Search around some older threads - it's been discussed it pretty heavy detail over the last couple of months.

So I shouldn't use 24p Advanced unless I'm putting it on film? Also, when i put it in 24p the exposure seems to be a tad darker, i usually raise it back up. Should I not do that, and leave it darker i guess to give it more of a FILM LOOK? or should i make it brighter? Does it make a difference.??

24pA isn't only for film. It's the only way to edit 24p without generation loss. It also allows you to put ~20% more onto a DVD when authored correctly.

The 24p modes set auto iris to -2 because of cinegamma. This is because it's a lot easier to get blown highlights in cinegamma mode since there's no roll off. Turn on your zebra stripes to see where highlights are blowing. It has nothing to do with "film look'', but has to do with preserving data at the higher levels. When highlights are blown, there's nothing you can do in post to get that information back, however, it's relatively easy to adjust levels back up in post.

Give the footage to someone who has a Mac and Cinema Tools. Or I think some program called DVMaker or something like that for Windows will remove the pulldown and give you 24p.

For the 60i, use Magic Bullet to get 24fps.

I heard and have seen that 24pA is actually more a "film look" than the standard 24p. Can anyone else confirm?

Definitely not. The look is identical, when edited as 24P. When edited as 60i, the 24PA is actually a little more stuttery, the 24PN is a bit smoother. 24PN motion looks exactly like film that's been transferred to video.

I'm kind of a newbie to this stuff, so I'll try to make it sound some what intelligent.

If you took footage with a 24p camera like the DVX-100 could you edit it in any NLE program and not one of the more expensive programs like Vegas or Avid and still be able to produce an outputted video with a film look?

What would be the noticeable difference in editing 24p footage in a non 24p timeline? Would some frames be missing from the final product?

j

Ok well i'm pretty new to all of this. But how much does it cost to transfer 24p footage to 35mm, and do they put it back on a mini dv tape for you after they trasfer it?

24p to 35mm $350 - 750 per minute

they should be up rezzing your DV to HD data files

for $ they can make you a mini Dv copy of the transfer

if the final output is video - IMO you will not see any difference if you edit 24fps or 29.97 fps ..
because in the final render the 24fps would have to be converted to 29.97 so the pull down would be restored ..

it's not the editor that gives it the film look .. when you shoot 24p and it's shown on TV ( 29.97) it does have the same "flow " as when film is transfered to tape ( 24fps plus pull down = 29.97)

even 24fps DVD's the pull down is added by the player/digital projector or TV ( SD tv's cannot play 24fps they need 29.97 .. many HD plasma's can play 24fps)

you would have to choose 24p or 24pA as to which pull down you prefer ...

how does it go from 350-750??? Like I'll do it for 350 but never 750.

Mike,
You'll get the best information by directly contacting a film transfer shop. The rates are probably determined in part by the amount of color correction required, the format of the source material, etc.

Check out www.dvfilm.com

They have a rate calculator for dv to 16 & 35mm transfer.

Example: A 60 min film transfer is $16,200 or $270/min

They also have details on using the dvx100, specifically, in their faq.

Depends on the lab.

If you join indieclub.com and become a "sponsor member" ($24/year), one of the benefits is a 10% discount from dvfilm.com. That puts you down around $270/minute.

You really have to shop around to find which labs do work that you like, which ones work with your camera (for example, Swiss Effects doesn't seem to care too much for the DVX100, they prefer the PAL PD150 -- so if you're shooting DVX footage, I wouldn't send it to Swiss Effects). Other labs prefer 24P footage, dvfilm.com can work with direct 24P footage from the DVX.

WAIT-so 24p is pretty much a rip off because It doesn't show up if you put it out on DVD or Tape????????????? Whats the point then????????? Thats soooo gayy

Mike - read links at the top of this forum (Sonic/Sony 24p whitepaper, Adam Wilt etc.).

