Ok, folks - 24P question here
 

I've looked thru MANY pages looking for an answer so I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

Before I begin, I'd really like this NOT to turn into a 24P vs. 60P "magic" debate. I'm just trying to establish what I'm doing wrong.

When I shoot 24P on my brand new HD200U, it is NOT film-like in the least. It looks like REALLY BAD web video. Jerky motion, regardless of locked off or pans. This is in the viewfinder, on my NLE monitor as well as downconverted to NTSC DVD. Then I look at Tims' Ariana Gillis video and go "yes, that looks like film". I realize Tim used the COPLA but the motion is what I'm after, not the DOF.

http://www.timdashwood.com/arianagillis

What step am I missing? I've tried capturing into FCP using HDV Easy Setups, HDV to ProRES.

Thanks for the advice in advance. With all the people saying 24P is the Holy Grail, I know I must be missing SOMETHING! Until then, I'm shooting 60P.

Make sure your shutter speed is set at 1/48 or above.

Click the menu selection wheel on the left side of the camera to turn the shutter on (off of auto) and scroll up to 1/48. You may have to go into the menu to turn "step" shutter on.

You may be set at 1/24 which will give you more light, but 1/24 or anything below will make it look like "bad web video". If you go any lower than 1/24 then any motion you put in front of that lens will blur like crazy.

I second that, it sounds like your shutter speed is at 1/24th or lower. 1/48th will reproduce a 180 degree shutter in film and should be what you use for most applications with the JVC to get a film look.

is there anyway you could post a clip to show exactly what you are talking about?

Nope, shooting at 1/48th. I'll upload the raw to Vimeo and post the link wen it's done. Thanks for the quick response, folks!

<<Link Removed>>

Thanks to all who viewed and commented.

My computer doesn't play this well. However, are you talking about jumps/stuttering during panning or when the camera is still?

With 24p pans have to be very, very, very slow (there are charts) and even then the results aren't great. The problems can be made worse by any pulldown added and/or the type of display.

Are you getting the jumpiness when you play back off the tape directly to a progessive monitor?

Even panning shots done in major films where they follow all the rules, I don't think look good.

However, if there are other issues, I don't know.

Shaun,

I think you may find the answer in your question. Zooming, panning and tilting are not something you really want to be doing whilst shooting at 24fps with 1/48 shutter. HDV creates some undesirable results when you continue to use these video methods.

I'd recommend changing your approach altogether when shooting HDV at 24fps. Try to think like film, not video. Concentrate on light, colour and composition rather than tilting, panning and zooming.

That 'film' look and feel comes from a lot more than just 24fps. For an easy way to achieve what i think you are after, maybe look at a 35mm DOF adaptor?

Hope that helps
Stuart

Understood, but it still looks WRONG. Film doesn't look like that. Footage shot by others doesn't look like that. I uploaded that example to show off worst case footage. The pans strobe. They are PLENTY slow enough. The zoom was fast but I wasn't sure how the video would show up when compressed to Vimeo so I included it to ensure SOMETHING fell apart..

Please view the Tim Dashwood video above and tell me why my footage strobes and his doesn't. I understand he is using the COPLA and a film prime but that shouldn't affect the motion artifacting. He is handheld and pans. I'm on sticks.

I don't believe what I am seeing in my footage is "ALL" that 24p can be.

Jack: yes, the stuttering is my issue. It looks to me (on all monitors) like a frame strobe effect has been applied where frames are thrown away. Even the motion of the guy on the lawn mower looks disjointed while not zooming.

And the higher the shutter speed, the more pronounced the stutter, as one would expect.

I'm guessing you're shooting in HDV 24p and not DV 24PA. Because, depending on your output, the PA can be an issue. But if you're shooting in HD, then I really don't know.

Yes, Levi: I shot that "video" (admittedly, it's bad but I'm trying to show off failings) as HDV 720P24 at 1/48th shutter.

