WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT 24p

[gangstacow]

from what i'v read it makes the frame rate lower.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOW GOOOD

[gangstacow]

I agree 24p is pointless shit

[Luthyr]

It improves low-light conditions quite a bit. It's the only reason I use it, since I like to reduce grain as much as possible. For good lighting, I think it's a bit pointless unless you are going for that film look.

Also, did you just agree with yourself...?

[blondandfun]

I use 24p because its my way of getting back at "the man" in "the industry" who thinks that only Universal Studios and Columbia are capable of making good movies.

[gangstacow]

does it make the overall quality worse

[Luthyr]

It makes the frame rate slower, so if the taping is jerky, the motion will look twice as choppy. It makes the actual image look much nicer than the normal 60i in low-light conditions (such as indoors), but fast motion will look off if the taping isn't done well.

[Mal]

Solution:
If you hate 24p so much, shoot 60i.
Problem solved.

[Cartoonmaker]

I enjoy 24P for all the reasons listed, and I'll add another.

I am using it to shoot live action and since it's progressive 24 frames, I can animation on top of it in 24 frames progressive.

Animation is 24 frames traditionally. So the option of drawing 24 images per second or 30 images per second is a no brainer.

I know there are programs out there that can remove the interlacing after the fact, but recording it right on the spot is a plus. The pull down method that has been worked out here makes it even easier. Though I do hope that Vegas will have an update to capture the 24p from the Hv20 soon.

The 60i standard is great for fast moving stuff. I agree, the 24P does seem to help the light sensitivity too.

[Mal]

Animation is 24 frames traditionally.

That depends...a lot. MANY are MUCH, MUCH less. Naruto and the likes probably average 1 frame every two to three seconds! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_animation

[24Peter]

The only reason to shoot 24p is b/c you like the way it looks. I purchased the HV20 (like my DVX100 before it) b/c of 24p. If it's not asthetically pleasing to you, please don't use it.

[DangerZone]

Why would you post your hatred of a breakthrough feature on consumer grade camera that produces results that rivals cameras that are thousands of dollars more? Besides the quality issue, it's a specific look that no other camera can reproduce without you buying something that costs a lot more or moving to a whole different format(film) altogether.

Thank you for your troll. Hey, I hear the new S-VHS cameras are dropping in price! Why don't you check those out?

[gangstacow]

i own this camera you boner nuts.:hv20-smilie70:
I JUST WONDERED WHAT IS THE POINT OF LESS FRAMES
:hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15:

[white_2kgt]

i own this camera you boner nuts.:hv20-smilie70:
I JUST WONDERED WHAT IS THE POINT OF LESS FRAMES
:hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15:

Go back and read your first two post. If you had just met 1,048 people for dinner for the first time and it was being videotaped would have said the same thing out loud? Because that's basically what you just did, you stood up in front of 1,048 people (that's how many members are here, minus you) and said what you said for everyone to read and there is also a history of it. See how that might come across a little 'assholeish'?

[Tosh Layton]

What are bonernuts?

24P:

used in conjunction with a good DOF adapter, when printed to film looks Identical (to me at least) to footage if it were shot on film to begin with. Sure you have issues with color latitude and all of that, but I think in the hands of someone who has spent a few days learning it the difference is not noticeable to the general movie going public.

So in a nutshell I can take my $3,000 setup, shoot my movie with actors that are working for free, edit and color correct on my home computer, finish the movie on my home computer, edit and finish all the sound with free software, ship my movie off in 20 minute chunks on a few hard drives to a film printing facility, have my movie printed to film for around 50,000 bucks and have a film that can be shown in any theater in the world, that looks like it cost millions, all for under a hundred thousand.

True if I am actually going this rout I am probably not going to use a 1000 dollar camera, but I can use this camera and get into festivals, make amazing short movies, all that look like their big film brothers.

This camera is the greatest camera ever created.

[zephyrnoid]

Tosh Layton
I really feel like the very patriotic owner of an HV20 after that post! Thanks!
Are bonernuts the same as Cochonnes ?

[Tosh Layton]

Bonernuts, Cochonnes, I think they have something to do with drinking salt water, I dunno...

But on a serious note.

When I started film school and started learning about 24P and Depth of Field, and everything that goes along with Movie Making I really wanted a 24P camera. I knew that I wanted something that could transfer back to film and SD CAN but it doesn't look so spectacular, unless thats the look you are going for as is the case of 28 days later, one of my favorite movies shot on an XL-1.

