I think all of us understands that different FPS will always
create a different motion signature, even if it is changed to
a different FPS (although this could change the signature a
bit). It is like math, you can explain it. Wether you like it or
not is your opinion, which is your own to have ofcourse.
I think Brad has some very good points, especially if you
keep in mind that some of the things he writes are HIS
opinion, he is entitled to that (don't forget this).

Then again, some other people have written good things
about it too. I think we can all agree that more cameras
with more options should be a good thing (generally).
Ofcourse some people don't need this, others will. I agree
with Chris that the story is the most important (and I think
Brad agrees with this too), most people will watch it in
30 FPS or 24, the don't know, and see the difference.

Some people will see the difference though, even if they
aren't familiair with the differences. It all ends in what you
like, what resources and equipment you have. I think if
we all had the choice (and I am talking about the people here
who want to make movies that will hopefully be seen in
theaters) we'd shoot on film (at this moment). But most of
us cannot afford this. We all understand there are differences
between the formats, lets just accept this and do what we
love: MAKE INTERESTING MOVIES (Tv series, commercials etc.)
the way we want and can.

Hope I've not stept on any ones toes here, lemme know what
you think...

Enjoy the weekend!

well said, Rob. I'm fallible, perhaps not always expressing myself in the best way. It's great to hear from others who can say it better than I.

Brad, please be so kind and give me a technical explanation as I don´t seem to know what I am talking about.

PS: You got at least one thing wrong, I am not negatively responding to your comments, if have a little closer look at the postings you´ll see that I posted way before you did. So I make a U-turn and blame you commenting negatively on my comments. :-)

PPS: I already said this is going nowhere, we are discussing taste here. So why argue at all? I like my burger with onions, I don´t care for others. I can only eat what I like. So what?

Cheers, keepin the fire burning and having a lot of fun ;-)

Peter, Brad is not saying that just because you view something on video that it looks amateur. He is saying that things that are SHOT at 24 frames per second have a more "professional" look in his opinion than things that are shot at higher frame rates. It doesn't matter if you are viewing it on video or not. Professionals have been using 24fps for a long long time where consumers have not had this chance. That's the basis of the opinion and I am also excited about the prospect. That's why DVD movies look more professional (one of many reasons, actually) then any camcorder footage thus far. With new 24fps cameras, you can now create footage that looks just as good if not better than those DVDs if you have careful lighting, direction, composition and soundwork.

What I am a bit leary on is that the new Panasonic camera is pretty small from what I gather. It's a handheld unit. I'll have to look at it's 24fps mode and make a true decision then. But until then I am excited that they are offering it. Next I want a MiniDV camera that also shoots 120 or at least 60 full progressive frames per second that, on playback, slow down to normal 30fps for incredible slow motion.

Hey wow jeepers. This thread certainly has taken on a life of its own!

Ugliness and backbiting aside, it seems to me that the real issue at debate here is whether video is best relegated to its native medium, which is 60i and displayed on a monitor or video projector; or should it move forward and emulate the cinema world, at 24p and possibly transferred to film for projection. Fortunately this new Panasonic camera allows for both possibilities, doesn't that make it a win-win for both camps?

I think that the general public, while not being able to describe perhaps why they feel the way they do, would probably pick a 24p presentation over 60i if they were given a side by side comparison, if the subject matter was theatrical in nature. The 60i look is thought of as representing "reality", i.e. news, live television, sports, cop shows, reality shows, etc. It's what they have grown up seeing, and that ingrained conditioning would be hard to break.

I would also offer that the public has become more visually sophisticated with the introduction of high resolution TV's and DVD's, digital cable and satellite in the past few years. People now demand a sharper, cleaner image where once they were satisfied with an aging console set with tinfoil over the rabbit ears. Another proof that the public is becoming more visually savvy is that a few years ago, letterboxing was scandalous to much of the population--rather than realizing they were actually getting more of the original image of a 1:85 film, they thought they were getting ripped off because there were black bars on their set. Now, most people are comfortable with the look, widescreen DVD's are standard, movies are sometimes shown on broadcast and cable in their original format, and even television series such as "ER" and "The West Wing" are now shot and broadcast exclusively in the 16:9 format.

The point I am rambling around is that yes, I do think there are psychological factors that can trigger a certain effect in viewers, whether they know about it or not, and frame rate is most definitely one of them; and 24 fps is what the movies are about!

