To 24P or 60i, that is the question

[freeflight]

Hi there,

I did some tests this weekend. In a controlled setting, I shot some 24P and 60i clips (same aperture and shutter speed). After jumping through a series of hoops to remove pull down, I compared the clean 24P clip with 60i ones. Sadly, I saw little or almost no diffence on my laptop's 1920*1200 display. :hv20-smilie15:

Did I do something wrong?

Just to be sure, I download the clip from Canon that demonstrates the difference of 24P Cinema and 60i.
http://usa.canon.com/app/html/See_The_Difference/hd_cmos.shtml
I watched it over and over. The only difference I see is that the 60i mode is brighter than the 24P cinema mode, which could be due to Cinema mode rather than 24P vs 60i.

When I started with photography six years ago, I also had some diffculties initially to tell the subtle difference in still images. Thus I need some help from you gurus.

Could you please give me some guidelines as to what to watch (color, DOF, etc)? Better yet, could you please identify them in the Canon sample clip?

Thanks,

Kevin

[Frank]

You are not really going to see much difference if you watch them on a computer monitor, which is progressive. This is because a computer monitor will automatically de-interlace the footage you are playing. At most you will notice a slightly smoother look to 60i (since you will have 30fps as opposed to 24fps) or maybe more motion blur on the 24p (depending on your shutter speed).

If you really want to see a difference, watch the footage on a TV screen. The 60i footage will have a much more "you are there" video feel, while 24p will be more "filmic". This is because the 60i has 60 discrete moments in time (one per field) as opposed to 24 for 24p (one moment in time per 2 fields, plus pulldown added), and your TV will display every single field separately.

When I was first editing (standard def DV) video, I would burn a DVD, and couldn't understand why it looked so different on my TV than the cool, film-like way it looked on my computer. Then I learned about interlacing etc. Now I de-interlace everything other than "home movies" (where "you are there" is mostly desired).

[Lunchbox]

Need an eye doctor?

I have shot 24p (in 60i wrapper) and plain 60i. The difference is noticeable even on computer screen.

60i shows sharper motion. 24p has film look and a slight blur of action. They both look good.

[dr jones]

the real question is: why would anyone want to shoot in 60i? (unless you're filming slomo)


might as well buy a $200 cheap camcorder if you want that interlaced, soap opera look.


why spend 1000 bucks on a film emulating camera and then not take advantage of that? i will never understand some people...

[Lunchbox]

first of all, you already said there're reasons why people will shoot in 60i.. if it's slomo, sports, anything with high motion content.

I am in wedding video business. I showed videos of 60i and 24p to potential clients. They all like 60i better than 24p because of the stunning sharpness and color richness. Those are just regular joe people (not like us). If they prefer 60i over 24p, why wouldn't I give what they want.

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=1194

Until the day 60i is everywhere, I won't jump to 24p for my clients.

There isn't any $200 cheap camcorder that shot 1080i. In fact, you can't barely find a decent DV camcorder for $200. I know what you are trying to say, but at least your analogy got to be somewhat realistic and believable. :)

[freeflight]

Good discussion.

Taky, I wonder if you can setup a poll to see what format people are shooting, that is 24P vs. 60i. People can also reply what their subjects are with each format. I think this can be very helpful for us to learn to use each format properly.

Thanks,

Kevin

[Lunchbox]

Kevin, why not, it'll be fun. But I can already tell it'll be 24p. That's one of the reasons many people here in the forum decided to buy HV20. I'm one of them too.

But if you read my post clearly, it was about the viewer, not the videographer. The audience is the general folks has no knowledge of how cool 24p is. They only tell me what like after they saw both 60i and 24p. I showed it to 3 couples (6 people). they all prefer 60i better.

[freeflight]

24P is one of the deciding factor for me to choose HV20 rather than Sony HC-7. Please let me know when you setup the poll. I suppose it will be in the board other than 24P, since most people go to 24P could be biased. The information about what they shoot in 24P will be most useful.

