24p with FX1000
 

When I use the 24p setting on my FX1000 the shutter speed is automatcally switched to 48. What is this about?

Additionally on pans it is very rough in 24p mode with default settings.

Motion is choppy as well. In scenes with a minimum of motion the look is nice, however.

I've never used progressive mode because of the strobing look in the viewfinder - though up to now I've only used a SD VX2100. My friend with a Z7, shoots in interlaced mode, then turns his movies progressive on the timeline.

I take it this is not a typical way to use an HDV cam?

Don't know about other cams. The FX1000 has a specific 24pm setting, but you still have to do a coversion after capture with Cineform or some other way according to Chris B.

24p with FX1000
 

Hello and Happy Holidays
If you search through some previous threads you'll discover postings on 24p and may discover some of the answers you seek. Such as: shutter speeds when shooting
24P, motion with 24p etc.
You may also want to read into some threads on the Canon HV20/30. Apparently (unless newer info has altered the previous info) the process is supposed to be similar to the way the FX1000 delivers 24P.

Thanks Rick.

Update: Chris B has been working with a couple of us in the Vegas forum on the 24p feature as it applies to this cam and Vegas, and in the process I have learned the choppiness I've experienced with the 24p setting turned on with the FX1000 is normal, apparently.

It would seem to not be practical for use in my business, save for possibly some corporate stuff. For weddings I can't see it, not with multiple cams. Certainly not worth the cost of Cineform which is required to convert the footage. When I have an extra $800 to spend maybe I'll purchase it, as the 24p will be a nice feature.

The 24p is a very interesting feature and overall does show lots of promise.

Conversley, I have found the Cinema tone settingare are quite nice and while I initially thought it brought a "darkness" to the footage, (which it does) it really does look great. That setting alone adds somewhat of a cinematic look to my footage that I will definitely be using from time to time.

Guys - is it possible to link a clip that was done in the 24p mode compared to a similar clip done in standard interlaced mode, so I can get a handle on this feature. I'm set on ordering a Z5, but at I've seen a Z7 using progressive mode, and through the viewfinder it looks aweful - so strobey.

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.

This clip is not what you're asking for, but something to look at as the footage will likely be similar to what your would get with Z5.

I have found the 24p setting is very strobie when panning too quickly. Scenes with fast motion also have the choppiness. As I mentioned before, I believe the 24p feature is of limited usefulness except in carefully thought out shooting scenarios.

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

Thanks Jeff - I'll download it now.

You know, it's hard for me to believe that Sony would use a 24p pulldown in these camera's that there own NLE could not remove. Do they really want you to spend money on another company's software to do something that should be kept within a "SONY WORKFLOW"?

DSE, who is familiar with the corporate aspects of Sony much more than most any of us will ever be, has said that the camera company and the software company are separate entities that do not communicate with each other.

I agree with you Tim, it seems stupid and makes no sense from where I sit either.

Jeff, I thought this was a great example of 24p. It displayed almost no choppiness (even when zooming) and toward the end also demonstrated the great low light of the 1000. For audio, did you just go with the onboard mike?

In 24p you're shooting 24 different stills per second. In 60i you're taking 60 different stills per second. There will be very obvious side-effects if you decide to use a frame rate invented generations ago. 24 fps was a film speed chosen at the time for cost and mechanical reasons, and because of the lowly frame rate the projectors were made to show each still twice in an effort to cut down on visible flicker, increasing image stutter yet again.

You've bought a car capable of 100 mph yet choose to run it in third gear at 50 mph. There is a price to be paid for this.

tom.

Yeah I don't quite understand the whole 24p thing myself. If back when they had the technology we have today, I doubt they would be trying to use 24 fps. I bet they'd use the best fps to get the smoothest motion possible. They were trying to advance forward, we seem to be taking steps back, even though we have everything to move forward. Who sets these trends? haha...

Tom and Ben are right on the money. The choppiness is the whole *point* of 24p. In an effort to look like film, it merely replicates the worst aspects of the "film look." If you're not outputting to film there is no point to shooting in this mode, ever, unless you really like that look. And even if you do, 30p would be better; it still looks just as crappy but is easier for your editor to handle.

