Sounds like an urban myth to me, but if someone can provide a reliable reference about that it might make interesting reading.

As for the question about how many movies I've seen shot in 60p, ask me again about 10 years from now. Like I said before, our fondness for 24p is partly a consequence of having it be a standard for several decades, which is arguably just a compromise due to the cost of shooting film. Now that film is about to go away for most purposes we'll see whether 24p really holds up as a desirable frame rate in the digital era.

You really think great film-makers wouldn't have done great work shooting at a different frame rate? To me that's assigning far too much credit to a minor technical detail.

It's been long decades past since the time when any framerate was practical, but they've stayed with 24p as the standard, even after experimenting with different rates.

Why? Because it works; it gives an artistic feel that faster framerates don't. Why do most painters still use brushes and canvas? Why are there portrait painters at all when photography is much more "real life"?

I think you're seriously underestimating the importance of the "canvas" to the artistic output.

But hey, if you personally prefer 60 fps, that's your business.

Perhaps, but as I said we'll see what happens when most movies are recorded and distributed digitally. Not many years ago I had professional photographers telling me they'd never shoot digital because it just didn't look right to them; today I don't know many photographers who don't do digital work. Not quite the same issue there, but the point being that times do change and sometimes perception changes too.

So maybe there really is something magical about a 24p frame rate for video, but I don't see it. I like motion images to look smooth and realistic, and that simply works better at higher frame rates than lower ones. And note that even in this modern era of digital processing, many of the arguments in favor of 24p still boil down to a matter of cost-effectiveness. If that's what works so be it, but I'm still puzzled there isn't more push to go to 60p.

Exactly David and by the way Kevin several years ago digital cameras were not 12 mega pixes and climming with improved technology either. I am currious about one thing you keep bringing up the fact of motion not being smooth in 24p Star Wars, Pirates of the Carribean, Lord of the Rings ect ect ect which one of these movies dose not have smooth motion they all look smooth to me because they are shot with the experiance of working in the 24p frame rate and getting the most out of it, yet still offer the look and feel of a movie you just cant get with 60p. If 24p was as full of judder and stutter as you claim I dont think the movie industry would be plunking down millions upon millions of dallars for films using this fram rate. I think the industry has decided already what works best and as far as the future goes digital film shot at 24p I believe or for example the most recent Star Wars which was a breathtaking movie experiance as far as film quality gose is where the future is most likely going.

I guess the best thing I can say here is that I certainly hope people shooting 24p are doing that carefully, because even 30p can look funny if not done right. I don't notice the artistic characteristics of low frame rates as much as I notice motion judder when low frame rates are used incorrectly, and while that may not happen much in major motion pictures it is a risk of shooting that way. Maybe if I ever made a feature film I'd feel differently about this, but for my work I just want smooth motion.

As far as digital still cameras are concerned, it's not just a question of megapixels and other enhancements - some photographers swore (and a few still swear) that they don't like the digital look. But it's all subjective in the end: if we'd been shooting digital pictures for 50 years and someone brought us film cameras we'd probably think the film pictures looked funny. Same for 24p: it's what we're used to.

People keep saying that 24p has to be shot right. Can someone post a link to the "rules" for shooting 24p correctly?

The only rule that it seems people keep accenting is "Don't do fast pans.? However, on the one hand, fast pans generally are nausea making no matter what the frame rate and on the other hand whip pans are standard in film.

What is a list of the specific rules/techniques for shooting 24p that sets it apart from shooting other frame rates of video?

Each has a purpose. Wouldn't you agree?


I have reasons for shooting/editing/delivering 30fps.
Likewise I have reasons to shoot/edit/deliver 24fps.

I don't think shooting 24fps is "necessary" in order to get any look. Pull down video does not look the same as 24 fps film. Not by a stretch. So the film look on DVD conversation I think is irrelevant (IMO). All DVD's are 29.97 or 25 fps depending on the region.

The one thing that I think 24fps brings to the table is a slower approach to everything and much more careful camera moves.

no matter what, have fun shooting..

Start here and then study the relationships on this chart.

It is a start to realizing the care that must be taken when shooting true progressive with the ProHD products.