I did read through your link and agree with your assessment. Most folks like a sharper, punchy, saturated picture. However, for us who care about visual art (photo/video, etc.), chances are that we will gradually prefer a more subduced presentation rather than the in your face type, as we learn and improve. With above said, I perfer the film look for personal projects, hoping to achieve a documentary (PBS/National Geographic/Discovery) style someday.

However, your subject eventually decides what format is the best. That is why I am interested in seeing the poll.

[Lunchbox]

I agree back of what you said. I hated editing 60i video as it looks just like cheap home video. 24P on the other hand is more realistic and carrying that expensvie film look.

[irrbloss]

Interlacing is not a problem on a CRT-TV, but what on a HD-ready LCD-TV capable of 1080i? Does 60i really give you sharper images than 720p? Will the TV automatically deinterlace the signal? I have not got a HDMI-cable yet, but I have played m2t-files through the computer (via VGA-cable). On my Sony 40" LCD you can clearly see the interlace-fields. Maybe a HDMI-signal will be treated different? Personally I prefer the lower resolution of 720p than those annoying interlace-lines.

[Numbox]

This is because a computer monitor will automatically de-interlace the footage you are playing.

Since when :hv20-smilie50:
Shouldn't it be the other way around, that the tv will automatically deinterlace while the computer monitor wont?

[2Bdecided]

the real question is: why would anyone want to shoot in 60i? (unless you're filming slomo)

No, the real question is why all you arty types want to shoot at a frame rate dictated by the technology available circa 1920?

I don't know how you cope with real life. Do you have special "add the horrible filmic effect" glasses to wear, or something?


Sorry - just sharing my frustration. Some idiot arty farty just decided to add the "filmic look" to one of the few things I bother watching on TV. Last series it was 50i, and looked immediate, life-like. Now it's 25p with messed up colour and gamma, and looks so distant and headache inducing. What's funny is that, in an attempt to look "up market", they've actually shown up the bad acting!


As for "the cheap video look" - I defy anyone to watch 1080p50 or 1080p60 on a capable display and say the result looks cheap. It's like looking through a window.

Consumers (and most pros) can't have 1080p50 yet, so I'll take 1080i50 and hope for a good deinterlacer.

Cheers,
David.

[Frank]

Since when :hv20-smilie50:
Shouldn't it be the other way around, that the tv will automatically deinterlace while the computer monitor wont?

It's a question of terminology; when I say "de-interlace", I mean that the computer monitor will display both fields of an interlaced frame at the same time, or else drop one of the fields, or else blend them (I'm actually not sure which; I feel as though I've seen all three scenarios).

A TV on the other hand will simpy present the interlaced video as it was intended: 60 fields per second. Your eye blends them together and so you don't see any interlace lines.

[2Bdecided]

It's a question of terminology; when I say "de-interlace", I mean that the computer monitor will display both fields of an interlaced frame at the same time, or else drop one of the fields, or else blend them (I'm actually not sure which; I feel as though I've seen all three scenarios).

Both fields = 25 or 30fps with horrible "combing" on movement
Drop one field = 25 or 30fps with reduced vertical resolution and some aliasing (diagonal lines look jaggy)
blend them = 25 or 30fps with horrible blur on motion

If your playback software is set to "bob" the content, you'll see one field, then the other, as originally intended.

Bob = 50 or 60fps with slightly reduced vertical resolution

bob (sometimes called field deinterlace), or some kind of intelligent adaptive motion compensated bob - is the correct choice for viewing interlaced content on a PC.

Further problems come because PC displays aren't usually locked to the video field rate (it's virtually impossible to do so in "PAL" i.e. 50Hz countries) so you get broken frames (switched mid-frame, top=last frame, bottom=current frame) and/or duplicated frames which look horribly stuttery compared to a real TV locked to the source.

Also, the "bob" function on a progressive display doesn't maintain the high resolution in still areas which displaying the same content on a natively interlaced display does. Intelligent / adaptive bobing and motion estimation aim to overcome this.


