Well yes it is indeed possible for an independent filmaker to compete with George Lucas. One must first realize that George Lucas did not start off being a billionaire. One of his first films was THX 1138 and of course it was not a big budget film like Star Wars never the less the it introduced some important concepts of the future with ideas from George Orwell but with an additional component that George Orwell missed and that is that future societies will have robots. The problem with Star Wars was that it was over commercialized and could not have the philisophical depth that the original George Lucas films carried.

That being said George Lucas talks about high definition but has failed to release any of his movies in a high definition video format. An indepedent film producer can compete with George Lucas by offering videos in a high definition format something that George Lucas has failed to do.

When I have said that the Cannon XL-2 is obsolete I did not mean to say that releasing videos in a standard definition format is obsolete. In actuality standard definition will have to be phased out very slowly and we cannot make the jump to high definition overnight. What I meant to say is that capturing video in standard definition is totally obsolete because you are not future proofing your work. The correct way is to shoot in high definition and then release your videos in a 2 DVD set with one DVD in standard definition and a secound DVD in high definition which is playable on most windows XP computers.

When the Wizard of Oz was shot in color future generations apreciated the fact that the film was future proofed and the film had more
investment value even though at the time the additional cost of color production did not make sense. So todays high definition videographers are making an investment in future proofing their work and can avoid depreciation.
And future proofing means a nice retirement nest egg.

On ocassion I will shoot a wedding in high definition even if the clients already have a standard definition videographer. Then I wait ten years and then I release the video if the clients are willing to pay for it. This way I'm building up a pension.

(QUOTE) When I have said that the Cannon XL-2 is obsolete I did not mean to say that releasing videos in a standard definition format is obsolete. What I meant to say is that capturing video in standard definition is totally obsolete because you are not future proofing your work. (QUOTE)

Your contradicting yourself here. If you are capturing in SD, obviously you are going to be releasing it in SD. Future-proofing is great, but many couples are just not willing to pay for HD. Period. HD is just not the standard yet. Most clients I talk to have no idea what HD even is, much less how it works. Obviously that will change in the future, but not for a while. Besides, not being a fan of HDV to begin with, I am holding out for better HD options. I feel bad for everyone jumping on the HDV bandwagon, it is just to soon to be investing so heavily in it. That's just my opinion of course.

Well for one thing I would have to agree with you most people will not pay a videographer a dime more for HD but if your into affordable high definition video productions you won't have to charge a dime more.

And it is true most people really don't know what HD is but most people are bombarded with advertising by stores trying to sell high end HD televisions. Many people could actually think that HD is a bunch of bs but come Christmas time those same people will blow thousands of dollars on a new Plasma HDTV. Most people really do not know what HD is but they have a vague idea that its some kind of big screen or flat panel Plasma technology. Many people confuse picture quality with screen size.

But the message that has to be driven home is that HD ready is not an HDTV unless it is feed with an HD signal from a set top box. When you go
"HD BUILT IN" and all you need is an antenna to get that free HDTV signal. Many of the new HD-VHS decks Have HD ATSC tuners built right in so you can pirate those free HD signals right of of the air.

But then, you don't want to completely eliminate the judder. Judder-free 24p looks very video-ish

I'm not talking about eliminating the judder. Film has a slightly different motion characteristic than straight progressive scan video because of the way it handles detail. I've outlined things more on my website;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm

Unfortunately the Sony XD cam lacks the resolution to give it the film look unless you call super 8mm the film look. To get the 16mm film look you need a progressive high definition video camera like the JVC GY-HD100. In the UK all owners of Windows XP computers have access and the ability to play high definition video over the internet at this very moment.

Simon Wyndham,

I agree with you about the edge enhancement. One of the big contrats between film and video is the sharpness. Video is way too sharp. A lot ofpeople are getting all crazy about the amount of detail in HD but detail isn't everything. A nice clean soft detail image can look a thousand times better than a sharp detailed image.

The reason Hollywood DVD's can get away with such low bitrates is because movies just do not have a useless amount of detail that changes every single pixel. There are other factors of course but detail can quickly make a low bitrate encoding look like garbage.

Visual effects work in Hollywood using HD is a pain because of the massive amount of detail compared to film. Whole new model making methods needed to be created for hand made models to look good on HD.

Makeup is also an issue with HD. HD shows a lot more skin problems because of the extra high detail.

Remember film is an illusion and not meant to mimic reality. We need to stop treating our video like reality if we want it to look like film.

