Wrong.

Imagine an opera with pans and camera shakes smooth as you eyes can see. Trust me, you're gonna be sick.

Looks like a movie with Phillip's Natural Motion filter ON (filter of some Phillips Televisions that creates new frames, making movies look like "makings").

Also, you can try Intervideo's WinDVD. It has a filter that works mostly like Natural Motion.

When you look at the real professionals like George Lucas do you think he would shoot star wars in standard definition ? George Lucas uses high definition video to shoot his movies. And look at Mel Gibson when the Passion of the Christ was released in video Mel Gibson made sure that a high definition copy in D-VHS was also released. Now thats professional. And look at Arnold Schwarznegger who released the Terminator 2 Extreme DVD in high definition.

Tommy, Arnold is a little busy running the state of California to be choosing release formats for the films he acted in.

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that the other two gents (the ones that are actually filmmakers) are playing in a pool where the choice of format has nothing to do with economics. Lucas could shoot 35mm, but he opts to shoot HD. Many productions would like to shoot 35mm, but they can only afford HD. That's a whole different ball of wax. Just as many DV filmmakers can't afford to drop their current cameras and dive into HDV just yet; that doesn't make the cameras obsolete or incapable of shooting a great film.

Professionalism has nothing to do with shooting formats. Being a professional means you are paid to do what you do. And even if you aren't, you can act like a professional or produce professional-looking material, regardless of the number of lines of resolution.

Material with poor production values (bad sound, lighting, blocking, editing) could be referred to as looking unprofessional. A beautiful looking film shot in SD is unlikely to be deemed unprofessional--a distributor may have concerns about the medium, but they wouldn't use that terminology.

Javier, you have brought up an excellent point! We do understand you.

Get 100 people to read a book in a fast moving car. Most will feel sick. This is what sitting in a cinema with high frame rate would be. As real as it can get. And the number of big TV screens at homes is growing. Bigger resolution and frame rate is not necessarily better. Too much details both spacially and temporally. Nobody blames great artists for not painting high enough resolution paintings. What happens is unnecessary details got filtered out by the artist. In film this temporal filtration happens naturally. Are we sure we want more details? Do you want "higher resolution" news about people being killed with all the details? I don't. Low res is bad enough. And this is a psychological rejection, not technical.

I think low frame rate was a technological decision but it has much more behind it than most think.

Not so fast my friends... Sorry but comparing watching a movie on a TV screen to playing a video games with MASSIVE non-stop motion in a 1st person environment when you are sitting 2 feet away is APPLES and ORANGES. The same to be said for IMAX, which INTENDS to bring you into the experience. 24P would make those people just as sick, if not more. There are, in fact, guidelines one should use in 24P in regards to motion. There are many people who claim that The Bourne Supremacy made them sick...

I dont think 24P is dead, I dont think this is the year of HD, I dont think that SD is obsolete and I dont think most people will ever know or care anyway! The truth is, that good CONTENT will usurp the format on which it is delivered.



ash =o)

I’m not going to change any minds here, of course . . .

But every time I do a session on the difference between 60i and 24p, show a well-lit and composed shot in 60i, and then show the SAME shot in 24p, I always get at least a few gasps.

People see the difference. People LIKE the difference.

Video in 60i looks like a soap opera. Video in 24p, while you can argue that it’s not a perfect film look, doesn’t look like a soap opera. It looks a lot like film. People get that.

Absolutely. I know of one video company that will not touch 25p (I live in PAL land). They abhore it saying it is too jerky etc. The fact is that if something is well shot nobody notices the jerkiness.After all people in cinemas don't complain that the film is jerky.

Often when I am commisioned to make a project I will ask if they want it shot interlaced or progressive. If the client doesn't understand what I am on about I will shot them some example footage of both. Almost without exception they always go for the progressive option! In the UK more and more documentaries, and even some of the current affairs programs are shot in progressive scan mode. It just looks nicer.

Although there is one thing I have mentioned many times, but that doesn't seem to be getting through. Please turn down the edge enhancement on your cameras! You get a more pleasing image, and it minimises the judder (24p video appears to judder more than 24fps film because video is better at showing detail in the mid-range frequencies that make up the bulk of the picture).

The JVC HD1/10 are the only 1 chip cameras (currently available - original Opturas are old) that do 30P.

But then, you don't want to completely eliminate the judder. Judder-free 24p looks very video-ish, much moreso than it should. Video and film are fundamentally different ways of acquiring moving pictures, so you want to err on the side of things which are more like acquiring film images than acquiring video images. You can eliminate judder by having your shutter "open" all the time (1/24 or slower), but then you're shooting more like video, because you're capturing more motion than you should. There needs to be a little staccato to it or it's not going to look as film-like.

