James Cameron and 24p
 

' ...
Strobing is an inevitable result of the 24 fps standard adopted decades ago. "It's not fast enough," Cameron said flatly. "It should never have been 24. It probably should've been 36 as a minimum."

It's been proven that faster frame rates improve the picture just as more pixels do.
...'

From
3D TVs one-up theaters - Entertainment News, David Cohen, Media - Variety

There's no doubt and no quibbling that film does in fact have a more "organic" feel and look to it, and absolutely one of the reasons is the physical difference of how "frames" are exposed.

One thing that constantly get's glossed over about video cameras - especially those that have a 24p output option - is that video cameras are very much like digital-still cameras, either compact or those DSLR's that have a "live view" mode: That being there is no physical shutter to create the division between frames and the sensor is always "hot" and active.

"Frames" and shutter effects are all software-controlled algorithms, *simulations* if you will, not created by physical devices inside the camera. In fact the only physical hardware in video cameras for creating a "look" are the IRIS and lens focus/zoom controllers. Some would say that ND filters are also physical devices but in some video cameras even ND filters are nothing more than the voltage being ramped-down on the imaging chips - yet more software in action.

So in point of fact, when a video camera creates frames at any per-second rate it's simply turning on and off it's capture of what the imaging chips are seeing, and it will do it in one of two methods, either using a "global shutter" (the entire chip is energized all at once making a full-on static image per frame) or "rolling shutter" (the chip is energized in sections from top to bottom very much like how raster lines paint tube-type TV sets) which can create image skew in panning or fast-moving objects moving across the frame.

A motion-picture film camera by contrast has a shutter that spins around and as the shutter opening moves across the frame it "wipes" the area with light exposing the image on the emulsion - one frame at a time.

There is yet another not-so-obvious distinction between video and film that I never see addressed anywhere, the difference between pixels and film grain. Immediately you're probably thinking "noise" characteristics, but I'm referring to something different:

Regardless what video camera you're talking about, be it a pocket-sized handycam, DSLR or even a Thomson Viper every video camera exhibits one very important characteristic: The amount of pixels available never changes AND, those pixels are in *exactly* the same position from frame to frame and never change. Ever.

Film by contrast has grain that isn't the same from frame to frame, indeed every single frame of film has a completely unique pattern - it's own "fingerprint" if you will - of it's grain particles and no two frames are ever alike. That piece of grain in the upper right hand corner of frame 1 is completely different than in frame 2 making for a 100% organic element to transmit light onto. I have always believed that is one of the reasons that digital imaging, be it still or video, has always had an almost sterile look to it - at times being too clean, too perfect thus being less interesting to our eyes.

So yes, film will always have a more natural, organic and palpable difference from video not matter what the camera type, codec or lens being used.

My 2.5 cents.

The "improving picture" part is the source of the whole debate, it depends how you define improving. Some people find "more realistic" to be an "improvement" and some don't. It's debatable, it doesn't have a right or wrong answer, it's different for different people. I personally prefer the slightly more dreamy, less reality, feel of 24 fps at 1/48 shutter -- just like I often prefer B&W Tri-X 400 pushed one stop rather than digital color that's clean of noise and sharp as a whistle. To each his own.

I agree with you -- this is the problem with video today. But when you say that "film will *always* have a more natural, organic and palpable difference from video" I think you simply overlook what the near future can/will bring us. (Reminds me a bit of some vinyl audiophiles who never expected we would soon recreate the "warmth" of their beloved 33⅓ rpm'ers ;^)

-- peer

Yeah no doubt. A lot of people don't even realize that vinyl comes with it's own set of problems, that's why if you're going to press to vinyl, you should go with someone who knows how to specifically master for that media. Is 24/96 digital audio there yet? I personally think so, but many people will argue with that, just like the film/digital thing...

When I watch all of the newest films, especially the ones with a lot of digital effects, on an HD TV, I am struck with how overly "unorganic" the images can be. That is one reason I like the 5D so much. They tell us that the 5D doesn't have near the resolution as and EX 1 or 3. That suits me fine. I think the 5d, when shot with a low sharpness setting, and reduced contrast and saturation, can yield some pretty organic looking stuff. And if there is a need to add sharpness, contrast, or saturation, you can still do it in post. I am still learning about this camera, and hoping the 24p will even help more.

On the set it's usually 48 KHz 24 bit (or 47.952 pulldown), but for sound effects most everything we record is in 96/24 to get more dynamic range to work with in post. I bet soon the 48/24 conversion also goes 96/24.

-- peer