I was starting to think it was a pull down issue but now I really don't have a clue, hence my exasperation. Thankfully, I think I'll be shooting 60P for the project starting next week.

If I were you I'd try a test.

First setup the camera in the kind of situation you did the first time, with things far away, in focus, etc.

Then, without moving the camera or changing the settings, video someone a few feet in front of the camera, standing still, jumping up and down walking by while you pan with them.

Then look at the video and see how the strobing compares in the two kinds of shots. If the second type looks good, the problem is in the nature of your shooting in the first part. If the second strobes the same as the first, there is some other issue, with the camera, the display or whatever.

Just a suggestion.

I suggest this because I have found with my Canon XH-A1 at 24F if I have a wide shot and pan at all there is strobing. On the other hand, if I am following a dancer jumping about I can move the camera all over the place and the video looks perfect.

I haven't used my HD110 at 24P yet, but I will be interesested to know if I get results similar to the XH-A1 at 24F.

I'm no expert on this by any means, but here is my feedback based on what I am reading and seeing.

First of all, I haven't made the switch to 24p for the exact same reasons as you. I hear everyone talk about how great it is, and I see people using it and it looks great, so I want to do it too... but, when I pan or tilt I get juddering as well.

The vimeo footage you posted looked like the pan was too fast. I know you think it is slow, but based on my 24p tests I still think you are panning too fast.

In my opinion, the video reference you posted (Tims' Ariana Gillis) isn't comparable to the footage you posted. There was nothing in the reference video (and I watched it really closely) that I would have considered a true "pan" or "tilt" (mainly because they were so short and/or fast). The zooming in the reference video was always short and fast too, whereas I would classify yours as lengthier. My feeling on this is that it is possible that the reference video could have "judders", but because most of the camera movement appeared quickly (short duration) and was edited tightly it is very, very tough to see (I coudn't see it at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't there).

Another thing (and this is my own personal feeling) is that the reference video is basically telling a story. It has a beginning, a middle, an end, and even [musically] has a plot. That is much different than abitrary footage taken to make a point. Psychologically, I believe it is much easier to pick-out "bad things" when the subject matter isn't strong enough to hold your attention (that's usually when I get bored with what I'm watching and start attacking every little thing). I'm saying this because I would agree that the footage you posted does judder, but it is so obvious because there's nothing else to pull your attention away from that.

I don't think the lawn mower guy looked disjointed at all. Even if he did, it would make sense when you see he's riding a lawn mower and bouncing all over the place due to the roughness of the ground he's driving on. I did see some "odd" movement in the background, but it looked either like video artifacts from compression or possibly heat dissipation off the pavement.

I'd love to know the "secrets" behind 24p myself... cause I feel like I'm missing out. It's actually good for me to see I'm not the only one experiencing these issues/concerns... maybe one day we'll find the cure : ) I watch action movies and think the fast movement and camera work is great, but don't have a clue how I could pull something like that off shooting 24p. It would be so cool to be allowed 1 full day on a production set where I could just follow the camera-people around and pick their brains.

For now, 30p is working very well for me. I still have to watch it on my pans, zooms, and tilts... but I can get away with a little more in 30p than I can in 24p.

Best of luck to you.

Ok, back to homework for me this weekend. I apologize for the tone of any posts of mine that may have seemed negative or aggressive. I'm VERY frustrated right now at trying to emulate what I've seen but can't reproduce. I'll light some seated interviews with "normal" camera moves and see how that goes. And I'll head out to the park to try and follow some real world activities such as frisbee or walking a dog.

I DO appreciate the input of everybody here and am very thankful that anybody took time out of their schedule to try and help me with my "little problem".

Up til now I've felt like the child in the Emperor's New Clothes: "Am I the only one one who sees that this isn't right?"