To the original poster: if your playback software is bobbing correctly, and you wave the camera around, you shouldn't have any trouble spotting the differents between 24p and 60i. I love the irony that faulty 60i playback looks like 24p. That's just what 24p looks like to me (and most normal people): faulty.

Cheers,
David.

[threadhanger]

Black and white is also film technology from 1920 (the mid 1800's actually). Would you say Ansel Adam's prints are archaic because they aren't in color? Everthing has it's place. Sports look good in 60i, in color, and with a great depth of field/focus because something like a football game, for example, has lots of fast motion, colored jerseys which must be differentiated, and action that can take place on any part of the film very quickly (and be kept in focus at all times).

Strip malls, cities, and most people, in my opinion look better in 24p. I prefer black and white a lot of times as well. Just as black and white unifies the ugly clash of colors in modern civiliation, a 24 per second frame rate gives you a break from the annoying/banal pace of modern life. Reality you might say sucks. The HV20 gives you a choice in having a true-to-life window to the world or a junk-filtered vision to a slightlier dreamier time and place.

As has been said before, video is what the eye sees, film is what the mind sees.

[2Bdecided]

threadhanger,

I'm fine with it as a special effect.

The problem is, it's becoming ubiquitous. It's now applied, without thinking, to lots of UK TV. Most of it looks a lot worse than 24p in cinema mode from the H20 too!

What did "the mind see" before 1900 then? ;)

btw, I've watched uncompressed 1080p50 played out directly from a server. IMO it's gorgeous.

Cheers,
David.

[JoeInBH]

I've been shooting everything in 24P for a few weeks. I like the look. I'm doing mostly home movies, but I like editing them into little music videos, so the "upscale" 24P just makes it come together more than the "home video" look of 60i.

No criticism of 60i - in another week or so, I'll probably have changed my mind and will be shooting everything in 60i. It all comes down to personal preference, which is why the HV20 is so great - I can shoot whatever I'm in the mood for.

[twoneil]

I too am shooting entirely with 24p whether it be for personal or commercial. I love anything progressive and I'm definitely sticking with it.

I purchased the camera because of it.

[freeflight]

David, will do the test tonight. I mainly use WMP 11 to play .m2t file, sometime VLC or Media Player Classic. I am not sure where to check or set "bob".

Kevin



To the original poster: if your playback software is bobbing correctly, and you wave the camera around, you shouldn't have any trouble spotting the differents between 24p and 60i. I love the irony that faulty 60i playback looks like 24p. That's just what 24p looks like to me (and most normal people): faulty.

Cheers,
David.

[freeflight]

I watched the Canon video again, this time did notice some difference in motion blur (shaking the drink).

Then I watched clips of my one month old daughter, some are shot in 60i, others in 24P. Both were shot at 1/48s with contrast set to -1. I did see some motion blur for 24P clip as she swings her arm. :)

On the other hand, I am not seeing much difference in other aspects (overall feel, color, etc.).


Need an eye doctor?
I have shot 24p (in 60i wrapper) and plain 60i. The difference is noticeable even on computer screen.
60i shows sharper motion. 24p has film look and a slight blur of action. They both look good.

[2Bdecided]

freeflight,

The only difference between 24p and 60i is frame/field rate, and usually shutter speed.

You should not see changes to the colour, depth of focus, or anything else! Only smoothness of movement, and usually motion blur.

In VLC, right click the video window while playing, select deinterlace, bob. This will only be remembered until that video stops. Alternatively, you can set it permanently under Settings, Preferences, Video, Filters, Deinterlacing.

If you still can't see a difference, then it's possible your PC can't keep up with decoding, and you're dropping frames at 60i, making it look more like 24p. Or maybe you're just not sensitive to motion artefacts - not everyone notices.

btw, without converting properly to progressive, it's likely you're not seeing the 24p footage at its best either.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.

[Felix]

24p mode also seems to perform better in low light situations. I'm not sure why,maybe it increases the sensitivity of the CMOS sensor or something. Cine mode also helps in low light, although it makes the picture darker, it is ironically cleaner.