I finally decided that If I was going to get serious I needed a 24P HD camera. So I started saving the pennies for an HVX, I really wanted an XL-H1 but that was a bit too pricey.

So come last march I hear about the HV20. I was frantic. It was like when Cartman was waiting for the Wii, I just couldn't wait.

The Kicker for me was the HDMI output and the true 1920 x 1080 Cmos chip.

Sadly I could not get this camera the day it came out, the store I bought it from was out of stock on the first day, but I did get mine a few days later on another shippment.

So after everything I have read about this camera and all the adapters built that this camera can use, and after all the software that removes pulldown etc. I am still in love with this camera.

I think it's the greatest camera ever made for the money, and even if this cam cost 3500 bucks I would say its better than most.

Now, on to Canons NEXT camera, an XL-H2 with 3 x 1/2.7" cmos chips, HDMI and HD-SDI output, heck throw in Dual link HD-SDI, maybe incorporate some sort of tapeless removable 2.5" HDD recording system for full 1920 recording, Image flipping inside the camera for DOF adapters, and all the other goodies that go along with the camera, and keep it all under 10 grand. While it still can't touch the RED (a different league camera altogether) it will make some amazing footage. Thats my dream. droooool.

[gangstacow]

bonernuts is a turtles best friend:eek:

[tokyo_ren]

this thread brings tears to my eyes!

it shows how warm and welcoming this community is even to the most excited misguided and confused among us :hv20-smilie81:

I feel warm all over and know that even if I poop in my pants someone will come along and ask me if I'm ok, maybe even give me a hug...
all I ask is that you don't squeeze too hard, especially when the little red light is on :hv20-smilie01:

[SalaTar]

24 was a cost issue at the time...Film is 24 as it was the lowest frame rate they could add the sound track on the film and be cost effective.
So 24p isnt "Filmic" its "cheaper" and we now use the "cheaper" 24p to justify the "filmic" look..

"The pre-sound format was at 18 FPS. The reason for this was this; before synchronized sound was developed for motion pictures, 18 frames per second was the least number of frames per second that could create the illusion of the motion picture without looking too jittery. Many frames per second change into hundreds of feet of film very quickly, so keeping the frames per second count to the lowest possible number was critical for the commercial success of the infant motion picture industry. With the development of synchronized sound, it was found that the resolution of the lip movements of the actors was too coarse to support the sound of the recorded voice. At 18 FPS, speech looked like a Godzilla movie poorly dubbed into English. After some experimentation, it was determined that 24 frames per second was the least possible number and the most economical means of maintaining the illusion of the synchronized sound motion picture and kept the business profitable and an ongoing industry today."

[Tosh Layton]

My big thing with 24P has always been that it's the speed film is projected in theaters. My feeling on the filmic look is the depth of field. If film were projected at 30 FPS then there would be no such thing as 24P cameras and we would probably have been shooting digital features for 10 years by now.

One can only wish.

So my thing for 24P is that thats how everything is set up. Movies are shot in 24FPS on film or in 24P digitally.

Thinking though that if you shoot in 24P and your footage will look like film is sadly mistaken. I think that the filimic look comes from the DOF of 35mm. The way i came about this was I was standing near a tree and looking at my car which was about 50 feet away. I was looking though some of the branches that were in the way and I decided to focus on the branches themselves which were probably 5 feet away from me. I basically rack focused from my car to the branches with my eyes. It works better if you close one eye. After doing this I began to actively notice it in movies.

I concluded that the DOF in movies was mimicking the eye in how it selectively focused on something to give that thing the emphasis. From then on 24P didn't equal the film look to me, DOF equaled the film look.

Hope that gave somebody some info.. OH also tokyo_ren, if you did poop your pants and somebody gave you a hug I would defiantly videotape it in 24P with my HV20.

PEACE

[Ian-T]

My big thing with 24P has always been that it's the speed film is projected in theaters. My feeling on the filmic look is the depth of field. If film were projected at 30 FPS then there would be no such thing as 24P cameras and we would probably have been shooting digital features for 10 years by now.

One can only wish.

So my thing for 24P is that thats how everything is set up. Movies are shot in 24FPS on film or in 24P digitally.

Thinking though that if you shoot in 24P and your footage will look like film is sadly mistaken. I think that the filimic look comes from the DOF of 35mm. The way i came about this was I was standing near a tree and looking at my car which was about 50 feet away. I was looking though some of the branches that were in the way and I decided to focus on the branches themselves which were probably 5 feet away from me. I basically rack focused from my car to the branches with my eyes. It works better if you close one eye. After doing this I began to actively notice it in movies.

