I've played around a fair amount on a friend's 7D, and tried out doing a 24p vs. 30p comparison. I tried doing the same shots (with a fair amount of motion involved) at varying shutter speeds on both frame rates (for those curious, the shutter speeds I tried were 1/30, 1/50, 1/60 and 1/80, and all had the same concerns). The results had me wondering.

What, exactly, are the benefits of 24p?

I say this because the 24p shots looked... stuttered somewhat, choppy even. It wasn't "bad" but I felt that the 24p framerate was too slow for my eyes. It was as if I could see where each frame began and ended as the footage played back, a problem I've never had with anything 29.97 or higher. I've seen good 24p footage from other cameras (even thought 5D material converted from 30 to 24 looked fine), but something about the 7D's 24p doesn't sit right with me.

Granted, I could have done better tests. The camera was handheld, and a tripod would've allowed me to compare the two in situations that would more closely match the work I do (which is independent narrative film). Still... when I did try using the 7D on a tripod, my brief time with it seemed consistent with my findings, and that any sort of camera movement (like panning) made the stuttering obvious. Not "drop-frame memory buffer"-type stuttering from having too slow of a card, but consistent, disappointing choppiness. And if 24p on the 7D is the kind of thing that you need to have a static camera for to make it work, that would really disappoint me because I really want to try Steadicam and dollying footage on my next project.

It disappoints me because I hear many praises spoken of 24p and its "cine-like" qualities. But after what I've seen, I fear that unless one were planning on laying back the footage to actual film stock, 24p offers little benefit to me. Or so it appears.

I am willing to be enlightened if I am horribly wrong. In one month I will begin filming a feature and want to make sure my thoughts on framerates are sound. If anyone has any advice or thoughts, I would really love to hear it. Thanks!

P.S. - I don't know what this might make some users on here think of my taste in the technical side of things, but I think 30p on the 5D looks good. Really quite nice, I have no issue with it whatsoever. Which is why it concerns me when I hear sweeping dismissive statements from outspoken individuals (on other noteworthy sites) that boil down to "The 5Dmk2 is a nice novelty, but until it gets 24p, its output is completely and utterly useless." I wholeheartedly disagree, but to each their own. Anyways, thanks again for your time.

Hmmm,

Well 24p doesn't work for everything. Unless you are going to handle the camera like you were shooting film, it's always going to look like crap.

Advantages:

1. It takes up significantly less space than 60i or 30p allowing less compression (and higher quality) in the same space.

2. For internet streaming, the lower bitrate is easier to move along the internet.

3. Obviously easier if you intend to lay back to film

4. Not all external recording devices can sync to 30p.

5. If you need to distribute outside the US, 24p is a LOT easier to do with quality than 30p or 60i.

6. Aesthetic. When shot well, it's a really nice look. But it takes skill and practice. If you are seeing choppiness when you pan, then pan slower. The 24p on these cameras is no different than film 24p. This is why you don't see a lot of panning in Hollywood.

Good points, Perrone. I'd forgotten about the benefits of lower bitrate and ease of conversion for international distribution.

You're definitely right about panning, can't say I've seen it much myself in the industry. Do you think that dollying would have any of the same issues?

I think I'll try some more tests sometime, because I definitely want to get the best sense of what 24p is all about. One more question — when shooting 24p, do shutter speed rates sync up as they would when shooting 30p (i.e., do I still use 1/60 for artificial lights in the U.S.)?

With dollies the background moves a lot slower than with a pan, add to that the fact that most dollies are very slow and you tend not to have any problems

The benefits to 24p, and why it's such a hot topic, are that it emulates the motion signature of 24fps film.

24p is not more accurate at capturing motion than 30p or 60p, it's not as smooth in panning or anything else like that. But it happens to capture motion exactly the same way that movie film does, and that's why it's popular. When used with the same techniques and same care as movies are shot, you can replicate the feel of film-shot footage.

(24p doesn't make your footage automatically look like a big Hollywood film, of course; obviously lighting and art direction and all that other stuff are absolutely unrelated here; we're talking strictly about the motion of 24fps)

It has been suggested that film frames have a slightly softer effect due to the mechanical shutter fading each frame in and out compared to the direct action of progressive frames in video.