I'm liking 60i + cine mode the best on my HV20

[freeflight]

Thanks, dave.

I did the test in VLC, that is set de-interlace to bob. I notice there is a wave like pattern moving from bottom to top every fews seconds. This is horrible.

I followed Eugenia's blog to remove pulldown, and render final .mpeg file in Premiere CS3. I think the 24P footage looks smoother in motion scene after cleaning up pulldown. The only thing that concerns me is the size of the final file. My final 24P clip is 30% smaller than the file with pulldown. I thought the size reduction should be 20% (remove 6 frames out of 30).
Please see my post in this thread
http://hv20.com/showthread.php?t=2466

Kevin

freeflight,
In VLC, right click the video window while playing, select deinterlace, bob. This will only be remembered until that video stops. Alternatively, you can set it permanently under Settings, Preferences, Video, Filters, Deinterlacing.

If you still can't see a difference, then it's possible your PC can't keep up with decoding, and you're dropping frames at 60i, making it look more like 24p. Or maybe you're just not sensitive to motion artefacts - not everyone notices.

btw, without converting properly to progressive, it's likely you're not seeing the 24p footage at its best either.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.

[dr jones]

I am in wedding video business. I showed videos of 60i and 24p to potential clients. They all like 60i better than 24p because of the stunning sharpness and color richness. Those are just regular joe people (not like us). If they prefer 60i over 24p, why wouldn't I give what they want.


exactly. your customers know what they want, so why wouldn't any of us? is it really that hard to decide what looks better to you? it's not for them.




Until the day 60i is everywhere, I won't jump to 24p for my clients.

i think that day is in the past. 60i will never be everywhere, 24p is taking over more and more as time goes on.



There isn't any $200 cheap camcorder that shot 1080i. In fact, you can't barely find a decent DV camcorder for $200. I know what you are trying to say, but at least your analogy got to be somewhat realistic and believable. :)

i never said there is a 1080i camcorder for $200. resolution is not the point of this thread, interlaced vs progressive is the point of this thread. and my point was that if someone wants interlaced footage instead of progressive, then they might as well get a cheaper camera. besides, who wants nasty interlaced lines these days? especially on a 1000 dollar camera. if people like interlaced lines then more power to them. but personally i like 24p. it is more natural looking, and that is due to the fact that the human eye can only see up to 24 fps. the only reason we can see a difference in 60 fps is because it looks unnatural.

[MicheleW]

Hi - I've watched that video several times a while ago and again just now - and can't see much difference either. I do know that when you flip through the different shooting modes (auto, sunset, cine, etc.) the cine mode goes darker.

Thanks for the info ... I read all the posts >>> LOL.

[Flyingsheep]

I've always liked 24p because of how it looks. A lot of people compare it to how we see, but I like to view it with an artistic mind. Shooting 24p is definitely a lot harder to deal with though. You have to worry about a number of things such as panning, motion blur (it's easy to make 24p look too soft), and jerkiness. But developing skills to get around those problems is what makes a good cinematographer. I like to shoot 60i when I want to do slow motion. And you can still get 24p out of 60i if you do it right. What I like to do is shoot the clip at 1/1000th of a second (it makes the slow motion very sharp and picks up a lot of detail), use a good deinterlacer like Yadif to convert 60i to 60p, and slow it down to 24p (a 60% slow down).

24p separates video from reality.

As said above, "video is what the eye sees, film is what the mind sees."

60i isn't a bad thing at all, by the way. You can do a lot with it.

[duzzit_madder]

I think I may be missing the point. Isn't it more prudent to get the most video information on the tape as possible? And doesn't that happen shooting 60i?

[Flyingsheep]

Well, if you were to convert 60i (or 60p) to 24p, it wouldn't quite be the same. There would be motion artifacts (from deinterlacing), more stuttering (you can't shoot at 1/48th shutter at 60i), and it's also more trouble to find a proper plugin or NLE that can do it right.

But otherwise yes it would.

