24fps vs. 30fps at DVinfo.net

Russ Evenhouse · October 21st, 2003, 08:57 AM

Hello folks,
Can anyone here put their finger on , really, why they like the look of 24 fps rather than 30 fps, other than the fact that we were all raised watching big screen movies at 24fps?
Does anyone here think that the 24fps is actually, for some reason, a "more preferable" film speed than 30 fps?.
Perhaps this is a little sorta metaphysical question, but do children prefer the view of 24 fps rather than 30fps???
Is it more of a "raised with" preference than an actual preference???
I think that video gives more realism than film, and maybe we all just want that 24fps thing because we were brought up with it. Perhaps video is actually better and more realistic and kids now growing up would appreciate the video forum better than film. I dunno. Just wondering.
Russ

Rob Lohman · October 21st, 2003, 02:23 PM

I have moved this thread to the more approriate forum, namely
the "Towards a Film Look Using DV" forum. Please browse and
search this forum because your question has been talked about
a lot of times already.

Just for your information, the Canon XL1 camera range cannot
do 24fps.

Don Donatello · October 21st, 2003, 09:30 PM

i prefer 30P for NTSC ... i find NTSC camera's that shoot 24p when viewed on 29.97 TV distracting ( i dislike added pull down) ...
i think 30p ( 1/60shutter) is more "film like " then 24p with either pull down on NTSC monitor ...

i haven't been able to put my finger on it yet but to me 24fps FILM transferred to NTSC feels different ( motion) then NTSC 24P camera with either pull down ... i know normal pull down is the same BUT ????

i do like the HD 24p camera's on 24fps HD monitor.

i like mixing 30p with 60i ...

Ted Springer · October 21st, 2003, 11:17 PM

With regards to 24fps vs 30fps (or 60fields per second), I think that since 24 frames per second requires more "imagination" from your brain to "fill in the gaps", it seems more dreamy, or more flowing if you will. 30fps also seems to be able to achieve this somewhat. Programs that run at 60 independant fields per second like television newscasts leave little to nothing for your brain to fill in. Therefore it seems cold, real, and cheap. This is my personal theory.

Before anyone posts a response saying something like "NTSC is ALWAYS 60 fields per second even when you are watching 30fps material etc etc etc..." ad nauseum, I'd like to say that I am comparing images per second when I am talking about 60i above. Newscasts have 60 different images captured per second. I do not consider "Frame Mode" to be 60i, even though technically it is, it isn't. It does not have 60 different images per second, only 30. Get muh drift? :)

Frank Granovski · October 22nd, 2003, 12:59 AM

What about 25P? Never mind the 24P and 29.97P. :)

Ted Springer · October 22nd, 2003, 11:06 AM

No one likes 25p for anything serious. Why not? Because 25fps immediately reminds people of PAL. And PAL immediately reminds people of Mr. Bean. So unless you want to shoot a quirky English comedy, 25p won't do! :)

Alex Dunn · October 22nd, 2003, 12:04 PM

Not necessarily metaphysical, but I do enjoy the philosophical questions. You have to remember the difference is SUBTLE and only professional geeks like us can readily tell the differance. I agree with you though, that it's a creative choice we make depending on what we think looks good. If you think 30 fps looks better, then by all means do your project 30fps.

But adding to what Ted said, it is definately different than reality and I think that is the attraction. It's not slow motion, but it definately has a that look, i.e., when a woman tosses her hair or the spashing of water. These two very beautiful images look entirely different at 24fps than at 60i. 30p gets us closer.

Ted Springer · October 22nd, 2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Alex wrote:
You have to remember the difference is SUBTLE and only professional geeks like us can readily tell the difference.

Not so sure on this one. I was showing home videos shot with an XL1 in farme mode dubbed down to VHS to family a long time ago. Their first comment was "That doesn't look like camcorder footage". They didn't know why. I did. :)

Alex Dunn · October 22nd, 2003, 02:16 PM

Ted,
If you're family is like mine, their idea of "camcorder footage" is a Sony Handycam Hi8. I'm the first to agree that the XL1 is far superior to "camcorder footage", especially in frame mode. I own a Sony Hi8 that I hadn't picked up in years, when I did I was amazed at how bad the resolution was and that I had at one point thought it was good. The XL1 will spoil you.