Pulldown and 24p can be confusing until you get the hang of it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Zorger : WAIT-so 24p is pretty much a rip off because It doesn't show up if you put it out on DVD or Tape????????????? Whats the point then????????? Thats soooo gayy -->>>

Don't fret... 24P is the real deal, and it looks like film motion, regardless of how you edit it or where you output it. There is no ripoff involved.

So if I take all the 24p footy i have and put into premier and edit my movie, and put it back onto my mini dv tape to take to the place to get my 500 copies it wont it will still look kind of like film.??? and no way i'm reading adam page again. Thats crazy hard to understand. No offence to him, it's just i just got my dvx100 1 week ago.

If you shoot in 24P, it will have film-like motion. No matter what editing program you use, or where you transfer it to (VHS, DVD, Beta, film, etc) it will always have that film-like look.

You really should invest in reading and understanding that page if you ever want to take full advantage of what you have.

NTSC is 29.97i period. So all tapes, all television shows, all movies shown on TV, all DVDs have to play at 29.97i. Your TV (unless you have a newer HD progressive or something) can only display 29.97i. The only venues to see differing frame rates are the 1) movie theater, 2) computer screens, 3) progressive televisions.

But, just because something is showing at 29.97i doesn't mean it was shot at that or looks like 29.97i. It's just a way of converting the 60 intelaced fields into showing 24 progressive frames. Again, you really need to go read and understand how pulldown is applied.

Thanks barry you're a trustee so I trust you.

I might be getting a new DV camera soon, possibly for myself, possibly to give out in a contest. I've done alot of researching on this 24p stuff, and can't find any valid reason one would use a 24p DV camera. Unless your a filmmaker who specifically wants your film to look like DV footage and have an easy transfer to film, AND already have this budgeted. This would be a fraction of a percent of filmmakers. I see NO other reason.

I think this is a gimmick. I'm throwing down the gauntlet, to find out if anyone has a good reason for shooting 24 fps. Or, just how many people are shooting w/ this cam in 24p mode (usefully).

Now let's be clear. In NO way am I saying the DVX is a bad cam. I feel from what I've seen it's one of the best DV cam's on the market right now. It's the 24 fps that's in question.

Sean:

No disrespect, but it's not much of a gauntlet to throw down. A reading of the many threads here about 24p, the links at the top of the forum and the many sites on the internet will reveal the many reasons people want to shoot at 24 frames per second.

Of course, there is the insignifigant fact that 24fps was, is and will be for many years to come the worldwide standard for movie distribution and progressive DVD.

And most of all, the hundreds of millions of dollars Panasonic and Sony have spent R&D, production and marketing all manner of DV/HD cameras capable of 24 (and other frame rates) fps - sounds like a pretty expensive gimmick to me.

PS. Don't forget the PROGRESSIVE part of the DVX100, which works at both 24 and 30 fps (the 30p of the DVX100 is often ignored - see a thread about that here). That's probably the most important part of the technology.

24fps is kind of like many things - if you don't know why it's so important, you've answered your own question.

Why do I shoot 24fp?

(1) I started watching and shooting film at 24 fps. I love the way that feels for narrative and experimental storytelling.

(2) So does my audiences. They don't know why but I experimented with various film looks back when I had my XL1 and they feel a difference even if they don't consciously notice it.

(3) It edits, renders, composites and outputs to DV faster and at better quality.

(4) I can output it to digital projection, progressive DVD and/or film with much higher quality than shooting 60i.

(5) Film look degrades footage, consumes enourmous time and does not allow you to see in camera how 24p is working.

The reason is simple: 24P looks like film. It looks decidedly different from video, giving the artist another tool in their arsenal. If you like the look of "video" you can shoot in 60i, or if you like the look of "film" you can flip the dial and shoot in 24P. It's not EXACTLY like film, but it is very, very close. You don't have to edit in a 24P timeline, you don't have to transfer to film or any of that: just shoot in the 24P mode and you'll have footage that looks very much like it was shot on film instead of video.