Kevin I must say I do not shoot nor have the ability to edit anything in 24p and will likely never for that matter I am not doing anything I would bump up to film. I do how ever shoot most of my projects in 30p and do so with great success, I primarily make nature videos for state parks and an occassional wedding. Shooting in 30p with the settings in my camera give me a very film like end product that many people have enjoyed. I use to shoot with HI8 as a starting source in 60p my projects now look much better in HDV an allot more film like. No one has ever said my projects look like video, they use to when I shot in HI8 60p but not anymore and it did not take me very long to adapt to the 30p shooting I do now I did not find it that difficult to adapt to 30p, sure there are some adjustments you need to make in certain situations but for the most part its really not as difficult as you make it seem. Everything I have put together moving subject and all have come out with great color smoothness and film like appearance in fact I actually prefur it over 24p these results and more are just a few of the reasons I bought the HD100 in the first place I only wish I had this camera years ago to use on project I have already finished in the past my new projects have so much more appeal with less effort than anything I ever shot in HI8 60p and when you see the look on someones face when they see some of the things I have shot with this camera its really something, something I never saw in there faces when viewing my HI8 footage.

That sounds like something most of us can probably agree with. If you and your viewers like 24p then shoot 24p; those of us who like other options can use those. Maybe I need to watch more movies...

Suspension of Disbelief
 

I say that 24p will always rule when it comes to telling a story, especially a fictional one. People watch movies in the pursuit of entering an alternate dimension of sight and perception-one that shares no ressemblance with the visual dimensions of their own life, if you will. And the magic lies in the way that 24p projects that alternate dimension of sight and perception. The dreams we dream in our sleep are shot in 24p; that's why they're so exciting. Suspension of disbelief is what enables us to surrender our minds and our souls to the story on the screen. It's a proven fact that anything other than 24p will always fall short of enabling us to suspend disbelief. Watching video, it's virtually impossible to achieve suspension of disbelief. When we dream, and when we watch a movie in 24p, that's when total suspension of disbelief can happen.

See, that's the kind of statement which doesn't make any sense to me. When I watch a good fictional show on TV at 60i I don't experience any less 'suspension of disbelief' than I do when watching a movie in a theater at 24p, so clearly the frame rate isn't what makes visual entertainment work. If people like the artistic look of 24p that's one thing, but it's not essential to the art of telling a good story. 'Nuff said.

I think what Jaadgys and other people are trying to say is that different frame rates are good for different things when you want more drama in your shoot or the ability to take someone away in a story 24p gives you that edge of look that adds to your story and makes it more dramatic your eyes see more of a 60p look every day so the 24p is of a different texture than what your use to seeing which adds a nice texture to your story I think making it more pleasing to view if done correctly. 60p on the other hand is better for more life like presentation Reality shows, news, some citcomes, sports, some documentarys, soaps operas, never really understood that one but I dont watch them so I dont really care anyway the later are usually things were the producer is trying to get you there, on the spot live ect.... so you see there is a frame rate for everything 24p is just better sooted for the dramas, adventures and stories, not that you cant make something in 60p thats not entertaining but when you want to get your viewer really involved in the story you want to use to your fullest every angle you can to do that music, softness, texture, ect... obviously there is still so much more to this but I think you can get my point 24P adds to the ability to achieve this you just dont get with 60p Ben Hur was a great movie and at 60p it would still have been a great movie but getting away from the story look and closer the to the every day look I think would have not done the film any justice and infact would have made it look less epic. This is the best way I now of explaining this and why Hollywood will more than likely always shoot movies in 24p it will just be digital 24p

I cannot think of a good fictional show I've ever seen that was shot at 60i (NTSC.)

When I was growing up there was a show on Canadian TV called "The Littlest Hobo" about a German Sheppard who drifted from town to town helping people with their problems. As a kid I loved the show, but it was shot straight 60i NTSC, and I always associated the motion of that look with "Canadian" or "low-budget."

In more recent history a Canadian/German co-pro sci-fi show called "LEXX" was one of the first shows to shoot in HD, but unfortunately it was shot at 1080i60. I had the same impression - even though the show was funny, the FX were pretty good and the female costuming was "nice," it was tough to get around the visual impact of 60i. It still seemed "cheap" to me, and I'm sure it probably was, but the production value could only be as good as 60i would allow. I think they eventually processed the final masters for subsequent seasons with "filmlook."

When I think of dramatic productions still shot in 60i all I can come up with are soap operas. Some sitcoms like "Grace Under Fire," "Rosanne," "Married With Children," and "Growing Pains" used to be shot at 60i, but I think all sitcoms are now shot HD24P. It even helps comedy!

