I love 24P and now shoot it over 95% of the time.

Best way to solve the problem, get a PAL HV20 and then convert the final master footage to 24P afterwards using something like Cineform. There's quite a few camera operators in the US shooting in PAL. If you shoot 25P on the PAL HV20, you can edit at 25P or you can edit at 50i. The 25P footage will still appear the same on either.

I was out in the sun today, playing a little with 25p, and Tv. When the shutter time got too short, then I got the stroboscobic experience that some people complains about with 25p. It looks very bad, and like recorded with a cheap camera.

I think for shutter times faster than 1/50s, it is worth considering switching to 50i instead, then you get frames in between.. Of course stills taken from the video will only be 540 pixels high. But that is the price you pay.

One thing I found strange is, that next shutter speed down from 1/50s for me is 1/120s. This value makes no sense on the PAL version. 1/100s, 1/200s, 1/400s, .... would be better, as it would match if you double speed the movie.

Just for info. I tried to record in a dark room, 1/250s, and firing the flash. The white stripe that comes across the picture is a little higher than 1/5th of the screen, so I guess the slowest the shutter will do (sync speed) is 1/60s.

I guess, that rolling shutter will not happen with shutters slower than 1/60s, but of course there will be blur instead.

I was wondering the same thing!

There's definitely a visual difference between 35mm and video-based 24 frames per second. Without pulldown the HV20 24p material is very blurry and quite hard to watch on a traditional interlaced screen, especially hand held footage. On a computer screen you don't notice this nearly as much. With pulldown, it can look amazing on both a computer and TV.

The reverse is true for 60i material too. The "video" look that it produces is much more present when viewing on a TV, and not so much on a computer screen, at least in my own experience.

Good points - I agree - 60i on a computer screen looks less video like than on a TV.

Computer monitors are progressive, TVs are Interlaced...

You're viewing interlaced footage on a progressive screen... it looks more progressive than interlaced... :)

Of course, that's why I like it! I wish all screens were progressive, and with any luck, we'll get there in a few years.

It also depends on the mood you're trying to convey. I'm shooting some sketch comedy with some friends over the summer, and I keep flipping back and forth between 60i and 24p depending on what exactly we're doing. Shooting a fake commercial with guys yelling? 60i is probably better. Mockumentary about a weightlifter? 24p probably a better feel.

The most mentally disorienting thing I've seen was during a good portion of the last season of MTV's Undressed, they shot video but tried to use various filters and tricks to make it look like film. It bugged the heck out of me.

I thought that the main reason for removing the pulldowns is so these clips recorded in 24p can be watched as 24p and not for editing in 23.976 timeline.