Hey guys, what should the shutter speed be set at when shooting for the 24p film look? In the may 2006 DV magazine, adam wilt states that it should be set at 1/24 if you want to "see what you get". He mentions that another option is through motion smooting. What are your preferences and is it same with DV and HDV modes?

thanks

1/48 to simulate a 180 degree shutter.

You should use 24p 1/48th shutter speed...

1/24th will give you a very odd but usable look for effects, you cant actually have that in the real world of film, only in the digital world, but its cool.

if you are doing something like trying to capture something moving fast or something with detail like dust and dirt flying in the air, use a 1/100th shutter speed to capture the crispness. but you should use 1/48th for most everyday shooting.

And most folks who've used it caution strongly against using motion smoothing. I haven't tried it, however, so I can't vouch for the advice; but definitely try it out before you use it.

giuseppe, how would you describe 1/24 speed effect?

Another reason for using 1/24 is in low light situations with little movement. It will give you a full stop of extra exposure.

Anybody have experience with motion smoothing?

giuseppe, how would you describe 1/24 speed effect?
1/24th shutter looks "streaky" like the digital taxi scenes in "Collateral (http://www.apple.com/trailers/dreamworks/collateral/)" or every night scene in the new "Miami Vice (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/miamivice/)." I guess Michael Mann just likes the video streak look? It also looks like they had the gain turned up for every digital scene in both films.

1/24th shutter looks "streaky" like the digital taxi scenes in "Collateral (http://www.apple.com/trailers/dreamworks/collateral/)" or every night scene in the new "Miami Vice (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/miamivice/)." I guess Michael Mann just likes the video streak look? It also looks like they had the gain turned up for every digital scene in both films.
Tim, this is a great example of turning something that people would consider normally something to avoid into a new tool. I love this stuff :)

Anybody have experience with motion smoothing?

Yes -- it should be used when shooting scenes with lots of motion where one would like to be shooting 60p or 60i. It adds extra motion blur to help cover the strobbing that comes from the low temporal rate.

Do not use it in any other situations because the extra blur is not needed.

To some (Tim) the motion blur looks like streaking which he calls a negative. This is a subjective judgement, and I'd advise trying it out.

In fact, now that I think of it -- why does this question keep coming up?

Go to a busy intersection with cars speeding through and others slowing and turning. Shoot both modes and see for yourself.

Steve,

Amos asked in his original question what shutter speed to use to achieve "24P film look." Those of us with a film background are simply answering the question, and the typical answer is 1/48th, or higher if you want less motion blur.

Aesthetically, any filmmaker (Michael Mann for example) can use any shutter speed they want to achieve the look they are going for. It won't be the traditional "film look" if you shoot at 1/24th or lower, but that is up to them.

Yes -- it should be used when shooting scenes with lots of motion where one would like to be shooting 60p or 60i. It adds extra motion blur to help cover the strobbing that comes from the low temporal rate.
I don't want to rant, but since when has 24fps been considered a "low" temporal frame rate? Sure it is lower than 60fps, but it has been the industry standard since the late 1920's and I don't think any filmmaker has complained that the motion blur wasn't strong enough. Isn't the whole point of cameras like the DVX/HVX/XL2/HD100 to put 24fps tools in the hands of those who otherwise couldn't afford to shoot on film?

I don't want to rant, but since when has 24fps been considered a "low" temporal frame rate?

Since film is 24fps and video is 60i -- and now 60p -- it certainly seems reasonable to classify them as Low and High.

Moreover, there are serious limitations to 24fps which are not present at 60i or 60p. These limitations are why filmmakers have experimented with "higher" framerates.

Problems: The inherent motion blur from a handheld camera working at 24fps, causes a fine detail pixel to be spread amoungst several which means your new HD camera just became an SD camera. Motion is also far more realistic at 60i and 60p.

So yes -- 24fps is a "low" temporal frame rate. The fact that many like this look -- doesn't make it not "low."