John Jackman · October 22nd, 2003, 09:04 PM

No one likes 25p for anything serious. Why not? Because 25fps immediately reminds people of PAL.

Was this intended as a joke? If so it needed a smiley.

I guarantee you that you can't see the difference between 25p and 24p. PAL is 25i, or 50 fields per second, has just as much interlaced look as NTSC video.

Having worked on this issue a lot -- see my DV Mag article at:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/feature/2002/jackman1202

the various Hollywood film DPs I've had involved in testing all agreed that 30p is so close to the look they want that going the extra step to 24p isn't necessary -- IF you're staying on video. The only preference they had for 24p was to preserve the potential for a film print.

Charles Papert · October 22nd, 2003, 09:17 PM

Regarding the above: agreed.

Barry Green · October 22nd, 2003, 11:26 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jackman :The only preference they had for 24p was to preserve the potential for a film print. -->>>

... or converting to PAL for international distribution. 30P makes for a lousy PAL conversion, 24P makes for a great PAL conversion.

Ted Springer · October 23rd, 2003, 12:29 AM

Yes, John, that was a joke. I was under the impression that Chris Hurd does not like smilies on his site, but I'll give one anyway. :) I didn't think it could be taken seriously since the following comment of "and PAL immediately reminds people of Mr. Bean" is just so crazy.

Shawn Mielke · October 23rd, 2003, 02:51 AM

Obviously it was a joke. Kinda funny too. :-]

Michael D. Scott · October 30th, 2003, 12:32 AM

My personal feeling on the matter is that film's 24fps (and more importantly, its associated 1/48th-second shutter speed) results in a motion blur ratio that, complemented by persistence of vision, most closely resembles the way the human eye actually perceives reality. That is to say, it looks like we are looking at something real, and not a sequence of projected still images.

This as opposed to video. With its higher framerate and faster shutter speed, motion blurring is lessened, and the detail is clearer on objects in motion. We are not actually looking at objects in motion, we're looking at still frames, and that means our eyes don't have the motion information needed to make the video appear "natural." Video looks crisp, crisper than the way real life looks, and so the illusion, at least to some extent, of looking through a window onto reality, is betrayed.

I'm all for 24p.

October 21st, 2003, 08:57 AM	#1
Russ Evenhouse New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Scottssbluff, Nebraska Posts: 11	24fps vs. 30fps Hello folks, Can anyone here put their finger on , really, why they like the look of 24 fps rather than 30 fps, other than the fact that we were all raised watching big screen movies at 24fps? Does anyone here think that the 24fps is actually, for some reason, a "more preferable" film speed than 30 fps?. Perhaps this is a little sorta metaphysical question, but do children prefer the view of 24 fps rather than 30fps??? Is it more of a "raised with" preference than an actual preference??? I think that video gives more realism than film, and maybe we all just want that 24fps thing because we were brought up with it. Perhaps video is actually better and more realistic and kids now growing up would appreciate the video forum better than film. I dunno. Just wondering. Russ

October 21st, 2003, 02:23 PM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I have moved this thread to the more approriate forum, namely the "Towards a Film Look Using DV" forum. Please browse and search this forum because your question has been talked about a lot of times already. Just for your information, the Canon XL1 camera range cannot do 24fps. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 22nd, 2003, 09:04 PM	#10
John Jackman Great DV dot com Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Lewisville, NC Posts: 78	No one likes 25p for anything serious. Why not? Because 25fps immediately reminds people of PAL. Was this intended as a joke? If so it needed a smiley. I guarantee you that you can't see the difference between 25p and 24p. PAL is 25i, or 50 fields per second, has just as much interlaced look as NTSC video. Having worked on this issue a lot -- see my DV Mag article at: http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/feature/2002/jackman1202 the various Hollywood film DPs I've had involved in testing all agreed that 30p is so close to the look they want that going the extra step to 24p isn't necessary -- IF you're staying on video. The only preference they had for 24p was to preserve the potential for a film print. __________________ John Jackman www.johnjackman.com

October 22nd, 2003, 09:17 PM	#11
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Regarding the above: agreed. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

October 23rd, 2003, 02:51 AM	#14
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Obviously it was a joke. Kinda funny too. :-] __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

October 21st, 2003, 09:30 PM	#3
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	i prefer 30P for NTSC ... i find NTSC camera's that shoot 24p when viewed on 29.97 TV distracting ( i dislike added pull down) ... i think 30p ( 1/60shutter) is more "film like " then 24p with either pull down on NTSC monitor ... i haven't been able to put my finger on it yet but to me 24fps FILM transferred to NTSC feels different ( motion) then NTSC 24P camera with either pull down ... i know normal pull down is the same BUT ???? i do like the HD 24p camera's on 24fps HD monitor. i like mixing 30p with 60i ...