The American Cinematographer manual does have a table of panning rates, I wouldn't say Hollywood doesn't do pans, more that they're controlled pans. Hollywood can do whip pans as well, just they're motivated camera moves.

It has been suggested that film frames have a slightly softer effect due to the mechanical shutter fading each frame in and out compared to the direct action of progressive frames in video.

The American Cinematographer manual does have a table of panning rates, I wouldn't say Hollywood doesn't do pans, more that they're controlled pans. Hollywood can do whip pans as well, just they're motivated camera moves.

Not quite sure how this works....

Shutter opens, shutter close, film gets pulled down, shutter opens, shutter closes. Where is the fade in that mechanical movement?

And yes, Hollywood pans. But the physical movement is generally much slower than what people using 2 pound handycams call panning. And yes, panning to keep a subject in focus is vastly different than unmotivated whip pans. Funny I just watched the Bourne Identity the other night. Frenetic, high motion, and all very, very controlled.

I believe the theory goes that the mechanical shutter doesn't instantaneously expose the frame, but there is an extremely quick wipe on either side of the shutter as it moves across the frame. Less a square wave exposure, more a truncated saw exposure action. This is a thought that someone on CML had on the subject, it's only a theory and perhaps would need testing, but an interesting one.

And yes, Hollywood pans. But the physical movement is generally much slower than what people using 2 pound handycams call panning. .

Thank you. Of course Hollywood pans. What you won't see much of is zooming.

The biggest advantage of 24p over other frame rates is simply that it is the frame rate of a cinema projector. So, if you want your $10 micro-budget feature to be in the running for an Oscar you better make sure it's on 24p.

Personally, I prefer the temporal resolution of 24p/25p to that of 50p/60p, but that's just me:)

Just to throw this in there, 24fps is less manual frame by frame animating, keying, tracking, per-pixel painting and overall shorter process for visual effects and post compositing. If you have a 6 second shot, the difference from 24fps to 30fps is 36 frames. That's 1 second and a half extra! Some studios are at $300 a frame, if not more. Michael Bay used Digital Domain for a last minute close-up shot of the Alice Pretender that wasn't shot previously. They had a team of 20 people working on less than 70-something frames. 24, 48, 72—that's 3 seconds. Three seconds in the 30p world would have been 90+ frames, depending on the exact cut.

Thanks, everyone, for your input.

I did some further 24p tests today, and was rather impressed by the results. Action didn't strike me nearly as choppy as before — static camera shots were beautiful, and dollying/steadicam-type movement was perfectly acceptable. I did have a few issues with panning not looking quite as good as I'd like, but I was using a bad tripod and a fluid head would probably fix most of the issues.

So consider me a newly-converted 24p supporter. Only issue is that I may be forced to shoot my film in 30p unless Canon miraculously comes out with their 5D 24p update in early January and Tramm manages to make a record-time Magic Lantern update that incorporates it.

I'm going to start up production on a feature in mid-January, and I come seeking advice.

I have access to both a 7D and a 5D2 for the production, and would love to shoot in 24p. Phillip Bloom "reported" that the 5D update would be out in January, and if so, fantastic (by the way, has anyone heard similar reports — or does this seem unlikely?), but then there's the unclear issues of whether or not Magic Lantern will be able to utilize the new firmware, and if so, how long it might take. I don't depend on much from Magic Lantern aside from turning AGC off, so it wouldn't be the end of the world if it weren't doable (I could probably record externally or use some other workaround, heard about some sort of AGC-disabling accessory for the JuicedLink), but it is a nice piece of software and the zebras are nice. Any word on if Canon's update might do something about AGC? Jeez, it would be an easy fix to do...

I could probably do without the 5D for the beginning of the film and stick with the 7D, but I'd really like to shoot with multiple cameras simultaneously and I love being able to get a wider FOV from the full-frame off my lenses.