Brad, as someone who has shot film, I am surprised that you would say "With this new camera, there will be no reason why the MiniDV format playback can not look just as good as a production shot on film and transferred to DVD". There are plenty of reasons why this is not so, and you have referred to them in earlier posts. Nevertheless, I am hoping and praying that this camera makes lovely pictures, although Panasonics are not traditionally known for this. The single reason I own an XL1 is that I feel it has the most pleasing image quality of all the options out there, especially in Frame Movie Mode.

Finally, I dug Adrian's "@%$# Hollywood" post. It bespeaks to the reason I and perhaps most others are posting here; that DV offers the opportunity to make movies on a virtually non-existent budget, which allows for the kind of experimentation that can be tremendously satisfying and educational. I have in the past shot shorts and features for first-time directors who have taken out loans and gutted their savings just to get their vision on screen, and so far none of them have really achieved the success they were hoping for (and are probably still trying to pay off their credit cards). I'm personally getting involved with DV so that I can finally take my turn in the directing chair, and I know that with this technology I can achieve a look and feel that "sells" as if it was shot on film (while not necessarily looking just like film), and I can do it for a fraction of what those other projects cost. Ironically, Adrian, I do actually own an 35mm Arri and Zeiss lenses (and I even live and work in @%$#'ing Hollywood!); but you can be sure that the Arri will sit in the closet while my DV camera is getting the workout on this upcoming "film"!

Thanks to everyone for keeping this hot debate civil. To those who are complaining about the tone of the posts, please do not read in anger which is not there. A lot of the "emotion" is perceived only, and not intended. There's a difference. Let's not take things so personally, okay?

Frankly as far as I'm concerned, it's all in the lighting.

Regarding the Panasonic 24p camera, you can forget about using it professionally if there's no way to do proper zoom and focus control (prosumer Panasonics don't have the ability to use lens controllers). I think it's going to be a big disappointment.

I stand by my assertion that framerate is a non-issue. There's so much more that goes into a Hollywood 35mm film production; primarily a talented DP, crew, *lights* and most of all budget.

Thanks again,

I respectfully disagree, Chris. HOWEVER I would like to see a short (maybe 30 seconds) of 60i footage that has proper lighting and the such that gives it the film look in order to see your point. Are there any examples I can look at? I just want to see how it looks. I don't care about stoyline or anything like that for this example.

What you have to say about the Panasonic prosumer cameras deeply concerns me. Like I said, I hope they offer this as an ADDITIONAL feature in an XL2 someday soon. At least we know that camera will be good.

Joe

Let's pin it down... are we talking about 60i video transferred to 35mm that looks like 35mm, or 60i video that just looks like 35mm?

*Another* thing I think about this Panasonic 24p camera is how the heck are you going to edit 24p video... there ain't a DV editing solution I know of that can do it.

I think Rob Lohman and Joe Redifer's first post on this 2nd page of the discussion sums things up nicely for the way I feel. Since a couple of other things popped up, I'll try and explain/answer them as best as I can. (And Chris is right, I am not mad, so please do not read this in an angry tone.)

Peter, let's say we are shooting a film at 24FPS and then transfer it to video. What do we have? We have 24 frames per second of motion. If we transfer it to NTSC video, we now have 30 frames per second of video, but still only 24 frames per second of motion. Thus every 4th frame of the original "film" must be duplicated in order to bump up the frame rate from 24FPS to 30FPS. So even when playing that back on video at 30FPS, you still only have 24FPS motion to it. In fact, even if we were to transfer our film into some newfangled video format that ran at 120FPS, we would still only have 24 frames of motion per second. If that still isn't clear, perhaps you could think of it this way. Transferring 24FPS to 30FPS is not creating frames, but duplicating frames. So if by that argument the finished transfer is still 30FPS of motion, then why is it that I cannot take a still picture and duplicate it 30 times per second and get full motion video from that one frame? Simple, because you cannot create what is not there, regardless of how many "frames" the display device may play back at. It is kind of like watching vacation slides transferred to videotape. You are seeing 30FPS or 60i from the transfer, but it is just a still frame. Does that make sense? The originating frame rate is all that really matters here, and that is why I am so excited about the new Panasonic and why I feel that this frame rate will quickly become a standard option for all DV cameras in the near future once people see the difference. Granted not all shows are ideally shot at 24FPS. steadichupap's examples of "reality" shows, news, live television and such are actually better suited for 60i. A lot of this has to do with personal preference yes, but also a lot of this has to do with the kind of end result we are looking for in a particular production. Regardless, this is why your example of "Titanic" looking like a video is not valid.

