Are you shooting 30p or 24p
 

Hi Gang,

About to start a low budget feature.

What are most of you doing with frame rate? I know that the chances of going to film are slim.

All of the stuff that I've done in the past, even though originated on film, did well on video and never ended up in theaters or had very limited runs.

I'm bothered by the jutter when panning, but what I've been doing so far is making sure that there is something moving with me when I pan to hide the jutter.

Let me know what you think.

Tom Chaney

www.tomchaney.com

I would rather shoot in 720/30P than SD 24P because of how good the picture looks since I can't edit 720/24P without major workarounds.

If you have no problem editing 24P, then go with it if you want it.

There is more to makeing film looks than film frame rates. I think it would be more important to make a better looking movie. If you can't shoot it because of motion to your "standards" and it ends up looking amatuerish, whats the point.

I believe Steve Mullen stated a while back that 30P actually has potential to look more like film because of flicker. Maybe someone else can clarify.

The important thing is that it looks good, and that you are happy with it, not someone else telling you how to shoot your film.'

Good luck.

Thanks Steve,

I'm currently shooting HDV24p and I have to do all the workarounds (which is the primary reason I'm throwing out the question).

We're handling the project like we would film so it all looks great, composition, lighting, camera moves - but I was just wondering what everyone else was doing - and for what reasons.

Thanks again,

Tom

We have started to shoot more 720/24P (but with PPro no workflow issues also). You can shoot lower light at 24P with better results than 30P, smaller file sizes, native to DVD and less frames when streaming content over the internet (thats a big one for us). All good reasons that have proven worth shooting 24P... when the project allows.

I personally prefer the look of 24p when doing narrative work. It's what people expect and it might subconsciously add a little more credibility in the viewer's mind because it's not obvious it originated on video. Of course 30p is not as far from 24p as 60i (that would look cheap), but if you can go to 24p, why not?

That being said, it really is what you prefer and is more feasible. I personally greatly dislike the hoops of the current 24p workflow and that alone is a big reason to stick with 30p. (Apple, where's the update???).

In the end it is your story that has to sell the movie and as long as you tell it well, people should have no problem being sucked in whatever the frame rate.

Thanks guys,

It looks like we are sticking with 24P and hoping for the "imminent" upgrade to come sooner than later.

Tom

I shoot everything in 30p and have got many compliments on the look, I dont think I will shoot in 24p even when apple supports it. If its not going to film the look of 30p is just as good and most people wont even notice the difference.

"I believe Steve Mullen stated a while back that 30P actually has potential to look more like film because of flicker. Maybe someone else can clarify."

24p has been the rage for years in the DV world, however, I will throw in this tidbit that many high-end film "glossy" tv spots are shot on film@30p...often for the slightly faster frame rate (i.e. less flicker) as well as for easier conforming in the U.S. for ntsc broadcast.

Tom,

Distributors want filmlook. If you don't shot 24p then you need to shoot 60i and convert to 24p. Then you need to add a film look in post. I shot a feature in 30p that looks great and every distributor complained that it didn't look like film. If you want distribution, I recomend doing everything you can to make it look like film.

It's great you are open to both options. And, the fact you already have found that panning with a moving subject is the key to reducing judder.

Thus, the issue comes down to ease of production. While we all know Apple will eventually deliver 24p support, we don't now HOW it will do so. Likewise, we expect Avid to deliver 24p next fall, but we don't know HOW it will be implemented. Therefore, it might make sense to shoot 30p until you have a 24p solution on your computer.

Conversly, if you use Premiere Pro with CineForm or Avid Liquid, you have a 24p solution right now so there's no reason to not shoot 24p. THe former lets you work with an Intermediate codec while tha latter lets you work native.

Beyond, post issues -- 24p gives you more light sensitivity while 30p gives you a bit more temporal resolution (less judder).

Thanks Steve,

I have been an Apple guy for quite a long time, but I am seriously considering a PC solution so that I can do the 24p natively!

I hate to "switch" but I'm not sure how much longer I can wait for the "imminent" release (which now looks like it may be August).