(To Tommy) Really? Guess I must be blind then.

Sarcasm aside, 720p is not much of a leap over 576p (PAL). And since most of my projects go to DVD I know I'd take the XD over a smaller chip camera any day of the week.

Regardless this thread is not a discussion about high def over standard def. It is about filmlook. Unless of course you think that all films that are released onto DVD look like 8mm because they have been converted to standard def DVD's?

You might as well take a look at my upconverts from a not very good video project I worked on. These are converted to 1080p. I can do some 720p ones if you like?

http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algolith/algolith_comparison.htm

In addition to my comments above, a colleague of mine is purchasing the new JVC in the coming weeks. As soon as he has I will arrange a direct comparison between it and my xdcam.

I know it is really apples and oranges. But with the number of people who compare the footage from these HDV cams to 100,000 dollar HDCAMs I think it only fair that I compare it to a high end SD cam. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe you will!

True enough. Tommy, when you refer to "the film look", it's a can of worms. I think we can all agree that 35mm film transferred to NTSC i.e. SD has an indisputable film look, even though it is a 480i image at that point. If, as you have referred to earlier, you are defining film look as what will look good projected in a theater, obviously there are resolution limitations to any SD source material, but if it is really well shot, then I feel it is safe to say that it has a "film look" even if it occasionally falls short on resolution. Case in point was the theatrical print of "28 Days Later"--some shots were distractingly SD-esque but many were beautiful and made it easy to forget we were watching digitally originated material to begin with, let alone older generation DV!

But I would deduce from your collective posts that your point of reference for defining "film look" is overwhelmingly resolution-based over other factors such as lighting, camera movement, composition etc...would you agree?

Actually, I think it is much harder to get a film look out of an HD cam. Most HD looks like very clear video. Once Upon a Time in Mexico looked great but again, that is with a very expensive HDCAM. I bet I can come up with a better film look from an XL2 or DVX than from a 1/3"CCD HDV cam...



ash =o)

Ash, one reason HD looks like clear video (aside from interlacing in 1080i mode) is because of the way the detail frrequencies are handled.

I cover the reasons in the article I mentions http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm

Alan Roberts, an ex-BBC setup engineer devised filmlook settings for the high end HD cameras. These were precisely developed and measured, One of their applications was to match HD footage with footage already shot on film. A big part of acheiving this is changing the detail frequency bias of the camera first, and then working on gamma and highlight handling. Alan has setups to mimick many different filmstock behaviours, as well as being able to set up cameras precisely to how you want it to look, or to mimick a filmstock you have in mind.

Simon, I'm undertaking a similar project in building reference files into different film stocks. I'm starting with reversal because from what I'm told about film it has nearly the same latitude (IN POST!!!!) as the f900 or so has been the experience of the tests I've witnessed. Did Alan (or you) publish any of the results somewhere?

I'm no engineer myself. But Alans white papers 034 and 053 make for interesting reading regarding his research.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.shtml

If you want to ask Alan specifics he can be found over on the dvdoctor forums http://www.forums.dvdoctor.net

Every bluemoon I stumble across some thread started by the anti-24p crusaders. Why? It's beautiful. 24p is a gift from the DV Gods. I fail to even comprehend why anyone would want to shoot 'Digitally' any other framerate. HD-24p is even more reason to get excited.

Dont pretend frame rate is the only factor... I doubt a Spielberg movie would look like Dog the Bounty Hunter... I beg to argue that 24P is one of a dozen factors. If you shoot Joe Millionaire in 24P will it suddenly change the production? Make it look better? Like film? NO! ---

Lighting, framing, focus control, dof, angles, camera movement, STORY, editing, etc. etc. etc. are as important, if not moreso than 24P...

Frame Rate is one of the major factors of this beautiful asthetic; not a minor one and not chalked up as one of a dozen IMHO. Check Saving Private Ryan with RAW footage on the beach assualt. Not a terrible amount of Hollywood Tricks being used there; in fact they went so far as to make the imagery worse; stripping the lenses, purposely vibrating the cameras, all hand held, shooting under high noon conditions. A lot of those shots they're using no light other than the sun and a butterfly or some bounce.... Is it more than the framerate that makes it look great? Of course. But the 24 is a major component and lets not pretent it's a minor one:

Check this simple 'Home Movie' of my kid riding his bike. No fancy lighting or comps; just good old fashioned Home Movie Footgae (ND Grad and Polarizer being used)

Right Click and Save As
http://outlandpictures.com/movies/bike.mov

Don't tell me 24p is some 'Minor' piece of the puzzle. No way. It's huge.