steadichupap, regarding my comment, no you are of course correct that no video that is currently available (or for that matter in the near future) will ever TRULY look like film for a variety of reasons. My comment was more aimed toward making a video production look like a film production *as viewed on video*. I do agree with you that the XL1 cannot be beat right now in the DV format. Joe has let me play with his before and it is a magnificent camera, except for that weird delay in the focusing control that I just can't seem to get used to. If rumor hits that an "XL2" will have 24FPS frame rate capability, then I will definitely hold on, for I agree I think that will be THE camera to have. :)

Chris, regarding lighting, I feel that for a "movie" type of video production, shooting at 60i or 30FPS doesn't give it that "movie" feel, but keeps me subliminally saying "I am watching a homemade video". It's the motion that I am most bothered with and I must agree with Joe that I don't think all the lighting in the world will ever make 60i look like film. Also, I know Joe hasn't responded yet, but I'm 99% sure he is referring to shooting 60i video and trying to light it to look like film. The look of the lighting may hit perfectly, but as soon as the actors and camera start moving around, the "video" effect is still going to be there (at least in my opinion). I know I couldn't much care less about transferring a video I shoot to 35mm film and I *think* Joe basically feels the same way.

Yeah. I want to see 60i shot on video that looks just like a DVD that originated on 24fps film (minus the grain, sound, and all that). It can be a shot of a couple of people walking around in a kitchen... it doesn't matter. I just want to see.

Any NLE can edit 24fps video. What if you recorded some footage from the Titanic DVD (just for example, Macrovision nonwithstanding) into your computer? You could easily edit that around. If the Panasonic does the 3:2 pulldown effect for NTSC just like DVD does, then it shouldn't be a problem. The only real problem would be doing fades and dissolves which all still move at 60i for some insane reason (it should be selectable).

Hmmmm, interesting point Joe. I am only familiar with Adobe Premiere. Do you know of any other editing program that might offer at least the selection between 60i and 30FPS for transition effects?

Nope. 'Tis unfortunate. If you REALLY must have the effect, though, you can figure out which frames need it, export the frames into stills and then adjust the opacity in Photoshop, saving a new frame for each adjustment and then re-integrating it into the movie. A pain, but it does work.

Sorry to butt in on what seems like such a long discussion, one that I personally find academic. To Joe and Brad, if you're so obsessed with slow frame rates that you think it is the only thing that stands between your video looking like film why not do what I did. GET A PAL CAMERA!!! Sorry I didn't mean that as an angry shout, just a humble advertisement and an obvious solution.

Instead of kneeling in the dark, waiting, hoping, and praying that this panasonic thing will live up to the hype and doesn't disappoint you, just get a PAL XL1. I live in Utah and its not that much more expensive to go the PAL route. The computer doesn't care, and you will have your holy grail to great quality video making, a lower frame rate.

Sure its 25 fps and not 24, but I highly doubt you'll be able to tell the difference in a side by side comparison.

In my humble opinion lighting is much more important than frame rate. A well lit video at 30 fps will look much better that a poorly lit video or film at 24 fps. You've probably never seen a poorly lit film because even the lowest budget film tends to be fairly well lit.

Joe can vouch for me I've already done a LOT of research into getting a PAL version of the XL1 camera. :)

I ended up not doing it because all of the info I got on it pointed toward a bad conversion to NTSC reagarding the actual aspect ratio (which is slightly different), color and contrast. At this point I will hold off on the Panasonic or the Canon XL1 version of a 24FPS camera, but I would indeed be very interested in what you could share with us on how you convert PAL to NTSC. You may very well have a better solution than I've heard of. Your shared techniques/conversion process/equipment would be appreciated.\

(And I do agree with you that I don't think anyone would notice the difference between 24 and 25FPS.)

By way of clarification, and I REALLY don't want to raise the ire of anyone here, but frame rate aside, I think progressive scan is certainly a great leap forward. As I said before, I'm not enamoured of the interlacing jaggies. IMHO, I think this is a curse from the past. So, frame rate issues aside, please, please, please a true progressive scan camera with native 16:9 format at 30 or 60 FPS would be my ideal design. Of course an adjustable frame rate would be interesting approach, say 25p, 30p, 60p.

