24p with FX1000

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

William, right click on the link and save. It is 140MB. This clip doesn't show the choppy portions of the video as it was edited to highlight the capabilities of the zoom and Cinema Tone Feature. It was shot in 24p, but does not appear as 24p because it has not been converted to progressive. Cineform is required to do that and I don't own it.



http://jeffharpervideo.com/Videos/wmv/ChurchDemo.wmv

Actually, Jeff, if you shoot in 24p, it is going to show as 24p. The point is that the pulldown is added by the camera to the 24p footage so it can be played as regular video with the 24p effects. We remove pulldown for editing purposes.

In fact, I think your shots do exhibit the more filmic nature of 24p. If you had shot in 60i, that same footage would have shown a bit more of the electronic video look. These shots are actually very interesting to me. You do see the strobing in a couple of movements, and some of that probably has to do with shutter speed adjustment. Sometimes, to shoot in low light, you end up shooting at 1/24, and get a little smeer going, too.

Also, those hand held last shots are exhibiting some of the other issues associated with CMOS sensors-- the rolling shutter issue. You can see it during camera movement.

[Ken Ross]

I actually saw far less choppiness in Jeff's video than the typical 24p footage I've seen. So if you thought that was bad, you should see more typical 24p footage. But I too never quite understood the attraction here. Part of the nature of 'video' and what I love about it is the 'you are there' look and anything that detracts from that is somewhat counter intuitive to why you're shooting video. If you want film, use film.

But that's me. It seems if anything 24p is gaining in popularity.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Also, those hand held last shots are exhibiting some of the other issues associated with CMOS sensors-- the rolling shutter issue. You can see it during camera movement.

Chris, where did you see any evidence of rolling shutter with the pans? I saw nothing that would have alerted me to that. Sometimes I wonder about the 'power of suggestion' and if we were told this was shot with a CCD-equipped cam would we see the same things? Just a thought.

[Jeff Harper]

Ken, I did use the onboard mic. I think it is very good.

Adam, it is true I don't understand the 24p thing but that is why I'm playing with it. I am starting to agree with the idea that for a bit of a film look 30p might be more practical.

Great discussion. Just woke up and am going away for the evening. I'll look forward to following up with this later.

[Tom Hardwick]

Thing to remember is that there's no 'electronic video look' as such. Douglas Trumbull filmed at 60 fps onto film and projected at 60 fps because he could afford to, and no-one shouted at him that it looked 'too real'.

Our video cameras record everything that happens in front of the lens if you use your default shutter speed and shoot interlaced. Film cameras with 180 degree focal plane shutters only ever capture half of everything that happens. You can now replicate this lossy technology but I fail to see why people want to.

tom.

[Jeff Harper]

Tom, I hear what you are saying about the illogical nature of the 24p thing. What you say makes sense.

On the other hand, what some people are going for with the film look is not logical, but it is still understandable. They are looking for warmth in the image that is lacking in the cool, almost sterile look of video. I know you know this, but I'm just making conversation here.

I was watching Rachel Ray yesterday morning (actually not watching but it was on while I was editing, no sound) and I noticed that they were using all sorts of film effects for their teasers and stuff. Looked much like Magic Bullet. Some of it looked pretty nice. It added a nice variety and warmth to the proceedings.

Tim, I read the Wikepidia article on 24p and it it very enlightening and confirms much of what we are learning about this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

Chris has covered this subjec with us extremely well and accurately based on what I've read.

The article even mentions 30p vs 24p, so you are really on to something there!

Actually, things that most everyone on this thread has said seem to be true, and the use of the feature has to made on a project to project basis, IMO.

The look of the clip from the church does look nice. Of course it was edited with the focus on zoom shots and stationary shots to show the look of the clip. Fast pans made in the video that I did not include were absolutely dreadful.

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Douglas Trumbull filmed at 60 fps onto film and projected at 60 fps because he could afford to, and no-one shouted at him that it looked 'too real'.

I was going to mention this as well, but thought it might be too esoteric and off-topic, but I'm glad you did so. In fact, people DID bust Trumbull on his Showscan process, saying it looked too much like video.

I accidentally stumbled across this myself as a kid, when I turned an old film projector I had up to triple speed, and was astonished at how sharp and video-like the picture looked.

I'm not knocking the "film look" at all -- I started out as a film guy and still love the look -- but I think a lot of people are just going around like zombies chanting "24p, 24p" without knowing what it entails, what the results will be and thinking that's all you need to make video look like film. As Jeff has seen (and as has been counselled on these boards many times before) there's much more to it than frame rate, and many drawbacks and pitfalls.

And Jeff, there's nothing wrong with experimenting with all the features and looks and seeing which ones you like -- that's exactly what you should be doing -- but to me it sounded like your original post meant 24p was supposed to be really good but on your new camera wasn't. As you've seen from the articles, what you got from 24p is exactly what it must by its nature do, and I guess I assumed you'd have done all the required reading to really understand it first so you'd know what to expect.

The film warmth you refer to is manageable by lighting, focus, tweaking colors in post and other factors, and only a little bit by frame rate. For me, if the final product is going to be displayed on any form of electronic device and not projected using an actual emulsion based film in a film projector, I stick to standard video settings, because that's what most display devices are designed to work with.

[Jeff Harper]

Thanks for your post Adam. It is plain to me I am only the latest in a long line of people reaching for the film look knowing nothing about what is involved.