Well it's hard to tell from the web. With 24p and less with 30p pans should be done with a subject crossing that the camera is following along. Pans without a subject to follow are generally at 1/48th and tend to look mushy, or else it's a fast pan so everything goes blury. Not quite like Batman the 60's series. Now I'm shooting 24p for everything, even sports since I like how it can be burned to DVD I think is MUCH better than 30p. Here is a 24p slow motion (50% reduction) and in BW... Way too compressed for my taste, but I didn't have the patience for uploading a larger file. This is part of a project for a friend, so it's largely out of context. I do sports generally at 1/60th to split the difference with 60i 1/60th video look... any slower and the slow motion looks too mushy for my taste.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguU1WpBfpM

Not to worry. There are often these situations with 24P. Sometimes it's the shooting style. Sometimes there are capture, pulldown or display issues. Other times it just expectations.

The next time you go to a movie (or even watch a filmed TV show) here are some things to watch for:
1. How very little the camera really moves.
2. How very, very, very little the camera moves in relation to the subject.
3. How much strobing there is in the background out of focus is you watch for it and don't focus on the subject of the shot.
4. How much strobing there is in pans, crane shots and the like when the camera is moving that we just ignore because the shot is a leadin to something we are waiting to see.

I have reviewed the footage a few times, and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong. The jutter is correct for the movement in the shots. The pan you did is too fast for the subject you are shooting (wide shot of lawn). When a pan that fast is done, there should be a subject in it that you are following... Since there is nothing for the eye to watch and follow through the pan, you just see the "jutter" that you are talking about.

You actually did a pan that is in between the slow speed and fast speeds that are allowed at that focal length. That pan is just too fast for a no subject shot, but not fast enough to mask it. If you shot that hand held and you did the same pan it actually wouldn't be as bad.

This all comes down to shooting a ton of stuff with subjects such as people and animals... That is the only way to learn. The myth that panning speeds in film are slow is BS. Watch action films, they are breaking every "rule" about pan speeds for every focal length they use... If your subject allows for the movement thats all that matters, its not strict science, its just subject.

There is much more art involved than science for the 24p questions, learn how to frame moving subjects, take your tripod and put the pan and tilt drag to zero, and try to shoot someone who walks around when they talk on the phone. You will learn how to frame and keep in frame the subject while being able to move the camera at any speed you want. You will also learn how to predict where your subject will go, and thus learn how to keep frame while moving at faster speeds in 24p.

just keep shooting, thats all you have to do...

Looks fine to me. Maybe your used to 60i?

Thanks for the input folks. I feel I should point out that I am a 10 year broadcast pro, having worked for CBC-Radio Canada in Canada as well as internationally as a documentary filmmaker. The issues I'm having are specific to 24P, hence the growing pains and my frustration.

And yes, I've shot a TON of HD in 1080i. I'm new to the Progressive universe and I love 60P and based on the input here, given the "real world-ness" of my subjects (training, promotion and documentaries), I think I'll stick with 60P. If I do a cinematic drama, I'll revisit 24P but if what I'm hearing is correct, there's nothing wrong (other than my technique) with the footage, I'm not sold on 24P. No offense intended to all of you that shoot in it and do a wonderful job but I've developed my techniques as a pro over 10 years and as an amateur for 18 years before that. I guess I need a format that works with the way I shoot.

Thanks again for all the input folks and for taking the time to respond.

Here's a thread on the exact issues you have brought up with some excellent posts by several professionals. This thread (also specifically about the JVC ProHD cameras) gives specific details and commentary that will further clarify the situation:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-51185.html

Be sure to read the posts by:
Tim Dashwood
Nate Weaver
Barry Green

Thanks, Jack. I thought for sure someone had to have discussed this before me.

One recurring point of discussion that I do find somewhat bothersome though is the statement regarding "conditioned to 60i". For all it's MANY faults, 60i more accurately reproduces the way the human eye sees things than 24 or 30P, at least in motion. Does that mean I want to go back to shooting 60i? No. The things I want to be able to do in post are going to be much easier with a Progressive image, but I do think that there is some "elitism" among some 24P shooters who think that those of us who question the motion "artifacts" are unenlightened.

