The motion blur at 1/48 is no different from the motion blur on film with a 180 shutter... but I honestly don't know why so many people feel like they need to shoot at 1/48. When a dp working with a film camera wants to freeze motion, they just change the shutter angle, and the analogue on the XL2 is of course a faster shutter.

Or did I misunderstand something?

I try to shoot with a faster shutter than 1/48 most of the time... at least over 1/100. I just think it looks better.

Isn't 1/48 the "typical" shutter speed for 24p? The same as 1/60 is for 30p/60i?

Shutter speed in film cameras depends on the angle of the shutter. The most common, "cine" shutter angle is 180 Degrees, which means it covers half of the time and is open half of the time. This means that at 24fps, a frame is exposed for 1/48 of a second, and the gate is closed for 1/48 of a second (to allow for the next piece of film to moved into position and stopped).

A bolex has a variable shutter, meaning you can close it up past 180 or open more than, letting more light, or more otion blur in, or less light and less "Blur"


I have actually done some comparative tests between an XL2, DVX and a 16mm Arri S to test out how strobing in the XL2 looks compared to film cams, and it is about the same. usually, try and use a 1/48 or 1/60 to really emulate hollywood film (if that's important to you).

Exactly. Seems like 1/100 and higher would give you that no motion blur, super stuttery effect (gladiator, saving private ryan). Maybe that's what you're going for.

You cant flip the switch from 60i to 24P and have it magically look like film... well... maybe poorly shot film. You need to adjust the way you shoot, you have to shoot like film, controlling your movement, frame properly, control the DOF, etc. Someday I will get a reel together and you can see that 24P on the XL2 does not have to be juttery, it can be silky smooth.

As far as shutter, I will hammer it home once again. If you using ANYTHING but a 1/48th shutter in 24P (1/60th in 60i) you are applying an IRREVERSIBLE effect. There is no way to undo it in post. Using a shutter of 1/100th effectively negates the effect of 24P, might as well shoot in 30P at that point.


ash =o)

Hey ash

Although I agree that the 24p is an excellent tool, and really does, if used properly, mimic the look of film, there are times when using a 1/48 shutter is not advantageous...

the 1/24 shutter is often used in hollywood films to help in lowlight. Although shot on a genesis cam, I saw a 1/24 shutter in "Scary Movie 4" at night, and a few others that I can't recall right now.

Also, the motion qualities of 24p still show through, even at shutterspeeds like 1/60 and 1/100, but anything above that, yes... the motion is somewhat comprosmised

Ash, isn't this just saying that the choice of shutter speed cannot be undone? In other words, if you want a shutter speed effect of any sort, you cannot change it once the footage is on tape. So if you want a TV look, you need to use shutter speeds like 1/60 and should NOT use 1/48. Etc.

So we should choose the shutter speed based on the look we want...

I have shot at 1/24th in low light, it causes more motion decay but you can get images that are too dark for 1/48th. In this case, you live with the effect because you are compromising in order to get ANY image.

I am not saying you cannot opt for or like the effect of a shutter other than 1/48, just emphasizing that this is an effect, not a light control.



ash =o)

I have to say, I think that a fast shutter (like 1/210) on 24plooks different than it does at 60i. One way looks kind of action filmy, the other is like you're watching sports on TV.

They will look different because of the frame rate but you will not get the natural motion that a normal film camera with a 180 degree shutter will give.



ash =o)

Right, just saying that the two frame rates still look different with the higher shutter speeds.

No matter which shutter speed used, one cam only has 24 image samplings per second to work with while NTSC video cams have 60, which gives it a more realistic look (if there's such a thing).

I think S. P. Ryan for example still looks like film even though it was shot with a high shutter value. All it means is there's less motion blur. The 24fps is what gives the film look (not only that of course) because our brain has to work harder to see motion (hence the dreamy look often described).

I find it funny that today we (amateurs and pros alike) resist the realistic look of video because we like the film look better, even though video is clearly a better technology sampling wise (not talking about interlacing, THAT is some crappy stuff, just refering to sampling frequency).

I'm including myself in there, everything else being equal and shooting conditions not too extreme, I usually like the 24p look better on my XL2. But to me it's just like saying I like B&W more than color. Both get you farther away from reality (what your eye sees), not closer.