Tommy, I have to ask...Are you in the business or just an HDTV junkie? I have a problem with some things you have said on this thread. Your actually comparing indie filmmakers with limited budgets to the unlimited means of George Lucas? You think it was Arnold that had anything to do with the T2 release you mentioned? The DVX/XL2 is obsolete? You OBVIOUSLY are very unfamiliar with the facts of this industry and the market of its technology. Yes, HDTV is excellent and an important facet of the future of this industry. But just as importantly, we have the PRESENT that must be addressed as well. Alot of people are doing excellent work with these cameras, and while techies like yourself are always waiting for the next best thing, creative people are out there doing amazing things and telling amazing stories with the good ol' fashioned SD DV cameras that are available today. It is idiotic to think that companies and indies alike need to drop their entire SD workflow today for HD.

Well yes it is indeed possible for an independent filmaker to compete with George Lucas. One must first realize that George Lucas did not start off being a billionaire. One of his first films was THX 1138 and of course it was not a big budget film like Star Wars never the less the it introduced some important concepts of the future with ideas from George Orwell but with an additional component that George Orwell missed and that is that future societies will have robots. The problem with Star Wars was that it was over commercialized and could not have the philisophical depth that the original George Lucas films carried.

That being said George Lucas talks about high definition but has failed to release any of his movies in a high definition video format. An indepedent film producer can compete with George Lucas by offering videos in a high definition format something that George Lucas has failed to do.

When I have said that the Cannon XL-2 is obsolete I did not mean to say that releasing videos in a standard definition format is obsolete. In actuality standard definition will have to be phased out very slowly and we cannot make the jump to high definition overnight. What I meant to say is that capturing video in standard definition is totally obsolete because you are not future proofing your work. The correct way is to shoot in high definition and then release your videos in a 2 DVD set with one DVD in standard definition and a secound DVD in high definition which is playable on most windows XP computers.

When the Wizard of Oz was shot in color future generations apreciated the fact that the film was future proofed and the film had more
investment value even though at the time the additional cost of color production did not make sense. So todays high definition videographers are making an investment in future proofing their work and can avoid depreciation.
And future proofing means a nice retirement nest egg.

On ocassion I will shoot a wedding in high definition even if the clients already have a standard definition videographer. Then I wait ten years and then I release the video if the clients are willing to pay for it. This way I'm building up a pension.

(QUOTE) When I have said that the Cannon XL-2 is obsolete I did not mean to say that releasing videos in a standard definition format is obsolete. What I meant to say is that capturing video in standard definition is totally obsolete because you are not future proofing your work. (QUOTE)

Your contradicting yourself here. If you are capturing in SD, obviously you are going to be releasing it in SD. Future-proofing is great, but many couples are just not willing to pay for HD. Period. HD is just not the standard yet. Most clients I talk to have no idea what HD even is, much less how it works. Obviously that will change in the future, but not for a while. Besides, not being a fan of HDV to begin with, I am holding out for better HD options. I feel bad for everyone jumping on the HDV bandwagon, it is just to soon to be investing so heavily in it. That's just my opinion of course.

Well for one thing I would have to agree with you most people will not pay a videographer a dime more for HD but if your into affordable high definition video productions you won't have to charge a dime more.

And it is true most people really don't know what HD is but most people are bombarded with advertising by stores trying to sell high end HD televisions. Many people could actually think that HD is a bunch of bs but come Christmas time those same people will blow thousands of dollars on a new Plasma HDTV. Most people really do not know what HD is but they have a vague idea that its some kind of big screen or flat panel Plasma technology. Many people confuse picture quality with screen size.

But the message that has to be driven home is that HD ready is not an HDTV unless it is feed with an HD signal from a set top box. When you go
"HD BUILT IN" and all you need is an antenna to get that free HDTV signal. Many of the new HD-VHS decks Have HD ATSC tuners built right in so you can pirate those free HD signals right of of the air.

I'm not talking about eliminating the judder. Film has a slightly different motion characteristic than straight progressive scan video because of the way it handles detail. I've outlined things more on my website;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm

Unfortunately the Sony XD cam lacks the resolution to give it the film look unless you call super 8mm the film look. To get the 16mm film look you need a progressive high definition video camera like the JVC GY-HD100. In the UK all owners of Windows XP computers have access and the ability to play high definition video over the internet at this very moment.

