Peter-I just want it for the 24p "look"

I differ in that opinion. 24fps seems to be fine when viewed @ a theatre (I do hate the constant bluring during action though) but 24p from a video source looks like stuttery crap to my eye. 30p is far more fluid. I have asked many a DVX100 user what looks better the 24p or 30p modes. They usually say the 30p looks better but they shoot 24p for film. Then I think to myself, what film?
Ken

>>Sure filmmakers want 24p, but those insisting on it from a $3000 cam are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I mean if you have the $250,000 min for a small theatre distribution why would you be filming on a $3000 cam?<<

I disagree. Filmmakers don’t cover the cost of distribution, so what one can afford camera wise is not the issue here.

>>As well if you do create a winner, the studio who distributes it, will convert it professionally.<<

Distributors are not the technicians who do such things. Every DV to Film transfer house that I know of does not recommend shooting in 30p for a 35mm blow up.

>>Twixtor and MagicBullet and such can convert to 24p.<<

Twixtor and Magic Bullet convert 60i to 24p, not 30p to 24p.

“Stephen wrote – “Ken is 100% right on the money. Filmmakers should be concerned about content. 99% of the content is shown on video (the largest market by the way).”

Yes, and a HUGE segment of the WORLD video market is PAL, here in lies the issue with this camera. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that MOST of the world is PAL, which means that MOST of the world will not even see your movie on VIDEO if you shoot with this camera.

JVC should at least have made this camera 25p capable, and that would have solved the frame rate compatibility issue.

Click on the link below and then scroll to the bottom of the page for an explanation of why 30p can not be converted to 24p smoothly.

http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm

Here's another link:

http://www.dv.com/forums/showReplies...2&tid=92800000

Like the articles say, it can be done, but a straight frame rate conversion isn't ideal and will will produce motion effects.
Twixtor and MagicBullet and such programs would have to be used for sure. As well I would suggest that any "super intense action sceens" be filmed in the 60p mode.
Ken

Twixtor would work, but Magic Bullet doesn't have that kind of processing (30p to 24p) in it.

Graeme

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : Personally I don't care about 24p. Digital projection is the future, as well, 99% of independent movies are seen on cable or rented DVD/vhs. If you have the money to go to film you probably aren't shooting on a $3000 cam. And if you make a movie on a $3000 cam that is worthy of a film transfer, the studio who buys it will have the resources to convert it to 24p.
This does leave PAL users out in the cold though.
I would be very happy to see 24 & 25 fps die away. 30 & 60p are the frame rates of the 21st century.
Ken -->>>

we want 24p because we want to get a cool 'film-like' video rather than a reqular home video, to put it to the film is a reason but its not the main purpose to get 24p.

I would say 30p gives a better "film like" look than video shot @ 24p which to me looks stuttery and "un-film like"
Ken.

I've been doing extensive comparisons between the DVX and the JVC HD1. The DVX is always in 24P.

It is amazing how "video-like" the JVC begins to look, side-by-side. You wouldn't think 24P to 30P would make that much of a difference, but it does. I think just out of the box, not telling someone what they're looking at, most people would be hard-pressed to tell whether something was 24P or 30P. But if you look at 'em side-by-side...

... anyway, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about 30P looking more like film motion than the DVX's 24P. I can't agree, as I've shot identical material on 24fps film and DVX/24P, and the DVX/24P renders motion identical to film. The DVX's motion rendering is identical, absolutely identical, to 24fps film telecine'd to video.

See, this is what I'm talking about. How many people watch films side by side?

Glenn, your right most of the world is PAL, as usual America is bass ackwards. I'm not saying there is a solution available now, but as with any issue, if there becomes a demand, they will find a way to get it done. But in regards to what is "recommended" that doesn't mean can't be done. Most people don't recommend anything that means more work or risk for them.

I'm completely lost on this 24fps thing (why), this from the last century, people need to learn to move on. Why is change so hard? Every good professional Filmmaker strives to get there film to look DIFFERENT, even to the point where some shoot on video. Here everyone wants their's to look like someone else's.

What about when all the theaters finally upgrade to digital projectors (DLP)? Then they can show ANY frame rate they want just like your PC can. Did you know the backup for DLP's are DVD's? Hmmmmm.

Anyone who's been to the movies in the past year has seen a showcase of TV commercials before the show. Hmmmm, thats video content shown at 24 fps. No motion problems, or anyone jumping up from the audience crying out in agony, "Whhhyyyy?". If they can get it to 24 they can get it to 25. Or whatever else you can think up.

I have the HD10 because it blows ANY Prosumer DV cam away. So my films will look different from the flood of DV footage festivals audiences always see. I'm not trying to make a carrier of filmmaking w/ the cam, nor will it be the last camera I shoot with.

Pal is more predomimant globally. But ntsc is where a lot of the money is.
Media usually sells best in its country of origin or at least the same language. With ntsc that would be Canada/US/Japan. Substantial markets, and markets that pay a high dollar for their media. The number one PAL market for media is India. A country that pays a fraction of the cost of media compared to NTSC countries. When you distribute in PAL you have to ask yourself what language are you going to target, and is there any money to be made?
Ken