they'll decide to install 2k in large rooms and 1k in smaller rooms ( remeber specs state 1k rez to 33ft wide which is most theaters) ??
but today we have 35mm in large and small rooms and ALL at 35mm resolution ...

DAAAAAAAA now how did i get on projection ??

getting back to 24p, 30p , 60i ... i think if you asked persons in US they would say Video is more real ( they see it NOW) and that based on they associate NEWS (video) with real .... where film in US is more connected to "art". ( not at the moment)

i'm starting to mix 30p with 60i more and more ... i use 60i as the more REAL happening NOW ... i did just shoot a friends short and we used 60i for flash forward , 15p for flashbacks , 30p for NOW. i like having the choice - progressive or interlace and mixing in FILM

most advertisers want their products to look the BEST .. in past many accociate video as cheap looking ..but video today is very different then video 70's- early 90's so i think that attitude is changing ... Music video have been leading the way for past 15 years on "the HOT look" .. what music videos do today commercials will do next week and hollywood will do 6 months from now.

Don,
I kind of thought the same thing. I didn't think that 24 fps was come to by any investigation. It prolly happened to be the best tech available at the time and looked pretty good. But I still think that maybe those young'uns looking for more "gritty reality" today would actually like the 30 fps better than the 24 fpf. 24 fps is cool, and it does have that shuttered look when close to a movie screen, especially with action shots. I think of 007 movies especially. I think of sean connery running and punching in Goldfinger, but even as a kid I wondered why the herky jerky motion. I learned to love it though. but I still think it may be a "raised with " thing.
Russ

I have to disagree with Michael's statement. The research I'm aware of on vision says the opposite. The motion blur in film occurs on even fairly slow-moving objects at a distance. Wave your fingers like that right in front of a video lens, you'll have motion blur. Your eyes are much better than film.

On a related and interesting note, I just heard of some research on cat vision that seems to explain why some cats watch TV and some don't. I've had two or three cats that watch TV, most have not. Cat vision is much better than ours, and their brains process rapid motion better -- more like a sensitive camera with a fast shutter speed, less persistence of vision. Apparently the refresh rate of TV is right near the bottom range of cat vision -- so cats that process vision a little more slowly than normal actually see a picture on TV. The oither cats don't -- they just see the the flying spot, perhaps several raster lines, but not a coherent picture. Those are the cats that are completly disinterested in TV.

Most people perceive video as being "real" (sports, news) and associate film with fiction. Part of this is clearly nothing more than convention and association -- what we are used to.

The 24fps frame rate, despite the kangaroo doo that is shovelled around by some profs in academic film programs, has nothing sacred or intrinisically magical. It is simply what we are used to.

24fps was arrived at in the early days of talkies as the absolute bare minimum speed that would allow an optical soundtrack to work reliably. The decision, like most stuff in the film business then & now, was a BUSINESS decision to get away with the minimum footage of film possible. It was not an artistic decision.

For what its worth perhaps check out this thread on the similar topic of 24P:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16012

I think of my own vision as a mix of 30fps and 24fps. More direct and objective might look like 30fps. Just waking (dreamy) up or thinking looks more subjective, 24fps. Use dof and other techniques to mix it up.

I just want to point out an important difference when talking about progressive video frame rates when it comes to the 24 frame rate:

24fps displayed on a progressive display like Plasma, LCD screen or computer monitor is a completely different "effect" (if you would call it that) from watching 24fps footage shown on an interlaced display (like your typical TV).

24fps being displayed on an 60i TV undergoes the telecine process which stretches the film rate to match the TV rate. One of the side effects to this is the judder that is experienced when images travel horizontally across the screen. You would not see this if the SAME footage is displayed on a progressive display.

So my point (if I'm even making sense at this point) is that "truly" watching 24fps at 24fps will look hardly any different if different at all from 30fps which is what the title of this thread is.

Having said that, what are we really trying to compare here when we say 24fps vs 30fps? It all depends on whether or not the display is interlaced or progressive. So I completely agree with what Don has said and might suggest that really this thread should have been called 24fps vs 60i.