Simon Wyndham,

I agree with you about the edge enhancement. One of the big contrats between film and video is the sharpness. Video is way too sharp. A lot ofpeople are getting all crazy about the amount of detail in HD but detail isn't everything. A nice clean soft detail image can look a thousand times better than a sharp detailed image.

The reason Hollywood DVD's can get away with such low bitrates is because movies just do not have a useless amount of detail that changes every single pixel. There are other factors of course but detail can quickly make a low bitrate encoding look like garbage.

Visual effects work in Hollywood using HD is a pain because of the massive amount of detail compared to film. Whole new model making methods needed to be created for hand made models to look good on HD.

Makeup is also an issue with HD. HD shows a lot more skin problems because of the extra high detail.

Remember film is an illusion and not meant to mimic reality. We need to stop treating our video like reality if we want it to look like film.

(To Tommy) Really? Guess I must be blind then.

Sarcasm aside, 720p is not much of a leap over 576p (PAL). And since most of my projects go to DVD I know I'd take the XD over a smaller chip camera any day of the week.

Regardless this thread is not a discussion about high def over standard def. It is about filmlook. Unless of course you think that all films that are released onto DVD look like 8mm because they have been converted to standard def DVD's?

You might as well take a look at my upconverts from a not very good video project I worked on. These are converted to 1080p. I can do some 720p ones if you like?

http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algoli...comparison.htm

In addition to my comments above, a colleague of mine is purchasing the new JVC in the coming weeks. As soon as he has I will arrange a direct comparison between it and my xdcam.

I know it is really apples and oranges. But with the number of people who compare the footage from these HDV cams to 100,000 dollar HDCAMs I think it only fair that I compare it to a high end SD cam. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe you will!

True enough. Tommy, when you refer to "the film look", it's a can of worms. I think we can all agree that 35mm film transferred to NTSC i.e. SD has an indisputable film look, even though it is a 480i image at that point. If, as you have referred to earlier, you are defining film look as what will look good projected in a theater, obviously there are resolution limitations to any SD source material, but if it is really well shot, then I feel it is safe to say that it has a "film look" even if it occasionally falls short on resolution. Case in point was the theatrical print of "28 Days Later"--some shots were distractingly SD-esque but many were beautiful and made it easy to forget we were watching digitally originated material to begin with, let alone older generation DV!

But I would deduce from your collective posts that your point of reference for defining "film look" is overwhelmingly resolution-based over other factors such as lighting, camera movement, composition etc...would you agree?

Actually, I think it is much harder to get a film look out of an HD cam. Most HD looks like very clear video. Once Upon a Time in Mexico looked great but again, that is with a very expensive HDCAM. I bet I can come up with a better film look from an XL2 or DVX than from a 1/3"CCD HDV cam...



ash =o)

Ash, one reason HD looks like clear video (aside from interlacing in 1080i mode) is because of the way the detail frrequencies are handled.

I cover the reasons in the article I mentions http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm

Alan Roberts, an ex-BBC setup engineer devised filmlook settings for the high end HD cameras. These were precisely developed and measured, One of their applications was to match HD footage with footage already shot on film. A big part of acheiving this is changing the detail frequency bias of the camera first, and then working on gamma and highlight handling. Alan has setups to mimick many different filmstock behaviours, as well as being able to set up cameras precisely to how you want it to look, or to mimick a filmstock you have in mind.

Simon, I'm undertaking a similar project in building reference files into different film stocks. I'm starting with reversal because from what I'm told about film it has nearly the same latitude (IN POST!!!!) as the f900 or so has been the experience of the tests I've witnessed. Did Alan (or you) publish any of the results somewhere?

I'm no engineer myself. But Alans white papers 034 and 053 make for interesting reading regarding his research.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.shtml

If you want to ask Alan specifics he can be found over on the dvdoctor forums http://www.forums.dvdoctor.net

Every bluemoon I stumble across some thread started by the anti-24p crusaders. Why? It's beautiful. 24p is a gift from the DV Gods. I fail to even comprehend why anyone would want to shoot 'Digitally' any other framerate. HD-24p is even more reason to get excited.

Frame Rate is one of the major factors of this beautiful asthetic; not a minor one and not chalked up as one of a dozen IMHO. Check Saving Private Ryan with RAW footage on the beach assualt. Not a terrible amount of Hollywood Tricks being used there; in fact they went so far as to make the imagery worse; stripping the lenses, purposely vibrating the cameras, all hand held, shooting under high noon conditions. A lot of those shots they're using no light other than the sun and a butterfly or some bounce.... Is it more than the framerate that makes it look great? Of course. But the 24 is a major component and lets not pretent it's a minor one:

Check this simple 'Home Movie' of my kid riding his bike. No fancy lighting or comps; just good old fashioned Home Movie Footgae (ND Grad and Polarizer being used)

Right Click and Save As
http://outlandpictures.com/movies/bike.mov

Don't tell me 24p is some 'Minor' piece of the puzzle. No way. It's huge.