Tom

The New Apples (Intels) can run Windows on them, so why not get the best of both worlds.

Yeah, the imminent release that so many people (well intentioned) have been prediciting for a while now is getting old. It would be nice if there were some actual channel of info from Apple regarding this but it's all supposition at this point and it is frustrating preparing to shoot work with no idea if you'll have 24p editing.
I'm really not interested in third party solutions.
Equally frustrating is not being able to shoot to disk at this point either with Focus saying basically the same thing as we're hearing about Apple...it's coming anytime.

The real problem is that we have been spoiled by these guys, Apple and Focus, with great stuff.

But unfortunately, we all saw, or heard about, the demo of FCP that was working with our beloved camera at NAB.

(And it is talked about on the JVC website)

Tom

That was not a demo of what they plan to ship. It was a version hacked so 24p could be used as thought it were 30p. They were, at least honest about it not being any kind of prerelease version.

Avid has confirmed Liquid running 720p24 on a MBP. So, that may be the best of both worlds.

That's very good to hear.

Can you please link me to where you located this information about MacBookPro?

Steve,

That is very good to hear. I have a MacBook Pro bought specifically for this project.

Please tell more.

Thanks,

Tom

Install Bootcamp, install XP with SP2. Install: http://www.olofsson.info/ so you can get right-click.

Now install Liquid 7. Update to 7.1. Enjoy.

One thing, for 720p you need 256MB VRAM.

PLEASE!!!! Report how this goes for you.

I'm checking with Avid folks about how it could be run a MacBook.

In the next month I'll be covering 24p with Liquid in my GDC@Work Newsletter.

Apple are you hearing this???
 

Thanks Steve,

As much as I hate to, you've got me SERIOUSLY considering placing an order for Windows and Liquid.

Does it need to be the pro version of XP?

Tom

Tom,

On a purly Windows machine you should get XP Pro as specified by the Liquid cookbook.

S.Noe

Please clarify. Is this a dual boot scenario or an XPPro emulation within OSX?

Do you know if the Macbook Pro can run Windows XP Professional.

What you’ll need
Mac OS X Tiger v10.4.6 (check Software Update)
The latest Firmware update (check Support Downloads)
10GB free hard disk space
An Intel-based Mac
A blank recordable CD
A printer for the instructions (You’ll want to print them before installing Windows, really.)
A bona fide installation disc for Microsoft Windows XP, Service Pack 2, Home or Professional (No multi-disc, upgrade or Media Center versions.)

Steve,

This is right from Apple.

Tom

Stephen Noe,

Thanks for the info!

Dual boot. Boot in XP and you've got a Intel notebook.

I'm going to try a Macbook next week.

Since you mention it... Please post the benchmarks on the hybrid Mac as soon as you have something please.

We are considering something like this from a use and testing standpoint. Our CEO wants to give the system a shot as he loves new technology, but I'm not ultra sold on the idea. All I have read is propaganda articles, and they rarely to never tell the complete story from a fully functioning production point of view. Everyone bends the numbers. For years now I have heard how the Mac is so much faster and more powerful than Intel based PC's, yet now the Mac is incorporating Intel CPU's and architecture. Ummm... So, is the new architecture so much more superior to the advancements in a long running development of Windows based PC's? Or is it simply a more cost effective CPU for the Mac, that also allows for a wider range of applications (windows Based) for a traditional Mac user?

Not at all argumentative in my questioning, I'm simply trying to understand the benefits of a system like this for a predominantly PC grounded production house, doing 24P editing of course. :)

Oh and... yes, we are shooting more 24P these days, have I mentioned that? It's good to stay on task.

Thanks Steve!!!


.

A dual G5 is VERY fast -- just as Apple claimed.

But the day I bought a used 3.2GHz P4 Dell laptop, I realized that an Intel laptop was faster than any Mac laptop. My Mac friends could not believe my stories of how fast my laptop was.

Thankfully, Apple did not not believe their own marketing and has been running OS X on Intel for years. So they dropped the PowerPC. Now some think they should have gone with AMD. But, it was a "bet your company" decision -- and go Intel makes sense. For one thing, Intel makes motherboards, so Intel is building the next PowerMac MB for Apple.