[24Peter]

I think I may be missing the point. Isn't it more prudent to get the most video information on the tape as possible? And doesn't that happen shooting 60i?

"Most video information" - both end up recording the same amount of information, though at a different apparent cadence.

[freeflight]

I came across this article, which explained a few basics about 24P.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/24p_in_FCP_nattress.html

The diffrence in 24P and 60i is mainly temporal characteristic.

[Frank]

So, 60i records 2.5 times as many moments in time as 24p (60 fields vs. 24 frames), but at half the resolution per instant (540 lines/field vs. 1080 lines/frame).

[thewinelake]

Interesting thread. I was under the impression that all consumer/prosumer cameras were hopeless in low light, but that the HV20 in 24P mode (which gives the option for longer - twice as long - exposures) was noticeably less hopeless (it's the 24 rather than the P which is key here). The key test for me would be shooting footage in a slightly dimly lit restaurant or suchlike, where I would hope the 24P mode would shine.

Otherwise, I agree with those who don't see any merit in 24fps for the sake of "that filmic look"

[icarusi]

24p mode also seems to perform better in low light situations. I'm not sure why,maybe it increases the sensitivity of the CMOS sensor or something. Cine mode also helps in low light, although it makes the picture darker, it is ironically cleaner.

I'm liking 60i + cine mode the best on my HV20

AFAIK it's because it effectively halves the shutter speed at 24p (or 25p) when compared to 50i or 60i. Apart from 'look' and 'sensitivity' it's probably best to shoot in as close to your preferred/required final HD format as possible so there's least reprocessing of the digidata needed.

[2Bdecided]

i never said there is a 1080i camcorder for $200. resolution is not the point of this thread, interlaced vs progressive is the point of this thread. and my point was that if someone wants interlaced footage instead of progressive, then they might as well get a cheaper camera.You mean there's a cheaper camera, that gives just as good results and as much flexibility as the HV20, but doesn't have 24p? Which one?


besides, who wants nasty interlaced lines these days?"Nasty Interlaced lines?!" Video is made up of lines - interlaced or progressive. If you can see the individual lines, you're sitting too close! Maybe your software can't deinterlace?


especially on a 1000 dollar camera. if people like interlaced lines then more power to them. but personally i like 24p. it is more natural looking, and that is due to the fact that the human eye can only see up to 24 fps. the only reason we can see a difference in 60 fps is because it looks unnatural.Complete rubbish. Eyes don't capture discrete frame - they're continuously integrating. When it comes to capturing images, with eye-tracked objects moving across a fixed video frame, the higher the frame rate of the camera, the less objectionable the effect, and the closer to reality. Even 60fps isn't enough, but it's less of a barrier to reality than 24fps!

Cheers,
David.

[2Bdecided]

Well, if you were to convert 60i (or 60p) to 24p, it wouldn't quite be the same. There would be motion artifacts (from deinterlacing), more stuttering (you can't shoot at 1/48th shutter at 60i), and it's also more trouble to find a proper plugin or NLE that can do it right.

But otherwise yes it would.

You need a fantastically good motion compensated converter to do it well, otherwise the horrible 2-3 pattern creeps through. You can synthesize the appropriate motion blur, but that's even trickier. There are threads on how to do this in the AVIsynth section of the doom9 forum.

However, can't you shoot 50i at about 1/50th? "All" you need then is a good deinterlacer and Bob's your Uncle. I'm using EEDI2 to get to 50p (actually just for single frame grabs - there are better deinterlacers though). 25p is trivial from this, if that's what you want. Of course, if you shoot at 50i with the kind of panning etc that works for 50i, 25p is going to look pretty poor - like a lot of what's shown on UK TV these days. :( If you're more careful, you have footage that can be 25p or 50i/50p.

There are also functions to take 25p to 50p (or 24p to 60p) though they can be a bit hit and miss - some Philips TVs have such a function built in - I bet you 24p fans just love that! ;)

In the end, 50i goes to 25p more easily and with fewer artefacts than 25p goes to 50i - so is arguably more versatile. However, if you know you don't want 50fps, 25fps is the easier choice. OTOH, if you know you don't want 25fps, you can easily change your mind later.