October 21st, 2003, 11:17 PM	#4
Ted Springer Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Glendale CA Posts: 328	With regards to 24fps vs 30fps (or 60fields per second), I think that since 24 frames per second requires more "imagination" from your brain to "fill in the gaps", it seems more dreamy, or more flowing if you will. 30fps also seems to be able to achieve this somewhat. Programs that run at 60 independant fields per second like television newscasts leave little to nothing for your brain to fill in. Therefore it seems cold, real, and cheap. This is my personal theory. Before anyone posts a response saying something like "NTSC is ALWAYS 60 fields per second even when you are watching 30fps material etc etc etc..." ad nauseum, I'd like to say that I am comparing images per second when I am talking about 60i above. Newscasts have 60 different images captured per second. I do not consider "Frame Mode" to be 60i, even though technically it is, it isn't. It does not have 60 different images per second, only 30. Get muh drift? :)

October 22nd, 2003, 12:59 AM	#5
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	What about 25P? Never mind the 24P and 29.97P. :)

October 22nd, 2003, 11:06 AM	#6
Ted Springer Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Glendale CA Posts: 328	No one likes 25p for anything serious. Why not? Because 25fps immediately reminds people of PAL. And PAL immediately reminds people of Mr. Bean. So unless you want to shoot a quirky English comedy, 25p won't do! :)

October 22nd, 2003, 12:04 PM	#7
Alex Dunn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 202	Not necessarily metaphysical, but I do enjoy the philosophical questions. You have to remember the difference is SUBTLE and only professional geeks like us can readily tell the differance. I agree with you though, that it's a creative choice we make depending on what we think looks good. If you think 30 fps looks better, then by all means do your project 30fps. But adding to what Ted said, it is definately different than reality and I think that is the attraction. It's not slow motion, but it definately has a that look, i.e., when a woman tosses her hair or the spashing of water. These two very beautiful images look entirely different at 24fps than at 60i. 30p gets us closer.

October 22nd, 2003, 02:16 PM	#9
Alex Dunn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 202	Ted, If you're family is like mine, their idea of "camcorder footage" is a Sony Handycam Hi8. I'm the first to agree that the XL1 is far superior to "camcorder footage", especially in frame mode. I own a Sony Hi8 that I hadn't picked up in years, when I did I was amazed at how bad the resolution was and that I had at one point thought it was good. The XL1 will spoil you.

October 22nd, 2003, 11:26 PM	#12
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by John Jackman :The only preference they had for 24p was to preserve the potential for a film print. -->>> ... or converting to PAL for international distribution. 30P makes for a lousy PAL conversion, 24P makes for a great PAL conversion.

October 23rd, 2003, 12:29 AM	#13
Ted Springer Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Glendale CA Posts: 328	Yes, John, that was a joke. I was under the impression that Chris Hurd does not like smilies on his site, but I'll give one anyway. :) I didn't think it could be taken seriously since the following comment of "and PAL immediately reminds people of Mr. Bean" is just so crazy.

October 30th, 2003, 12:32 AM	#15
Michael D. Scott Tourist Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2	My personal feeling on the matter is that film's 24fps (and more importantly, its associated 1/48th-second shutter speed) results in a motion blur ratio that, complemented by persistence of vision, most closely resembles the way the human eye actually perceives reality. That is to say, it looks like we are looking at something real, and not a sequence of projected still images. This as opposed to video. With its higher framerate and faster shutter speed, motion blurring is lessened, and the detail is clearer on objects in motion. We are not actually looking at objects in motion, we're looking at still frames, and that means our eyes don't have the motion information needed to make the video appear "natural." Video looks crisp, crisper than the way real life looks, and so the illusion, at least to some extent, of looking through a window onto reality, is betrayed. I'm all for 24p.