I shoot almost exclusively in the 24P mode. Until getting the DVX my work (TV commercials, corporate profile videos, etc.) was about 75% film, 25% video. Since getting the DVX it's now shifted to about 90% DVX/24P, 5% film, 5% "video".

Excellent! Good points. BTW Stephen my name is Stephen, not Sean, But you can call me Steve.

Side note: Stephen, I understand the progressive superiority, no argument there, but other cam's have progressive modes as well.


The film "LOOK" is not determined by the frame rate, infact I contest that any audience is advanced enough to tell the difference between 30, 25, 24 fps. Especially if there is not much movement of the camera (Hollywood style filmmaking is very efficient in this regard). The reason it's done in films, I believe was an issue regarding sound sync. Back when motion pictures began to have sound. It was adopted and all equipment for film was setup since then for 24 fps. So, it makes since that the new and improved verion of the film cameras HD, 4k's, Cinealta's whatever. Should shoot 24 fps, as to make the transitions through post (edit/score/telecine) as smooth as possible. This dosen't apply to this camera since I don't see Lucas/Spielberg gearing up to do the next Indiana on a DVX. The "Look" of film varies, like how Saving Private Ryan doesn't look like Batman, or Full Frontal doesn't look like Thirteen (some digital some film, all artistic). Color data is the MAIN deciding factor in how it looks.

The money on R&D is irrelevant, companies spend millions if not Billions on gimmicks all the time (i.e. Reebok Pump/Nike Air Sole or the shinny new box company A uses for it's widget). The entire commercial industry is based on the gimmick approach. How many good commercials actually have anything to do w/ the product there selling? Do any food commercials use real food anymore? I've never bought a hamburger that looks even close to like one on TV. A gimmick is whatever it takes to make you buy it, period. If there already developing it for the Pro's why not slap it on the Prosumer one to make them feel good about it. (ever see a kid holding a piece of plastic to it's head thats suppose to be a cell phone, so they can be like Mommy and Daddy?)

I have heard all these points before:

I agree there are some rendering advantages of 24 fps but then there also have to be trade offs, such as juddering or smearing, like in films. This looks horrible to anyone. I remember hating how pans looked in films long before I knew why.

I agree films in America will stay 24 fps for a while. The way of capitalism is to continue milking the old equpiment as long as the Suckers... upt, I mean consumers :-) will pay for it. Hence, why you can't have a clear cell phone conversation in the midde of any major city, but Armstrong can make a call from the moon. And yep, I'm part of this too, I have a cell phone.

Don't most Sound Post Prod. want 30 fps timecode?

I respect your opinions. I greatly appreciate all of your input, I take it very seriously. I want to believe, help me to believe. I think this might be the best cam on the market, but for the price I have lots of options. If this boils down to preference, then none of it matters.

Sorry about the name - i was confusing this with another post.

Other miniDV cams do not have usual progressive modes. Only DVX100, CineAlta, Varicam and new Panasonic SD cam.

The old Opture PI had 30P progressive, but was a small 1-chip consumer cam. The JVC "Indy Cam" had progressive but suffered from terrible quality etc.

Some Sony's have a 15fps progressive mode - not usable. Canon's and some older Panasonic's have frame mode which loses 33% of resolution and some latitude to offer a 30p mode. (I had an XL1 for 3 years).

Speilberg et al may not shoot with a DVX, but they shoot 24 fps. That's the real point.

The money on R&D is not irrelavent because obviously they are selling a lot of camera to a lot of people who want the feature. You may not be one of them, but that does not make 24fps less desirable. You are only one person.

Pro sound labs can work with any frame rate - I don't understand your 30fps comment.

Don't forget, a lot of people HATE the look of 60i interlaced video (me). It's not about film vs. video. It's about the ulginess of interlaced.

Adam's page indicates that if your NLE understands 24p advanced (i.e. Vegas 4, etc.) then you should use the 24p advanced mode of the DVX100. Otherwise, use the regular 24p mode.

