DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic DVX / DVC Assistant (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/)
-   -   24p Mini DV on the way! (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/1024-24p-mini-dv-way.html)

Charles Papert February 19th, 2002 11:25 PM

24p Mini DV on the way!
This one looked like it was further off into the future--exciting news!


Rob Lohman February 20th, 2002 02:53 AM

Damn... that is good news! Wonder what it will cost. Probably
more then the Xl1S.... oh well...

Chris, it might be interesting to add a DV News channel to
this forum? That way all items can be posted there and
easy referenced. Now they get stuck inbetween other

Joe Redifer February 20th, 2002 03:04 AM

Oh hell yeah! Screw interlacing, my dream camera is coming! OK OK my dream camera would be if the XL2 had this feature. I don't care for "palm sized cameras", though it would be good as a stealth cam to pick up 24fps while an XL2 (I hope) delivers the 24fps the rest of the time.

Peter Koller February 20th, 2002 03:44 AM

IMO this a step back.

1) 24fps has been standard for how many decades? It is outdated. Film (the reason for 24fps) is much faster and sensitive than 60-70 years ago and the CCDs in our cameras are getting better with every new generation, so it would make sense to shoot at higher frame rates to get a smoother and more fluid motion.

2) 24fps are quite flickering when you pan the camera.

3) When we say the frame-mode on the XL1 looks much better than the normal mode, then we compare to film and the biggest similarity is the flickering. (Although I do prefer movie-mode, too)

4) The film industry will change to HDTV (at whatever standard) anyway sooner or later, making all we use now completely obsolete. And they will surely not run at 24fps. At least not only. It takes only a button to change framerate.

I think this is just a marketing gag to make all the wannabes who dream of a 35mm blow-up buy this camera. The little problem is even if they really finish something that will be blown up it will be so late that 35mm will be dead then and everything will be projected digtially already. The company should name the new camcorder the "Dreamer set", because thatīs exactly the name the old Arriflex 16s was given by the camera houses because they sold so many of these old units with 3 so-so prime lenses to so many "aspiring" filmmakers.
I am sorry for being so cynical, but that is the way it is. If someone makes a good movie nobody will say: "well, great movie, but, sorry, I donīt like it. You should have done it at 24fps".

Would 24fps be a reason for buying a camera? Not for me.

Okay, I admit I have a little advantage here in Europe with PALs 25fps.

Peter Koller February 20th, 2002 03:46 AM

forgot something:

Progressive scan - YES

Thatīs what I want. Not 24fps. But real progressive scan.

Joe Redifer February 20th, 2002 04:31 AM

I think the point is that we are all used to seeing real movies at 24fps and video at 60 fields per second. They have a very different look to them, even when movies are transferred to NTSC video. Shooting in 24 frames per second in the first place can help achieve that movie-like feel. It doesn't scream out to the audience "Hey I am just a guy with a camcorder!" 60 fields per second just has that "news" or "camcorder" feel to it. It seems cheap to me and always has. Progressive scan definitely could help that even if it were running at 60 frames per second.

When digital cinema rolls around movies will still be 24 frames per second. Yes it is strobey and doesn't have super smooth pans. Your brain is required to work a little harder (and perhaps be more involved in the show, so to speak) to fill in the gaps between frames to simulate continuous motion. But until movies increase their frame rate (which won't be until digital cinema is in nearly 100% of theaters everywhere, which will take a long, long time) we'll have to put up with 24fps as the "movie-like" frame rate. :)

Rob Lohman February 20th, 2002 07:09 AM

When watching movies you are NOT wathcing 24 fps
footage.. What you are watching is 48 fps footage.
They double is each frame! And I think HDTV was
supposed to support 24 fps as well (not sure about

This camera supports 24, 25 & 30 fps... So in my
opinion it is good! You can choose yourself what
you want! Here in europe we watch 25 FPS everyday
of our lives, not flickering thus far (new widescreen
tv use 100 hz here... so they create 3 extra frames
each second... but not much people have these TV's

Bill Ravens February 20th, 2002 08:20 AM

I'm with you, Peter. Sounds like Panasonic schmaltz.

Joe Redifer February 20th, 2002 01:24 PM

Film is 24 frames per second. The shutter shows each frame twice. Hardly 48 frames per second. 24 individual pictures per second. When converted down to video you still get 24 individual images per second, not 60. BIG difference in the way the motion is perceived.

To be honest though, I wouldn't buy this camera blindly. I'd have to see the results in action first.

Charles Papert February 21st, 2002 02:04 AM

Yes, HD is finally coming into its own, and the primary reason for that is the Sony Cine-Alta camera which records at 24p (Panasonic also has a 24p camera which is less popular). 24 fps is, as others have mentioned here, an aesthetic that will not likely change overnight if at all. There have been attempts over the years at higher frame rate projection (Doug Trumbull's Showscan, a 65mm image projected at 60 fps, is one) but they have not captivated audiences.

Regarding Peter's "Film is dead" theory, it will be a number of years before that is true. The cost of theater conversion is currently prohibitive, even though the DLP technology is available and impressive. And few filmmakers consider the HD image to be an acceptable substitute for 35mm. George Lucas is one, but on the other hand, Steven Spielberg has said "I'll shoot film until the last lab in LA closes its doors".

I've shot and transferred both 60i (Digi-Beta) and 24p (HD) to 35mm for projection, and 24p is a no-brainer, with far fewer artifacts. I'm positive that 24p Mini-DV will be a substantive leap in quality over 60i Mini-DV for 35mm blowup as well as digital projection.