My question is: Would anyone recommend shooting 24p on the 7D, 30p on the 5D, and then converting the 5D footage into 24p afterward — then, once the 5D update comes out, switch to shooting 24p across the board? Or does that just sound like a bad idea? My other options are to stick with the 7D for a while or just go with 30p — not my preferred choice, but of course the framerate doesn't make the movie. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

(Please feel free to consolidate this post into another thread if it's covering old ground.)

why stop there if its so great, why not go to 18FPS and really wow them, look just like an 8mm film from 1950, cant think of anything that would be more progresivly :-) like film .

i wonder how much of this is not because of looking like film is having a rotten frame rate, but looking like film doesnt COMPRESS the video at 20-1 before it even gets to the NLE?
with less frames the compression isnt as high so it wont all look like Jpeg at 5.

we cant do the contrast capability of film, with video still stuck around 3or4-1 contrast, so becomming film itself reguardless of the chip size or the frame rate, the one great thing that film has , the ability to originally capture huge variations in bright and dark while still rendering the parts of bright and dark, dont exist in video yet.
Film doesnt dump 1/2 the color pixels to wedge it into things , film doesnt even plop its color on top of its luminecence
film doesnt need 3 chips or striped filtrations to re-assemble color, as there is such thing as color film

While it can certannly make "A film" it cant BE film itself (yet) only film is that to date, want to make a film, like film, use Film, want to make a good Film using video, then your using video and why were trying to get worse frame rates makes no sence.

if were supposed to BUY into something that assists us in video to Make a Film, the first thing we need is a vastly expanded contrast ratio.
the second most usefull thing would be a less compressed image
the third would be to add in some noisey grainey trash all over the picture , because that was a FLAW of film.

so while progress might suggest that we have holografic 3d images , that look like reality
ART suggests that a Painting looks better than a photograph, you just have to see in it the art
So in 2050 when everyone is viewing psudo reality 3d holografic images , as recorded on crystal data storages
woody allen is going to configure it back to 2D turn it black and white, put noisey grain in, and cut the frame rate to 24, and make another fabulous woody allan movie :-)

ahh its the Surealism, or realism , that is what is in a film, and that has nothing to do with any of that.

even a film transfered to video the film itself has collection "chips" that are closer to human eye contrast and color capabilities. with video things Blow out, with film you can capture much more, once on the collection media, transferring it from there is easy. that is why a film can be transferred to video just fine, but video cant give you the range of film (yet).

My question is: Would anyone recommend shooting 24p on the 7D, 30p on the 5D, and then converting the 5D footage into 24p afterward —

My 2 (and a half) cents - Shoot one or the other!

Shooting on, what is essentially two different frame rates/formats might be fine for short form but for a feature it will just create more headaches than it solves, especially with sync sound!

My 1/2cent
Something else, besides the 24fps that the 7D has over the 5D is DOF. The DOF on the 7D is on par with S35 motion picture cameras. So now you have two things which make the 7D psychologically closer to film than the 5D.

But if you want really beautiful, almost surreal bloomesque images, then maybe the 5D is better.

My 1/2cent
Something else, besides the 24fps that the 7D has over the 5D is DOF. The DOF on the 7D is on par with S35 motion picture cameras. So now you have two things which make the 7D psychologically closer to film than the 5D.


I'm sorry, I truly don't understand what you are trying to say here. The DOF gap between the two cameras is probably equivalent to 1/3 of a stop (I didn't work the math). So nearly negligible.

I've never delivered a spot and had it broadcast at 24p. Is this possible? Playback is at 29.97 for ntsc broadcast standards. Can somebody care explain this? I'd like that.

I'm sorry, I truly don't understand what you are trying to say here. The DOF gap between the two cameras is probably equivalent to 1/3 of a stop (I didn't work the math). So nearly negligible.

"Math" who cares about math?

For me, i notice that the 7D is easier than the 5D when pulling focus, do to the smaller sensor size.

Only my opinion but - Open up the aperture on both cameras, with the same iso, focal length, etc and the 5D has this beautiful bokeh, but for me, its too much, the DOF can be razor thin. Your subject moves a little and there are moments of softness too - temperamental. It can be nice, but to me it looks like a magazine instead of a movie!

The 7D keeps more of focused blur/bokeh - the DOF isn't so razor sharp and thus more forgiving. We've had shoots where the steady cam remote focus pullers prefered the 7D because of this - i thought it was a little strange of them to request a 7D, till i started using them side by side and came to same conclusion!

