Why 25p IS important
 

This is a reply for the last post by Bill Davis in the now closed "Why 24p is important" thread.

I found it very interesting since he basically says the only reason to want 24p or 25p in the 5D is a very unlikely european distribution of your work or an even more unlikely transfer to film. All that to end up saying that people are complaining for nothing (for a pimple behind Cindy Crawford's knee he says).

While I agree that 99% of the footage shot with the 5D will never get to be shown on a movie screen, he seems to forget that the MOST important reason to add 25p or EVEN 24p in the 5D is the fact that so far there's no use for this camera in PAL land other than watching footage in a computer. You cannot use it for anything else and that includes of course any kind of professional work.

I've noticed some people are quite happy with the last firmware update since they don't need 24p or 25p for their work and manual controls are everything they want, but this is not over.

Canon has offered a very important update since manual controls are a must for ANY kind of professional work, but I said it before and I say it again, releasing a one of a kind professional level camera just for the NTSC standard is a huge mistake. Not because I live in a PAL country, but because MOST of the world is PAL. IMHO that's a HUGE pimple covering a half of Cindy's body.

I don't know if the lack of 24/25p in the 5D is there simply to protect their video products or the famous future professional APS-C video camera (one of the big guys at Canon said "25p is too close to 24p") but I'd like to think if we keep on asking for that feature, it'll eventually be added.

So please, don't stop here! We're very close to an almost perfect camera!

As you might have seen from that other thread, some people here actually think that this is "no big deal" and that the post conversion looks "good enough". However, I'm with you -- owning this camera without 24/25p is like dating a supermodel who's oblivious of her big zit on her nose.

-- peer

Jose,

You're exactly right. As Chris wrote at the end of the previous thread, 25p is critically important. PAL customers should be able shoot video, connect the camera to their PAL TVs and see the result without dropping frames.

Filmmakers want 24p (badly). PAL customers need 25p.

SMPTE acknowledges the need for matching the capture rate and the display rate. There is a proposal within 21 DC to add 25, 30, 50, 60, and optionally 16, 18, and 20 fps to the digital cinema standard. They recognize that not all content is captured at 24 or 48 fps (the current standard), and that the frame rate conversion is problematic. The cheapest and highest quality frame rate conversion is none at all.

My own experience in creating a Blu-ray from international content for international distribution was that the fancy conversions were often flawed and needed hand tweaking of thresholds to deal with varying amounts of motion and focus blur. I ended up using only frame blending or frame drops. (That said, I clearly didn't try all of the possible tools out there.)

So, while some may have developed an acceptable workaround, 24/25p is still critically important. We had workarounds for manual control too, but the real thing is soooo much better. :)

Changing frame rates in post is not a solution.

So, either the world agrees on 30p or give us 25p NOW! ;-DD

For a static talking head interview, will 30p to 25p conversion still be problematic? or is it only with scenes with significant motion?

Dear Jose,

Let me start by saying that you're correct, I did ignore the needs of a huge part of the market that works in PAL or other countries that rely on a different frame rate for simple equipment compatibility.

Chalk it up to my typical American-centric stupidity that tends to view everything through the lens of what works over here.

My apologies. I'm working to better keep in mind that forums like DV-I are global in reach and not the on-line equivalent of a local video enthusiasts meeting! Bad on me.

That said, however, there's a clear distinction between the legitimate needs of someone who simply wants their footage to be compatible with THEIR local standard - and the sometimes loud chorus of those who are firmly convince that there's something "magical" about the "filmic motion blur" that can ONLY be achieved by shooting 24p - and who seem to feel that without that magic, their otherwise brilliant video will fail.

I keep trying to be a voice for the reality that in the evolution of any filmmaker, one typically only has time to get around to learning the CRITICAL functions of filmmaking (direction of actors, storytelling, etc. ) AFTER one puts the technical stuff to rest.