I must say that with the counsel I have received in this thread and another thread that I know more than I did, just enought to be dangerous! It is really a great feature, with lots of potential. I am especially anxious now to try and shoot in 30p and see what the improvement will be in scenes with much motion and some pans. What is nice is that my church's lighting lends itself well to this look.

Showed the church film I shot to my wife and she really liked it, and she usually doesn't care or see differences in this sort of thing.

As I mentioned somewhere before somewhere on this board earlier, it is clear that the 24p or 30p settings should be used only on a project to project basis.

In my case I shoot weddings and small business videos, and cannot imagine using anything but 60i settings for my paid work.

That being said it has re-ignited my interest in video in a new way, and has got me interested in shooting events like those at my church (which I haven't done for over two years) just because it is fun to experiment with the looks. It's a great place to play without fear of ruining a customers product.

[Greg Laves]

It is funny that when us video folk start to talk about "film look" that it is mostly centered around the 24 frames per second aspect. And that is probably the worst characteristic of film for us to try to copy. The ONLY reason that film has traditionally been 24 frames per second is because of economics. Not art. Economics of shooting. Economics of reproduction and distribution. And economics of display. It was never because the great directors said, "Gee I want it to flicker and stutter because that looks better." Yeah, right. The best film format in the world right now is probably IMax. Did you know that there was an IMax HD developed? And the difference was that IMax HD was shot in 48 frames per second. But it has yet to get off the ground. And the reason is economics. Not art. If you want to copy the "film look" then try to copy the lighting, camera moves, camera angles, DOF and the other "film" characteristics. Jeff your footage looks good because you shot in the cinema mode of your camcorder and what the cinema mode did for the camera settings. Not because it was shot in 24p. And I might be wrong in this statement but the way I understand it, if you shoot in 24p but do not use the pull down, I think it is still 60i output, no matter how it was shot.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Chris, where did you see any evidence of rolling shutter with the pans? I saw nothing that would have alerted me to that. Sometimes I wonder about the 'power of suggestion' and if we were told this was shot with a CCD-equipped cam would we see the same things? Just a thought.

uhh, I shoot with both cmos and ccd cameras, and love both types for their special benefits. That doesn't mean you can't see distortion in one from time to time, and have knowledge of the potential issues in making a choice.

Check out 1:39-1:43, and watch pillars in back of church as shape changes during the pan to left. This is most obvious one, and it has to do with scanning exposure rather than global.

As to choppiness in your first post, he said he edited it down to the best footage.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

uhh, I shoot with both cmos and ccd cameras, and love both types for their special benefits. That doesn't mean you can't see distortion in one from time to time, and have knowledge of the potential issues in making a choice.

Check out 1:39-1:43, and watch pillars in back of church as shape changes during the pan to left. This is most obvious one, and it has to do with scanning exposure rather than global.

As to choppiness in your first post, he said he edited it down to the best footage.

Chris, I just played that segment 3 or 4 times and for the life of me I don't see those pillars changing shape. They seem to stay straight throughout the pan. Maybe I'm just not sensitive to this issue or perhaps it's not as visible on my 22" monitor.

As to the lack of choppiness, yes I saw Jeff comment on that and it makes sense given how almost all the 24p material I've seen as that chop.

[Chris Barcellos]

You know, I am not out campaigning for 24p, I just responded to this thread because I am interested in this camera, and whether its 24p was useful a filmmakers tool. If you don't want to use 24p, you shouldn't use it. But Sony didn't put 24p on board all its new cameras because it was a whim. It has been demanded by the professionals and semi professionals a tool on its cameras. It was losing sales to Canon and others without it.

As to chopiness in 24p, it only jumps up when camera is not handled properly for that frame rate, and that is easily handled by learning proper camera handling.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Chris, I just played that segment 3 or 4 times and for the life of me I don't see those pillars changing shape. .

To me, they lean slightly and straighten up depending on direction of pan. But this is something some of us might see, and most audiences would not. Again, I am not rapping this camera, just commenting on what I believe I see there.

[Jeff Harper]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

And I might be wrong in this statement but the way I understand it, if you shoot in 24p but do not use the pull down, I think it is still 60i output, no matter how it was shot.

Greg, I don't know. I had assumed the same thing. Then Chris said "Actually, Jeff, if you shoot in 24p, it is going to show as 24p. The point is that the pulldown is added by the camera to the 24p footage so it can be played as regular video with the 24p effects. We remove pulldown for editing purposes."

His statement seems to bear out what the footage shows. It looks the same in the final output as it did on my LCD screen, choppiness and all.

So the Cinema settings combined with the 24p seem to give the footage it's unique look. You are correct in that the Cinema setting used had a huge impact on the look. But since both were in use it is difficult to know how much of the effect each had.

[Tom Hardwick]

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

I was going to mention this as well, but thought it might be too esoteric and off-topic, but I'm glad you did so. In fact, people DID bust Trumbull on his Showscan process, saying it looked too much like video.

But only in vast retrospect Adam. DT was shooting at 60 fps in the late 60s and video in the late 60s was as good as non-existent. And I'm pretty sure IMAX wouldn't have taken off if it was stuttery 24 shoot / 48 play on a screen 3 blocks high.

I like Greg Leves' post - excellently put.

tom.