DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Techniques for Independent Production (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/)
-   -   why 24p? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/5084-why-24p.html)

fargogogo November 22nd, 2002 09:40 PM

why 24p?
 
Why is 24p so popular for television productions? Why not 30p, since 24p needs to eventually be converted to 30 frames to be broadcast?

Is it thought that the 3:2 pulldown adds a "film look"?

Robert Knecht Schmidt November 22nd, 2002 11:03 PM

Yep.

Josh Bass November 22nd, 2002 11:56 PM

Isn't half of what's on TV actually shot on film? National commercials, hour long dramas, most sitcoms (or at least some sitcoms). . .

Peter Moore November 24th, 2002 11:12 PM

If the show's shot on film, it's going to be 24p because that's the standard.

So why film vs. video? Video is an accurate reproduction of what the eye sees, for the most part. I mean to say that its very fast framerate gives smooth motion so that you get a sense that you're watching a live thing happening. That's why it's so good for sports and news.

Film, on the other hand, is an art form. It's seen as not just a reproduction of what the eye sees, but rather a representation of it. The difference between film and video is like the difference between an oil painting and a photograph. Film is not meant to look like you're live in the action, but rather to look like you're watching, literally, a moving picture.

That explanaiton may make no sense, but it's the only one I can think of. The simple answer to your question is because 24p is the standard and because all film editing techniques are based on it.

Robert Knecht Schmidt November 25th, 2002 03:16 AM

It might be added to Peter's conclusion that when it comes to film 24 fps is cheaper than 30 fps. Any lower refresh rate than 24 fps and sound sync might suffer. (Prior to the introduction of motion picture sound, it was common to shoot film at 18 fps.)

Jeff Donald November 25th, 2002 07:21 AM

Yes, back when the speed was standardized on 24fps, economics played the biggest role in the decision. Studios then, just like now, didn't want to part with their money.

Jeff

Peter Moore November 25th, 2002 09:59 AM

Oh of course, good point. 30fps adds 25% more to the cost of the film stock and processing, which is pricey. I remember reading somewhere that film alone for a motion picture can run into the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.

CUT Productions November 25th, 2002 03:56 PM

If you want the filmlook then shoot on film - there is no, I repeat, no substitute. Go to www.8mm.filmshooting.com and find out how.

Otherwise content yourselves with frame mode or whatever as some kind of near facsimilie with its own fantastic qualities and stop for God's sake banging on about this issue.

Jeff Donald November 25th, 2002 07:08 PM

Since the whole point of this thread is trying to have your video look less like video and more like film, I hope people don't stop banging on about it.

Jeff

Paul Sedillo November 25th, 2002 07:35 PM

Has anybody read the article in the latest issue of DV magazine? I saw it on the newstand and it has an article on how to obtain a "film look."

klepdogg November 25th, 2002 11:39 PM

>> Has anybody read the article in the latest issue of DV magazine? I saw it on the newstand and it has an article on how to obtain a "film look." <<

Yeah I read it. Just the usual de-interlace this, gamma that, color balance this, use film production techniques that.

However, something did catch my attention in the article. The author seems to think that using twixtor to go from 30i to 24p duplicates film motion almost perfectly. While twixtor is great for speeding up or slowing down your video, I've yet to get a non-jittery frame rate conversion from it.

Peter Moore November 26th, 2002 06:29 PM

What we really need is a non-interlaced DV format. Why don't these cameras simply support 30p native? At least that would eliminate this interlacing crap.

IMO interlacing should've been abolished years ago, the day DVDs came out. The DVD players could have interlaced the video as necessary for the television, but that's it. Interlacing went by the wayside years ago with computer monitors and HDTVs.

Robert Knecht Schmidt November 27th, 2002 03:22 AM

Peter, everything you say is true, but many NTSC monitors still exist and many people still play 24 fps originated material on them. 3:2 pulldown, the process for conversion of 24 fps source to 60i, relies on the fact that the material will be interlaced.

Hagop Matossian November 27th, 2002 05:16 AM

I beleive sony have just come out with 24p DV format camera, with a signal ratio of 4:2:2, better than DVs 4:1:1 (is that BV figure right? its off the top of my head). I think it uses DVCAM tapes, and records the picture as MPEG 2

Peter Moore November 27th, 2002 08:38 AM

"Peter, everything you say is true, but many NTSC monitors still exist and many people still play 24 fps originated material on them. 3:2 pulldown, the process for conversion of 24 fps source to 60i, relies on the fact that the material will be interlaced."

I'm saying that the source cameras should all just be progressive, and the intermediary sources (such as the DVD players, etc.) should do the conversion for the legacy TVs, rather than the source materials themselves being interlaced. That's how DVDs should've been designed, but unfortunately the DVD industry and HDTV industries seem not to have spoken to each other when they developed their technology.

skyy3838 December 16th, 2002 04:04 PM

"Pro Look" not "Film Look"
 
I quote as an example-"Attack of the Clones".Not a strip of film involved but it still looks like a movie,like a PRO Job and that is all that really matters.
If some of you want to bust the bank to get that "film look" via the Panasonic 24p,be my guest-just make sure you are not getting it for all the wrong reasons(eg. lack of aquisitional skills).
Plus it's the first camcorder of it's type-that means flaws and errors aplenty that need to be addressed in the next version of this cam. I would try and put my money to better use,like getting some film look plugs or programs.Or maybe "lowering" your standards just a bit and getting a real excellent Digital Imager such as the TRV 950.Or maybe that fluid head set that you've been promising yourself forever-Smooth tilts and pans look really pro.But don't put all of your hopes and dreams and whatnot into this one cam-it probably isn't worth it yet.

Learn your craft with what you have now, or can cobble together.
*That* is the most important thing.

A.

Martin Munthe December 17th, 2002 07:28 AM

It is much much harder to make video look pleasing than film. Film is easy, expensive and limited in many ways. Video offers options not yet explored by most producers. Attack Of The Clones is a great example of the endless possibilities of aquiring on digital video. The way Ben Burtt edited that film picking actors from different shots and compositing them into new varieties of shots is much the way most of us will be working in the future.

Someone suggested Super 8 as the only option if you want the "film look" (phew, what is that?). I tend to disagree because super 8 offers scratches, weaving and extremely limited optics. And it offers excessive grain. To some that is the look of film. To me that is the look of an amateur format designed for shooting home movies before the time of 8mm video camcorders. I've shot super 8 stuff on Beaulieu cameras so I know what I'm talking about.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:58 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network