And that great movies have NEVER been made exclusively by people who stand around and argue whether a shot would be "superior" if captured with a 50mm prime or with a zoom set on 50mm. Yes, that decision may be momentarily important. Yes, lens light gathering ability and subsequent depth of field effect might even be fundamental to how the scene is viewed by the audience... But what will make the movie WORK or not WORK isn't the aesthetics of the scene but the CONTENT of it. The PERFORMANCE is what will carry it. How the scene relates to the scenes before and after it. Whether the STORY arc is compelling. The perfect filmic look of a crappy, poorly acted scene is STILL just a poorly acted scene. And any director who succeeds at directing the EQUIPMENT or Film Processing and yet fails to direct the MOVIE is going to fail.

That was my point.

Thanks for helping me try not to confuse people with my poor wording and get the point lost in my regrettable US-centric thinking.

Take care.

This would be one of the easier conversions - especially, if it's shot with a deep field of focus and tripod-based. There's low local motion, no global motion, and no blurry edges.

Also, because there is little motion, the audience is less likely to be able to tell the difference between formats anyway - even with dropped frames.

That said, my Dish DVR occasionally plays back with dropped frames. It's very noticeable on sports, but I can detect this even on news/interview shows. Talking heads don't move long in any one direction, but blinks and mouth movements can be instantaneously quick. I don't let the artifact bother me. I just tell myself that the box is attempting "the film look". :)

Well, not "exclusively", but still there have been quite a few film-makers who were compulsive that way -- Kieslowski, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Bergman, etc., come to mind.

-- peer

He's baaaaaaaaaack! With another wacky analogy.

Actually a supermodel with a zit is no big deal. A zit can be dealt with. It certainly wouldn't give me pause when dating her.

If she makes good girlfriend material, I personally think the benefits of the dating a supermodel (or any woman for that matter) far outweigh the any minor blemishes she may have (or be oblivious to). The same goes for the 5D. I don't have a zealotry for everything to be perfect. As I stated in the last thread... adapt, improvise, and overcome.

So,I guess your analogy (disregarding the odd female objectification) is correct from a completely subjective viewpoint.

Anyway back to the point. Here's where you may be shocked Peer.

I do think 25p is important. Yup, I said it. For the reasons Jose and Jon state. Jon put it best:

30p can easily be converted to 60i for DVD and Blu-Ray delivery. It cannot be so easily converted to 25p or 50i for that matter. Being able to playback the files in a PAL region is a must. For that reason it is a necessity for people in PAL dominated countries.

That being said. 30p can be converted to 25p (and 24p) with good results, it just happens to be a tedious process. I know because I've done it. I just haven't made a podcast about it.

Pushing 25p I think is way to go towards getting Canons attention. I imagine they will do this before 24p is available. The PAL people need it, it makes business sense, and that makes it a step closer to getting them to implement 24p on the 5D (or future cameras) for NTSC markets.

...Kieslowski, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Bergman, LANDA, etc.

Remember, I said she's "oblivious of her big zit" -- which most likely indicates some more severe dysfunctionally. But go ahead, Tony, date her.

I agree, and hopefully 25p before 24p. (I'm European after all ;^)

Thank you Tony, you are so sweet.

-- peer

Big zit and personality dysfunction? If she's a supermodel I'm still in.

Does not compute. Trying to think of a supermodel who doesn't notice zits is making my brain explode.

ANd IMO, none of those names would be who they are if they hadn't learned to largely keep those discusssions AWAY from the flow of the scene. When they arrived on the set, they, and their cinematographers KNEW which lens they were using and why. Even if there was a field change in the face of set or location circumstances -- that stuff happened BEFORE the cast arrived and "places" was called. So to find them "standing around" and "chatting" about stuff like this - other than, perhaps, on a break for lunch, would be IDIOCY. Heck, in my corporate work, we've figured that on some of our modest little sets we're burning literally THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars an hour in the time value of not just gear - but in crew and talent costs and the time value of corporate executives standing around waiting to do their on-camera bits. On a REAL movie, that's probably measured in tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and hour. So you're telling me that it's OK for the director to engage in a 20 minute discussion of LENSES while burning through that kind of coin? Not going to happen.