I concluded that the DOF in movies was mimicking the eye in how it selectively focused on something to give that thing the emphasis. From then on 24P didn't equal the film look to me, DOF equaled the film look.

Hope that gave somebody some info.. OH also tokyo_ren, if you did poop your pants and somebody gave you a hug I would defiantly videotape it in 24P with my HV20.

PEACETosh, I think it's more a combination of shallow DOF, 24p and Color grading that gives a Cinematic look. No one method will give you a cinematic look but that's just my opinion. I've seen video look very...well....videoy with real shallow depth of field....still had something missing. Even film itself can look like video especially when shot at say....60fps. That was tried by some famous director before (shooting at 60fps) and the film turned out looking like video....it never caught on (I think people hated it). A lot of people complain that video at 24p looks strobey....well......so does film...but it's shot in a way where you don't really see it. If a person "shoots" video like film (meaning proper lighting, attention to panning etc,) then video could look more "film-like" than some filmed movies.

[Tosh Layton]

Very Very true, it all takes MANY different factors to come to a great output. I have seen video looking stuff that was shot on film.

I was trying to be as simple as possible and when I boil it all down, for me what really gets over that big hurdle of video look to film look is the DOF, the Shallow DOF to be more accurate.

But then yes many other things come into play like shooting with cranes and dollies and smooth movement, and everything being calculated to the most minute detail and then lots of color correction and sound. Sound is such a HUGE thing in the movie world. I have seen video that had a very deep DOF to where EVERYTHING was in focus but the sound was done perfectly and it was a pleasure to watch.

It's such a complicated business we are in, but such a rewarding one at that.

Oh also on prolost.com Stu posted some frames from a film and they looked brownout as it was shot on film. they were pre-color correction and to my eye they looked like video frames, but after the correction they looked like film.

[SalaTar]

http://prolost.blogspot.com/2007/07/color-makes-movie.html

color does make the "grade"
DOF can be subjective, some great movies from the past were intentionally shot without Shallow DOF

[tokyo_ren]

i own this camera you boner nuts.:hv20-smilie70:
I JUST WONDERED WHAT IS THE POINT OF LESS FRAMES
:hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie15:


its cheaper to shoot at 24 frames instead of 60 fields :hv20-smilie99:

[SalaTar]

its cheaper to shoot at 24 frames instead of 60 fields :hv20-smilie99:

Funny,
But in reality 24p saves on disk cost too :hv20-smilie69:

[twoneil]

I prefer 24p over 60i. Interlace videos are half the resolution. If there is 60p, then I wouldn't hesitate to switch. Anyway, the video becomes 30p when importing since you have no choice but to deinterlace it.

CRT monitors are becoming obsolete. Interlace should be completely removed from standard broadcast.

[SenorKaffee]

Progressive = No need to deinterlace = Good for lazy me

[white_2kgt]

Progressive = No need to deinterlace = Good for lazy me

You are to lazy to just check a box during render?

[twoneil]

You are to lazy to just check a box during render?

Although it's only a mouse click away. (for me it's 5 clicks)
Cause the box also apparently says:

[ ]please check to deinterlace video......and also lose half of the
resolution while saving on full resolution that will eat up
your hard drive space and increase your processing usage
during play back which will make your video drop frames
from 30fps to 15fps until you've come to the realization in
which you regret the choice you've made for not
choosing 24 progressive frames per second format.

With all the time consumed on High definition; come to think of it..... I feel like going back to DV. :hv20-smilie50:

Actually I use both formats; 60i & 24p. Hence, you have the freedom to choose. All is good.

[white_2kgt]

Granted, this is the 24p forum but I shoot in 60i and if I don't deinterlace my video during rendering I get nasty lines that show up every so often, so I just check the box now in vegas properties (actually pick from a drop down menu).

[iondot]

Interlaced imagery looks cheaper. Whether this is because our perception is picking out the interlacing as something unnatural, or because films have trained us to associate 24 frames with quality, or even that there is a natural preference for that frequency, 24p is generally perceived as higher quality.

[SenorKaffee]

The problem is, when editing I´m a quality nut. I´d load it in AVISynth, try 20 different deinterlacing strategies only to be left with the feeling that with just a few hours more research I´d find an even better deinterlace plugin. Deinterlacing by pressing a button? BLASPHEMY!

So I have pity with my poor soul and stay at 25p for my current projects. ^^

[twoneil]

Personally, I don't like 24p. I want 60p on a 1920x1080 resolution. But resolution always takes 1st place before frame rate. I believe there is no prosumer camera that is capable of that. (is there?)