And what's all this non-sense about future proofing? I'm still watching old school Twilight Zone episodes and loving every minute of it. Future proof? Baaaaaa. Stop already. Knock it off. You think some wedding couple cares if they're work is future proofed? It might work for about 5 minutes in the pimping of your services but down the road it won't matter it's VHS or Super 8 when it comes to these couple having it on DVD and watching old memories. It's the content that makes the difference.

I think too sharp is distracting. Too glossy, too slick.

What a great thread.

Go get 'em, tiger!

I agree that 24p rocks.

I think that the single element that distinguishes the "Saving Private Ryan" beach sequence is the use of the skinny shutter, which at that point had never been used so extensively in a feature. Seeing explosions and debris falling with the short exposure time was a brand new texture. Of course, it sparked a fad that quickly diluted the novelty, but I was blown away at the time (the flare work was great also).

But of course--a short exposure at a high frame rate (like 60i) would not have the same visual effect. It's like a short film I saw that used a Mini35 but was shot at 60i--the shallow depth of field with the soap opera vibe was odd-looking to the point of feeling almost creepy!

I'm not talking about eliminating the judder. Film has a slightly different motion characteristic than straight progressive scan video because of the way it handles detail. I've outlined things more on my website;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm


It's a nice article, Simon. Very thorough. (I mean it.)

But I've also seen Barry's side-by-side comparison of 24fps film and DVX 24p, and the motion characteristics are identical. This, I have seen with my own eyes.

Of course, when we're talking about "film look" here, we're talking about cinematic film, which is standard 24fps. Had Spielberg shot any of his movies on video, they no doubt would have looked good, but they would not have looked the same by any stretch. They'd have looked too real-life, too every-day, even if everything else was exactly the same.

Saving Private Ryan is a good example for those who say 24p isn't good for fast action. Some of the best action we watch on TV came from 24p film.

I watched "Hero" recently, with all its gorgeous cinematography, and I can't imagine the travesty had it been shot in a faster framerate . . . or on video.

The same can be said for most any film; pointless to think of anything else.

Crazy talk I tell you. Yeah; let's shoot Schindlers List in 30p or HD 1080i.

Oy Vay.

60 fps would be a horrible frame rate; the human elye can only see about 30 fps and the rest is just blurred. Its like flashing your hand in front of your face, the slower you go, the more clear the picture is, but the more strobe their is, the faster you go, the less strobe thier is, but the their is much more blurr.

I have little trouble seeing the jittery jumping of hard edges on pans in the cinema, so I bet that even quadrupling the frame rate to 100 fps isn't near our limits of perception. I'm not sure what the 24p frame rate is based on, but I wouldn't be surprised suspect it has something to do with the natural speed of facial expressions or normal body movements. Surely, it's not based on what is needed to accurately display wagon wheels in motion.

Why does saying 24P is not right for everything make you anti-24P? Let me state for the record that I am talking about 24P VIDEO, not film.
I use a lot of 24P but purposely, not because I can. I am sorry, it is NOT good for everything. The MTV movie awards tried it and it made everyone who watched it feel awkward and they never used it again, same with the new season of "Good Eats" it is missing the charm at 24P. Beyond quality, there is a psychological factor that is hard to get a finger on.

It is a difference of philosophy but I think 24P was the latest and last major hurdle to getting film look (next is resolution) but now everyone is treating it like the first. I would say MOST the footage I see in 24P is missing every other cinematic element. Bad lighting, poor framing, no control over the DOF, bad angles, etc. John it sounds like you are arguing that a kid riding a bike in 24P is better than a professionally produced multicamera shoot shot in 60i???

As far as Saving Private Ryan, that is really not a great argument because the shutter angle was so steep, giving it that "crispy" look. I think those who say 24P film has trouble with motion are talking more The Bourne Supremacy.

I will say it over and over until I am blue in the face, 24p is an EFFECT that when used properly can enhance a production. It is not THE effect and it is not right for everything.



ash =o)

Of course it is not right for everything; gameshows, soap-operas, weddings, corporate events, newscasts. I wouldn't think or entertain shooting 24p on these types of events (weddings I would).

Any 'film' related or film specific project (Indiependent filmmaking, nature documentary or other traditionaly film shot medium) however is a must have.