Look, I've been a guest on two major movie sets in the past, and I've also been a guest or crewed on low budget digital films. One big difference is that on the small sets, the directors spent 80 percent of their time and energy directing THINGS - like camera placement, lights, shots, (lens choices!). etc. On the real films the directors paid little attention to that stuff and knew well in advance what was going to happen regarding physical equipment shot angles, recording, etc. and they concentrated on directing the PERFORMANCES.

Not surprising that they're the directors who've graduated OUT of the junior leagues, IMO.

Just something to think about since so many here have hopes of working their way up the ladder some day.

Dysfunctional supermodels need love too.


I meant that in regards to the whole "compulsion" aspect, but hey it is good company to be associated with none the less


Peer and I agree on something... and with that the first sign of the apocalypse is upon us.

I say only this:

the day this camera will shoot in 25P I will buy it.

So if the Canon want my money they have to add this feature.


Danilo
Italy (PAL land)

I live in NTSC land and I actually prefer 30p for the stuff I do, but I still think it is absolutely obsurd for Canon to not have 25p (and before 24p). Actually, stupid might be a better word.

I wonder how many of us in the US would be freakin' out if Canon only offered a 37p mode? I mean, it'd be no big deal to just use Compressor to pull it back to 30p so it could actually be used now would it? LMAO.

Would you buy a camcorder that is only good for static talking interviews??

8-)

Bravo! That's the only way to act!!!

Well, yeah, I would. The 5DmkII is cheap enough that if your business is shooting interviews like that it'll pay for itself in a week or less. Mine already has, and that's about the only type of paid shooting I do... the fact that the camera works so well for other stuff as well is just a bonus (for those who don't need to deliver 25p).

Actually, shooting interviews is a killer application for this camera. On a tripod, you can generally set perfect focus and leave it. You'd rarely need more than a small fill light. The shallow DOF can turn crappy backgrounds into nice blurs. Rolling shutter doesn't come into play. And, as said, this is as easy a frame rate conversion task as you'll find. The only thing lacking is built-in audio - and there are lots of good solutions for that.

So Evan, if you don't mind a short, temporary detour from the 24p topic, what lenses and kit are you using for interviews? My wife has a historical novel that is about to be published, and I plan to shoot some interviews with her discussing the historical context. http://www.annarichenda.com/

Jon, I wholeheartedly agree with you on all of these points, and I am actually gearing up to do a whole series of interviews in this exact vein -- natural light + reflector, shallow DOF, double-system sound of AKG480+ck63 > R44.

However, there is one fairly large gotcha with the 5D2 and interviewing, and that's the 4 gig file limit. The good news is due to static backgrounds, you tend to get more than the 12 minutes typical, but the bad news is that puppy can stop right in the middle of something good happening on camera. Now of course, you can watch the clock and try to pre-empt that let's say between questions when you're nearing the limit, and with double-system at least you know the audio will continue to roll, so you can cover with some b-roll if you do get stopped in your tracks, BUT... And here's the nasty gotcha, live view quits and the damn mirror shuts when you hit the 4-gig mark -- and it's easily loud enough to stomp all over your double-system sound.

I'll never understand the need for that, and it's something they could actually fix in firmware in one of two ways: (1) just stop recording but for god's sake don't shut the mirror, I mean the mirror doesn't shut when I manually stop recording, so why when you max out the file? or (2) to simply close the file and start a new file right back up again, sure it won't be a seamless break I'm sure, but at least you'd have no mirror slap and you wouldn't have to remember to be watching the clock all the time.

Anyway, I'm with you 100%, the 5D2 is great, but this one little wrinkle bums me out a little...