I saw reference to exactly what I'm talking about in the archive post and I would like to state my position for the record is that Progressive and Interlaced are certainly different, and each has its place but PLEASE don't begin to tell the individual which is "better". Better suited for a given purpose? Sure.

Again, thanks for pointing me in the right direction, which in my case happens to be "what serves my subject matter best". Highest regards to all of you!

Well, you can always shoot 60p (1/60th shutter) then decide later if you want a 23.97 or a 59.98 (60i) DVD. Since those are the only two current DVD option (30p isn't decoded properly in DVD players) I vote for 24p since I hate interlaced lines on my 42" plasma or LCD. I also turn my sharpening down to min or even off. Now when Blu-Ray burners drop to $300 and players drop to $100 at Walmart, then I'll shoot 60p for most everything.. but that might be a year away.

Question: Are you distributing your content on DVD, Blu-Ray, HDTV broadcast 1080i/720p, internet download or broadcast NTSC? I think the destination would be a big factor.

Right now I'll be delivering the content I'm working on currently on SD DVD and Web content, with an eye to archiving for HD delivery in the future; as you mentioned: when Blu-Ray authoring is more common place and affordable. This piece in particular isn't for broadcast but I'm eyeballing a doc to begin shooting next winter that may air in HD. Due to the nature of the doc, I'm sure some HDV content will be allowed, although I will need to confirm with the broadcaster what limitations there are.

I will be posting in HD (ProRES in FCP) so the final product (without font) will be archived in HD, and then downconverted and font added for SD delivery.

Its 24p or throw the camera off a bridge... But seriously, shooting at 24p takes some getting used to for the "older and wiser" generation. It does look noticeably different, especially when you have been accustomed to viewing 60i. It might just take some growing into, but hey if you don't need 24p, don't shoot 24p.

Shaun,

I understand your frustration but don't give up. I too am I broadcast TV cameraman of many years. Recently I decided to branch out with a colleague and make high end corporate film and video off of our own back as a sideline. I looked into HDV and it seemed like a good medium for corporate stuff. Then we started thinking that a 'film' look would appeal to clients more (which it does) and henceforth began a journey into 24fps (and 25fps).

There really does not seem to be anything wrong with your sample footage. Like most guys correctly suggest, the subject matter and movement you use highlight factors that appear as 'faults'. Shooting 24fps on HDV is a completely different kettle of fish.

The reason Tims film looks so different is mainly because of lighting. Lighting is KEY! There are so many other elements which go with 24p to give it that film look you are looking for. Lighting, depth of field, colour, composition, movement, subject matter. 24fps alone will not make up all of the above.

Then there is the small matter of training to use the camera again. All those tricks, tips and techniques we use in our day jobs can sometimes be pretty much obsolete. I had to start from scratch trying to shoot 'filmic'. There is a reason why TV cameraman don't often become film cameramen!

Have a read of this excellent article by UK cameraman Mike Brennan (he's very highly respected here (well, when I'm back at home in London that is))

http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/getResource2...ar.pdf?id=6118

This will hopefully help Shaun.

Frustrating though it is, (when we think we should be able to just do it cos we've been doing it for so long) it really is a new skill, and it's one worth learning.

All the best and stick with it!!!
Stu

panning speeds
 

Shaun,

This may be useful (I found it fascinating)

http://www.gecko-cam.com/HTML/KNOW-H...ning-speed.htm

Stuart, good tip, my crew uses this very chart. I also refer to it when preparing certain takes.
Most of my work is done with adapters.

Has anyone tested the chart's relevance with the standard lens ?

Brilliant, gents! Thank you so much. It never even DAWNED on me that DOF would be a factor.

I've just caught wind of this thread (I just wrapped 3 short films in 5 shooting days) and have glanced over it quickly. Could you please repost the link to your footage Shaun so I can see what you are seeing?