And what's all this non-sense about future proofing? I'm still watching old school Twilight Zone episodes and loving every minute of it. Future proof? Baaaaaa. Stop already. Knock it off. You think some wedding couple cares if they're work is future proofed? It might work for about 5 minutes in the pimping of your services but down the road it won't matter it's VHS or Super 8 when it comes to these couple having it on DVD and watching old memories. It's the content that makes the difference.

I think too sharp is distracting. Too glossy, too slick.

What a great thread.

Go get 'em, tiger!

I agree that 24p rocks.

I think that the single element that distinguishes the "Saving Private Ryan" beach sequence is the use of the skinny shutter, which at that point had never been used so extensively in a feature. Seeing explosions and debris falling with the short exposure time was a brand new texture. Of course, it sparked a fad that quickly diluted the novelty, but I was blown away at the time (the flare work was great also).

But of course--a short exposure at a high frame rate (like 60i) would not have the same visual effect. It's like a short film I saw that used a Mini35 but was shot at 60i--the shallow depth of field with the soap opera vibe was odd-looking to the point of feeling almost creepy!

It's a nice article, Simon. Very thorough. (I mean it.)

But I've also seen Barry's side-by-side comparison of 24fps film and DVX 24p, and the motion characteristics are identical. This, I have seen with my own eyes.

Of course, when we're talking about "film look" here, we're talking about cinematic film, which is standard 24fps. Had Spielberg shot any of his movies on video, they no doubt would have looked good, but they would not have looked the same by any stretch. They'd have looked too real-life, too every-day, even if everything else was exactly the same.

Saving Private Ryan is a good example for those who say 24p isn't good for fast action. Some of the best action we watch on TV came from 24p film.

I watched "Hero" recently, with all its gorgeous cinematography, and I can't imagine the travesty had it been shot in a faster framerate . . . or on video.

The same can be said for most any film; pointless to think of anything else.

Crazy talk I tell you. Yeah; let's shoot Schindlers List in 30p or HD 1080i.

Oy Vay.

I have little trouble seeing the jittery jumping of hard edges on pans in the cinema, so I bet that even quadrupling the frame rate to 100 fps isn't near our limits of perception. I'm not sure what the 24p frame rate is based on, but I wouldn't be surprised suspect it has something to do with the natural speed of facial expressions or normal body movements. Surely, it's not based on what is needed to accurately display wagon wheels in motion.

Why does saying 24P is not right for everything make you anti-24P? Let me state for the record that I am talking about 24P VIDEO, not film.
I use a lot of 24P but purposely, not because I can. I am sorry, it is NOT good for everything. The MTV movie awards tried it and it made everyone who watched it feel awkward and they never used it again, same with the new season of "Good Eats" it is missing the charm at 24P. Beyond quality, there is a psychological factor that is hard to get a finger on.

It is a difference of philosophy but I think 24P was the latest and last major hurdle to getting film look (next is resolution) but now everyone is treating it like the first. I would say MOST the footage I see in 24P is missing every other cinematic element. Bad lighting, poor framing, no control over the DOF, bad angles, etc. John it sounds like you are arguing that a kid riding a bike in 24P is better than a professionally produced multicamera shoot shot in 60i???

As far as Saving Private Ryan, that is really not a great argument because the shutter angle was so steep, giving it that "crispy" look. I think those who say 24P film has trouble with motion are talking more The Bourne Supremacy.

I will say it over and over until I am blue in the face, 24p is an EFFECT that when used properly can enhance a production. It is not THE effect and it is not right for everything.



ash =o)

Of course it is not right for everything; gameshows, soap-operas, weddings, corporate events, newscasts. I wouldn't think or entertain shooting 24p on these types of events (weddings I would).

Any 'film' related or film specific project (Indiependent filmmaking, nature documentary or other traditionaly film shot medium) however is a must have.

I'll take 24p SD over 60i HD anyday. I don't care if it's 720 or 1080. What I am saying is 24p is the main component in my equation. Give me HD-24p but HD-60i is (sound of puking); again this is in reference to indiependent filmmaking NOT shooting a soap opera.