True. I did a few interviews a few weeks back and was averaging 14 minutes. This is one o f the flaws of the camera, even a beep would be nice just to let you know it has stopped.

absolutely! especially it can do 422 sampling for green screening. What does this camera sample at any way?

No beep! Or an optional beep maybe, LOL. Just restarting a new file would be nice.

So, when you hit 4 gigs does your cam kill live view and slap the mirror?

From my recollection... I don't think so. I think I just noticed the red dot disappear then quickly scrambled to get the recording going again. But don't take my word for it, it was bit of a hectic shoot with a short window of time for the location, so I may be remembering incorrectly.

Just this weekend I shot a 48 hour film and we got the 'mockumentary' genre, so it worked out as the perfect example 'interview' shoot for the 5D:

Sur Mesure: Journeys in Transpersonal Haberdashery on Vimeo

Most of the interviews mixed natural sunlight with a single Lowel Rifa as key ctb'd to match.

For the interviews I used either the kit 24-105mm lens or the 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS. Prior to the firmware update I was using a nikon 85mm f/2 as well. Honestly, for interviews, 2.8 and below is a little too shallow - you can see in the film above in the CU's on the main character her eyes are in focus but ears aren't - worked out fine because she didn't move around too much, but I haven't always been that lucky in the past. I actually really like the kit lens - f/4 isn't fast enough for really low light shots, but in interviews where you can mix some natural and artificial light it's the perfect dof for keeping your subject in focus while dropping the background out - an example in the film above is the band guy, although you have to look past the chain link fence to notice the dof drop off.

I figured this out finally and thought I would share, it was a doh! moment for sure, LOL.

When it stops recording at the 4 gig mark, it does NOT turn off live view or slap the mirror at that point. It was just that I have my standby time set to only 1 minute, so during the times I missed the fact that recording had stopped, it only takes one more minute for the cam to shut off, thus slapping the mirror, which got picked up by my sync sound sound (which sucked).

What's interesting here is it's kind of a catch-22 in a way. One the one hand, the off/slap is a reminder that you aren't recording any more (you idiot!). On the other hand, it steps all over your sync sound when it happens (which may be worse depending on your view of the world).

Anyway, the takeaway for me is that I'm going to extend standby a lot longer before interview shoots, and I'm going to be a lot more aggressive with stop/restarting video BEFORE the 4 gig mark. It might mean one more file to sync and one more short video gap, but probably not even that, and I'll be more likely to get a break between questions, so I think that's the way to go for me personally. I'll probably start looking for a break after I hit the 10 minute mark from now on.

Same here.

I am not sure that you don't see artifacts in static interviews, maybe you maximize your attention on the person and very little errors are evident...

Hmm, so in other words... you don't see artifacts in static interviews.

Honestly I don't know if you would or not, since I'm working at 30p myself. I'll try to get some time this week to do some test 30->25/24 conversions with some of the interview footage from my film - maybe try a simple drop frame, Compressor, and AE workflow to see if there's any appreciable difference when motion is relatively static.

Here is a video tutorial from Philip Bloom on a straightforward 30fps>24fps conversion using Final Cut Studio 2. How to convert Canon 5dmk2 footage from 30p to 24p on Vimeo I haven't yet tried the method but he describes the conversion as 'perfect'.

I've tried it, it works well. This was previously, uhhh... 'ahem' debated in the other thread "Why is 24p important". It's kind of what got the thread closed last time.

Were talking 25p here... let's not open up a can of worms. ;)

The tutorial may be billed as 30fps>24fps but the workflow for 30fps>25fps is identical. Some responses in this thread state that converting in post is not a solution. If this conversion is 'perfect' as claimed then this clearly is a solution.

Is it a solution? Yes. Is it perfect? No, but very very close. As close as you're gonna get, that's for sure.

I still want to do some practical experiments to see what shutter speed works best for the conversion.

Give it a shot. If you happen to like it, then it's a solution that works for you (and me for that matter)