I understand the issues with television reqmts for interlacing. This could be handled by making an interlaced option from the 30p, much the reverse of how 30p is currently made from 30i. HDTV will eventually eliminate the need for interlacing altogether, so, there's no need to hang on to this NTSC reqmt for interlacing.

I work exclusively in the digital world, broadcast issues are not one of my considerations. I apologize, in advance, if I stepped on anyone's toes from the broadcast world.

Gents:

This is something I would like to be educated on, please tell me if I have this right: as NTSC is 60i (that is, 30 frames per second, each frame consisting of two interlaced fields), then isn't PAL 50i (25 fps with two interlaced fields)?

If this is the case, PAL video is only marginally closer to our "target" of 24p. The "frame movie mode" on the XL1, which simulates a 30p look, is much closer and thus why it has a more filmlike motion characteristic. 24p video is actually a bit on the jerky side when viewed raw--I've been interested in it from a film blowup perspective, which is where it would appear I'm in the minority on this board. I have heard that footage shot in the frame movie mode on the XL1 is much harder mathematically to create a 24 fps film blowup from than 60i NTSC, or PAL.

Regarding frame rate vs proper lighting as the primary factor in emulating a film presentation. Before there was frame movie mode and software like Cinelook, the best way to process video to give it the "film" treatment was to send it through the proprietary Filmlook process which cost something like $800 for 10 minutes of footage. I worked on a few projects that were Filmlooked, and so I saw the online cut before and after processing. Filmlook incorporated gamma correction, grain addition and other attributes but primarily it converted standard video into 24 fps footage which was then given a 3:2 conversion back into video. The material was shot and filtered and lit as much like film as I could give it. Until the application of Filmlook, it looked like good video. Afterwards, it fooled more than a few people into thinking it had originated on film.

Thus I stand firm on championing frame rate as a major contributor to achieving a film look. But all of the other factors listed above must be in place, or one is simply polishing a turd.

On the other side of the coin, shooting 35mm handheld with available light under conditions that would look like home movies if shot on video, can actually look beautiful. I worked (as the camera operator, not the DP) on a film called "American History X" a few years back which has been heralded for its look. I can attest to the fact that much of it was shot in this way, worth checking out on DVD (powerful movie in any event). Of course it wasn't just the fact that it was shot at 24 fps that made it beautiful, it was also 35mm filmstock.

I had the fortunate experience to attend the Santa Fe Film festival in the Fall. There was a category for DV, as, admittedly DV is not admitted into the "film" category. The three DV movies I saw were 30 minute shorts in the Western genre. Of these three, one was quite poorly lit, using an XL1 and available sunlight and shadows from vegetation...a VERY tough task for DV. The second short was mediocre, a little better. The last was filmed in southern Nm, out of doors and indoors under ambient light. Fill reflectors were used carefully. This movie was, IMHO, excellent and rivals film. I wish I could remember the title for reference. Facial close-ups were astounding and had a great deal of impact. All three were projected with a digital projector, and thus were not transposed to film. I wish I could share this experience with everyone here with actual footage. It would certainly convince all but the most skeptical.

Thanx to everyone for providing very useful input.

ahhhh...a little research provided the answer...the three films were as follows:

"Three Westerns shot in New Mexico: "Cuatro," an eerie vision of horsemen on an apocalyptic mission, directed by Jason Balas, "Cristobal," exploring the aftermath of Pancho Villa's raid on Columbus, NM, directed by Keith Sherman, and "Gold, Ghouls and Gals," in which prospectors meet a vampire, directed by Malcolm Ward. "

Out of consideration to the principals, I won't identify which is which.

Gentlemen,

I'm in a hotel room in Orlando (the PMA show) stuck with WebTV for net access and it sucks. Lots to say but impossible to type on this keyboard. Will try to follow up ASAP, getting some examples of "film-like" (ugh) 60i video from colleagues here. I still think color & depth of field (i.e. lighting) and a camera that moves like it has some mass behind it is the key to the 35mm look, more so than framerate. My opinion I guess. Apologies for the absence,

The factors you mention will definitely add quality to a video production, but it will still look like it was sourced on video without that magical frame rate. If you prove me wrong I will send you an extra 1 hour battery for the XL1... the battery that comes with it. I don't need it and it works fine, but I should offer something! :)

Web TV is the best thing to ever happen to the internet! OK maybe not.