Remember, 24 fps became the film standard only because it was the slowest they could run the film through the camera and still get an almost-okay picture (although some claim it was because of in-camera optical or magnetic sound; this may be true but I'm not sure). There's nothing "good" about 24 fps; it wasn't chosen for any aesthetic or artistic reason.

Why do people insist on using tools they don't understand and then complain about the results?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The reason people look at this is because the big companies promote it as being really good. Whilst I haven't ever tried progressive mode, we get bombarded from company advertising that this 'look' is really worth having. See the progressive mode spiel from this sony ad - the English accent is weird mind- and tell me that they aren't making progressive mode out to be wonderful. It does look good on my computer screen.

It is on about 25p, maybe there's a major difference...
Sony : HVR-Z5E Product Preview Video : United Kingdom

Since I think this is pointed at my comments, I will repond by saying my posts were in response to specific 24p questions. I never stated that these are only aspects of gettign to "film" like video. Greg's post assumes those of us interested in getting the film look do not address other issues like depth of field, extension of latitude, color grading, etc., etc. While I will admit I am still in that learning curve. I haven't quit on the potentials it provides. The attitude exuded by some seems to be advancing is its not worth the trouble, so I don't want to learn about it. That's fine, but don't put other who are advancing the medium in that direction down.

Frankly, as I practiced with a play I shot a week ago, I probably wouldn't use 24p or 30p in the event type shoot. However, I applaud the original poster's willingness to experiment with his craft, and develop his own style.

William Ellwood:

As I stated earlier, Sony resisted 24p for years, until market pressure from the pro and prosumer community forced it to include it in its most recent cameras.

I just commented that people might be using 24p maybe because Sony are vigorously marketing it. It was a resonse to something Adam said. Ok, they are marketing it to compete with their rivals. And if people are trying it out, not liking it, then fine. Seems to me that it's a tool that can be part of our creative arsenal.

Billy

No, not pointed at your comments at all Chris. I said I liked Greg Leves's post, that's all. If I'd been pointing at you I would have made that plain.

For aesthetic reasons alone, I think progressive recording and displaying at 60p (or 50p in PAL areas) are superior to 24p or 30p in all respects. The video just looks so good. Shooting is also easier as camera movements can be faster, shutter speed can go up to 1/120th or even 1/240th with almost imperceptible strobing effects, thus allowing still frames grabbed from the video, aside from the video itself, to look sharper. Other positives go on and on.

I have tried shooting (true)60p from Sanyo HD1000, Panasonic HVX200 and Sony EX1 and can say that the footage always looked better in this mode than the lower frame rate options from the same camera.

Greg had it right. The only reasons 24p video exists are the continued existence of film format display infrastructure and most important, the obviously superior economics of 24p over 48p, 50p or 60p.

For Jeff, your 24p video wouid definitely look better if the FX1000 could shoot the same scene at 1080/60p, all other things being the same. If money is no object, a camera in the form factor of the FX1000 or EX1 that shoots 1080/50-60p could be here by now.

Wacharapong

Chris, I looked at the section in the video that you mentioned. 1:39 - 1:43 and there is no distortion of the columns there. The pan was abrupt and Jeff rocked the camera some. But there is no distortion or bending of the columns at all. There is some motion blurring but the edges are straight.

Greg, glad to see I wasn't the only crazy one. I must have replayed that thing 4 times and saw nothing but straight columns!

My two cents--

I use 24p, delivered to the computer in the 60i HDV wrapper, whether from the HV20 or V1U, because I like the look.

It also provides a slight but noticeably brighter image in low light situations.

It looks cleaner with the pulldown removed.

It takes alot of practice, particularly panning and moving the camera, to keep the movement slow and smooth enough to avoid the choppy look. Even the big boys wrestle with this (witness noticeable choppiness in the huge pans in the Fellowship of the Ring).

The files sizes are smaller after running the Inverse Telecine process. This saves resources through the rest of the pipeline all the way out to delivery. There are ways to remove the pulldown other than Cineform, eg JES Deinterlacer on the Mac.