Dennis, you make sense and I agree. What I think most people are trying to compare is 60i and 24fps on a standard NTSC monitor. On this hardware even 30fps and 24fps have slightly different looks. But on a progressive monitor, it is much more difficult to tell the difference between 30p and 24p as you said.

It was really interesting when we had a Panasonic Varicam come into the
video studio for a demonstration. We hooked it up to an Epson 820p projector
via HD component signal. WOW!

We had our best Panasonic NTSC camcorder (AJ-D400) set up right next
to it and sent it's output to another Epson.

We shot at all kinds of frame rates. 4,12, 16, 24, 30, 48, and 60.

At 60 full frames, the Varicam's image (IMO and the demo cameraman) looked
like super high quality VIDEO. As some say, that 60fps frame rate somehow
seems like whatever is happening, is happening now.

48fps was about the same.

30fps started to strobe and gave a feeling, much like film, that whatever
was happening, wasn't happening now (or here in front of us)
but had what I would call a 'dream like' quality.

This quality was even more enhanced at 24fps. Yes, I could
tell a difference between 30 and 24fps, and so could every
experienced person who was watching.

24fps strobed more than 30. Did it look "better"? Not really, but it did look a bit more 'dream like'. A couple of folks didn't like 24fps as much as 30.
On fast panning shots, 24fps isn't all that great due to lower temporal
resolution.

If I were shooting with a Varicam and had an NLE that could do my wishes,
I would shoot at 60fps all the time, and then have the NLE go back and
grab and repeat frames to give me whatever frame rate _I want_ for that
particular scene.

One thing is for sure, more frames to work with is a GOOD thing.

Jaques that is how I am picturing this process. I am basicaly the virgin here, but I do have experience coming from the Photoshop and After Effects world. I will be getting a XL1s this saturday. I wanted to study this film effect idea as much as possible so I wouldn't have to be sorry that I didn't get the dvx100.

It seems as if you can get a more filmic look from controlling the suspension of disbelief. If the audience knows that you are putting them on then for most movies, it has failed. Someone said here, 'I just don't want it to look like a video'. Like in photoshop; if you add special effects and it looks like a bunch of filters-failed again. What I'm getting at is, for film effect I will be thinking of the big picture. Lighting, color correction, composition, or whatever it takes to fake the viewer.

My own conclusion seems to be where this thread is heading. I am going to think of the 24fps as just one tool. Actually I would rather have the power to bring down the frame rate later as a choice. Does that make sense, to have that choice?
Or am I losing something?

<<<My own conclusion seems to be where this thread is heading. I am going to think of the 24fps as just one tool. Actually I would rather have the power to bring down the frame rate later as a choice. Does that make sense, to have that choice?>>>>


That is/was exactly my concluding point. If you are able to always shoot at 60fps,
those cool video software engineers should be able to figure out a
way to allow for "after the fact" selection of a slower frame rate.
All you really have to do is select certain frames and repeat them
a certain number of times. A big render, but a very cool option IMO.

What Panasonic has choosen to do is different. The Varicam ALWAYs
shoots/records at 60fps, but in the CAMERA's processor, _IF_ you choose a
different frame rate in the menu, that change of frame rate is made
in the camera (certain frames are repeated) *before* the signal is
recorded or output. So, you can't really go back and change it later.

I believe there is another very expensive box that Panny makes that
can do what I am talking about (select a frame rate from 60 unique frames)
in real time, but it is somewhere around the
price of the camera itself.

<<That is/was exactly my concluding point. If you are able to always shoot at 60fps,
those cool video software engineers should be able to figure out a way to allow for "after the fact" selection of a slower frame rate.
All you really have to do is select certain frames and repeat them
a certain number of times. A big render, but a very cool option IMO.>>


Jacques,

the software already exists - its called Re-timer and can be used for any frame rate - constant or accelerating

I have to agree with Jacques anbout shooting 60fps all the time, and worrying about achieving alternate looking frame rates after the fact.

This is the same reason why even if I had a DVX100 I would not be inclined to shoot 24P with it. I'll just stick with my VX1000 & XL1s!

