Is 24p dying?
 

When I was watching the new series Empire on my HDTV no doubt it was shot in high definition 24p and it looked fine until the gladiator scenes when the action started to blur. In the new area of digital cinema who in their right minds wants 24p when you can have 60p that handles the fast action so much the better. To me real high definition does not mean just increased spatial resolution but higher temporal resolution as well. But its all these film snobs and their age old ideas that are really holding everything back. The fact is that these film snobs live in the past and they dont want to change. However change is the future and when the concept of change becomes mainstream then there will be nothing holding us back.

I'm not sure I would want to move to a full 60p. I can see 30p though. It has a very beatiful aesthetic when used properly, in my mind.

The problem with 30p or 60p is that they do not transfer well. 30p cannot be bumped to other formats or color standards easily. 24P will be here until we move to 100% digital which is prolly 10-20 years away. Remember there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of theaters and MOST homes that are still on SD and analog.

24P makes perfect sense (for some things) right now... maybe not the distant future but for a while...



ash =o)

60 frames a second has been done in the 70s by some guy and it didnt work.
because allegedly the motion looked too much like video.

24 it seems is the magic number.

B.Gurvich

I agree with Ben.
I'm not a conservative old filmmaker, I'm just an 18-year old filmstudent, but I love the look of 24P.
It's the illusion of film.
People have filmed a century with it, and the most spectacular action scenes are also filmed with 24P so why would we have to change now?

I think the reason 'film' went with 24p is because it was the minimum needed to produce smooth motion. Film costs a lot of money so it makes sense to shoot as little as possible.

One reason you may not like 24p is that panning too fast leads to stuttery motion. The ASC manual recommends an object should take 7 seconds to cross the screen during a pan (or slower) to avoid that problem.

Anyways, it's all up to subjective taste. I personally don't care too much what frame rate something was shot on, although I'd probably prefer 30p (this is in the context of watching images on a CRT-based TV; other display technologies look different in terms of motion reproduction).

But it had some other advantages, including the problem being discussed here. The process was called Showscan, here's an interesting article on the subject...

http://www.barbeefilm.com/showscan%2...It%20Works.htm

Cheers,

-Matt

60 fps would be a horrible frame rate; the human elye can only see about 30 fps and the rest is just blurred. Its like flashing your hand in front of your face, the slower you go, the more clear the picture is, but the more strobe their is, the faster you go, the less strobe thier is, but the their is much more blurr.

I don't understand the fuss about: when you pan fast with 24P it's not all clear.
If you pan fast, that means you don't want people to see everything clear, or am I wrong?
If you want people to see everything, then don't pan fast.
Or am I being to simplistic here?

Actually I disagree. The human eye can see differentiate between 70fps or so. hence the reason video looks like video and different than 30p. Interlaced video is composed of 60 samples of time whereas 30p is 30.

People are too stuck on numbers. Changing frame rate (when you have the luxury of equipment to do so) should be done from an artistic perspective. People like the look of 24p so videographers use it. It's as simple as that.

Firstly it may be a while before we see 1080 60p.

Secondly, while the motion of 24p is not idea from a technical point of view, it does give things a different aesthetic from general television, news etc.

If 1080 60p ever became a standard and everyone used it then there would be nothing to distinguish the motion look of local TV news from the latest Speilberg production!

24p at present creates an unreal motion and emphasises the fictional nature of most films. I don't want my films to look like a reality TV show.

I posted the same thing on another thread somewhere here, so I agree completely: I want films to still look like film: different from reality tv, so you still have the difference between the two!

Agreed. Hence the reason I would choose 30p if a change was enacted :)

Dont pretend frame rate is the only factor... I doubt a Spielberg movie would look like Dog the Bounty Hunter... I beg to argue that 24P is one of a dozen factors. If you shoot Joe Millionaire in 24P will it suddenly change the production? Make it look better? Like film? NO!

Lighting, framing, focus control, dof, angles, camera movement, STORY, editing, etc. etc. etc. are as important, if not moreso than 24P...



ash =o)

Be happy with the options
 

After 30 years plus in this business I can tell you that getting a film look with a video camera use to be near impossible. Now it's standard. When I first moved from film to video in the late 70's it was speed, not quality that counted and as of today, I'm still not sure where that argument is. I love the "Look" of film and did everything I could to beat my video cameras down including loading ND6 filters to force the lens open and create depth of field.
Today my starting point is 30P and I adjust from there. The look is very good and if i'm not going to film during the life of a project, 24P isn't necessary and IMHO, not worth the production considerations, ie. pan speed and image shutter. If I want reality TV I can go to 60i and bump the shutter speed.

Ash, 24p is the biggest part of film look. As has been said many times in different threads, an old 8mm or 16mm home cine movie doesn't look like video just because it hasn't got shallow DOF, or feature film style lighting etc.

What you are referring to is the 'high end' look, not the film look.

Agreed.

Movie look is production quality... lights, audio, technique, writing, drama/action, color/grading, etc etc.