...I think 24P was the latest and last major hurdle to getting film look (next is resolution)

I'll take 24p SD over 60i HD anyday. I don't care if it's 720 or 1080. What I am saying is 24p is the main component in my equation. Give me HD-24p but HD-60i is (sound of puking); again this is in reference to indiependent filmmaking NOT shooting a soap opera.

John it sounds like you are arguing that a kid riding a bike in 24P is better than a professionally produced multicamera shoot shot in 60i???

Hell yes. Your picking up what I am putting down. I'll take a stock Super16 out of the camera anyday over some crappy looking HD-60i Mulicamera Lighted soap opera version of the event any day period. That's exactly my point; that video I submitted is 24p and ZERO tricks and techniques (sans a couple filters for sun) and it looks a gazillion times better than if I shot that with some 60i crap.

60i is crap. It screams crap, it taste like crap, it feels like crap.

I will say it over and over until I am blue in the face, 24p is an EFFECT that when used properly can enhance a production. It is not THE effect and it is not right for everything.

I 100% agree with you; It is not right for everything; sopa operas and weddings for example....

But any traditionally Film shot event should incorporate 24p no doubt.

24p is part of the artistic element of film. Stories need this, news broadcasts don't.

There's a difference between a photo in National Geographic magazine and a photo you see on your everyday newspaper.

I don't understand why anyone would want 24p to die. I want any 'i' do die, it's obsolete, or will be when HD becomes the standard. Let's all hunt down 60i, 50i and 1080i...

What I think is the major source of confusion is that people compare 24 frames per secound progressive video with 60 half frames per secound interlaced. That is a totally unfair comparison. The only fair way is to compare progressive with progressive 24p to 60p. Interlaced video even 1080i interlaced video can never compare in quality with 35mm progressive film shot at 24 frames per secound. Interlace video is dying even 1080i will die and give way to 1080p. Once that happens and digital video cinema supplants film productions people will no longer be satisfied with the low temporal rates of 24p especially for fast action. Therefore 24p will die and give way to 60p.

THis is the part whereas someone needs to EXPLAIN to me

Isn't 60p going to be 60 frames a second? Why would you wan't to view anything at 60 FPS ?

What am I missing?

24p can have stuttery motion if you pan too fast (assuming the whole picture is static). AN example would be the sample 24p footage for the sample projects with Vegas 6. You can get that off the Sony Vegas website.

The ASC manual says that on pans, an object should take 7 seconds or long to cross the screen.

60p should have silky smooth motion. How it appears would depend on the display technology though. For example, CRT computer monitors at 60hz refresh rate and a high resolution can cause eye strain. So although the motion looks good, the overall image may not look that good.

I would expect 24p to kick around for a while. A lot of material will still be originated on 35mm film. As well, 24p lowers delivery requirements. 24p and 30p and 60i have (less than) half the requirements that a 60p broadcast would.

Anyways, you can shoot at whatever frame rate you want. I would suggest going with 30p because:
A- On a CRT TV, it has the interesting "film-like" motion like 24p. I did my own comparison between 60i, 30p, and 24p by converting 60i to other formats with Vegas 6. 24p and 30p are hard to tell apart, but definitely look different than 60i.
30p has less of that stuttery motion.
B- 30p is probably the easiest to handle in post (that, or 60i). With 24p you may have to dick around with adding/removing pulldown.
The progressive formats have an advantage because some filters/programs operate incorrectly on interlaced images.
C- Counterpoint: Some cameras lose functions in 24p mode... i.e. the DVX100. (not sure about 30p)

All this talk of Showscan and 60p.

I like this summarization:

"Video's frame rate being as close to reality as we can discern jibes with our ingrained perception of how video is traditionally used: to document real-life events. The TV news, reality TV shows, and our own home movies have a documentary quality to them that subconsciously suggests to the viewer that they are seeing actual events. Even sitcoms and soap operas are less like movies than they are like simulations of being in a studio audience watching a live performance. Video clues us in that we are watching reality, and by showing us everything, it invites us to passively absorb it. : OVERVIEW Movies are anything but reality. Ironically, by showing the audience less (40% of the temporal information of NTSC video), they trigger a part of our brains that works to fill in the missing information. In this way film creates a more participatory experience and at the same time informs its audience that what they are viewing is an authored, narrative work. This is backed up by our historical associations as well we have learned to associate film's flicker with storytelling and video's unflinching detail with reality."