Anyone here really like the DVX100 or what?

Here is someone that has shot with the dvx100 and he discusses 30fps and 24 fps.

http://millimeter.com/ar/video_crossplatform_plan

Yes, I LOVE the DVX100. More so than the XL1 or the
VX2000. I own both.

Yang Wen, another list member, brought his DVX100 over
to do a shoot with a local student group.

I fell in love with this ~$3K camcorder. Very very nice images and
I love 'real' progressive frame anyway. A large step up over
my own aging XL1. Impressive IMO. I'll take 30 full frames
over NTSC any day.

If I were shooting a 'movie', the DVX100 is the camera I could afford and
would buy. I thought it held it own against another recent visitor,
the Ikegami DV7 ($10K+lens).

I am praying for Canon to pony up with the XL2 soon.

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Horner : Here is someone that has shot with the dvx100 and he discusses 30fps and 24 fps.

http://millimeter.com/ar/video_crossplatform_plan -->>>

The actual link to the trailer was posted in the DVX100 board, but here it is for those who want to see it http://www.american-yearbook.com/downloads/downloads.html

That trailer does not do ANY justice to the DVX100. The trailer Quicktime is very choppy and very small. Check out my post HERE (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16884) and download the Quicktime to see true DVX100 24fps.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jackman :

On a related and interesting note, I just heard of some research on cat vision that seems to explain why some cats watch TV and some don't. I've had two or three cats that watch TV, most have not. Cat vision is much better than ours, and their brains process rapid motion better -- more like a sensitive camera with a fast shutter speed, less persistence of vision. Apparently the refresh rate of TV is right near the bottom range of cat vision -- so cats that process vision a little more slowly than normal actually see a picture on TV. The oither cats don't -- they just see the the flying spot, perhaps several raster lines, but not a coherent picture. Those are the cats that are completly disinterested in TV.

-->>>

Does that mean that cats will watch progressive TV images: DLP and LCOS?

<<<-- Originally posted by Jacques Mersereau :
What Panasonic has choosen to do is different. The Varicam ALWAYs shoots/records at 60fps, but in the CAMERA's processor, _IF_ you choose a different frame rate in the menu, that change of frame rate is made in the camera (certain frames are repeated) *before* the signal is recorded or output. So, you can't really go back and change it later. >>>

I'm not sure exactly how you meant this statement, Jacques, but let me clarify something. The VariCam always records in 60i, but the CCD is operated at the chosen frame rate -- the cam does not "select" frames from 60fps for recording. So saying that it always "shoots" in 60fps isn't correct. It shoots in true 24p and then adds 3:2 pulldown prior to recording to tape. I can double-check this with one of the engineers at Panasonic if you wish.

The method you are talking about -- of shooting 60i and then interpreting to lower frame rates -- is precisely what software like Magic Bullet does. However, in my judgment the results are NOT optimal. 24fps already has horrid motion artifacts that must be dealt with by using careful shooting techniques. The nearly impossible math of converting 60i to 24p generally is "fudged" by regularly dropping and repeating fields. The result is an exaggerated jerkiness to motion that is significantly worse than real 24p. All the film DPs that have watched my "acid test" footage run through several of these processes agree that the results are significantly worse than footage actually shot at 24p.

This process CAN be done with very high quality using the motion interpolation techniques developed for PAL-NTSC conversion. This is really expensive, however! The S&W Alchemist starts at $150K last I checked. Similar results can be accomplished with Twixtor, but you'll be rendering for weeks.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jackman :
I'm not sure exactly how you meant this statement, Jacques, but let me clarify something. The VariCam always records in 60i, >>>

Hi John,

you mean in 60P? (Boy, I hope so. Interlace . . . yeach.)

>>>but the CCD is operated at the chosen frame rate -- the cam does not "select" frames from 60fps for recording. So saying that it always "shoots" in 60fps isn't correct. It shoots in true 24p and then adds 3:2 pulldown prior to recording to tape. I can double-check this with one of the engineers at Panasonic if you wish.>>>>

I wouldn't mind if you did. This is somewhat confusing.
Also, if you do check with them, be sure to ask about that
expensive outboard box that does conversions and how it works.