Cheers,
David.

[Brian Boyko]

Don't get me wrong, I prefer 60i to 24p, but I do think people are used to 24p as the standard for "film" and "professional" productions, as opposed to 60i for "Television" and "Soap Opera."

Looking at the Canon camera example, 24p looks like they're filming a movie, and 60i looks like they're filming for The Food Network. This is not to say that either is bad or whatever, but I'm going with 24p for my movie, and if I ever shoot for TV (knowing I'm shooting for TV) I'm going with 60i.

[Erik Bien]

I'd just like to point out that many productions destined for broadcast will mix frame rates (24p and 60i) for effect: here in the States, The History Channel often shows documentaries where the talking-head interviews are 60i and the "dramatic recreation" of the events they're describing are 24p.

[cmaikai]

Is there a way to convert 60i to 24p?

[2Bdecided]

Is there a way to convert 60i to 24p?
Several. Some bad, some good. Some fast, some very slow!

See here for an example of quite good / very slow:
http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=2876

That's 50i>24p - but you can do exactly the same process (with different numbers!) to do 60i>24p.

Cheers,
David.

[2Bdecided]

See here for an example of quite good / very slow:
http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=2876


I've added some frame captures from 50i>50p and 50i>24p in that thread, to save downloading the full videos.

Cheers,
David.

[2Bdecided]

besides, who wants nasty interlaced lines these days?

I don't see any "nasty interlaced lines", do you?

http://www.david.robinson.org/pics/50i_to_50p_to_1280x720.jpg

Cheers,
David.

[accelv]

24P is a video camera's attempt to emulate a film camera's look. That was important ten years ago when the camera companies were pushing video cameras as a replacement for film cameras in Hollywood.

24P will go the way of the Dodo bird and film cameras in general. No more inferiority complex for you, video guy.

I hate the way 24P judders and smears the image when the camera moves. 60i is so much more crisp and clean, with no caffeine. Video captures images realistically, not artistically. There are ways to soften up the image. The only thing it can't do is get the dynamic range of film, but they're working on it.

As for wedding videos, show a 20 year old bride a picture of a movie projector and see if she can identify it. Film is sooooo 20th century. Times are a changin'.

[Frank]

24P will go the way of the Dodo bird and film cameras in general.

I'll believe that when Hollywood starts shooting in 60i. Ain't gonna happen.
Digital, yes. 60i, no.

And personally, I love 24p. I don't believe people are going to be entertained by seeing something that feels like looking through a window. They want something more than reality.

[Ian-T]

Yeah...24p is not going anywhere. I would not like to see a movie on the big screen in 60i...it would feel more like a soap opera on the big screen. I mentioned this before but film is going the way music did in the last 10 to 15 years......when everything went digital with music..people did not fully accept the sound...too clean...too crisp...so what happened...

To this day music software tries to emulate the analog sound of yesteryear...to make the sound much warmer and rounder than straight up digital. People were used to hearing their music a certain way. Film (or...video) is no different. Everything is digital and Hi-Res. But video (especially 60i) is...well....videoy...too clean and crisp...COLD. To warm the look up back to a more film-like look you need a little degradation to the picture. Which means removing some of the information (slowing it down to 24 fps) to get that certain cadence...then color correct etc. And of course more importantly...light your scene just like filmwork....etc...etc...

24p won't go away anytime soon....viewers just would not accept 60i. IMHO

[2Bdecided]

I'll say two things...

Firstly, very few people here have actually seen 1920x1080 50p. It's gorgeous.

Secondly, it's all about what you're used to. In the USA, when people talk about "24p", unless they're watching real film from a projector or via a PC, what they actually mean is 60i containing a 3-2 pulldown of 24p. In Europe, they mean a 4% speedup giving 25p within 50i.