Give me 24p or Give Me Death.

I wan't to run away as far as possible from anything that even remotely resembles Video (60p) in temporal quailty.

And if your panning so fast as your worried about stuttering or strobing then it won't matter anyway as who's even looking at it?

I think 24P is great for movies but not for everything as some suggest. 30P is problematic because it is hard to convert to film or to PAL. 60P may happen but not soon, it will take a couple generations. The reason I think it may happen is because kids not are so used to video games that run at 60P or even higher.

I dont think it matters right now as I bet we are 10 to 25 years away from anything like that... we still have only a small % of people watching HDTV...



ash =o)

Ironically, by showing the audience less (40% of the temporal information of NTSC video), they trigger a part of our brains that works to fill in the missing information. In this way film creates a more participatory experience and at the same time informs its audience that what they are viewing is an authored, narrative work.

Hi John,

That's an interesting statement; can you lead me to the research backing it up? I'm not challenging you, just curious. (I know about completion principles in psychology, but have never seen data on this.)

Cheers,
-Matt

Of course

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/whismabu.html

Is there any samples of 60p online?

Ironically, by showing the audience less (40% of the temporal information of NTSC video), they trigger a part of our brains that works to fill in the missing information.

Then maybe radio programs, or slide shows with still images would heighten this effect even more? I remember a radio station that played the old time serials every night; their slogan was "The pictures are always better in the theatre of the mind."

From the Magic Bullet link above "there are those who suggest that this association with narrative and the flickering image is so deeply ingrained in our collective unconscious that it in part explains our love for movies."

I don't think I quite buy this, but it's an interesting observation. On the other hand, I noticed something just recently while working on an opera in Buenos Aires. The set had a fake fire with lights inside. This was a very stylized set, so the fire wasn't even slightly realistic looking. While we were working on the light cues, over a period of 15 minutes crew members waiting backstage started to congregate around it. Pretty soon there were 7 or 8 people sitting around the "fire" and telling stories, just like it was real...

The reason why so few people are actually watching HDTV (only 3 percent of all households recieve an HDTV signal) is because of the sale of the HD ready television that does not include an ATSC HD digital tuner. Millions of Americans bought this ripoff and after spending thousands of dollars on a television refused to pay a dime more for an HDTV reciever so they end up watching crummy analog programing and they delude themselves into thinking they are getting a clear picture because the picture is free of snow and is a big screen picture. the HD ready television also perpetuates the myth that HDTV offers no gain in picture quality. The FCC is starting to crack down by outlawing the sale of HD ready televisions and by 2007 all televisions over 13 inches will include free digital tuners.

Buying an HD ready television without an HDTV digital tuner is like buying a color television with only a black and white tuner. In other words its a ripoff. The public gets ripped off because most people do not know what HDTV is. Most people think that picture quality is determined only by screen size.

The set had a fake fire with lights inside. This was a very stylized set, so the fire wasn't even slightly realistic looking. While we were working on the light cues, over a period of 15 minutes crew members waiting backstage started to congregate around it. Pretty soon there were 7 or 8 people sitting around the "fire" and telling stories, just like it was real...

LOL

Great story Boyd. (Even more bizarre off-topic; going on Pirates of the Carribean: Damn, if there isn't something extra cool about those 'fires' on that ride and the fake burning timber...)

HDTV

I won't even consider buyin into this cosumerism until I can get at least a 35" for a under $500.00 (Gonna be awhile)

Tommy, you seem to have made the mistake that many others make by thinking that digital = high def. It doesn't. The FCC will want people to receive digital, not high def. Thats the reason they would insist on integrated digital receivers.

and continuing off-topic further about "Pirates of the Caribbean" and fake fire-light: the gaffer of that film (and the currently filming next TWO sequels!) worked for me on the feature I shot last year, and he showed me the rig he used for a firelight gag on "Pirates". It was a bunch of standard-issue rope light mounted on a 2x3 frame, tightly snaked to cover the whole surface. Plugged into a flicker box, it created a warm, directional and pleasing look just like firelight. Clever!