Thanks

Tim! Wow! 3 films in 5 days?!! I'm impressed! We shot 12 days at 18 hour a day day for just 4 minute for the dining room scene of Titanic with Jack and Rose. I haven't looked at silverware the same way since... Must be nice!

but seriously:

the link above to the JVC pro UK site is good info. The narrow depth of field is an important item. I try to shoot at f 4 at around 45mm to help throw out the background. Even at 1/60th for sports it doesn't look juddery.

Someday a dozen or so of us should make a punch list of what is important to retrain 60i users and 24p film users to use JVC's Pro-HD formats more effectively. I know I had a bit of a long learning curve on some basic ideas.

I shoot 99% 30p for exactly the reasons you said. 24p looks lousy to me.
And it used to be said that you have to pan or tilt "slowly" in 24p, now it looks like people are saying don't pan or tilt at all! That's an impossible limitation. Hollywood films DO pan, tilt, dolly, track, they do it all the time. 30p looks nice though. I've embraced it.

Maybe I didn't make myself quite clear about the panning and tilting.

I certainly didn't mean that you must not use these techniques when using 24 or 25fps but you SHOULD apply different methods in doing so, which is why I posted the link to PANNING TIMES as an example. As for zooming, I personally think it shouldn't be used in anything! The zoom was originally invented as a way of only using one lens instead of keep changing. Any 'zooming' was done in between takes for a re-frame. I hate zooms. Very rarely do you see the zoom used effectively.

Alex your suggestion of a guidance document for all those videographers and cameraman even of many years experience such as myself would be excellent. It took me quite a while and lots of trial and error to understand how differently 24 and 25fps on HDV to that of normal video. I imagine its a common occurrence for people used to video to be disappointed with their first foray into 24/25fps HDV.

I have to say on a personal level I found it really fascinating to learn an almost completely new skill after being so at home on video for so many years.

For me, the most important things I learned to get the 'film' look were;

1: Light differently to that of TV (I've been industry trained in Location and Studio lighting and I'd say I use different techniques when shooting 24/25fps HDV)
2: Reduce the depth of field wherever possible (buy a 35mm adaptor as a start perhaps)
3: Pan and tilt differently. According to your subject and remembering your panning times.
4: DON'T ZOOM - Track instead!
5: Spend as much time as you need in composing your photography.
6: Don't rush anything.

Stuart

An often overlooked point in a discussion regarding JVC's 24p and its so-called 'judder' compared to the look of cinema releases is that while the films are shot at 24fps they are in fact projected in the cinema at '48fps' i.e. the frame is doubled, to help smooth out the motion -hence the pan, tilts, dolly movements etc do look a lot better on the big screen. Just ask your local projectionist and he will confirm this (I work in a cinema and the projectionists have all confirmed this vital point).

"while the films are shot at 24fps they are in fact projected in the cinema at '48fps' i.e. the frame is doubled, to help smooth out the motion".

I'm sorry to say, but this is simply not true. I was a projectionist for seven years, and film runs through a projector at 24 frames per second. The confusion may lie in the fact that since the shutter is closed 50 percent of that time, the effective "shutter speed" is 1/48th of a second, but the fact is that the film runs at 24. Even if the film rate were somehow "doubled", there is no way that showing an image twice in a row would somehow create a smoothness that wasn't recorded by the film camera. Well, unless it was run at double speed, which certainly you can't be suggesting, as the actors on screen would move faster than Keystone Kops and talk like chipmunks!



Todd Norris

I feel I should clarify something here: I'm actually a documentary videographer so dolly shots and the controlled camera/subject motion discussions are null and void in most of my work. I don't do Digital Cinema but I was looking for a quasi-surreal tone for some of my more engaging story driven pieces.

I start shooting in about an hour on the next piece so I'll need to start (and finish) this story at 60P. I will take all advice given in this thread to heart and will begin to teach myself a "new" way of "filming" in video, just to have the skill set available to me.

Tim: I haven't had time to re-upload the "test" footage. I will endeavour to upload some new footage shot on this piece when I can as well as some more "practical" 24P test material.