OK now I'm just rambling so I'll stop.

Um. . .not to get into a whole new thing here, but I don't know about video being a better technology, interlacing aside.

Film is still generally a higher resolution image (except maybe compared to the very highest quality "video" cameras, like the genesis, etc.), has more lattitude, and more color depth.

Josh, re-read my post, I'm strictly talking about sampling frequency (24p vs 60p) when everything else is equal. I'm refering to the fact that in this very rare case, more isn't always perceived as better, which I find interesting.

I am talking real world observations, not technical. 24P at 1/48th is the natural motion of film that you simply cannot get from 60i. 24P with a higher shutter, looks more like 60i with a higher shutter as the motion of both becomes disguised at a high shutter.




ash =o)

I must be blind.

I recently shot some 1/48 24 p footage and then the same thing in 1/60 30 p footage. I just could not see that much difference.

It seems to me that faster shutter speeds are more of a problem in the 60 i mode. I have found slower speeds ( 1/48 or 1/60) always make for better images.


Please correct me if needed. maybe I have missed the point here.

Some people can't tell the difference between 30p and 24. Some people can't see the difference between 60i and 24p, for that matter.


As for 60i and fast shutter, 1/60 is the "proper" speed for 60i (30fps interlaced) footage. I would only shoot faster speeds if trying to capture action that blurs too much at 1/60.

24P • 16:9 broadcast commercial question
 

Hello everyone. We produced a commercial and we shot it 24P (NOT ADVANCED) and 16:9. We edited the commercial in FCP 5 using the sequence settings for 24P with advanced pulldown. This commercial is going on braodcast so we had to take the timeline and drop it into an uncompressed 4:2:2 timeline (29.97). We have to print to tape with our SONY DSR 1500A with SDI using the DVCAM tapes, which will be converted to BETA SP. Question is do we keep the timeline at 23.98 and lay it back out to tape, or do we change it to 29.97? Thank everyone out there in DVi land that may respond.

Actually, you should have edited in a 29.97 timeline if you did not do 2:3:3:2 (advanced). If you did not process your clips with Cinema Tools you probably have funky "c" frame artifacts or jerkiness. You can output from a 24P timeline, you just have to tell FCP how to output it... I assume you are using a Kona card or AJA box so you will have to have that set up as well.




ash =o)

I did not process it in Cinema Tools, but i did edit it on a 23.98 timeline. I can put it on a 29.97 timeframe. By the way, how do i process it in Cinema Tools as i have yet to use it.

Pretty easy, just open it up and play =o) It will properly remove the pulldown in a 2:3 (24p normal) stream.


ash =o)

xl2 for wedding, best setting? 24p 30p 60i?
 

i will be shooting a wedding with an xl2. what setting would be best? 24p 30p or 60i ??


thanks

Dave-

I'm no expert one this... but I'll give it a try. Im not sure of your level of experience, so take this for what it;s worth.

If you use 24P or 30P you'll have to keep your pans real smooth. You should be fine if using a tripod with smooth pans. The good part is that weddings are not often full of high speed action. Well... the reception can be at times... i suppose.

If you shoot at 24P keep your shutter at 1/48. As long as your NLE can work with 24P you should be fine.

If it was me, Id shoot 16x9 at 24P. I think it looks the best. However, some people do not have 16x9 Tv's... This presents a whole other issue.

If you want to play it safe go for 60i at 1/60 shutter...

Tim has it summed up, but to add a bit based on my experience, I usually shoot everything with the XL2 in 30p and whenever possible 16:9. I would shoot 24p but PPro 2.0 which I'm using still has bugs with 24p so I reserve that frame rate for personal projects where I actually have time to find work around solutions to the bugs I encounter.

I don't do weddings, but regardless my clients like this look A LOT. I always get comments on how it just looks "neat" or "less annoying than TV video". Those are all comments I get on a regular basis and even if it's just a psychological effect of me selling this option well, it keeps more of them coming back. To the point where my last client asked me on a 2nd project with him not to forget to use those "frame speed things" (actual words). It differenciates my work from all the other 4:3 60i low budget productions out there which are most of them here in Montreal.