I've seen 24p DVX100 footage played back on a regular miniDV camera. It looked great.

i look at 24p NTSC as another tool to use along with 30P & 60i ..
i find the pull downs distracting so i use it for effect ( the few times i've used the camera) .. i love the 30P !! and that alone makes it worth the $$ .... i really dislike NTSC viewed in FEET ( as in big screen ) .. i think NTSC looks very good viewed in INCHES ( TV ) ...

at the moment nobody seems to be following panasonic on NTSC 24p .. i see on consumer HD several manufacturers agreed on 30P.
what i find interesting is that even with 24fps DVD's most are viewing it at 29.97 with either the TV or dvd player adding the pull down so where's my 24fps ???

- "I contest that any audience is advanced enough to tell the difference between 30, 25, 24 fps."

I disagree. They may not know the exact framerate, but they can sure tell the difference. It's funny, I was showing my sister (who is clueless about video/film stuff) a lot of footage I shot of my son, different clips shot in 60i, 30p and 24p. When I showed some of the 24p footage, she said "Wow! This looks like a movie! How did you do that?"

The "film look" isn't just about framerate, but that is a large part of it. It's why a lot of the big TV shows are actually shot in 24, because people sub-consciously associate it with film and thus a high quality production. You really should try it or watch a lot of 24p footage shot from it before you call it a gimmick.

- "find interesting is that even with 24fps DVD's most are viewing it at 29.97 with either the TV or dvd player adding the pull down so where's my 24fps ???"

This is true, but it's still just 24 discreet frames being shown per second, even if it's being split back out into 60i. It still gives you the film like cadence that you're used to seeing with DVDs or on HBO or whatever. And more and more people are getting progressive TVs each day, hopefully in 5 years or so it'll be the norm.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen L. Minor :

The film "LOOK" is not determined by the frame rate, infact I contest that any audience is advanced enough to tell the difference between 30, 25, 24 fps. -->>>

Two things: first of all, calling NTSC tv "30fps" is unfortunately confusing terminology -- it's 60 fields per second, not 30 frames per second (as the term "frame" is used when referencing film or progressive scan). Motion is sampled 60 times per second, not 30. So the question is "can the audience tell the difference between 60i and 25 or 24?" And the answer is "oh yeah." They may not know WHY it's different, but they definitely know it's different.

Secondly, I would argue that the frame rate is THE single most important factor in the "film look". Check out the sample DVD from ZGC for the mini35 adapter -- all the clips on there were shot in "frame mode" (pseudo-progressive at 25 fps) or were post-processed in Magic Bullet (or something similar) to emulate 24/25/30fps. Then there's one clip that's shot in 60i. The difference is so jarring, I think you'll see what I mean if you watch it.

Film may be shot with deep focus or shallow focus, it may have harsh contrast or soft contrast, it may have desaturated colors, bleach bypass, or vibrant supersaturated colors, but the one thing that is always constant in every film: it moves at 24 fps.

The mini35 DVD is a good test for this because every clip on there was processed to look as filmish as possible: they used the mini35 adapter for shallow DOF, they lit and shot every clip to be filmlike, and the only real difference is that one clip has 60i motion... it totally screams "video" at you.

Barry:

Excellent note about the mini35 DVD - I'm glad you pointed that out.

As you know, I've argued for years that if you want film look, you must have 24 fps.

That's why handheld super8 shot with an old kodak fixed focus lens cheapo cam with deep focus still looks as much like film as 65mm anamorphic shot with the shallowest focus possible.

And 60i HD look just like video...

Has anybody around here actually used DVFilm's 24pA to 35mm services yet? I ask because I'm a little uncomfortable with finishing my project under the gun next fall, and after a year of work, sending it off from CA to Texas. I'd wanted to use Fotokem as they're local (about an hour from me, in Burbank), but though I dropped off a 20 sec "test" for them to play around with my 24pA footage, I haven't been able to get the tech guy to call me back for weeks. He wasn't very enthusiastic about the DVX either, I might add. Was giving me all kinds of negative comments about the camera being a "lie" that it's 24p, that video can't be 24p, etc. so I sent a cheerful note along with the test tape, and included some various specs. Maybe I gave him too much info and ticked him off. Dunno. Fotokem has such a great rep it's left me scratching my head at how I've been treated. Anyhow, now I'm giving DVFilm a second look.