There are problems with the new Apple laptops. Especially heat. But, I'm not sure the heat is any worse than a PC laptop. Mac owners simply have no experience with just how hot the new super fast chips can get in a laptop.


NOTE: since I've got a Mac laptop and my Dell laptop -- I really don't need my dual G5 anymore, so I'm selling it.

1. Apple PowerMac: dual 2.5GHz G5 with 4GB of RAM. Firewire ports and USB ports. Modem and Ethernet ports. (No Bluetooth or AirPort.) Keyboard and Mouse.

2. ATI Graphics Card with 256MB VRAM that supports two DVI monitors

3. 160GB HDD

4. SuperDrive

5. Mac OS 10.3.9

6. AJA HD10A HD analog component to HD-SDI converter box

7. Blackmagic DeckLink HD Pro (HD-SDI input/output plus HD analog component output)

8. Apple s/w: iMovie HD 5.0.2; iPhoto 5.0.4; Itunes 6.0.1; GarageBand 2.0.2; Final Cut Express HD 3.0; CinemaTools 3.0.3; DVD Studio Pro 3.0.2; Final Cut Pro HD 5.0.03; LiveType 2.0.2; Motion 1.0.1; SoundTrack 1.2

9. Adobe s/w: After Effects 5 and Illustrator 10

10. Bias s/w: Peak Express 3.3

11. Popwire Compression Master 3

12. Microsoft s/w: Office X

Items #6 and #7, at list, are about $3500.

No software documentation or Licenses -- other than OS X.

I'm open to any reasonable offer.

Please contact via email.

Just a note on Apple
 

One of the things that make the MAC platform so nice is that they control all of the hardware.

They don't have to deal with 50 manufacturers of video cards, sound cards, ram, etc.

In all fairness to windows, I don't know how you could write software with infinite variables to the hardware!

So, along those lines, wouldn't it make sense that once windows is figured out for the MAC machines, it should be extremely solid???

I use both as well, and the thing that has kept me closer to Apple is that it WORKS!

My windows machines, all new, all Dell and Sony, stink! Constantly crashing, constantly telling me updates are available, constantly taking forever to do simple stuff, email, spreadsheets, word docs.

Sorry for ranting,

Tom

Just a note on Apple
 

One of the things that make the MAC platform so nice is that they control all of the hardware.

They don't have to deal with 50 manufacturers of video cards, sound cards, ram, etc.

In all fairness to windows, I don't know how you could write software with infinite variables to the hardware!

So, along those lines, wouldn't it make sense that once windows is figured out for the MAC machines, it should be extremely solid???

I use both as well, and the thing that has kept me closer to Apple is that it WORKS!

My windows machines, all new, all Dell and Sony, stink! Constantly crashing, constantly telling me updates are available, constantly taking forever to do simple stuff, email, spreadsheets, word docs.

Sorry for ranting,

Tom

Since MAC's now run both...I can't see any reason to buy a pure windows machine unless you need something on Par with the Guad G-5 since MAC hasn't released there high end machines yet. The Macbook Pros as slightly faster than the Dual Core G5's

No one wants a PC vs. Mac debate; I'm no exception to the rule.
But Tom, anyone who deals with constant crashes and/or slow performance due to hardware, application or OS, and does not properly configure a system to avoid working like this, should be using a Mac. Our systems are very stable and rarely to never crash (unless we do something totally stupid, I can kill a Mac doing the same operation), but then we are also system educated and want more than just a "simple" out of the box solution. I will take the "50 manufacturers of video cards, sound cards, ram, etc" with all of it's options any day. Something is wrong with your configuration, and it's not the computers fault.

Strictly opinion here, but the Mac is similar to the HVX camera, it's hip, cool and trendy. They are easy to operate, relatively stable, and do a great job. But stability and ease of use has come at a price, and not just $$$, but at the cost of third party supported hardware, software and functionality. I never bought into the trendy marketing around these two items. The print and media advertising for both Mac and the HVX are transparent and seriously makes me want to gag.. "want to look cool, shoot and edit with no experience"? The current marketing campaign is insulting to the power users who chose Macintosh long before it was trendy and hip.