If you show someone from Europe what should be a nice smooth pan, but with USA 60i 3-2 pulldown on it, they'll think the playback device is broken. If you show someone from the USA 25p in 50i, they'll wonder why everything is pitch-shifted up and (on a CRT) why it's so flickery.

So you guys are talking about 24p like it's some holy grail - but actually it's all cultural conditioning - nothing more. Historically, most of the "expensive" content you've seen has been 24p/25p (however it's shown in your country), and most of the cheaper content has been 60i or 50i.

Now you can shoot 24p/25p cheaply, and simulate it more cheaply still. 50p/60p is still out of reach. When it arrives for premium production, how long before that's the look people associate with high quality content, and video at 24p/25p is the look associated with cheap wannabes?

Cheers,
David.

[2Bdecided]

I mentioned this before but film is going the way music did in the last 10 to 15 years......when everything went digital with music..people did not fully accept the sound...too clean...too crisp...so what happened...

To this day music software tries to emulate the analog sound of yesteryear...to make the sound much warmer and rounder than straight up digital.A nice story, but very far from reality. Today's pop "sound" is 100% smashed against the limit, full-on dynamic range compression, with the audio sitting right at digital full scale, usually clipped, for as much of the time as possible. This sound was and is impossible with analogue, and it's the sound on each and every chart recording. It's horrible, and it's neither retro-analogue nor good digital.

Thankfully, the sound of consumer analogue isn't added to recordings unless it's for a brief special effect - there aren't many CDs that are made to sound like an old scratched vinyl record or a mid-1980s C-90 cassette all the way through!

The "sound" of professional analogue is quite hard to detect. If you push the recording levels on analogue studio tape recorders you get a kind of dynamic range compression that works well with some pop music. Given the choice, you'd never use analogue for classical recordings. Still, I think most people would be surprised how subtle the difference between good analogue and good digital can be in the recording studio.

It's nothing like the "reality" of video captured at a sufficient frame rate to trick the eye vs the headache-inducing stuttering of 24p. It's interesting that Hollywood tried to move away from 24p quite early on, but two things stopped them: cost, and compatibility with worldwide TV standards. The reason they wanted to move away from 24p was to improve the viewing experience; producers recognised early on that 24p was quite limiting.

I'm all for lighting and exposing things properly though - something that's forgotten on 90%+ of the (faked) 25p content seen on UK TV.

Cheers,
David.

[Frank]

2B,

As far as 3:2 pulldown goes, that's NOT the look we're talking about (although that still is more aesthetic to my eye than 60i). If you play a 24p video on your computer, it's true 24p with no motion "judder" and that's the look I love. As consumer players/screens/content move to progressive, pulldown ceases to be a factor. And of course if you're planning a film-out, 24p is the only thing that makes sense.

You are probably right about cultural preferences, although that's a catch-22, isn't it? How are you going to get past people's antipathy to the "video look" to condition them to like 60i (or 60p or 50p)?

Maybe it will happen, but for the time being there are plenty of reasons to choose 24p over 60i.

[Erik Bien]

If audiences really preferred 60p projection, how come Showscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan) never took off?

[2Bdecided]

2B,

As far as 3:2 pulldown goes, that's NOT the look we're talking about (although that still is more aesthetic to my eye than 60i).So people moving, or smooth pans, look better to you as "stop-go-stop-go" than just smooth movement?

Don't you find that a little strange, to say the least?


If you play a 24p video on your computer, it's true 24p with no motion "judder" and that's the look I love.If you run at 72fps, and frame lock the playback, the worse you'll get is tripple images and motion stutter. If you run at any non-integer multiple of 24, you have multiple images, moter stutter, and judder from the non-integer frame-rate conversion too. Without frame locking the playback (this may just be a PC thing) you get broken verticals too.


As consumer players/screens/content move to progressive, pulldown ceases to be a factor.Sadly, not entirely true. Some TVs work at 72fps, but for all those that stick at 60fps, it's still there.


