Do you have a source for that info Jack? I'm a bit at a loss to understand why they would shoot in both formats and then convert one of them. 60i footage converted to 24p (via Magic Bullet, Filmlook etc) should have a similar cadence to 24p originated footage, no? Unless you are suggesting that the 24p footage was film-originated?

24p from the sensor has a cadence that is just like film, 60i from the sensor that is converted to 24p adds extra motion blur in fast moving scenes since the source is sampled at a higher framerate. You often notice there is too much blur in fast scenes in some 60i originating processed 24p.

You have to understand that when the sensor is getting 24p, it's getting full frames with film cadence. 60i converted footage takes several fields to construct a frame resulting in extra motion blur. I've yet to see 60i sourced footage with the same cadence as 24p other than discarding a field and slowing down to 80%.

Doesn't "cadence" specifically refer to the ordering of the fields? Sounds like we are discussing the look that results from the process due to exposure time of a given field or frame, which is not a function of the cadence per se.

It's possible that the show is shot with 35mm film, at 29.97fps. This does give a "smoother" look.

It's used for commercials all the time, but I don't know how much for series - it does increase the film and lab budget considerably.

Bill Engeler

Ah, then I phrased it wrong, the blur is not the same, not the cadence.