If you had to shoot a movie tomorrow with this camera... at DVinfo.net

Spencer Dickson · December 12th, 2007, 12:43 PM

...would you shoot in 60i, 30f or 24f? Maybe you'd shoot in 60i and deinterlace. I don't know. Wanted to ask the pros. Sorry for the seemingly endless barrage of newbie questions...but I can't think of a better way to learn the fundamentals until I actually manage to get a camera. As always, advice appreciated.

P.S. Obviously, we are talking about getting some form of distribution for the film. i.e. a film that could make some money.

Joe Busch · December 12th, 2007, 01:05 PM

Depends if you want any slow-motion or not.

It's easier to emulate true slow motion with 60i than it is 30f.

And de-interlacing 60i to 30p or 24p is easy enough... why not get more information... unless you truly don't need it...

Spencer Dickson · December 12th, 2007, 08:44 PM

I am still not sure which footage looks better; deinterlaced 60i running at approximately 24 fps, or 24f. From what I understand, both processes cause some picture degradation. I just want to know what causes the least loss of picture quality.

Tony Tibbetts · December 12th, 2007, 09:04 PM

24f, 24f, and 24f

If I were to shoot a movie tomorrow 24f, because well, it's 24 frames per second.

24f because it loses only 10-15% resolution compared to the 60i material. Even the best deinterlacer isn't going to give you those results. Shoot 60i for slo-mo only.

Michael Friedman · December 12th, 2007, 09:07 PM

Distribution means a lot of things these days. Are you talking quality for a transfer to a film print? If so, I would guess that 24f would be best because it could be transfered frame:frame.

I imagine you would be fine either way. 'Iraq In Fragments' was nominated for an Oscar and won Best Cinematography at Sundance, it was shot in 24P and 24Pa on a DVX. 'Supersize Me' was shot 30i on a VX2000. The list goes on....

Shoot some tests that match the look of your film. Dark horror movie, fast-paced action movie, independent doc, all place different demands on the camera. Look at your tests and go with the look you like. I like 24F on this camera.

In the end, if your content is good enough to be distributed, frame rate will not hold you back.

Also, from this article: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/de...eman_pipeline/
Iraq In Fragments - Oscar Nominated Doc.
"Longley began production with a Panasonic AG-DVX100 MiniDV camcorder, and in 2004, he upgraded to the AG-DVX100A. A key reason for selecting these cameras was to capture at 24p in anticipation of an eventual 35mm filmout."

Jack Walker · December 12th, 2007, 10:07 PM

Don't shoot 30F if the final result will be 24 frames. 30 doesn't translate well to 24.

Exception: you can shoot 30F and just slow it down to 24 for a perfect slight slow motion effect.

The Canon 24f is arguably the best 24 frame HDV available.

If 60i were better for a final 24, why have 24f on the camera? I can't think of a good reason.

Exception as noted above: deinterlaced 60i will give you more frames for going to slow motion.

If you shoot 24f, make sure you shoot 1/48 shutter speed in general. Etc. etc. etc.

The best way to find out what you want to do is to do some tests. There may be some questions you need to ask you don't even know about yet.

Spencer Dickson · December 13th, 2007, 01:31 AM

I hadn't thought of theatrical distribution. My intention is to make dvds, but, if in the event I make something people want to see from a projector, I guess it would make the most sense to shoot in 24f wouldn't it? That would be a relief to know that I could just leave it on 24f and not have to bother with deinterlacing 60i footage and making it look like 24 fps etc. if the end result was that 24f lost less resolution than the more complicated process of deinterlacing. Jack, you are right: There will most likely be many question I need to ask once I actually get this camera.

Jerrod Cordell · December 14th, 2007, 02:08 AM

If you're looking at DVDs I'd either shoot in 30f or 24f and export it at 30p. This gives it a more film-like look when put on TV.

Brandon Freeman · December 14th, 2007, 10:28 AM

Another benefit of 24f to think about -- the HDV codec itself has less frames per second to process, which I would think translates into a better encoding and fewer artifacts. Clarifications?

All I know is, using the A1 myself in 24f, I've been blown away by how clean the picture is. There's camera noise, but not any blocks that I can see.