And, by the way, as soon as the new JVC's arrive many of us will be shooting 60p. In fact, given the number of 50i/60i video shooters in the world, safe to say numerically more will be shooting 60p than 24p.

Perhaps, 24fps will go the way of 18fps once folks see HD at 60p. :)

Motion is also far more realistic at 60i and 60p.

Perhaps, 24fps will go the way of 18fps once folks see HD at 60p. :)

Maybe, but 24P with its 'less real' motion is what movie goers have wanted for all these years over 60i tv which gives motion a more realistic look.

24P started as a tradeoff between acceptable illusion of motion and the cost of how many frames of film you wanted to pay for each second (They could always overcrank back then). It has become an 'aesthetic look' with its motion cadence that audiences like because they go to movies to escape reality for a couple hours.

But since my new camera can crank out 1080 60P (at lower resolution), I will have to watch some of it to see if I like it or just want to use it as most do, for smooth slo-mo effects.

Personally, I don't like shallow DOF. It is not 'realistic' either. Your eyes don't have natural shallow DOF because they instantly refocus to whatever you look at so you perceive deep DOF in real life. But filmmakers and still photographers all use it as an artistic tool.

In this day and age, 24P is just part of an artist's palette as is shallow DOF.

But hey, maybe a new generation will slowly embrace the realistic look of 60P and higher. Just need to wait for a few baby-boomers to keel over first cause they like their 24P.

-gb-

Hi Greg. I would agree with this one:


In this day and age, 24P is just part of an artist's palette as is shallow DOF.


but not this one:

Maybe, but 24P with its 'less real' motion is what movie goers have wanted for all these years over 60i tv which gives motion a more realistic look.


I don't think movie goers are the ones demanding 24p (or shallow depth of field), it is just what the people in the industry want to provide. Things will eventually change as technology moves on, tools are replaced, and, as you say, new generations embrace newer formats.

Richard

Hi Greg. I would agree with this one:



but not this one:



I don't think movie goers are the ones demanding 24p (or shallow depth of field), it is just what the people in the industry want to provide. Things will eventually change as technology moves on, tools are replaced, and, as you say, new generations embrace newer formats.

Richard
So, movie goers don't really care about the timeless effect of 24p?

I am sure people will adjust to new formats but I just find it hard to believe that people are willing to drop 24p to some cheesy reality look.

Maybe I am just too old to accept this new generation stuff.

So, movie goers don't really care about the timeless effect of 24p?

I am sure people will adjust to new formats but I just find it hard to believe that people are willing to drop 24p to some cheesy reality look.

Maybe I am just too old to accept this new generation stuff.

You are not too old -- you are simply assuming the only thing folks care to shoot are "movies."

If I'm filmimg a battle, tigers leaping at me, an ER, training how to defuse a bomb, chanting in a temple, a climb to the top a mountain, a visit to the Titanic, etc. -- I want to put the audience RIGHT IN THE SITUATION.

It amazes me that when there are so many interesting "real" events to shoot all over the world, so many want to make "movies." I'd sure rather shoot on the International Space Station. And, I'd only want to shoot 60p.

I suspect that next fall, this list will find a lot of 60p shooters who love the look of HD VIDEO and have no interest in a "film look."

It seems this comes up a lot... I am a huge fan of solid 24p 1/48th shooting... as said before, its been the standard from 1920 and on. There is a big reason why when you look at a soap opera you think... cheesy soap opera... its because they shoot at a "high frame rate" (yes it is interlaced so not the best example but...) this is the whole difference between the film look and not. When people go to see a movie they don’t want to see the same affect that they see coming out of their little sony handy cam at 60p they want to see it at 24p weather they realize it or not.

MANY tests have been done with control audiences trying to introduce 60p and even interlaced formats, and from what I read they always like the look of 60p projected, but they always say the wouldn’t like it when they were watching a film. Its "just to real". I truly believe the only reason why 60p is on the new camera is so we can "over crank" our cameras so we can shoot slomo.