I've played around a fair amount on a friend's 7D, and tried out doing a 24p vs. 30p comparison. I tried doing the same shots (with a fair amount of motion involved) at varying shutter speeds on both frame rates (for those curious, the shutter speeds I tried were 1/30, 1/50, 1/60 and 1/80, and all had the same concerns). The results had me wondering.

What, exactly, are the benefits of 24p?

I say this because the 24p shots looked... stuttered somewhat, choppy even.

... truncated


So I can appreciate your efforts to do these tests. It really is the best way to make an educated evaluation.

But ...

How did you configure your playback display in the process of your evaluations? I think this is a _real_ important detail if you want to get into any critical analysis. For example if you are watching a 60p computer display then when you say you are watching a 24p clip, in all likelihood you're not. You are seeing 2:3 pulldown 24p displayed at 60p. There are subtle effects caused by this conversion that an overly critical analysis may uncover. Most casual viewers do not notice in my experience but the differences are real - especially when you start talking about stutter (judder).

The best you can do to get to a theatrical display experience is to find a display that does 48p and will run your 24p tests at 2:2 pulldown (thus matching most cinema projectors). Not hardly the most popular display available. The next best would be a 120Hz display that does true 5:5 pulldown. Still this does not exactly match the 48p 2:2 pulldown that true cinema projectors do.

Anyways if nothing else this may highlight the futility in a too harsh of an evaluation of 24p vs 30p or 60p if you cannot reproduce the true cinema experience of 24p displayed at 2:2 pulldown.

I've never delivered a spot and had it broadcast at 24p. Is this possible? Playback is at 29.97 for ntsc broadcast standards. Can somebody care explain this? I'd like that.

Telecine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine)

"Math" who cares about math?

For me, i notice that the 7D is easier than the 5D when pulling focus, do to the smaller sensor size.

Only my opinion but - Open up the aperture on both cameras, with the same iso, focal length, etc and the 5D has this beautiful bokeh, but for me, its too much, the DOF can be razor thin. Your subject moves a little and there are moments of softness too - temperamental. It can be nice, but to me it looks like a magazine instead of a movie!

The 7D keeps more of focused blur/bokeh - the DOF isn't so razor sharp and thus more forgiving. We've had shoots where the steady cam remote focus pullers prefered the 7D because of this - i thought it was a little strange of them to request a 7D, till i started using them side by side and came to same conclusion!

I care about the math or at least the physics. Particularly when it offers a simple explanation of why you are posting what you are posting.

DOF is a matter of subject to camera distance, focal length, sensor size, and iris. So you can use a different lens, change your distance to the subject, or iris down. Any of these will mitigate the "razor thin" DOF that you describe. Or you could move to a 2/3" camera and that would get it done also.

Or you could move to a 2/3" camera and that would get it done also.

Yep, i could move to 2/3 ...or i could move from the 5D to the 7D.

in my experience, pulling focus on the 7D is easier than the 5D - my experience!

All things being equal, the sensor size on the 7d is less than half of the 5d... Thus more dof - Easier to pull focus and more forgiving when talent moves,

Yep, i could move to 2/3 ...or i could move from the 5D to the 7D.

in my experience, pulling focus on the 7D is easier than the 5D - my experience!

All things being equal, the sensor size on the 7d is less than half of the 5d... Thus more dof - Easier to pull focus and more forgiving when talent moves,

Yes, the 7D will make it easier with the smaller sensor... but umm... less than half?

Full Frame is 36x24
7D = 22x15
Half would be 18x12

Not sure how you're defining half...

36mm x 24mm=8.64cm2
22mm x 15mm=3.30cm2

a 20" 16:9 tv is NOT twice as big as a 10". it is 4 times as big

good thing you're not laying tile

36mm x 24mm=8.64cm2
22mm x 15mm=3.30cm2

a 20" 16:9 tv is NOT twice as big as a 10". it is 4 times as big

good thing you're not laying tile

LOL!

Ahh, in terms of square area. Yea, I understand the math. And I've laid my fair share of tile too... :)

When a movie shot at 24p is viewed on a tv at home, it looks fine. For some reason, whip pans and fast motion doesn't look bad or distracting. But sometimes, when a videographer shoots and edits a commercial at 24p and airs it, every movement stutters, as if something is very wrong.