I'm not done with this discussion - I just have a real world deadline that I need to meet. Again, thanks to all for sharing and please continue to do so. I learn more each day I log in here.

Todd-

I think you misunderstood my post. The term '48fps' was in inverted commas to indicate that this was not to be taken literally and was refering to 'perceived' or 'effective' frame rate... of course it would be at double speed if it was really 48fps! But I have been informed by both our local chief projectionist as well as from other sources that 'most modern projectors strobe each frame twice, or more, so that the apparent frame rate is faster to reduce flicker by giving the impression of 48fps projection'.... I am not sure if this could be by having an effective shutter speed of 1/48th that you mention or whether this is a modern upgrade that has occured since your time as a projectionist. I will check with our chief projectionist when I see him again to get the correct technical explanation of how this is achieved -whatever method is used it certainly explains why we don't see the 24p motion 'judder' refered to in this topic.

Yup.. Try not to zoom, unless you have a reason to. we are of course talking narrative. Kubrick hardly zoomed, but when he did, it was usually a long slow zoom or really long and fast, usually in a very disturbing scene. Today, the rules have changed a little on narratives.. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN/BATTLESTAR GALACTICA etc, have tons of hand held zooms, but that is a narrow stylistic choice.

Now in the defence of zooming, the JVC HDV 100/200 series combined with a Varizoom or the (probably) beetter built JVC zoom control have some really nice slow creeps. I havn't timed it from wide to tight, but I believe it was in excess of a minute. slow and repeatable. Highly recomend it.. however when stowing a Varizoom control for traveling, take the time and remove it from the tripod and bag it... otherwise sooner or later (or me this week) cable snagged while on the dolly going to the shoot, and soooo I had to shorten the 8 wire cable by about 6 inches. Not a big deal, but I did stare at the bare wires before the shoot and said to myself... "That was stupid, next time I'll pack it correctly"

I' mot sure the faster frame rate is to smooth out the image on the big screen as much as it is to shorten the individual dark zones in order to reduce the perception of flicker.

On the other hand, maybe it's the case that the perception of flicker also gives the perception of judder whether the frame rate does or not. Perceptual stuff is all very confusing.

The more I learn about sound and video the more I realize that we don't hear or see anything the way it is because there's so much filtering and processing going on between our ears.

I play tuba and know for a fact that if you look at the energy at different frequencies you'll find that there is almost zero energy at the low frequencies associated with the instrument. The brain will take the higher harmonics in combination and synthesize what we think of as the low notes of the instrument. In long ago times, churches that had no space for the longest pipes on an organ would get organs made with a pair of higher frequency pipes tuned appropriately to generate the perception of the low notes. This is a well known organ builders trick

The human eye is made up of discrete receptors (rods and cones). So there really is no such thing as a continuous image input to the brain.

I stand corrected on the issue of film projectors. You are correct that modern projectors display each frame twice (sometimes three times) before moving on to the next frame. It turns out that the aging art-theater I worked at had an old projector that did not do that. Go figure. Always good to get new information. Thank you.
Perhaps this is supposed to be the appeal of 120Hz HDTVs. Double the scan rate and reduce the perception of flicker.
However, having shot 24p with the JVC HD250 and also with a Varicam, or even a DVX100 for that matter, I have noticed more judder in the JVC compared to the other two. The Varicam is basically indistinguishable from film, in my opinion, in regards to motion smoothness.

Todd Norris

Really? I figured a Varicam with larger sensors and shallower depth of field is obvious that it would be less, but the DVX100 has less? Hmmm Not what I would have guessed. Unless there is a relation not only to chipsize and lens, but resolution of the chip? Ok.. I guess it makes sense... (assuming same focal length, shutter speed, camera movment etc)

Incidently, where do you set your detail setting on your JVC? I keep mine at min to -8. With Normal I see a lot more of everything I don't like to see. If you are at NORMAL I wonder if that might be sharpening the background and emphasising any juddering you are seeing?