Why 24P is Important from RED Centre Podcast

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

and if it looks good to the naked eye. What's the problem exactly? [...] My point is that obviously you can deliver a fairly clean 24p project from 30p material. There are plenty of examples floating around the web.

Your reasoning reminds me a bit of the early 1990s when some (so-called professionals) were perplexed that we started developing tools for 24bit/96kHz audio, since, according to them, "no one can possibly hear the difference between it and the established 16/48 standard".

Hence, I would hope an issue like "30p to 24p" would have gotten a little bit more "scientific" attention than just trusting ones "naked eye" and relying on "examples floating around the web" as measurements.

So again, I thoroughly appreciated the RED guys podcast discussion that Mark pointed us to.

-- peer

[Tony Tibbetts]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

Your reasoning reminds me a bit of the early 1990s when some (so-called professionals) were perplexed that we started developing tools for 24bit/96kHz audio, since, according to them, "no one can possibly hear the difference between it and the established 16/48 standard".

Yeah, but who delivers in 24/96? The analogy doesn't really apply, if it did the HD Audio market would be a giant cash cow right now. When was the last time you purchased an HDCD? Plenty of people have shot on MiniDV and achieved theatrical distribution. Digital intermediates have been 2k, well below the standard resolution of film.

Whatever. I get that you're trying to vaguely insult me by insinuating I may not be a professional, but that's boring and pointless so let's get to the real issue...

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

Hence, I would hope an issue like "30p to 24p" would have gotten a little bit more "scientific" attention than just trusting ones "naked eye" and relying on "examples floating around the web" as measurements.

So again, I thoroughly appreciated the RED guys podcast discussion that Mark pointed us to.

-- peer

I do appreciate Mark posting the link, I appreciate the discussion it has produced. I just don't appreciate the podcast itself. In regards to the 5D it borders on ignorant. They don't know what they are talking about. If were going to talk about the "science" of it, then they should very well know the difference between 30p and 60i. Unfortunately the speakers in the podcast didn't apply an REAL "scientific attention". Just assumption and guess work.

Really, the podcast seems a little fishy to me anyway. How could they not know that the 5D shoots in 30p and not 60i? Because of that, how can they possibly know what a 30p to 24p conversion will result in?

Unless... unless... they've never actually used the camera and converted the footage!!!
Because that's exactly what it sounds like. So tell me why I (or anybody else for that matter) should care what their (obviously biased) opinion is on a camera they apparently haven't used or done any actual tests with?

After all this is a forum thread for the 5D and not the RED camera is it not?

I'd even go as far to say that my opinion on the subject is more "scientific" than theirs simply because I have actually shot with a 5D and converted it to 24p with excellent results. Unlike the "so-called professionals" in the podcast.

You see, the scientific method requires that one must actually TEST a hypothesis, instead of blathering on about what the outcome MIGHT be.

[Jack Kelly]

I just want to mention a few quick points.

Firstly, I just want to state my enthusiasm for the Red Centre podcast because this thread is descending into a bit of an RC-bashing session. I've been listening to RC since episode #1 and I think they guys do an awesome job. It is probably one of my favourite podcasts and I've learnt a lot from it. Yes, they do have quite a chatty style but I like that.

Regarding converting 30p to 24p... here's a frame grab provided by Stu Maschwitz when he converted a 5DmkII video from 30p to 24p using Compressor (which uses motion compensation):

Even on a simple shot, the Cinema Tools/Compressor 24p conver... on Twitpic

It's definitely worth reading what Stu has to say about 30-to-24p conversions on his Twitter stream around the 31st May:

Stu Maschwitz (5tu) on Twitter

The key quote is "It boils down to: I don't think every frame of your movie should be a computer's guess at what happened between frames you shot."

[Christian Ionescu]

24p + 180 degree = 1/48th. It is possible to have an 1/48th exposure for a 30fps frame rate, to get the "film look". The only problem is down converting to 24/25fps. Anyway, "film look" is not 24p. The film look is the man behind the camera. 2c

[Stephen van Vuuren]

It's always interesting to me how the 24p hating never stops. When I got one of the first DVX100's in the US and helped started the DVX100 forum here, it was really a firestorm of "strobing" "pulldown" with lots of people arguing the 30p mode of the DVX100 was the real one people would use.

Of course, they were wrong and the many 24fps video cameras that followed prove that point even stronger.