Wow, I forgot about Lexx, but you're right . . . it looked like a high school production.

It's a proven fact that 24p is best for belief suspension? who proved it and how?
And we dream in 24p as well? Even in PAL countries? come on man, you're really laying it on pretty thick here.

Kevin has been a bit hammered in this post, so I'm gonna say I largely agree with him. I think our current preference is primarily historical - what we've gotten used to - not psychological/physiological.

It will be interesting to see how the two sides of the argument hold up in 20 years.

If it really is "a proven fact that anything other than 24p will always fall short of enabling us to suspend disbelief" then I look forward to some links to those facts.

And no, we don't dream in 24p.

If shooting at 30p, does it stand that you should shoot at 1/30 sec exposure to get more smear and less judder as the article explains to shoot at 1/24 sec when shooting 24p?

What is the relationship between 24p and 30p material and exposure (shutter) speed when you will want to convert the material to slow motion later? Is it better to have a faster shutter speed, slower shudder?

Have a gander at this post Click here

Essentially, if you want to treat the HD-100 like it's an interlaced camera and disobey the panning speed recommendations then you can set your shutter to match the frame rate and get smear. I think it is infinately better to learn the proper panning speeds in order to eliminate judder by virtue of panning at or below the specified speed.

I love the fact you have challanged this "theory" because it should be challanged. BUT, I'm afraid there is a frame-rate boundry between REAL and UNREAL. I'm not sure if it is 24fps or 26fps or 30fp, but I'm convinced it is real. The faster information is presented to our brain, the more REAL it looks. There's no doubt that 50fps looks fairly real.

However, I find it very odd that 24fps -- arrived at supposedly for audio quality -- just happens to be the only NON-REAL frame-rate. Which raises the question: was 24fps actually chosen because it DID work for viewing stories OR have we all learned that 24fps = NON-REAL? (OK -- PAL viewers also accept 25fps.)

Is it really possible that the move from 25 to 30 destroys the ability to be NON-REAL. If so -- what is the dividing line: 26, 27, 28, or 29fps?

I also suspect it is a matter of shutter-speed and shutter-efficiency. Haven't heard of the latter? It's a real term, not mine. But it's time to sleep so I can't explain it now. But, it could be more important than frame-rate.

I split off all of the DVD 24P questions into this new thread.

Let's stick to the original 24p vs 30p vs 60i aesthetics debate here.

I would really love to tell which issue of SMPTE journal explains all the perceptual issues regarding frame rate. Unfortunately that was twenty years ago or more, just when HD was starting. It was an excellent issue that deviated from the usual electro-techy stuff and got into a different scientific realm.

It boils down to this: 24 frames is the compromise between audio quality, motion acceptability and film stock economy. Frame rates were experimented with extensively in the silent era. Slower then 18 frames can be classified as Un-real. Music videos use slow frames rates to get a dreamy effect. Peter Jackson uses slow frame rates to give his film monsters (remember the Orcs) a nightmarish quality.

18 to 40 could be classified as "storybook reality". The frame rate is fast enough to convey a sense of reality but slow enough to mask motion and create a super-real storybook setting. 30p still gives a film-like motion quality.

40 to 60 starts to "imitate" reality. NTSC and PAL are really 50 and 60 frames a second. Action that looks fast at 24p looks slower at 60i even though the same amount of time passes. Faster then 60 frames becomes more and more life-like despite claims that the human eye can not detect really fast rates. Douglas Trumbell (sfx for 2001, Bladerunner, ect.) created his 60 frame ShowScan film system expressly for Las Vegas specialty rides where people sit in those motion rigged audience platforms and get shook around while films play 360 around them.
This was the maximum frame rate he could safely get the film to repeatedly run without shredding to bits in the projector. He would have prefered 75 to 100 fps for a more realistic, audience thrilling effect.

I don't remember the exact span of frame rates and now I'm thinking that it may have not been SMPTE journal but the theory is the same.

How does shutter speed enter into this. Is there a difference shooting 24p or 30p at 1/48 vs 1/60 vs 1/100 vs 1/500?

Shutter speed is another compromise between mechanics and motion capture. The closer the shutter speed to the actual frame rate the better the illusion of actual motion thru blur. You can experiment yourself and see how faster shutter speeds create an animated look to motion. Animators work hard to learn how to mimic motion blur for a good reason. Faster shutter speeds are helpful for footage you plan to slow down at a later stage.