Have you seen this? It looks horrible, like the field order is wrong.

No - the difference in DoF between 7D and 5D II is 1 2/3 stops.

By same distance, aperture and focal length the DoF of the 5D will greater - CoC (circel of confussion) on the 5D can be greater because of the gerater chip size.

But to became the same image on the 7D you must use a smaller focal length. So if you shoot on the 5D II with a focal length of 50mm you must use 30mm on the 7D for the same picture. In that case the 7D will have the greater DoF.

In practice if you want have the same DoF on the 5D II with 50mm as on the 7D with 30mm you must close the aperture on the 5D II for 1 2/3 stops.


Daniel von Euw


I'm sorry, I truly don't understand what you are trying to say here. The DOF gap between the two cameras is probably equivalent to 1/3 of a stop (I didn't work the math). So nearly negligible.

No - the difference in DoF between 7D and 5D II is 1 2/3 stops.


Yea, after I engaged my brain and realized the gap in sensor size, I got this... I really thought they were much closer


By same distance, aperture and focal length the DoF of the 5D will greater - CoC (circel of confussion) on the 5D can be greater because of the gerater chip size.


Right.

Im very new to capturing moving images, having come from a completely stills driven background, so please excuse me if i am wrong but i think you are missing a crucial point with the 5DII vs 7D sensor debate.

The 5DII's full frame sensor resolves so much more detail than the 7D's its almost embarrassing ( see images below).

The high ISO capabilities of the 5DII also wipe the floor with the 7D, so i would happily bump up the ISO & the f/ stop by 1 2/3 stops to retain that detail than use the 7D.


@ISO 100http://rolandlim.smugmug.com/photos/700851376_L3kfP-XL.jpg @ ISO12800 http://rolandlim.smugmug.com/photos/700851637_PLBsH-O.jpg

Robert, welcome to DVinfo.

I think your comment on resolution pertains only to still photography, not video.

' ...
Strobing is an inevitable result of the 24 fps standard adopted decades ago. "It's not fast enough," Cameron said flatly. "It should never have been 24. It probably should've been 36 as a minimum."

It's been proven that faster frame rates improve the picture just as more pixels do.
...'

From
3D TVs one-up theaters - Entertainment News, David Cohen, Media - Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118013655.html?categoryid=3691&cs=1)

It has been suggested that film frames have a slightly softer effect due to the mechanical shutter fading each frame in and out compared to the direct action of progressive frames in video.

There's no doubt and no quibbling that film does in fact have a more "organic" feel and look to it, and absolutely one of the reasons is the physical difference of how "frames" are exposed.

One thing that constantly get's glossed over about video cameras - especially those that have a 24p output option - is that video cameras are very much like digital-still cameras, either compact or those DSLR's that have a "live view" mode: That being there is no physical shutter to create the division between frames and the sensor is always "hot" and active.

"Frames" and shutter effects are all software-controlled algorithms, *simulations* if you will, not created by physical devices inside the camera. In fact the only physical hardware in video cameras for creating a "look" are the IRIS and lens focus/zoom controllers. Some would say that ND filters are also physical devices but in some video cameras even ND filters are nothing more than the voltage being ramped-down on the imaging chips - yet more software in action.

So in point of fact, when a video camera creates frames at any per-second rate it's simply turning on and off it's capture of what the imaging chips are seeing, and it will do it in one of two methods, either using a "global shutter" (the entire chip is energized all at once making a full-on static image per frame) or "rolling shutter" (the chip is energized in sections from top to bottom very much like how raster lines paint tube-type TV sets) which can create image skew in panning or fast-moving objects moving across the frame.

A motion-picture film camera by contrast has a shutter that spins around and as the shutter opening moves across the frame it "wipes" the area with light exposing the image on the emulsion - one frame at a time.

There is yet another not-so-obvious distinction between video and film that I never see addressed anywhere, the difference between pixels and film grain. Immediately you're probably thinking "noise" characteristics, but I'm referring to something different:

Regardless what video camera you're talking about, be it a pocket-sized handycam, DSLR or even a Thomson Viper every video camera exhibits one very important characteristic: The amount of pixels available never changes AND, those pixels are in *exactly* the same position from frame to frame and never change. Ever.