Steve Benner - "Since MAC's now run both...I can't see any reason to buy a pure windows machine unless you need something on Par with the Guad G-5 since MAC hasn't released there high end machines yet. The Macbook Pros as slightly faster than the Dual Core G5's"

That's a biased and slightly uneducated statement Steve.
I could see buying a faster Mac to replace your current slower Mac WITH access to Windows based applications. But buying a slower Mac than your currently faster PC simply because it runs Windows? Are you serious? I would rather see some real world, hard application speeds on this computer first. Right now it looks to be more of just an advantage to current Mac users, not Mac and PC users alike.

I agree that there is no reason to buy a slower machine. Once Apple releases their high end systems, I doubt the PC will be any faster. Currently aren't QUAD-CORE G5's among the fastest computers?

No, that was once again another case of propaganda / hype.

"Apple Computer defended its claim of having "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer" on the market by omitting certain speed tests it failed and claiming certain workstation computers weren't comparable, a detailed analysis by The Mac Observer of the Better Business Bureau's 26-page report on claims of false advertising... In it's decision, NAD recommended Apple pull its advertisement's claiming to have the fastest and most powerful PC, saying readers could easily believe the claim applied to workstations..."

Readers like you Steve. Don't worry, a lot of people bought into it.

Faster than the current Macs? Sure. Other than that? I'll believe it when I see it.

One thing is for sure, when you get on Mac your choices are very limited. When you get on a PC your choices are wide open but you MUST know what you are doing.

Since the Intel Chips are in MACs now and you claim PC's are faster, I assume you are an AMD user?

And I do not care about propoganda. I worked on Windows machines since it came out. I then tried a Apple in my high school and edited on a Media 100 G4 Mac. I bought my G4 Powerbook and will never go back to a pc. Mac OSX is a much better operating system in my opinion, and the computers are more than fast enough. Plus now they can run windows and I can get the windows only software. I also love Final Cut Studio.

Quick Question: What Brand PC do you own?

By the way: I am not trying to insult PC users so don't take this the wrong way. I am more concerned with my whole computer experience, not just speed. I am sure you are correct in saying that you built faster PC's than the Apple's. I am just saying I prefer MAC. But, you cannot tell me that a Quad-Core G5 is a slow machine.

Guys last time I checked the topic was about shooting 30p or 24p to me that is about aethetiscs, there are alot of guys who know what their talking about but have yet to produce anything with what they have, mac or pc if you can't edit or shoot then it doesn't matter how many Ghz your comp runs at, it will suck full stop. So put your money where your mouth is, and stop this flame war.

It's just guys talking. Not much flaming....

It looks to me like theres been a lot of fanning

I am in no hate debate against PC here, but yest eh topic did take over the debate I guess. I was more curious about how much faster PC's can be made than MAC's since I heard everything was ruffly on par...I thought it was interesting.

Anyway, I think that 720/24P is the way to go if you can edit it. If not, then I think it may be better to shoot 720/30P rather than SD 24P just for the higher resolution.

Jemore, sorry if it looks heated, but no flames are coming from this side and I don't feel any from Steve, so no harm done.

Hehe, no Steve, I'm not an AMD, Intel, PC or Mac fan. We use anything that gets the job done at the easiest price to swallow. Because in 6 months something is going to come along that's better, faster and cheaper. I don't want to blow my budget for the year on one system, and lose business to those who didn't. For us it's mostly PC's, but that's just because they fit the build for us, for now. If and when the Mac comes around in both speed and cost, then all the better. I would love to own a Mac that can run our Windows applications, so I am considering the new system. But even then it's more of a technology thing, we like to check things out... like all geeks, we can use it for testing, etc..

And see, we can agree on the 24P editing. ;) We have gotten way off topic. however, so on topic I can say that I'm still very suprised that FCP and Avid have had so many issues with 24P editing on the Mac. It's honestly the one area of using a PC over a Mac that I never would have expected.