Film look is just progressive vs. interlaced (to get roughly 1/2 of the speed of the other). If you disagree with that, just deinterlace a 60i DV stream to 30p and marvel at the film-like chop. If you can't see it, your eyes aren't as good as they should be ;-)

Representation: Video = faster, Film = slower.

$.02

I feel that frame rate isn't really that important. I think it's D.O.F.

Maybe it's just opinion. eh. I'm tired
forget it.

heh.

Number one most popular debate on DVInfo.net in the past two years: which is most important factor in creating a film look: frame rate or depth of field?

My vote has always been frame rate--I started using a frame store to create a 30 fps look in the late 80's and Filmlook (the original 24p process that all current cameras license) a few years later, and I've never looked back. To me, 24p with all the depth of focus in the world is much more film-like than 60i with shallow focus (which I think looks odd, frankly).

I am however open to the notion that over the next generation, a new aesthetic will become acceptable and preferred.

Charles comment "over the next generation, a new aesthetic will become accepted and preferred" is the key comment in all discussions about video/film aesthetics.

I've always argued that the aesthetics of documentary/ENG production have become increasingly absorbed into the aesthetics of narrative filmmaking. This started with smaller, lighter, 'faster', single system film cams that inspired cinema verite' - and continues with mini-dv docs and films.

So called 'reality' shows which emmulate documentary style with a narrative film structure, and the general widespread tolerance for 'shaky cam' images - to the point of acceptance - has certainly altered the aesthetic.

No question that the classic 'film look' will eventuallly be superceded by a generation that grew up watching and shooting video instead of film. And in my best guess... THAT generation is being born right about now.

So figure it's about thirty years away.

Indeedly--the last feature I operated was initially planned to be 90% handheld, although the setups themselves were classically composed and the script was standard romantic comedy. After it was discovered that while the director liked the activity around the frame while we were standing still (shouldering 45 lb Panaflexes with overhead suspension body mounts), she didn't care for the look when we had to take a couple of steps. Most of the setups became dolly-mounted with a simulation of handheld created on the head. Even during the most elegant of crane shots, when the camera came to a stop I would have to wiggle the wheels to keep a little bit of movement in the frame. I for one will be looking forward to the current "handheld is cool" trend to pass on to the next thing. Had a hard time watching "The Bourne Supremacy" in the theatre.

me too Charles.. found it difficult to watch, especially the beginning where hes being chased in the car.....

I too also agree that frame rate is the key to the so called "film look" on video (I also think shooting actual film produces a great film look too.. I know, sounds crazy doesn't it..)

Remembering that not every shot in a feature film is a close up with shallow DOF, wide shots are also used too...

Charles,

Maybe it's a generational thing, maybe it's because I started as a studio cameraman in television a gazillion years ago...

But when I see shaky cam footage, I always think that I am "watching the scene through a viewfinder" which translates to news footage or home movie footage in my sub-concious. It tends to remove me from a narrative storytelling environement.

I'm not an advocate of static shots by any means. Like I said, it's probably a remnant of my former job mentality, but SMOOTH, FLUID moves on a dolly, crane or steady cam, help to emphasize story, action or even dialogue. Shaky cam moves, to me, make me think I am hand-holding a camera.

I used to think that it was a thought that occured to only those of us who spent hours looking through a viewfinder. But with home video so widespread by now, I sometimes wonder if the 'general public' doesn't find that trend more 'natural'? Simply because that's the way 'reality' looks to them through a viefinder???

My comment is not directed at the Charles Papert's of the world but rather the majority of people on these forums who are still learning the craft. I would say 90% of the 24P stuff I see has terrible production values. I guess the argument comes down to "film look" versus "looks like a film" two very very different things IMHO.

I think something will look more like A film if it is properly framed, shot, lit, exposed, CCed, controlled DOF, etc. etc. etc. To me 24P is the LAST step, not the FIRST as it has become for most.

I use 24P in many cases but it is always for a purpose, just like a shutter, etc. If you want something to be more cinematic and it is to be shot with smoother motions, cranes, dolly shots, steadicam and/or with a shallow DOF, this accentuates the 24P look.

I just dont think you can take anything you are shooting, turn the dial to 24P and suddenly it looks like film... As noted above, I think most the 24P I see gives me the feeling that "this was shot on a DVX/XL2 in 24P mode" not a feeling like "this was shot on film."




ash =o)

One more thing... I will not argue for a second that 24P is the ONE element of looking like film that cannot be overcome with great production values however... I would say that 60i with good production value will outshine 24P with average production value...



ash =o)

I do not see how you think 24p is dying because you saw one program and you thought it one scene looked blurred. Maybe they did it on purpose to show motion better, maybe there was a problem with the scene, maybe the camera they used didn't have the right setting when they were filming.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Do you remember which person this was and what he was trying to do? Was it for movie theaters? I'd like to look into it.

Which DV cameras do true 30P? I think the DVX100
does, and one of the 1CCCD cams does.