As far as the "Dreamer set" label...there have already been numerous DV films that have achieved theatrical release and made profit. Not an unattainable dream at all! And I can't really see the relevance of the Arri 16S analogy. 16mm is alive and well, and successful films and many television shows are being shot on 16 still. I'm working on one right now--"Scrubs", on NBC--and no-one's complaining about the image quality! In fact, one of the real problems of video is that the optical block and processing keeps improving, making each generation of camera quickly obsolete; whereas that same funky 30 year old 16S with its turret-mounted lenses could be right alongside our Aatons on set tomorrow and produce perfectly good pictures (put a modern lens on it and it would produce identical pictures).

By the way, we are entering pilot production season here in LA, and already I'm hearing about many pilots slated to be shot in HD, up substantially from last year. Although I said earlier that we are a while from having HD dominate theatrical presentations, it is making significant inroads into television productions that would normally be shot on film. Can't say as too many of us in the camera guild are thrilled about it either (I'm more of a fan of DV than HD in certain ways) but we don't have much of a choice!

Bradley Miller February 21st, 2002 03:56 AM

I've shot plenty of videos over the years as well as a lot of real film. Let me tell you NOTHING video approaches film overall, but the one thing that makes video look like...well...ah...VIDEO is that it runs at either 60i or 30FPS. It just looks cheap and amateurish to me and I've always hated it (especially 60i). Turn on your tv and watch some of the more quality shows. Even sitcoms like Seinfeld and shows like Malcolm in the Middle are shot on film, not video...and they look phenomenally better, mainly due to that frame rate.

I'm sure lots of people on this forum have software to achieve the "film look". Now putting that stupid assumption that all films are scratched and dirty, make a conversion of something you shot with your videocamera at either 30FPS or 60i. What do you notice? The 60i looks like really cheap and really bad faked film, but is obviously video. The 30FPS looks much more like film, but still has that video look to it, even though EVERYTHING else may look perfect, with or without any kind of "film look" applied.

I for one have strayed away from purchasing another video camera since the late 80's. Up until I shot that recent short with Joe listed on another thread here, I have barely touched a video camera in 10 years. I have shot exclusively film (8mm or 16mm) and have achieved far superior results than is available from any video camera. I am VERY anxious to see this camera in action, for I truly believe those who say the frame rate does not matter or think that a 24FPS rate is a degredation will be convinced to sell off their current cameras. At least, anyone who wants to shoot productions that look like a real film production will.

This is by no means a gimmick. This is something we have needed for a damn long time.

Peter Koller February 21st, 2002 04:35 AM

Oops, I think I have opened a pandoraīs box and would like to close it again.

Because the whole thing is an aesthetic discussion therefore a matter of taste and of what we are used to see onscreen. And because it is hard to change you habits and preferences once you have developed your own. Thatīs why I said I do prefer the movie-mode on the XL-1, too, because I just like the look better. But on the other hand I would lunge for a higher frame rate to get rid of the ugly flickering during a fast pan or sideway-dolly where the "holes" between 2 frames just make my head ache.

Maybe I should add that I am not so exposed to the framerate problem since here in Europe we use PAL with 25fps at 720x576 (DV) and not NTSC with 30fps at 720x480 (DV).

As for the "dreamer set": the name does not imply that the camera itself is bad, after all it is 16mm which is still better than any camera below HD, what I meant was that many wannabes believe they will rocket to Hollywood by just owning the camera, because they follow the formula "better camera = better filmmaker". I hope nobody here feels insulted by this, but I think you are all making movies/videos anyway, so this should exclude you from the wannabies. ;-)

Iīd say let us wait until the Panasonic comes out and see how good or bad it really is.

For now on I am to remain quiet and eagerly await the user comments when the camera is out.


Bill Ravens February 21st, 2002 08:26 AM

Because of HD's poor showing in sales, many people think that HD will be a while in coming. Personally, I think HD offers many advantages...with the exception of cost for the home consumer. Once the cost of these sets are within reach to most households, HD will skyrocket, especially because of it's compatibility with non-interlaced computer driven imaging. The computer, HDTV crossover potential is too great Then we'll see that HD cam also hit the bigtime. Progressive DVD players are already being sold, altho' most consumers don't know what that means. Personally, I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for what Hollywood or broadcast is using. Give me good resolution and smooth, flicker free recording technology, anyday. BTW, as long as I'm wishing for the moon, let's do all this at modest, less than 2Mbps bitrate. If you want the "film" look, use diffusion filters. I never heard of a still photographer INTENTIONALLY blurring his images (chuckle) unless he was feeling romantic.

I've been deinterlacing my DV footage by converting each individual field to a frame, effectively giving me 60 FPS. The smoothness of motion, especially in slomo, is incredible.

Rob Lohman February 21st, 2002 08:39 AM

But you are effectively halving your resolution when you
extract each field to a frame, right? What technique (how)
did you use to do this?

Bill Ravens February 21st, 2002 08:48 AM

Yeah, ya never get something for nothing. Resolution suffers, but, throw in a sharpness filter and the loss is less noticeable. Also, by deinterlacing this way, each field/frame appears 1/30 of a second apart so interlacing artifacts disappear. It's kind of like temporal de-interlacing, to coin a term. The process is done thru TMPGenc. For more details and TMPGenc templates, visit:
Scroll down and check out the post for Oct 27, "doubling frame rates".

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:44 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2019 The Digital Video Information Network