Film by contrast has grain that isn't the same from frame to frame, indeed every single frame of film has a completely unique pattern - it's own "fingerprint" if you will - of it's grain particles and no two frames are ever alike. That piece of grain in the upper right hand corner of frame 1 is completely different than in frame 2 making for a 100% organic element to transmit light onto. I have always believed that is one of the reasons that digital imaging, be it still or video, has always had an almost sterile look to it - at times being too clean, too perfect thus being less interesting to our eyes.

So yes, film will always have a more natural, organic and palpable difference from video not matter what the camera type, codec or lens being used.

My 2.5 cents.

' ...
Strobing is an inevitable result of the 24 fps standard adopted decades ago. "It's not fast enough," Cameron said flatly. "It should never have been 24. It probably should've been 36 as a minimum."

It's been proven that faster frame rates improve the picture just as more pixels do.
...'

From
3D TVs one-up theaters - Entertainment News, David Cohen, Media - Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118013655.html?categoryid=3691&cs=1)

The "improving picture" part is the source of the whole debate, it depends how you define improving. Some people find "more realistic" to be an "improvement" and some don't. It's debatable, it doesn't have a right or wrong answer, it's different for different people. I personally prefer the slightly more dreamy, less reality, feel of 24 fps at 1/48 shutter -- just like I often prefer B&W Tri-X 400 pushed one stop rather than digital color that's clean of noise and sharp as a whistle. To each his own.

Regardless what video camera you're talking about, be it a pocket-sized handycam, DSLR or even a Thomson Viper every video camera exhibits one very important characteristic: The amount of pixels available never changes AND, those pixels are in *exactly* the same position from frame to frame and never change. Ever.

Film by contrast has grain that isn't the same from frame to frame, indeed every single frame of film has a completely unique pattern - it's own "fingerprint" if you will - of it's grain particles and no two frames are ever alike. That piece of grain in the upper right hand corner of frame 1 is completely different than in frame 2 making for a 100% organic element to transmit light onto. I have always believed that is one of the reasons that digital imaging, be it still or video, has always had an almost sterile look to it - at times being too clean, too perfect thus being less interesting to our eyes.

So yes, film will always have a more natural, organic and palpable difference from video not matter what the camera type, codec or lens being used.

I agree with you -- this is the problem with video today. But when you say that "film will *always* have a more natural, organic and palpable difference from video" I think you simply overlook what the near future can/will bring us. (Reminds me a bit of some vinyl audiophiles who never expected we would soon recreate the "warmth" of their beloved 33⅓ rpm'ers ;^)

-- peer

I agree with you -- this is the problem with video today. But when you say that "film will *always* have a more natural, organic and palpable difference from video" I think you simply overlook what the near future can/will bring us. (Reminds me a bit of some vinyl audiophiles who never expected we would soon recreate the "warmth" of their beloved 33⅓ rpm'ers ;^)

-- peer

Yeah no doubt. A lot of people don't even realize that vinyl comes with it's own set of problems, that's why if you're going to press to vinyl, you should go with someone who knows how to specifically master for that media. Is 24/96 digital audio there yet? I personally think so, but many people will argue with that, just like the film/digital thing...

When I watch all of the newest films, especially the ones with a lot of digital effects, on an HD TV, I am struck with how overly "unorganic" the images can be. That is one reason I like the 5D so much. They tell us that the 5D doesn't have near the resolution as and EX 1 or 3. That suits me fine. I think the 5d, when shot with a low sharpness setting, and reduced contrast and saturation, can yield some pretty organic looking stuff. And if there is a need to add sharpness, contrast, or saturation, you can still do it in post. I am still learning about this camera, and hoping the 24p will even help more.

Is 24/96 digital audio there yet? I personally think so, but many people will argue with that, just like the film/digital thing...

On the set it's usually 48 KHz 24 bit (or 47.952 pulldown), but for sound effects most everything we record is in 96/24 to get more dynamic range to work with in post. I bet soon the 48/24 conversion also goes 96/24.

-- peer