The XL2 does great looking 30P... the issue with that frame rate right now is that it doesnt transfer well.... if you ever wanted to go to PAL or film 30P is problematic...


ash =o)

what exactly does all that mean? Why can't you print 30 frames to film? or "transfer" I should say.

(Look at me, the poor little n00b.)

The JVC HD 10 high definition video camera does 30 progressive frames per secound in high definition. It also does 60 progressive frames per secound in standard definition. I never intended to suggest that interlace video would replace progressive video but rather that the new trend is to achieve the full 60 progressive frames per secound. The Cannon XL2 and the Panasonic DVX100 cannot capture 60 progressive frames per secound in standard definition nor can they capture 24p or 30p in high definition so both cameras are obsolete

Anyone know which 1CCD models do true 30P?

Yeah, but then you've got that whole 720p is obsolete because 1080p is out. I think obsolete is a little strong because that indicates "an object is no longer wanted even though it is in working order" or "a design is no longer being produced". Neither of which is true as seen by the current pricing and sales of DVX and XL2s at B&H and EVS Online. Although...are they still making those JVC HD10 cams? ; )

30P does not have the interlacing that they use in the process of converting to film or PAL... that doesnt mean someone cant come up with a new process, but for now, it is not optimum...

As far as the silly comment by Tommy, it only reflects his ignorance of the marketplace and technology in general. Do you even know what obsolete means? The camera you reference is a home consumer camera! It is only 1 CCD, does that make it obsolete? You sound like a fanboy for that camera and the fact that it is missing 24P must mean it is dead. Think about how ludicrous your statements are... right now the delivery methods are 60i and 24P, that is for every movie theater and every TV station and every movie in DVD/VHS... wow, I guess 99% of the world's media is obsolete.

I own 3 HDTVs but I am the rare exception. SDTVs outnumber HDTVs by a HUGE margin, are they all obsolete? Is 20/20 an obsolete program because the broadcast in SD? Right now even the major networks have no more than about 15% of their broadcast day in HD and down the dial? Forget about it...

If you think the XL2 and DVX are dead and obsolete you clearly do not use one and have not seen the incredible work people are creating with them.




ash =o)

DVX100 and XL2 obsolete? I dont even know what to think of that. If you were to read pretty much any videography publication or forum you will see that these two cameras are far from out, even in more professional work. The summer 2005 issue of Videography Magazine, they have articles on two productions both using the DVX100A: Mad Hot Balroom and Rock School. Both are pretty damn professional.

How can you say that the high-end SD camrea is obsolete? The affordable HD cams don't even meet ATSC standards for HD. And thats not even looking at the marketshare side of things. If you make an HD production, you had better also have an SD version of it as well. HD is on the rise, but it is by no means there yet, at least not for prosumers.

And besides, the ability to tell a story is what makes a movie. Not the ability to get high production values. (Granted, the prodcution has to be good enough for the story to be told effectively...)

That being said, 24p is not dead. Professional photographers still use black and white for some things. Are they stuck in the past? No, but the black and white is an artistic decision.

As far as I know there's a few hollywood productions shoot at 30fps and 24fps simultaniously like "Around the World in Eighty Days" (1956). Depending on the projector's thater, a 30fps or 24fps version was seen.

Go beyond 30fps in a movie it's not a good idea. Watching a 60fps footage in big screen makes people feel sick. Anyone at home with a videoprojector could be able to check this. A simple pan running at 50 or 60fps in a big screen makes feel sick anybody.

Javier:

I'm not following you on this--60 fps is the same amount of information as 60i video, and there's no reason for people to find that "sickening". Non-dramatic perhaps,but that's another discussion...

The issue with pans that you mentioned would, I'm guessing, be strobing, which goes away at higher frame rates. It's much more of an issue with 24 fps.

Actually I would think 60fps would make people LESS sick as it would, as Charles stated, smooth out the motion. It may begin to look like a soap opera... so I guess in that way, it could make you sick =o)



ash =o)

So what does 60P look like? Does it have that
reality TV/COPS video look?

None understood me.

I insist. Please, watch a 60p (or 60i) in a big screen (at Futuroscope for example), or with a home projector with a theather like screen size (it means, big screen and close to it). After that, let's talk.

Is not the same thing playing a few hours first person shooter pc videogame running at +50fps, than 15-30fps. Any hardcore gamer can tell you, that the higher frame rate, the smothness movement, but you're gonna start to feel sick after an hour with a 19" monitor. Still, they prefer higher framerates because gives more acuracy.

The "sickness" of higher framerates on big screens is not from my own. People who worked with that frame speeds knows that the way they have to shoot has to be complete diferent in order to not disturb the audience. Same thing happened with IMAX films. If anyone saw the Matrix Reloaded IMAX version should know what i'm talking about: mostly unwatchable. Obiously, it wasn't shoot keeping IMAX in mind.

So, if a "tiny update" like 60fps, goes to a cinema standard, the way of making movies is gonna change drastically.