There is a big reason why we all are interested in the jvc hd100 and thats for the 24P, HD, and real lens. I highly doubt this camera would have taken off at all if it was a 60p camera trying to be introduced as a new film standard... there’s just no way...

I’ve said it before and ill say it again - The people with a problem with 24p are usually the people who are not used to working with it, or are used to interlaced formats and just don’t realize how important the 24p standard really is. You must have a favorite movie, if not more than one... guess what, its shot in 24p haha. I think instead of worrying about what you "cant do" with 24p (don’t think there is anything you cant do) try to LEARN how to use it the way the rest of us do.

It’s a tool, use it as a tool, but don’t put the 24p down, if you like 60p for your own work, then that’s all fine and well, but if you want to make it in the film business and try to get distribution, it better be in 24p. there’s a very small and limited amount of area where you can use 60p or interlaced formats and get away with it… like spots. But other than that, if you are telling a story, 24p it is.

Personally I don’t like to push anything, but I just think its kinda silly that people keep bringing up “problems” with 24p when this whole part of the site is dedicated to a camera that’s main selling point is to shoot at 24p! Yes there are lots of other “real world situation shooting” that you can use higher film rates… but then why would you be using the jvc, when its not a camera known to shoot that type of stuff ?

I know there will be a rebuttal to this, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think I’m speaking for the majority of the people who talk about this camera, own this camera, and shoot with this camera.

Sorry If i sound frustrated, i think ive just seen this come up too many times, and its kinda boring seeing this come up over and over again.

I know that was a long post haha.

And most folks who've used it caution strongly against using motion smoothing. I haven't tried it, however, so I can't vouch for the advice; but definitely try it out before you use it.

I agree. Motion smoothing adds a double image ghost trace behind any moving object, which means you can't make snapshots pics from your video.

It looks better with it off.

And, by the way, as soon as the new JVC's arrive many of us will be shooting 60p.

You can view 60p right now with the HD-100 by simply using the analog component jacks into a High Definition TV.

I hate 60p. It looks too much like 60i. Too sterile and "live" looking.

30p seems to be just right if you aren't planning on using it for film.

You are not too old -- you are simply assuming the only thing folks care to shoot are "movies."

If I'm filmimg a battle, tigers leaping at me, an ER, training how to defuse a bomb, chanting in a temple, a climb to the top a mountain, a visit to the Titanic, etc. -- I want to put the audience RIGHT IN THE SITUATION.

It amazes me that when there are so many interesting "real" events to shoot all over the world, so many want to make "movies." I'd sure rather shoot on the International Space Station. And, I'd only want to shoot 60p.

I suspect that next fall, this list will find a lot of 60p shooters who love the look of HD VIDEO and have no interest in a "film look."

For the record Steve, I don't make movies and have no interest in doing so. I am a reality kind of guy and I love full on deep DOF high framerate stuff. I even looked into buying one of the really high speed motion capture cameras for some specialty jobs I want to do. I'm talking several hundred fps.

But with that said, I understand the 'aesthetic look' of 24P and how it takes an audience 'out of reality' which as I stated earlier is what audiences like. Most people don't know what 24P and framerates are, they just know they like how it looks on the big screen.

Yes, give us folks some 'you are there' reality type stuff at 60P on Discovery HD or National Geographic. If you shoot it, I'll watch it, just not while I am curled up next to my sweetheart with a bucket of popcorn. I save those moments for feature length 24P. ;-)

-gb-

Well this one tumbled out of control quickly! I think all views have been equally represented on the temporal framerate thing... and all are valid.
Traditional filmmakers were attracted to 24P in the HD100 as a means of simulating the temporal properties of film, and reality based videographers and sports broadcasters will be attracted to the HD200/250 for 60P clarity. We've all seen the superbowl broadcast in 720P60 it it looked awesome, especially slo-mo replays.

So "Suum cuique!"

I think Amos' original question was answered accurately, so I'm going to lock this one now.