[iondot]

I doubt you are going to see 60p for a decade, if not more. The HD standard does not support it so you would have nothing to watch it on!

[SenorKaffee]

It´s the HDV standard that doesn´t support it. 1080p50 and 1080p60 are part of the HDTV standard. Although devices with the HD-ready label don´t need to display 1080 at all.

[tokyo_ren]

The problem is, when editing I´m a quality nut. I´d load it in AVISynth, try 20 different deinterlacing strategies only to be left with the feeling that with just a few hours more research I´d find an even better deinterlace plugin. Deinterlacing by pressing a button? BLASPHEMY!

So I have pity with my poor soul and stay at 25p for my current projects. ^^

you're a sick man :hv20-smilie70:

I suffer similarly whenever I go near AfterEffects and a few plugins. :hv20-smilie01:

[iondot]

It´s the HDV standard that doesn´t support it. 1080p50 and 1080p60 are part of the HDTV standard. Although devices with the HD-ready label don´t need to display 1080 at all.

What HDTV is being manufactured that displays 1080p60?

The HDTV standards (not HDV) are:

1080i60
1080i50
1080p30
1080p24
1080p25

There is a 720p60 standard, but that is not what we are talking about here.

[um3k]

All 1080 LCD and DLP screens, and most plasma screens, display 1080p. They are progressive by nature, and deinterlace 1080i for display. Many newer models can accept 1080p60 input through HDMI, VGA, or component. So, displaying 1080p60 is already possible. The real problem is creating/finding 1080p60 video.
The only camera I know to be capable of recording 1080p60 is the RED ONE, which isn't available just yet. 1080i can be bob deinterlaced to get 1080p60, and can look quite good if done well (i.e. use MCBob in Avisynth or something equivalent), but will never be as good as true 1080p60. CG could also be used to create 1080p60, but it probably wouldn't be worth the time, effort, and cost for the time being.
To sum it up, lots of TVs can display 1080p60, the problem is finding 1080p60 to display.

[SenorKaffee]

Let´s ask the Pastafari. :hv20-smilie64:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv#Standard_resolutions


[...]
Standard frame or field rates

* 23.977p (allow easy conversion to NTSC)
* 24p (cinematic film)
* 25p (PAL, SECAM DTV progressive material)
* 30p (NTSC DTV progressive material)
* 50p (PAL, SECAM DTV progressive material)
* 60p (NTSC DTV progressive material)
* 50i (PAL & SECAM)
* 60i (NTSC, PAL-M)
[...]

[iondot]

Let´s ask the Pastafari. :hv20-smilie64:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv#Standard_resolutions

Yes, you are misreading what this means, or have not looked at the entire article. Scroll down to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv#TV_resolution

and you will see that while there are DTV 60p standards, they are not at 1080, they are EDTV at 480 and 576

[sean90291]

24 was a cost issue at the time...Film is 24 as it was the lowest frame rate they could add the sound track on the film and be cost effective.
So 24p isnt "Filmic" its "cheaper" and we now use the "cheaper" 24p to justify the "filmic" look..

"The pre-sound format was at 18 FPS. The reason for this was this; before synchronized sound was developed for motion pictures, 18 frames per second was the least number of frames per second that could create the illusion of the motion picture without looking too jittery. Many frames per second change into hundreds of feet of film very quickly, so keeping the frames per second count to the lowest possible number was critical for the commercial success of the infant motion picture industry. With the development of synchronized sound, it was found that the resolution of the lip movements of the actors was too coarse to support the sound of the recorded voice. At 18 FPS, speech looked like a Godzilla movie poorly dubbed into English. After some experimentation, it was determined that 24 frames per second was the least possible number and the most economical means of maintaining the illusion of the synchronized sound motion picture and kept the business profitable and an ongoing industry today."