Spencer Dickson · December 14th, 2007, 04:06 PM

How much noise?

Bill Pryor · December 14th, 2007, 05:37 PM

I shoot everything 24f, and I've seen it projected in a theater with a 40' screen and it looks good.

Jarrod Whaley · December 16th, 2007, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrod Cordell

If you're looking at DVDs I'd either shoot in 30f or 24f and export it at 30p. This gives it a more film-like look when put on TV.

Why would you export 24f footage as 30p when DVD players are perfectly suited to playing back 24p MPEG-2 and inserting the necessary pulldown on the fly? If you shoot 24f: edit, export, and author at 24p. If you shoot 30f: edit, export, and author at 30p. Any conversion of 24p to 30p or vice versa is going to look like crap.

Raymond Toussaint · December 16th, 2007, 08:51 AM

Doing transfers video --> film is almost not done anymore, it is very expensive and distribution is also possible on digital non-film. Even the biggest doc festival in the world IDFA gives you digital viewing /presentation possibilities. Although people talk about it , in reality only ~3% is going to celluloid, being S166 or 35mm.

But if you like the looks: 24p or 25p being progressive has a lovely cadence and a nice standing still shot;>)

Chad Ream · December 16th, 2007, 10:01 AM

I have only used the camera in 60i or 24f. Personally I like the way 60i looks at the same time 24f is amazing. My only problem I have had with 24f play back is during panning shots.

Remember its just as important to take the time and set your scenes up properly to sell the film look. (depth of field, etc.) Very few people will ask themselves what frame rate the movie was produced in, especially if what they just watched was enjoyable. As Michael mentioned, good content is what will be distributed.

In any case - enjoy your shoot.

Chad

Seun Osewa · December 16th, 2007, 12:04 PM

Interlaced mode (60i) is better for DVDs. Even if you shoot 24p, you will have to encode as NTSC, which is 60i. Why not take full advantage of the smoother motion it offers?

If I intend to screen my movie with a projector that supports 60fps frame rate, I would shoot at 60i and then deinterlace it to 60p. Again, smoother motion. I'd rather have my audience thinking about my story than thinking about the judder!

December 12th, 2007, 12:43 PM	#1
Spencer Dickson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 141	If you had to shoot a movie tomorrow with this camera... ...would you shoot in 60i, 30f or 24f? Maybe you'd shoot in 60i and deinterlace. I don't know. Wanted to ask the pros. Sorry for the seemingly endless barrage of newbie questions...but I can't think of a better way to learn the fundamentals until I actually manage to get a camera. As always, advice appreciated. P.S. Obviously, we are talking about getting some form of distribution for the film. i.e. a film that could make some money.

December 14th, 2007, 10:28 AM	#9
Brandon Freeman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 226	Another benefit of 24f to think about -- the HDV codec itself has less frames per second to process, which I would think translates into a better encoding and fewer artifacts. Clarifications? All I know is, using the A1 myself in 24f, I've been blown away by how clean the picture is. There's camera noise, but not any blocks that I can see. __________________ Canon EOS 7D, Final Cut Studio 2

December 12th, 2007, 01:05 PM	#2
Joe Busch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sammamish, WA Posts: 398	Depends if you want any slow-motion or not. It's easier to emulate true slow motion with 60i than it is 30f. And de-interlacing 60i to 30p or 24p is easy enough... why not get more information... unless you truly don't need it...

December 12th, 2007, 08:44 PM	#3
Spencer Dickson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 141	I am still not sure which footage looks better; deinterlaced 60i running at approximately 24 fps, or 24f. From what I understand, both processes cause some picture degradation. I just want to know what causes the least loss of picture quality.

December 12th, 2007, 09:04 PM	#4
Tony Tibbetts Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 385	24f, 24f, and 24f If I were to shoot a movie tomorrow 24f, because well, it's 24 frames per second. 24f because it loses only 10-15% resolution compared to the 60i material. Even the best deinterlacer isn't going to give you those results. Shoot 60i for slo-mo only.