For all practical purposes the switch to digital will ultimately be the switch to high definition. Digital is the highway that makes possible the transmission of high definition signals and high definition television was the reason why the FCC is mandating the switch from analog to digital television. It is true that the FCC is only mandating that televisions come equipped with digital tuners and not necesarily high definition. However no television manufacturer is going to put a standard definition digital tuner in a high definition television. All HDTVs are going to come equipped with HDTV digital tuners otherwise implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose will be violated and no manufacturer would dare assemble a television with such incompatible equipment. Standard defintion televisions will come factory equipped with standard definition digital tuners or hdtv recievers that are downconverted.
Which brings up another interesting point. In the United States standard definition digital recievers are simply not available as a set top box. There is no market for them. In the United States all digital tuners are high definition capable.

It is true that the FCC does not require the broadcasters to broadcast in HDTV but then again the FCC does not require the broadcasters to broadcast in color.


The United States is going to give free digital tuners to every household in order to make the switch to digital television and so that the analog spectrum can be sold. Hopefully these digital tuners will be HDTV capable.

HDTV can be cheaper than standard definition television. Many people after learning that they can recieve free HDTV signals over the air end up firing the cable company and saving a lot of money.

In many ways 24p is still economically more sound than another frame rate.

A 120 minute movie at 30P is 216,000 frames. The same movie shot at 24P is only 172,800 frames. That's 43,200 frames that you don't have to find storage for. Factor in that when editing a good rule of thumb is to expect to be working with at least three times the amount of footage that will be in the final cut -- so a 120 minute movie may have 360 minutes stored. Estimating about 1MB per frame, that's 129GB of storage you don't have to come up with.

And then what if it's a visual effects film? 43,200 frames played at 24P is half an hour! It's not unusual for a frame of visual effects film to take three or four processor hours to render depending on complexity, but we can round it down to one just because it's still significant.

It's rare for every frame of a film to be a visual effects render, but it's becoming common for a 2 hour film to have about half an hour of VFX. So you're still talking about 10,800 fewer frames, shooting 24 instead of 30. That's 10,800 fewer processor hours, shaving days off the deadline and hundreds of thousands of dollars off the budget. And for footage that takes an artist's frame-by-frame touch, estimating that it takes 10 minutes per frame, you're shaving an hour off each second of footage he has to do. An artist can turn out 5 seconds of 24P for every 4 of 30P. That adds up fast.

I don't think 24P is dying. If making features, I doubt I'd ever bother to shoot on anything else, in fact.

All very good points.

Computer technology is increasing a thousand fold every 20 years. By the year 2025 it will be no more difficult to store 24,000 frames than it is to store24 frames. However since there is a limit to the framerate I suspect in the future computational resources will be dedicated to 3 dimensional holographic images. To display a three dimensional high definition image will require 1000 times more information for each frame or one billion pixels.

I don't think 24p is as complicated as some are making it sound. 24p looks like smooth motion because when captured with 24 frames a second, motion will have more motion blur per frame. When this is played back to the eye, the eye burns it in for a fraction of a second, so the effect is seeing the object AND the blur. With 30fps or 60i your eye has to MAKE the motion blur, because you are mostly only seeing the object, not the motion blur.

To sum it up 24p offers object+motionblur, creating fluid movement.
30p/60i offers just the object, little motion blur. forcing the eye to create motion blur. This makes motion smooth, but not as fluid.

24p doesn't have anything to do with missing information that the brain "participates" in by creating new information. If anything the brain has to participate in 60i by creating motion blur.

just my 2 cents.

I dont agree with Tommy on much but the 24P is more efficient argument is a silly one. You have to have an expensive camera to shoot it, an expensive NLE to edit it and by the very same criteria... wouldn't 12P be even MORE efficient?


ash =o)

Urr no. The DVX100 does 24p, and pretty much all the NLE's around today can edit 24p as well.

I think there are examples today and/or the very near future that illustrate Michael's point--take the upcoming HVX200. Shooting in 24p mode will net you 20 minutes of footage on an 8gb card: shooting at 60 will require three such cards for the same amount of footage. That's a very real and immediate issue for someone considering shooting a feature with this camera once it comes out--how many cards will I need, how much can I afford (even as a rental item)?

Ash, I know you are being flippant on the 12 fps issue but I'm sure you will agree that since we have all grown up with 24 fps footage, anything less than that (or at a stretch, 22 fps) will not look like "normal" movement.

My point is that if you have a $3000 camera and a $3000 cpu/nle then it seems silly to be arguing over 20% less of cheap hard drive space!!

I was being flippant CP... I like 24P for movies and there are many arguements for it but I dont like the conserve space/speed up rendering one.