Chris, I would be very interested in seeing some of your examples, even though I still find it hard to believe, I'm always open to checking things out.

I've got an awful lot of server space and bandwidth. I'll gladly host some downloads for you of your examples if you need. :)

With DV Will 24p Matter Much Anyway?
 

If you get TechTV they had an interesting take on all this. The future state of Holloywood will be to get away from film altogether and send the product by satellite to your neighborhood theatre (or theater).

I think that may take a while as Hollywood would have to invest *heavily* in new state-of-the-art hardware. Such high end cams are extremely expensive, though it drops the cost of production dramatically.

So I guess the real question is, is the new Panasonic offering harbinger of change from 30 fps to 24?

Nathan Gifford

TA-DAAAAAA!!

24p
 

I would be interested in the 24p camera by panosonic, ill be at NAB 2002 and
be looking into buying one there if i am impressed with the image quality.

I agree that lighting is key for shooting good video or film.

I am doing some experiments using the XL1 with lighting and achived
very good quality video shooting frame mode and convertingto 24frames
rather than 30 in post. Im using frame mode and get a image almost
identical to film. its all in the lighting.

but its also the un video like mood you get to achive a serious feel to your
story....

check out this link:

www.shincthemovie.com

check out the trailer....
this is a good example of really good lighting and staging.....but
it still looks like video for some reason...like they didnt shoot in frame mode
using the XL1....(this was shot with an XL1)

I can show examples of my experiments if anyone is interested in seeing the
film quality i achieved with DV.

Hey _redone_ I'm not sure I can read whatever foreign language that site is in (Italian?) so I can't find anything to download.

But I am interested in the technique that you use to convert 30fps Frame Mode into 24fps material. How do you do it? I would like to play with this method.

dv
 

umm im not sure what site your looking at
thus i dont think i posted a URL.

but yeah ill post some samples on my server....

basically i shoot my footage in frame mode 30p
and take i tinto after effects for color correction and
some cinelook.....

then i change the after effect settings to play at 24p frame rate.

then i render the scene...
when you output make sure the timeline is set back to 30fps
or is already set...

the reason for this is i found i get a real sharp motion with 30fps
output..so i tried 24p and it looks more...realistic maybe..

anyway ill have some samples at

www.agentorangeclothing.com/sample1.jpg
www.agentorangeclothing.com/sample2.jpg


this will show the difference between before and after..
before post and after post..

thanks..

The trailer is @
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/produccion/SHInc.%20trailer%20v1.0.avi

Extra movies of the making of:
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/postproduccion/f1shinc2.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof008.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof009.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof010.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof016.avi
http://shincthemovie.quepunto.net/images/mkof/mkof017.avi

easy to find Joe, even if you do not understand the language!

i agree we should wait and see on this one...but just a few things to remember. someone said up above there have been issues with panasonic cameras....the only things that negatives on the mx 3000 is the the low lighting lux (very bad) and like the gl 1, trv 900, it has a 1/4 chip. other than that, it's the first 3 ccd that has truely trivaled the canons color's and feel.

but with this new cam, it's 1/3, and has low lighting specs to match the sony's. also, the only feature to be a real plus for the pd- 150 is the xlr/phantom power, witch this one will have. i'm a former sound studio dude, so i know how to appreciate the true xlr, not going through an 1/8th of an inch adapter like on the xl1.

what i've wanted is a ultra compact 1/3 chip because i'm about to do ALOT of traveling, and carrying the xl 1 in my prota brace bag has gotten very old...not meant for solo adventures airport after airport, especially if your alone. i was waiting to see if the gl 1 was going to up grade, but this panasonic sounds like the solution, even without the 24p.

i can't wait...

link
 

ahh

joe-

didnt know you were looking for schinc site...thought you meant
something else..but the guy up top posted some links.

if anyone wants to check out alot of big films made with DV
go to

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/bullfront.html

I wish there was a way to get a hold of some of these
since some of them are independent.
but some of their sites have trailers and such..

about steve soderburg in chris' email...yes, content is king, but the image quality (i'm a major film buff, and just shot a feature on 16mm) is very important, at least for a lot of folks...the feel of it all can take us to another platue...imagine the Godfather films on mini dv. still a great story, but half of it was the beautiful film look they produced...i'm not saying the 24p will take care of all that, but it's a pretty decent step in that direction.

and for those who say the video look will always suck, i suggest you look at the dream sequences in Dancer In the Dark...true, he replaced the lense of the pd 100's with custom made lenses for each (and he used 100 cameras...check out the link:)

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-09-01/screens_set4.html

Here's some new info on the Panasonic 24p MiniDV camera...not too shabby looking!

