This is exactly my opinion, as well (although it's 25p and 1/25th in my case). I somehow don't agree the recommended 1/50th as "the shutter speed of choice" when shooting progressive (25p in PAL) gives the best results; if I'm able to avoid movement *OR* limit it to only the main subject moving while being precisely followed by the (properly focussed) camera, the most pleasing results I can get is with 1/25th. The backgroud is blurred then and, if I'm able to additionaly get it out of focus by using DOF limiting tricks, it is not stuttering or jerky at all to an extent that would annoy the audience.

In situations where the above methods are not viable (like plenty of light, thus tighter aperture and greated DOF; need for lots of panning without specific object to follow, etc) I use the opposite extreme, which is shutter speeds as high as 1/150th, or even 1/300th. Yes the looks I'm getting in 25p with such fast shutter are somewhat "specific", but aesthetically pleasing IMO.

The recommended shutter speed of 1/50th in 25p mode (or 1/48th with 24p) - though theoretically correct - tend to produce the most pronounced jerkiness/stuttering in my experience.

To Mr. Douglas Spotted Eagle,

Thank you again Sir for your input. I hate to press you on a subject you seem reticent to discuss, but could you please specify what some of the significant advantages of using Vegas might be?

Also, I understand there are several different versions of Cineform. What would be the most appropriate for me if I chose to shoot progressively and edit in Vegas. Would there be any issues/concerns I need to be aware of using a PC application on a Mac? And, sorry for asking this again but is that a software only solution that would not require me to have to get a capture card to use?

James


To Mr. Piotr Wozniacki,

Yes, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who perceives it that way. As you said, I could see using a faster shutter speed occasionally, sparingly, for aesthetic reasons. But I wouldn't want to subject an audience to an entire feature shot at that speed.

While that's true, some aspects of how the story is perceived and felt would be different in both a qualitative and quantifiable manner. My own experience as well as studies have shown (I don't have the time and energy to find the references, but I remember collecting them in graduate school) that high image acquisition frame rates (e.g. 60i or 60p) result in images that are perceived as more live, while image acquisition at lower frame rates (e.g. 24p) are perceived as more fictional. There were early studies with Showscan that demonstrated that bringing the film frame rate up to 60 fps was great for "ride films" to make the experience more real, but for storytelling, the lower frame rates were better. This has both a physiological basis, as well as a cultural basis. It's complex. But my own studies of the literature as well as work as a cinematographer on four feature films shot on film at 24 fps film and one feature film shot in HDCAM at 60i, and many shorts shot on 24p video, I've come to my own conclusion, that 24p and 30p work better for storytelling. I suggest reading and thinking about Steven Poster's assertions in his classic essay, "Film vs. Video: The Poster Theory." The issue is more complex than I can do justice to in this short post, 24p vs. 60i vs 60p, these all have a different effect on the viewer, and my only point in all of this is it's good to know what that effect is and understand what it means in the context of your own aesthetic choices.

I didn't study cinematography myself, but basing on my experience, these are very good points.

Study must be balanced with practice and reflection. The best way to make sense of all this is to shoot, view, and analyze. Once you've shot a variety of subjects, movements, and in a variety of recording formats (24p, 30p, 60p, 60i) and see how the images look as well as feel. Shooting narrative at 60i and sports at 24p is particularly telling. Orchestrate your own experiences, and compared with reading, you'll learn a lot along the way.