Note to Stephen Minor:

Since you wanted to hear from people, I'll throw in my two cents as a DVX100 owner.

Personally, it doesn't particularly matter to me to read all the oft cited tech specs for the camera, and all the many impressive sounding reasons why shooting 24pA looks like film vs. video. I just know that when I shoot with a "regular" cam, and compare the footage to what comes out of the DVX the difference in the sheer beauty of what I capture with the DVX is dramatic. And in the end, that visual aesthetic is all I care about for my project. The richness of the colors, the seeming depth of the image... it's absolutely stunning. If I even switch back and forth between the scene files, taking the camera out of 24p, I can tell a dramatic difference immediately in the "look" of what the camera is showing me. It's like the jarring effect of an old ER I once saw (early on, when the show was still worth watching) where someone was running around holding a camcorder, shooting footage of the emergency room, and you saw their "video" POV, then it would switch back to the "normal" POV which was shot on film. There was no mistaking the difference in the look of the footage, whether you work in the industry or not. Anybody could tell the difference, which was precisely why they shot that way, to give that jarring effect. And IMO the same holds true for this little cam. Check out some side by side tests for yourself. If you don't have the resources to rent or buy a camera in the league that George Lucas uses, but you want dramatic footage that screams quality, the DVX fits the bill. It's one amazing little cam.

"how does it go from 350-750??? "

depends on the transfer house and what method they use. just like you can find film to tape transfers from 60 hr -800hr -depends on equipment they use ... how much is X quality worth to you ...

you can still find tape to FILM transfers for $80min - but they just take a 35mm camera and film off a CRT screen ( basically TV monitor) while video is running at 29.97 ...

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay T. Turnure :

What would be the noticeable difference in editing 24p footage in a non 24p timeline? Would some frames be missing from the final product?
-->>>

I thought the issue was also where you made your cuts in a 29.97 FPS editing program. If you chop on a frame boundary that is not a multiple of 5 (or even 10) of the original footage, e.g., on 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, etc., you run the risk of losing film cadence. A de-interlacer (either in your tv if you display interlaced or your dvd player if you use progressive output) will then drop from film to video, momentarily, and the picture could comb.

Aren't transitions also dangerous in non-24p editors? By doing operations in a 29.97 frame per second environment, they have mucked with the telecine ordering Panasonic put into the video.

I have a question. I just got Vegas 4 and I have a DVX100 and was wondering how you edited in 24p and print to tape in 24p with out any resolution loss. Because I know that you got to the timeline and just right click it and press 24p but its that all you do?

Check the Sony Vegas 24p whitepaper at the top of the forum. Detailed information about how to shoot, edit and output 24p.

Marc:

Yes, there are issues and I've wondered how different NLE's cope with this.

I shoot 24pa, but I've noticed when I bring some AE effect footage that I've rendered out with pulldown, I have issues from time to time if I trim the AE footage on preview. But when I render the output as plain on 29.97, it seems Vegas recalculates and corrects the issue.

Hey guys,

I've started my first project with my new DVX100 PAL camcorder this week, after receiving the beauty last Friday. The project is about the integration of people with a small handicap as volunteers in a working environment.
Using the camcorder in it's default scenefile 6 (25P cinema) without digging too deep inside the manual configurations-depths of the DVX100, I am very glad with the visual results.

As this forum mostly focusses on the NTSC version, I would like to share some PAL footage in 25P mode I shot today. Nothing special in composition and editing, but just to show you some 25P PAL footage.

Watch it at http://www.integrim.nl/lx/25ptest.wmv (4 MB)

Peter Sieben

hi all,

I have read the editing FAQ from the DVX100 resource website and got some points I need to clarify with people who aredy using the camera here.