Looking forward to seeing it at NAB tomorrow, I'm sure Chris and others of us will be posting a "first look" shortly.

Sorry kids, forgot the link...


http://www.panasonic.co.jp/bsd/sales_o/dvworld/html/ag-dvx100.html

http://www.panasonic.co.jp/bsd/sales_o/wallpaper/wall_dvx100.jpg

Very interesting. It's a -much- smaller design than I expected. The page's text reads a bit like a design wish list rather than a production spec. I wonder what it will sell for and when it will be available. I suppose those questions will be answered after the Vegas show.

Thanks very much for sharing this, Charles!

24p? Don't want it give me a 35mm chip block
 

I read through as much of the posts I could stomach. Most of these points are brought up time and time again. Some very good discussion but I think one thing is missing in this thread.

24p isn't the only (and not the most effective) way to make some "look" like film. And in fact it's the last thing I would want the camera development world to focus on. The most glaring difference between the look of film and video is the way video and film treat depth of field.

Video looks like video because of the fairly small chips that receive the image. Because of that video has a much wider depth of field. Very thing is turns out crisp and sharp (in film world lingo "high contrast). 35mm film has a shallower depth of field. The great advantage of that is that it softens the background (or foreground) while keeping your desired subject in focus and separated from the "noise" of the background or foreground elements.

(of course there are tricks around this, but these are all tricks and don't always work in every circumstance and are still just tricks)

So the best thing that camera makers can do is to work on developing larger chip blocks (like in digital still cameras) that can spit out the frame rate and put on a tape or HD medium. I'd rather see a high frame rate like 60p. It's mesmerizing looking at HD on a large screen.

If you want to see the difference take a look at this site and this adapter:

www.mini35.com

Check out the examples.

I just bought one of these (they are very expensive more than the xl1 rig itself) and the image just blows any video camera out of the water. It's amazing.

Some people don't notice the difference, I do. I like the things I want in focus to be in focus and the less important things softer and out of focus. I want to be able to play with the depth of field in 3 dimensions and create a beautiful image. Not just capture crisp high contrast relativity.

This is what makes many great photographs so artistic - the painterly softness of the different subjects in the frame.

Okay, now you can flame away.

Justin:

This whole debate has come into my sights again very recently as I am prepping a feature which was originally slated for Super 16 and has now moved to some sort of digital for eventual output to 35mm.

I've met with some of the houses that do the film-out and screened their demos of formats ranging from DV to HD. Certainly one of the factors that I am taking note of is the depth-of-field characteristic, and how it affects the footage. There is no question that it is a powerful tool in the 35mm world that is largely absent in DV and only partially available in the 2/3" formats. Often the decision is made on digital to use a telephoto focal length in an attempt to achieve shallow focus; to me that is a significant decision and should not be made lightly. Often telephoto has a way of distancing us from the action at hand, making us feel outside the dynamic. If that is a desirable aesthetic, then it's all good--but sometimes it may not be, and there's no way to throw the background out on a 1/3" chip at a medium to wide angle. The Mini 35 is an interesting solution and I look forward to seeing its second generation at NAB.



Now, that said, I am going to throw my two cents on this incredibly subjective issue. I feel that frame rate has a much more significant effect on the viewer in cueing a narrative "film-esque" response than depth of field. I would submit "Citizen Kane" as an example of extreme depth in an unquestionably cinematic piece of work. Gregg Tolland labored with split diopters and minimum apertures to achieve an extensive depth of field that is available to every XL1 owner just by turning on the camera. Would those same shots feel as cinematic if they were shot on DV (with a standard lens) vs 35? I'm voting no on that one. Would a 24 fps motion characteristic close the gap? For me, yes. As another related argument, 16mm and HD have roughly similarly depth of field characteristics, and I feel there is still a world of difference between them.

I see the arguments on this issue falling essentially into two camps: old school and new school. I have not yet heard anyone who shoots and works with film consider 24p to be less desirable than 60i, and I have seen a majority of those who work in the digital and computer worlds decry it as unnecessary and a step backwards.