December 12th, 2007, 09:07 PM	#5
Michael Friedman Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 57	Distribution means a lot of things these days. Are you talking quality for a transfer to a film print? If so, I would guess that 24f would be best because it could be transfered frame:frame. I imagine you would be fine either way. 'Iraq In Fragments' was nominated for an Oscar and won Best Cinematography at Sundance, it was shot in 24P and 24Pa on a DVX. 'Supersize Me' was shot 30i on a VX2000. The list goes on.... Shoot some tests that match the look of your film. Dark horror movie, fast-paced action movie, independent doc, all place different demands on the camera. Look at your tests and go with the look you like. I like 24F on this camera. In the end, if your content is good enough to be distributed, frame rate will not hold you back. Also, from this article: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/de...eman_pipeline/ Iraq In Fragments - Oscar Nominated Doc. "Longley began production with a Panasonic AG-DVX100 MiniDV camcorder, and in 2004, he upgraded to the AG-DVX100A. A key reason for selecting these cameras was to capture at 24p in anticipation of an eventual 35mm filmout."

December 12th, 2007, 10:07 PM	#6
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	Don't shoot 30F if the final result will be 24 frames. 30 doesn't translate well to 24. Exception: you can shoot 30F and just slow it down to 24 for a perfect slight slow motion effect. The Canon 24f is arguably the best 24 frame HDV available. If 60i were better for a final 24, why have 24f on the camera? I can't think of a good reason. Exception as noted above: deinterlaced 60i will give you more frames for going to slow motion. If you shoot 24f, make sure you shoot 1/48 shutter speed in general. Etc. etc. etc. The best way to find out what you want to do is to do some tests. There may be some questions you need to ask you don't even know about yet.

December 13th, 2007, 01:31 AM	#7
Spencer Dickson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 141	I hadn't thought of theatrical distribution. My intention is to make dvds, but, if in the event I make something people want to see from a projector, I guess it would make the most sense to shoot in 24f wouldn't it? That would be a relief to know that I could just leave it on 24f and not have to bother with deinterlacing 60i footage and making it look like 24 fps etc. if the end result was that 24f lost less resolution than the more complicated process of deinterlacing. Jack, you are right: There will most likely be many question I need to ask once I actually get this camera.

December 14th, 2007, 02:08 AM	#8
Jerrod Cordell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Titusville, FL Posts: 136	If you're looking at DVDs I'd either shoot in 30f or 24f and export it at 30p. This gives it a more film-like look when put on TV.

December 14th, 2007, 04:06 PM	#10
Spencer Dickson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 141	How much noise?

December 14th, 2007, 05:37 PM	#11
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I shoot everything 24f, and I've seen it projected in a theater with a 40' screen and it looks good.

December 16th, 2007, 08:51 AM	#13
Raymond Toussaint Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 173	Doing transfers video --> film is almost not done anymore, it is very expensive and distribution is also possible on digital non-film. Even the biggest doc festival in the world IDFA gives you digital viewing /presentation possibilities. Although people talk about it , in reality only ~3% is going to celluloid, being S166 or 35mm. But if you like the looks: 24p or 25p being progressive has a lovely cadence and a nice standing still shot;>)

December 16th, 2007, 10:01 AM	#14
Chad Ream Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Portage, MI Posts: 38	I have only used the camera in 60i or 24f. Personally I like the way 60i looks at the same time 24f is amazing. My only problem I have had with 24f play back is during panning shots. Remember its just as important to take the time and set your scenes up properly to sell the film look. (depth of field, etc.) Very few people will ask themselves what frame rate the movie was produced in, especially if what they just watched was enjoyable. As Michael mentioned, good content is what will be distributed. In any case - enjoy your shoot. Chad

December 16th, 2007, 12:04 PM	#15
Seun Osewa Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West Africa Posts: 255	Interlaced mode (60i) is better for DVDs. Even if you shoot 24p, you will have to encode as NTSC, which is 60i. Why not take full advantage of the smoother motion it offers? If I intend to screen my movie with a projector that supports 60fps frame rate, I would shoot at 60i and then deinterlace it to 60p. Again, smoother motion. I'd rather have my audience thinking about my story than thinking about the judder!