1) 24p "Standard":NOTE: This mode is not recommended if you wish to edit or output in 24p (though it is still possible to do so with some image degradation).

For those of you here who had shot in 24p "standard" and achieved the "filmic" look,did you edit/output in 24p? Or you edited normally and the end product aredy looks like film? Sorry I am really new to NLE.

2) 24p "Advanced": NOTE: This mode is not recommended if you do not intend to edit in native 24p.

Does this mean if I dun have the resources to edit in native 24p DIGITALLY, shooting in this mode is definitely out for me?

3) I heard that shooting in 30p/secs also gives a film look. If so, why shoot in 24p/sec? After all, TV is showed in 29.97/sec?

Thanks and sorry if the questions sounds newbie.

Cheers

Read the Sony (Sonic Foundry) Vegas 24p whitepaper at the top of this forum:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10295

Quick answers to your questions:

1. 24p standard can be edited at 29.97 or 23.98 - tell us what NLE you will be using and we can help you better.

2. 24p Advanced is for those who plan on editing and outputing at 24p (film, progressive DVD, some digital projection).

3. 30p and 24p look quite different - it's a matter of preference. 24 fps looks more filmic and uses standard film shutter speeds.

I should be editing with Premiere 6.0.

As i do not know much about the technology of frames,screen,interlaced etc, the fact that shooting at 24 standard while having 2 frames being non-full frame(if i understood it correctly) makes me worry that I might not be bringing the best out of a good camera.

Thanks in advance

Shoot 24 standard with Premiere 6. If you are planning to go film out or must have 24p, you will need DV Filmmaker (search here for several threads about it) to extract24p from standard since Premiere 6 & Pro do not support 24p advanced.

Is DV filmmaker available to PC or is it only for mac?

Also,if i shoot at 24p standard,and i edit it normally(not editing in 24p), will the product aredly look like film?

Thanks!!

Believe it or not, you can!! I recently filmed an event with mixes of 60i and 24p. I own Final Cut Pro 4 but do not feel confident just yet to use it full time so I felt OK just using iMovie being that I have tons of plug-ins. I wasn't sure what it would do during import once I reached the 24p portions of the tape but sure enough, they imported!! Not believing I saw what I just saw, after importing was complete, I went back to the scenes filmed in 24p and was able to work with them...in iMovie!!!

I can't believe it but it's true. Note: I am running the latest version of iMovie on Mac OS 10.2.5

Not to pop your bubble, but of course you can use iMovie to edit 60i and 24p. The fact is, once your capture is on tape it is all 60i. There is no 24p direct to tape format available. All miniDV tape results in 60i format. That's the beauty of the Panny, it takes 24p and lays it down as 60i. It adds extra frames and intermediate frames to achieve 60i. You do have to have FCP or another similar application to remove the extra frames-iMovie can't do that.
You can read more about this at this great website: http://www.adamwilt.com/24p

Just purely from a picture quality point-of-view, will 24p or 24p advanced give the best quality--outputing to dvd and shown on high quality dvd player/TV monitor? I know about which one to use if outputing to film, but I'm just asking about picture quality/resolution; in a side by side comparison on your favorite monitor, would 24p or 24pa be the winner?

Depends on how you edit it. If you edit it in a 60i stream, then they will give identical results (assuming all other settings were identical), except for the cadence of motion -- 24P will be a little smoother motion than 24PA.

If you're editing in a 24P timeline but creating VHS output, or a 60i DVD, they'll again yield identical results. Both systems will be undergoing a "generation loss" to introduce 3:2 pulldown on output.

If you're editing in a 24P timeline for creating a 24P DVD, then 24PA will have a slightly better picture. 24P mode has to undergo a process of splitting and recombining fields, which will cause a recompression/generation loss, whereas 24PA can have its frames just copied over, no generation loss. So for true 24P output, 24PA is better.

Can one view a 24p DVD on any DVD player?