You can even use this as a selling point if you know how to, especially for the wedding industry. Just enough technical mumbo jumbo to let them know that with you they get something unique, they get a film look (people always associate film with high quality even if we all know there's much more to it).

Not to mention that progressive scanning is such a superior format (personal opinion) to interlaced video, none of those archaic interlaced fields and artifacts. Can't wait for the day 60p will become a standard. And the XL2 is so sharp that in progressive scan it will actually allow you to zoom in by as much as 10% without noticeable resolution loss (works better with closeups). This is great to do slow crawling zooms in post on some of the footage to add production value, or just reframe a less than perfect shot. If you were to do this in 60i you'd have to deinterlace in order to avoid artifacts.

But like Tim mentioned, if you're going to shoot 24p or 30p, know the limitations, because they are not the same as 60i shooting.

I say 30p, 24p might make any fast shots very stroby. I suggest 30p because it gives a little more smoothness but keeps that cool looking Progressive look, 60i might be too video looking. If you do go with 24p or even 30p ide watch out for any fast camera movements, they could look very choppy.

-Kyle

24p, 30p and choice of softwares
 

Hi,

I work on PC. Haven't gotten Mac yet.
I have been shooting at 3op so far. I want to switch to 24p.

Which of the folloing softwares are good for 24p and which one are good for 30p? If I am missing any good one, shoot it.

Pinnacle Studio 10, Adobe Premier, Vegas..

Also, will pinnacle 10 catpre true 24p and/ or 30p? or it will convert it to 60p?


Thank you...

Can't speak to Pinacle...

Sony Vegas will handle both no problem.

Adobe Premiere Pro will also handle both. Some export issue with Pro version 1.5, version 2 was "supposed" to resolve, but I hear rumblings there are still some issues.

Avid Liquid will handle both, so will Avid Xpress and Avid Xpress Pro.

All these programs offer trials, so give 'em all a try and see which one you like the best and handles the 24P for the money.

You bet there are still issues with Premiere Pro 2.0 and 24p, might I even venture to say more?

What Adobe solved compared to 1.5:

-Premiere would convert standard 3:2 24p footage in a 60i timeline to true 24p by removing the pulldown frames even though it was not meant to be. This would result in de/re-interlacing with all the artifacts that come with it. This has been solved in version 2.0. You can now treat 3:2 24p footage as regular 60i footage.

What has not been solved:

Audio glitches are still there. When you export a 16:9 true 24p timeline back to tape, you will get random static noises that will render the audio track useless. This only happens for 16:9 footage. For some obscure reason, it doesn't for 4:3 footage. This was also a bug found in version 1.5. Doesn't matter much anyways, as this is now the least of your problems, read the following to understand.

24p bugs that have been introduced with version 2.0:

-It is now impossible to export 16:9 true 24p footage back to tape. When you do, you will have this odd bug where the aspect ratio jumps back and forth between 4:3 and 16:9 about 2 times a sec. You could export it using the software aspect ratio conversion option instead of hardware or use no conversion option but why would you do that, as it would prevent any future NLE to read it as native 16:9 footage.

-You cannot export a true 24p timeline to DVD. That's right, not only can you not export it to tape, but because of a bug in the Main Concept codec or its implementation in PPro 2.0 (aknowledged by Adobe), you will get an error message when you try to create a 24p DVD via the Main Concept encoder. You can still export audio and sound by changing the GOP setting (N frames) from 15 to 12 but this will speed up the image while leaving the audio unchanged and the sound and image will be completely out of sync.

By the way, I spent scores of hours doing extensive tests on these issues and still could not find a practical solution. Be it noted that those tests were performed both for 1.5 and 2.0 on 2 completely different systems, one AMD based, the other Intel. So while I can't be a 100% sure this will occur on all systems, based on those tests, chances are it most likely will.

So as a result of a (once again) [expletive]-poor job by Adobe in integrating the 24p option in PPro 2.0, I would urge you to run away from it as far as you can if you're planing on using 24p editing.

I never offer 24p to my clients because of the nightmare it is to work with in PPro 2.0, I use 30p instead with which I have not encountered problems. And I can sometimes use 24p for short projects (like a music video) where I can afford the time and hastle to work around the bugs (like exporting an uncompressed 24p file and using this to export back to tape using a friend's Vegas system).