I also happen to be an expert at frame rate conversions in Twixtor due to my work with still image motion and I've taking 5D Mkii raw files and Twixtored them. You can create okay 24p & 25p footage from 30p but slower shutter speeds (more filmic shutter) can create ghosting problems and higher shutter speeds can create artifacts. I posted one sample here somewhere.

Is it doable? Yes. But you will have long renders that will alter your master and requiring two steps for any changes after conversion.

24p is best mastering format for narrative work - that is not an arguable point. It can be argued that is the best mastering format for most work although 50p and 60p have their place in the discussion. This is because:

1 - 24fps guarantees access to theatrical exhibition worldwide. And given the huge library of narrative works all at 24fps, it will always be a standard for centuries.
2 - 24fps can easily be converted to 25p, 50p, 60i, 60p and even 120p without ghosting, artifacts and the like
3 - 24fps makes better web, better DVD, better blu-ray, better digital downloads and better d-cinema because it's simply less frames to compress and process, saving time, space and money

Those are facts - the realities of 24p. However, 50p and 60p render better motion for live events and sports as well as some news and journalism and are often a better choice (though NFL films and many others did fine shooting film).

And beyond fact, I've participated in our cities 48 Hour film festival for 5 years and see footage from any camera and framerate combo you can think of. A 60i film (and we have some very sharply done ones by seasoned pro) has never won. the 24p films have won every year, both audience and judges awards.

So unless someone has a really convincing argument that distributors, post houses and audiences prefer 30p, the 5D Mkii needs to add it (and you figure will add it, hopefully as a firmware update, not as a 5D Mkiii)

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Christian Ionescu

24p + 180 degree = 1/48th. It is possible to have an 1/48th exposure for a 30fps frame rate, to get the "film look".

There are a few ways to approach the "make 30p look like 24p film" challenge:

1) Shoot at 1/60th. Slow the footage down. The result is perfect 24p with 180 degree shutter, albeit in slight slow motion.

2) Shoot at 1/48th (well, 1/50). This might be the right solution for dropping frames to hit 24p. (Can you say Vimeo?) 1/48th is a bit long, but by the time you drop six frames a second, it's an average of 180 degrees (smear, smear, smear, smear, jump...)

3) Shoot at 1/80. I like this (in theory) when playing back in 30p. Why? The gap between the exposures is 1/48th. The 1/80th exposure time is a bit stuttery, but this helps balance the extra smoothness that we get with 30fps vs. 24 fps. It's possible that this is also the best rate for conversions to 24p - too much smear makes conversions difficult. The sharper frames can be easier to convert - in theory.

But like Tony said above, test the theory. This is a subjective area, so try some test shoots yourself. If they all look the same to you, I'd choose 1/60 as your default. Maybe you prefer the smoothness of 1/50 or the slight stutter of 1/80.

Another factor is lighting. Do you get strobing at 1/60 and 1/80? Then definitely shoot at 1/50. One thing for sure, strobing lights are not part of the "film look".

But in the end, this is all hoop jumping. If/when Canon gives us 24/25p, we can get back to the business of telling stories with moving pictures.

[Nick Hiltgen]

I don't understand why anyone thinks 24p is being attacked. Maybe it's in the podcast but the only thing I've seen attacked in this thread is 30p. I think no one would complain if the 5d had 24p. But to say you can't shoot and distribute a movie based on one format is rediculous, yes 24 may be more mainstream but that doesn't mean there isn't an option for a good movie to get distribution if it's shot in a different format.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

It's always interesting to me how the 24p hating never stops (....) And beyond fact, I've participated in our cities 48 Hour film festival for 5 years and see footage from any camera and framerate combo you can think of. A 60i film (and we have some very sharply done ones by seasoned pro) has never won. the 24p films have won every year, both audience and judges awards.

And what about 30p? I'm not 'hating' on 24p, that's generally what I shoot on my XHA1, I'm just getting tired of the 30p 'hating' that I see so much in discussions of the 5D.

My original argument was simply that 30p is much, much closer to 24p, visually, than to 60i - so if your goal is to get a 'film look' rather than 'video look' I personally feel 30p with the right shutter speed is close enough that most audiences (i.e. people who don't read this forum) won't notice the difference, whereas they can generally tell the difference if something is shot at 60i.

As for the podcast I don't think the hosts were confused at all about the 5D's format - the discussion of 60i had to do with the fact that conversion from 30p to 25p is significantly more difficult than either a 24p or 60i source - and for either international shooters or those seeking traditional (non-internet) international distribution that seems to me the best argument for needing 24p rather than just 30p.