Hell yes. Your picking up what I am putting down. I'll take a stock Super16 out of the camera anyday over some crappy looking HD-60i Mulicamera Lighted soap opera version of the event any day period. That's exactly my point; that video I submitted is 24p and ZERO tricks and techniques (sans a couple filters for sun) and it looks a gazillion times better than if I shot that with some 60i crap.

60i is crap. It screams crap, it taste like crap, it feels like crap.

I 100% agree with you; It is not right for everything; sopa operas and weddings for example....

But any traditionally Film shot event should incorporate 24p no doubt.

24p is part of the artistic element of film. Stories need this, news broadcasts don't.

There's a difference between a photo in National Geographic magazine and a photo you see on your everyday newspaper.

I don't understand why anyone would want 24p to die. I want any 'i' do die, it's obsolete, or will be when HD becomes the standard. Let's all hunt down 60i, 50i and 1080i...

What I think is the major source of confusion is that people compare 24 frames per secound progressive video with 60 half frames per secound interlaced. That is a totally unfair comparison. The only fair way is to compare progressive with progressive 24p to 60p. Interlaced video even 1080i interlaced video can never compare in quality with 35mm progressive film shot at 24 frames per secound. Interlace video is dying even 1080i will die and give way to 1080p. Once that happens and digital video cinema supplants film productions people will no longer be satisfied with the low temporal rates of 24p especially for fast action. Therefore 24p will die and give way to 60p.

THis is the part whereas someone needs to EXPLAIN to me

Isn't 60p going to be 60 frames a second? Why would you wan't to view anything at 60 FPS ?

What am I missing?

24p can have stuttery motion if you pan too fast (assuming the whole picture is static). AN example would be the sample 24p footage for the sample projects with Vegas 6. You can get that off the Sony Vegas website.

The ASC manual says that on pans, an object should take 7 seconds or long to cross the screen.

60p should have silky smooth motion. How it appears would depend on the display technology though. For example, CRT computer monitors at 60hz refresh rate and a high resolution can cause eye strain. So although the motion looks good, the overall image may not look that good.

I would expect 24p to kick around for a while. A lot of material will still be originated on 35mm film. As well, 24p lowers delivery requirements. 24p and 30p and 60i have (less than) half the requirements that a 60p broadcast would.

Anyways, you can shoot at whatever frame rate you want. I would suggest going with 30p because:
A- On a CRT TV, it has the interesting "film-like" motion like 24p. I did my own comparison between 60i, 30p, and 24p by converting 60i to other formats with Vegas 6. 24p and 30p are hard to tell apart, but definitely look different than 60i.
30p has less of that stuttery motion.
B- 30p is probably the easiest to handle in post (that, or 60i). With 24p you may have to dick around with adding/removing pulldown.
The progressive formats have an advantage because some filters/programs operate incorrectly on interlaced images.
C- Counterpoint: Some cameras lose functions in 24p mode... i.e. the DVX100. (not sure about 30p)

All this talk of Showscan and 60p.

I like this summarization:

"Video's frame rate being as close to reality as we can discern jibes with our ingrained perception of how video is traditionally used: to document real-life events. The TV news, reality TV shows, and our own home movies have a documentary quality to them that subconsciously suggests to the viewer that they are seeing actual events. Even sitcoms and soap operas are less like movies than they are like simulations of being in a studio audience watching a live performance. Video clues us in that we are watching reality, and by showing us everything, it invites us to passively absorb it. : OVERVIEW Movies are anything but reality. Ironically, by showing the audience less (40% of the temporal information of NTSC video), they trigger a part of our brains that works to fill in the missing information. In this way film creates a more participatory experience and at the same time informs its audience that what they are viewing is an authored, narrative work. This is backed up by our historical associations as well we have learned to associate film's flicker with storytelling and video's unflinching detail with reality."

Give me 24p or Give Me Death.

I wan't to run away as far as possible from anything that even remotely resembles Video (60p) in temporal quailty.

And if your panning so fast as your worried about stuttering or strobing then it won't matter anyway as who's even looking at it?

I think 24P is great for movies but not for everything as some suggest. 30P is problematic because it is hard to convert to film or to PAL. 60P may happen but not soon, it will take a couple generations. The reason I think it may happen is because kids not are so used to video games that run at 60P or even higher.

I dont think it matters right now as I bet we are 10 to 25 years away from anything like that... we still have only a small % of people watching HDTV...



ash =o)

Hi John,

That's an interesting statement; can you lead me to the research backing it up? I'm not challenging you, just curious. (I know about completion principles in psychology, but have never seen data on this.)

Cheers,
-Matt

Of course

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/whismabu.html

Is there any samples of 60p online?