Stupid question Re: 24p & 24Pa settings?
 

Hello all,

First, thanks for the wonderfull resources you've brought to this site. I'm borrowing an xl2 from a friend who just upgraded, and I'm having a blast
with it.

Before he left the country, he mentioned that there is 24p and 24Pa.

Now I THINK I understand that 24p will give interlaced output. I'm pretty sure that I want 24pa.

BUT, the 1,000,000 question is : How do I know which I'm using? Is there a way to set 24pa? I don't actually have a manual, and I've read the PAL
manual for a clue since the NTSC one doesn't seem to be online, but I'm lost!

Thanks!

Here ya go. :) (Google is great.)This'll give you an idea of the differences between 24p and 24Pa. Now as far as getting to that kind of a setting on the xl2, someone else here will have to elaborate and let you know if it's even possible.

https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro...00/24p24pa.htm

Hey, thanks for the response! Yeah, I actually just read something similar! I'm 100% certain it's possible with the xl2.... but how to do it... I await guidance :)

EDIT:

The answer, just in case there is a newb such as I looking for it is:

->Menu
->24p Settings
->2:3:3:2

And you have 24PA!

I REALLY wish there were an NTSC manual online!

Anyone Shoot 24p for Weddings?
 

I've been shooting 60i with 4:3 aspect ratio. I've been thinking of shooting 24p and go to 16:9 for a more cinematic look with my weddings. Anyone doing this? What can I expect, and are there any watch-outs I should be aware of?

Thanks,
Dave

I've done a couple of weddings in 25p (PAL version) that have been well received. As long as you can edit 'prog' and the happy couple aren't likely to change their mind post-shoot, then go for it.

With my XL1s, I shot in frame mode, the same thing I believe, for several years. The defaut shutter speed was 50th. sec. But with the Pal XL2 defaulting to 25th. sec. I'm not comfortable with it. I was ending up shooting in TV Mode all the time, which didn't always suite me. Just my view.

Mike.

Speaking of weddings, do any of you find anything on the Xl2 difficult during a wedding? It seems pretty bulky to by trying to use ona dance floor or w/e. Any input on this, ide appreciate. Also if you do use it for that and like it, waht accessories do you have/suggest. Other than batteries of coarse and UV lens lol.

-Kyle

I'm used to working with much heavier equipment in my day job, so find the XL-2 a piece of cake. In fact I'd say it's a bit too light and I often find myself doing wobbly shots where I'd normally expect the camera to hold solid.

On the wedding dance floor, I tend to use the XL wide lens and a little pag-light on top with the diff filter applied. Keep the lens fully zoomed out and go for a walk amongst the dancers.

Hi guys, first time poster. Even though I do shoot in 24p for weddings I still am a little hesitant. I like to have some slow motion shots for the dances, flower pedals being thrown and a few other types of shots here and there. However, I'm not too comfortable doing slo-mo shots with 24p (feel free to shoot a tip this way if you got one ;), and I don't really like doing the whole 60i converted to 24p slo-mo. So if I want to do slo-mo, I usually do 60i because 30p looks too "in between." It looks like it's trying to do film and video at the same time and I just don't care for that look.
And on the 16:9 note, I ALWAYS shoot weddings in widescreen. My reason is because 10 years down the trail when a huge majority of people will have widescreen TVs I want my previous customers to be able to watch their wedding without being short and wide on the screen.
Just my opinion.

~Bryan

Good point. Unfortunately, that seems to be how 99% of people with 16:9 TV's will sit and watch anything shot in 4:3, which is obviously still the majority of things on TV. It drives me crazy when I see people doing this. I want to strangle them. It's like they're too lazy to change one little menu setting, or else they'd rather watch Squat-O-Vision than have a pillarbox thing going on. It's completely maddening.

Sorry, that's off-topic I guess.

As an owner of two HDTVs, I intentionally have them set to show everything widescreen because I like seeing the screen filled, even if it means the content gets stretched. On the better of the two TVs there's a "justification" mode which stretches the edges more than the middle in a way which makes the result look more natural.

In any case, agreed that widescreen TVs are the standard viewing format of the future, so I shoot and deliver everything widescreen now unless I think there's a good reason to do otherwise.