Thanks John

PS I wish we could afford an Alchemist too!

I've been searching and have not found a side-by-side comparison of 24p v. 30p or 30p v. 30i or 24 p v. 30i with the same camera (presumably dvx100) and where you can actually watch the two in juxtaposition. I saw the post on the JVC v. DVX100 and that's as close as I've seen (where the footage is alternated). I'm sure this must be out there somewhere, could someone point it out? It would seem this would be the only way to really compare the motion effects of 24p.
Thanks

To the critical eye it should be easy to point out interlaced footage from progressive footage. But still I say it is difficult (not impossible) to see the difference between 24p and 30p.

Jacques, the VariCam (and the DVX100) both record standard interlaced video in most modes -- the content of the fields depends on what the scan rate of the CCD is set to. When the CCD is running interlaced, then there is motion difference between the fields (60i). When the CCD is run in progressive mode, the end effect is 30 p. When the CCD is run in 24p mode, then 3:2 pulldown is applied internally before being recorded as standard 60i with pulldown, as in telecine'd film.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stuart Kupinsky : It would seem this would be the only way to really compare the motion effects of 24p.
Thanks -->>>

The motion effects of 24p are identical to film motion.

Yes and no. Film flashes twice onscreen at 48hz, thanks to dual bladed shutters. Some projectors with an incredible amount of light have 3 bladed shutters. You see black between each frame...twice. With 24p, you only see a line quickly drawing each frame from top to bottom. And that only happens once per frame. The motion artifacts/jerkiness are the same. It doesn't bother me, though.

>>>Jacques, the VariCam (and the DVX100) both record standard interlaced video in most modes -- the content of the fields depends on what the scan rate of the CCD is set to. When the CCD is running interlaced, then there is motion difference between the fields (60i). When the CCD is run in progressive mode, the end effect is 30 p.<<<

So to achieve 60P the other half of the frame is interpolated?!

The VariCam shoots 60p. The DVX shoots 60i, so if you wanted to make it 60p, then yes, the other half of the frame would be interpolated.

This is a red herring in most of these discussions - unless you are specifically discussion projection only. In most cases, what we are really talking about is the look of 35mm that has been telecine'd. That does not flash at 48 hertz -- and as a matter of fact telecine'd 24p is 2/5ths interlaced. :)

John Jackman wrote:

>The VariCam always records in 60i,

Hi John,

Jan Crittenden from Panasonic here. The Varicam always records in 60P, that is 720/60P. this is a High Definition standard.


>but the CCD is operated at the chosen frame rate -- the cam does not "select" frames from 60fps for recording.

This is true, the camera develops the right pull down from the capture rate to write to 60 progressive images, unlike the DVX and the SDX which are 480/60i cameras that also take progressive pics.

Hope that clarifies,

Jan

Whoops, you're right -- I was thinking of both the DVX100 (always records at 60i std DV) and the VariCam at the same time while writing --

But the real point here is that the CCD operates at the selected frame rate, it doesn't "select" or drop frames from 60 to derive 24p.

How you doing, Jan? I'll miss DV Expo this year, will be on a shoot in Minnesota. Hope the show is great --

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jackman : Whoops, you're right -- I was thinking of both the DVX100 (always records at 60i std DV) and the VariCam at the same time while writing --


I kind of figured it was a lapse as I would have sworn you knew this. ;-)

But the real point here is that the CCD operates at the selected frame rate, it doesn't "select" or drop frames from 60 to derive 24p.

Right the camera is dialed into the frame rate and the pulldown is performed with flags identifying the key frames.

How you doing, Jan? I'll miss DV Expo this year, will be on a shoot in Minnesota. Hope the show is great

I am doing great, keeping busy. Sorry you won't make it. See you at NAB then.

Best regards,

Jan

30p is no good for the PAL market or Film transfers. If you shoot on 30p, then you are shooting down your potential profits.