[Bill Binder]

I tend to agree that a lot of folks (not everyone mind you) think that 30p = 60i, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

Yeah, but who delivers in 24/96? The analogy doesn't really apply, if it did the HD Audio market would be a giant cash cow right now. When was the last time you purchased an HDCD?

HDCD..? The 24bit/96kHz that I referred to were systems we worked on for signal processing in post.

They don't know what they are talking about. If were going to talk about the "science" of it, then they should very well know the difference between 30p and 60i. Unfortunately the speakers in the podcast didn't apply an REAL "scientific attention". Just assumption and guess work.

I can assure you, both Mike and Jason know very well the difference between 30p and 60i, and they know quite a bit more than that too.

You see, the scientific method requires that one must actually TEST a hypothesis, instead of blathering on about what the outcome MIGHT be.

This is disingenuous. But since I know Jason will reply to this thread shortly, I'll let him lecture you.

-- peer

[Silton Buendia]

Well for distribution you can always export to 60i, that works for most TV programing so thats a non issue.

Also bottom line is if your stuff is good, doesn't matter what frame rate it is, big deal distributers will still take it. Anyone ever watch the Blair Witch Project?

[Tony Tibbetts]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

HDCD..? The 24bit/96kHz that I referred to were systems we worked on for signal processing in post.

So if the amount of information a file/format carries is the most important aspect of production and post production, then why are we not all shooting and doing post in 60p? By your rationale 30p is a superior format because it carries more information than 24p. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly your analogy applies to this forum topic and frame rate conversion in general.

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

I can assure you, both Mike and Jason know very well the difference between 30p and 60i, and they know quite a bit more than that too.

Maybe they do... maybe they don't. I was speaking strictly about the statements made in their podcast. Specifically, the difficulties in converting 30p files from the 5D to 24p. In said podcast, they related some of the problems to fields. There are NO fields in 30p. It's just that simple.

Maybe they were saying fields when they meant frames. I'll have to listen to the podcast again to be sure, but I recall them relating some of the problems to fields that result in stair stepping.

I don't listen to their podcasts. Maybe they are the podcast video rock stars you make them out to be. I'm sure they are very knowledgeable guys. I'll even assume that 99% of the time they are spot on.

This time? No so much.

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

This is disingenuous. But since I know Jason will reply to this thread shortly, I'll let him lecture you.

No more disingenuous than than stating a known 30p camera shoots in 60i. Obviously the 5D is stealing a little thunder from RED. The fact that they obviously have a bias in regards to the RED camera makes this "fields" faux pas more suspect.

Lastly... I must give you kudos for your last comment. It was hilarious! Your sycophantic adoration is a little... uhhh, weird, but it was funny none the less. I haven't laughed like that in quite some time. It's amusing to know that lil' Peer is waiting around for big daddy to come give me a stern talking to. LOL!

Originally Posted by Silton Buendia

Also bottom line is if your stuff is good, doesn't matter what frame rate it is, big deal distributers will still take it. Anyone ever watch the Blair Witch Project?

True. Very True.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

So if the amount of information a file/format carries is the most important aspect of production and post production, then why are we not all shooting and doing post in 60p?

Actually, if it was possible to get, say, 96000 frames per second (as we do in sound) this would indeed be better -- the higher the sampling rate, the more interpolation possibilities. But as of yet, the sampling rates of audio vs video aren't even in the same ballpark.

I'm still trying to figure out how exactly your analogy applies to this forum topic and frame rate conversion in general.

That's fine, I'll try help you out by rehashing this one more time:
You stated that "if it looks good to the naked eye" there shouldn't be any "problem" and that "there are plenty of examples floating around the web" to prove this point.

To this I replied that this measurement -- "if it looks good to the naked eye" -- didn't sound very scientific to me, and that it reminded me of some people who said exactly the same thing to us ("if it sounds good to the naked ear") when we were developing 24bit/96kHz audio tools early in the 90's.

You see, some of us are so anal that we use oscilloscopes, spectrograms, and even raw bit-stream printouts to determine "if it sounds good enough". Hence, if my field of work had been in video, I doubt I would rely on your "if it looks good to the naked eye" or use those "plenty of examples floating around the web" as my measuring tool.

-- peer

[Brian Luce]

The problem is that the numbers never tell the full story -- at least the way they're thrown around in these forums, ultimately the naked eye is the final arbiter.

[Peer Landa]

When it comes to this kind of work, "the naked eye" is trivial, as in; everyone has one. To satisfy peoples "naked eyes", science and engineering rely on more sophisticated tools (in conjunction with the eyes).

-- peer