The real question is what will the public respond to, and can they tell the difference. Years of watching movies shot on film vs the evening news and reality programming shot on video have conditioned the viewers into responding differently to the mediums--and my conviction is that it is largely the frame rate that separates the two (even if the video footage is nicely lit and composed). If that dynamic changes in the future, and I have a strong hunch that future generations will embrace a higher frame rate without prejudice, I can generously imagine 24 fps media eventually being considered hopelessly old-fashioned and jerky.

Justin, I admit I have not seen 60i HD projected yet, only 24p HD transferred to 35mm. I'm actually not exceptionally fond of some of the motion artifacts that 24p delivers, it doesn't quite resemble footage that originated on 35mm negative in that regard, and its hard to say why. I do however have issues with the clarity of HD when it comes to storytelling; it's a serious challenge on a makeup level and extra pains must be taken to make actors look as good as we are used to seeing them (video has never been as flattering to skintones as film, and HD brings new meaning to the phrase "warts and all"!) For nature films and travelogues, the kind of the things that Imax has succeeded at, I can see great use for projected 60i HD--the sense of immediacy can only inform that sort of product. For transporting the audience away from reality, for now I'm convinced it requires a lesser frame rate.

Sorry, my two cents seems to have grown into at least a buck fifty...!

Sorry, was about to edit one little bit of that and hit the post button too early...

When I suggested that a 24 frame rate would "close the gap" between footage from Citizen Kane shot on 35mm vs DV, I meant to say it would begin to close the gap, not succeed in doing it all the way. DV ain't 35mm, no way no how!

Charles,

I guess I should have said, "IMHO" at the start of the post.

I totally agree with you. Most of these things are subjective. I guess it's my visual preference to have a shallow depth of field (or more appropriately, more control over it). Simply an artistic taste and I didn't really mean to turn this into yet another debate.

I would add that Citizen Kane's shooting style is - exactly that - a shooting style. Obviously, Orson Wells and Gregg Toland created a visual makeup and style that permeated throughout the film. Something we can all aspire to. It's film story telling at it's best.

Probably the most important thing to keep in mind is to create a visual statement with your film that fits the subject of your film. Lighting, cinematography, editing etc. are all joined to create mood, tone and energy on screen.

I personally don't care what format anyone uses. Just make it work for your project. It's the end product that counts.

Oh, and on a more uninteresting note, the split diopter technique is used to some degree still and it rarely works as well as in Citizen Kane. Perhaps because Citizen Kane was B/W. One film comes to mind, "The Last Castle" with Robert Redford. I suspect they used a diopter to give James Gandolfini and Redford "equal" weight on screen. I think it just stuck out like a sore thumb. Gandolfini (in the background) in focus and Redford (in the foreground) in focus and everything in between out of focus with a subtle line cutting in-between.

In the end I'd like to hear more about everyone's take on what did and didn't work in their favorite films. More of an aesthetic discussion rather than the never ending debate over technology. But I guess I have to go to the TOTEM Poll to get that...

Cheers.

Oh, and great work on Scrubs. I like the show. :)

Justin:

Yeah, that split diopter is a bear. It's always a struggle to get the line of demarcation (love bandying that phrase around at cocktail parties) to disappear into some generic background. The slant focus lenses are a bit easier but limited, and I have had some luck with the swing and tilt lenses but they tend to be so unwieldy unless you have the time to fiddle...

Thanks for digging "Scrubs", it's a lot of fun to work on. Check out John Ritter's guest role on this week's episode, he was a total hoot.

I still not quite sure what the mechanism for packaging 24 fps data into the DV format spec is. How does one edit the 24 fps footage shot with the new Panasonic camera?

Additionally, if the 24P footage is the same resolution as the 30P footage shot with the camera, why would anyone want to shoot 24P, other than for a planned blow-up to film? Why drop data, when saving it incurs no expense?

And that looks like a really chintzy lens assembly on the Panasonic, too. I think the XL1s is still the machine to beat.

Here's to hoping that the Canon XL2 is a prosumer version of Sony's HDW-F900 Cinealta, and that Canopus's next edit board is a prosumer 24P hidef editing suite that fits into a standard Wintel box. Such products would *really* be the democritizing revolutions forecasted by Coppola and others back in the '70s.

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert K S : ...Additionally, if the 24P footage is the same resolution as the 30P footage shot with the camera, why would anyone want to shoot 24P, other than for a planned blow-up to film? Why drop data, when saving it incurs no expense? -->>>

Well, there ya go. I have been wondering the same.