There's a chance that more than one thing is at work here. You're sort of arguing that the only reason we accept 24P as the most cinematic, filmic, "pro" frame rate for movies is because it's what was forced upon us early on in film development. You might be right. But there's another possibility. And that is, despite the fact that 24fps made for a more practical framerate (i.e., it was the slowest frame rate allowing for realistic synch sound, while keeping the need for film stock as low as possible) there is also something happening psychologically at that frame rate. And so maybe there was some serendipity in the discovery of the 24P frame rate: it was practical AND it was "magical." Because we don't actually want REALITY from our art. Monet wouldn't be a household name if the only goal of art was to reproduce things in a quality that mimicked what the human eye could see. Alternatively, the human mind LOVES to work a little bit. The human mind loves things to be a little dream like and "other." It's what makes us sit up and take notice. Movies are dreams. We become captivated and hypnotized by them not because they capture reality, but because they capture a dream-like interpretation of reality. We like things to be a bit poetic and subtle and obfuscated. And my theory is that there's something about 24P that tells our brain we're entering a dream. We love that. The same way that we love cinematic depth of field. It becomes painterly and magical. And it's the same with script dialogue. If everything is "one the nose" and "just like real people talk," telling us everything we need to know in boring pedantic speech, we quickly lose interest. Reality would be much, much faster than 24fps. But we like to break from reality. We like our characters wardrobe to match the sets (that doesn't happen all that often in real life). We like music over the love scenes (in reality maybe you get this in your bedroom with surround sound, but not in Central Park). Poetic dialogue, color coordinated wardrobes and musical soundtracks aren't added for any practical reason. They're added because it elevates the experience to "art" (and I use the term art loosely to include Alien vs. Predator as much as it refers to Traffic). There's just something blurry and other-worldly about 24fps that you don't get with 60i+. So I'm not convinced it's just what we're used to. I think we really like things to be a bit distorted from reality. Not so much that we don't know what's going on. But just enough that it transports the creative side of our brain. The part that dreams things. If I'm watching a documentary that includes footage from a real Mars landing, I want it to look REAL. I want to see what Mars looks like as close to the human eye as possible, and 60i would be much better. But if I'm watching the Martian Chronicles, I definitely want 24P.

[terjeber]

Monet wouldn't be a household name if the only goal of art was to reproduce things in a quality that mimicked what the human eye could see.

This is a really good point, and I agree with you 100%. There is another area where this (appears) to apply as well. As most videographers and photographers know, in most footage having a shallow depth of field (DOF) is much more pleasant than a wide DOF. This is why videographers are rushing out to buy DOF adapters. When shooting people, most movies and pro video has really shallow DOF.

Now, I just took a look at my hand, trying to check what my real DOF was, and whaddayahknow, it seems that my eyes have very good DOF, in fact, to me it looks like the DOF for DV video seems to mimic what what my eyes see. So why do videographers, movie producers and the movie audience in general hate it? Because we have a brain.

When I look at something my brain edits out the irrelevant info. This goes well when I look at something in real life, but I can't do it when looking at pictures and video (probably because the real distance to the screen doesn't mimic what I see on it, where a city scape is behind an actor). So, a shallow DOF works for a movie goer, even though it is less accurate than a wide DOF. Not because of what his eyes see, but because of how he edits real world images.

There are probably lots of other things like this. For one, I think that if I am looking at something (in the real world) of interest that this something will be placed dead center in my stare. I'll turn my head and focus, and it'll be there. Dead center. So why do we never put things of interest in the center in photo(video)graphy? Because our brain likes the play. We search for patterns. We like to work at it a little bit.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Guys, a few months ago I went to discuss the 24fps vs 60fps with professional directors. It was a mixed bag, but at the end, I think we agreed that what matters for the "film look" is NOT the fps, but the DOF.
Discussion here: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2702
And exactly because of this realization, I went on to discuss this: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3086
and I also blogged about this here:
http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2007/07/21/the-quest-for-the-elusive-film-look/

[DaFireMedic]

24p is another in tool in your "toolbox" to achieve a look that you may want. When you are deciding how you want something to look on film, you look at your menu of tools and decide what will give you the look that you want. Without 24p, thats one less option that you have.

I think its great.

[Tosh Layton]

Guys, a few months ago I went to discuss the 24fps vs 60fps with professional directors. It was a mixed bag, but at the end, I think we agreed that what matters for the "film look" is NOT the fps, but the DOF.

When i was in film school this was my conclusion as well. I like 24p only for the fact that that is what I need to shoot if I want to transfer to film. If I had to choose between never shooting 24p again or not being able to change my lenses for more or less DOF then I would take DOF anyday. I really don't think that my brain when viewing a 30P signal says "uh-oh thats not the correct frame rate, there are 6 more frames per second, thats not cinematic."

I really like 24P But I like a nice bokeh more.

BTW Eugenia, are the directors that you met with anyone we would know? Can you mention who they are?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

I didn't really "meet" them. It was on the reduser forum as linked above, where most (not all) of the people there are beta testers of the RED camera, and so they are professional directors. I exchanged emails with some of them, and they all were working professionally. :)

[Tosh Layton]

Still, thats pretty cool. Do we know anything about the smaller version of the Red?