It makes more sense for the HVX but I wont even be tempted until the storage is cheaper and the workflow clarified. Like I say about everything, it is PROJECT dependent. I would never do something to conserve space or speed it up if it adversely effected the project.


ash =o)

Ash, the efficiency is significant for DVD's since the extra bits from fewer frames can be used to make the other frames look better. That's always a good thing. I can tell the difference in quality in 24p vs 60i DVDs I encode with TMPGenc.

Actually, I think 30P looks great when bumped to NTSC DVD... Again, I love 24P, it is NOT dead but it is also not for everything. It is an effect that you should choose for a particular aesthetic, not because it looks better or is more efficient...


ash =o)

Agreed. And I've made a subtle change to the title of this thread to reflect the continuing debate herein.

My take on the argument is this: When one sets out to make a “movie” (the word ‘movie’ in this context refers to what the average Joe perceives to be a movie) one has to subscribe to a film language. This film language is rooted in all movies of the past and present, and can not be undone. The only way it can be undone is by not only brainwashing the public to accept 60p as the new film language, but also by re-shooting every movie from the past in 60p as well.

The past of cinema, which inspires us all to make movies in the first place, is permanently tied to the present and future. 24p is one of the key ingredients of film language. It's kind of like Nietzsche's theory of eternal recurrence of the same, the past and the future are one.

When I was watching the new series Empire on my HDTV no doubt it was shot in high definition 24p and it looked fine until the gladiator scenes when the action started to blur.
There seems to be a lack of fundamental understanding here. Let me see if I can help clear some things up here.

First of all, "Empire" is broadcast on the ABC Network, which except for Dallas (which is 1080i60) every other ABC station is 720p60. So, they are at 60Fps whether you realize it or not. (unless, they actually are broadcasting at 24Fps? Seems highly unlikely because many, many shows on ABC are 60Fps.)

Second, what makes you believe the series was shot digitally? How can you know for sure that it wasn't shot on film? If I saw it, I could tell... probably by the depth of field if nothing else. 2/3" video and 35mm look quite different if you didn't already know! If they used a Pro35mm lens adapter, that would blur the lines, of course.

Third, you noticed that fast action was blurred and this is probably indicative of, more than anything else, artifacts of the lousy MPEG2 encoding which erodes quickly under fast motion. That is part of the broadcast stream... The original output from the camera likely was much cleaner.

Or, although it is quite unlikely, it could have been an error on the part of the camera crew. If the action was shot at 24Fps that was a mistake, although a highly unlikely mistake. Generally action would be shot at 48Fps -or another 'overcrank' speed- then playback would still be at 24Fps. The effect is much like simply slowing down a clip by 50% on your non-linear editing software.

Another 'mistake' could have been, if they were indeed shooting digitally, and on a Panasonic VariCam in 720P, they might have been not using a fast enough shutter speed to accomodate the increased framerate. On a motion picture camera that normally would have a 1/48th shutter at 24Fps would by the nature of increasing the framerate to 48Fps, then have a shutter speed twice as fast as before, so in this case, 1/96th.

When you adjust a film camera to a faster framerate, the shutter speed automatically increases in proportion. Digital cameras do not automatically increase in proportion! The effect of having a 1/48th shutter speed at 48Fps would be a blurrier-than-normal motion, which isn't anything at all like the sharp slow motion from a film camera.

The solution is to simply select the appropriate shutter speed for the framerate you are using. Digital cameras must be 'dialed in' to the correct settings -- it is not automatic.

Yet another possibility is if they shot the series at 1080p on a Sony camera the only option for 'slo motion' would be de-interlacing the camera's output from 1080i60, which isn't anywhere close to ideal, but it does work. In this case, they most definitely would have not thought about cranking up the shutter speed, maybe from inexperience? I don't know for sure...

There are a lot of buttons on a digital camera and sometimes crews forget to push the right ones!

Honestly, I would find out if the show was shot digitally or film before dismissing a piece of technology. It hurts, man!

Brian Wells
24P FanBoy

Second, what makes you believe the series was shot digitally? How can you know for sure that it wasn't shot on film? If I saw it, I could tell... probably by the depth of field if nothing else.

Haven't seen this particular show, but I feel less and less like I can consistently pick out well-shot HD from 35mm on the small screen as more DP's get the hang of the medium...just found out from a friend who worked on the Showtime series "Weeds" that it was HD, and having seen three episodes of it it never occurred to me to wonder if it was film or digital, so I was quite surprised.