You are probably right about cultural preferences, although that's a catch-22, isn't it? How are you going to get past people's antipathy to the "video look" to condition them to like 60i (or 60p or 50p)?There is definately something about the "film look" and careful filming can minimise it's deficiencies. But there are already plenty of quotes in this thread which suggest that, if you go to normal people and try to impose 24p on the footage you're shooting of their special day, they'll tell you straight: it looks like shit. They want reality.

Cheers,
David.

[2Bdecided]

If audiences really preferred 60p projection, how come Showscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan) never took off?

Well let's be honest - even 70mm itself hasn't really "taken off" in cinemas, and I don't think anyone would claim that 70mm wasn't vastly superior to 35mm.

It's about cost and installed base.

Cheers,
David.

[Erik Bien]

Well let's be honest - even 70mm itself hasn't really "taken off" in cinemas, and I don't think anyone would claim that 70mm wasn't vastly superior to 35mm.

It's about cost and installed base.

Cheers,
David.

Not exactly true: I saw Star Wars, Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark and others in 70mm -- there used to be several theaters in Denver with that capability, but they were killed off by shoebox-like multiplexes.

On the other hand, I think it's telling that Showscan was never used to produce a feature.

[Frank]

So people moving, or smooth pans, look better to you as "stop-go-stop-go" than just smooth movement?

All video is "stop-go-stop-go"; it's a question of what your eye is capable of perceiving. Maybe you have a faster eye than I, but to me 24p does not look jittery when done with a proper shutter speed and with controlled camera movement. I do of course see the increased smoothness/sharpness of 60i; I just don't like it when it comes to "art".


If you run at 72fps, and frame lock the playback, the worse you'll get is tripple images and motion stutter. If you run at any non-integer multiple of 24, you have multiple images, moter stutter, and judder from the non-integer frame-rate conversion too. Without frame locking the playback (this may just be a PC thing) you get broken verticals too.

I don't totally follow this, but I take it you're saying 24p should look bad on a PC. Well, just as aerodynamic science once insisted that bumblebees couldn't fly, I think reality belies this notion.


There is definately something about the "film look" and careful filming can minimise it's deficiencies. But there are already plenty of quotes in this thread which suggest that, if you go to normal people and try to impose 24p on the footage you're shooting of their special day, they'll tell you straight: it looks like shit. They want reality.

I totally agree: for a wedding video or a home movie of junior's first steps, reality rules. When you're telling a dramatic story, on the other hand, things shouldn't be so real. It's like someone reading the evening news off a teleprompter vs. a skilled storyteller who imbues events with a special meaning. I defy you to imagine a classic movie such as "Taxi Driver" with a video motion look and tell me you would prefer the results.

My bottom line: 60i (and 50p or 60p whenever they are viable) have their place but so does 24p. Different tools for different jobs.

[2Bdecided]

All video is "stop-go-stop-go"; it's a question of what your eye is capable of perceiving. Maybe you have a faster eye than I, but to me 24p does not look jittery when done with a proper shutter speed and with controlled camera movement. I do of course see the increased smoothness/sharpness of 60i; I just don't like it when it comes to "art".If you play back 24p at 24fps, it's very flickery but otherwise accurate (maybe blurred, maybe not - depends on the camera shutter speed). Double (48fps) or Tripple (72fps) blade projectors lead to double and triple images respectively. It's only 3-2 that leads to stop go - that was the point I was making. That's a really strange thing to prefer to smooth movement.



I don't totally follow this, but I take it you're saying 24p should look bad on a PC.No, not should - just can very easily. I don't think many new 24p fans have the discernment to know whether their 24p content has extra judder or not. Mind you, 50i really is impossible to play properly on a PC.



I totally agree: for a wedding video or a home movie of junior's first steps, reality rules. When you're telling a dramatic story, on the other hand, things shouldn't be so real. It's like someone reading the evening news off a teleprompter vs. a skilled storyteller who imbues events with a special meaning. I defy you to imagine a classic movie such as "Taxi Driver" with a video motion look and tell me you would prefer the results.

My bottom line: 60i (and 50p or 60p whenever they are viable) have their place but so does 24p. Different tools for different jobs.

I agree with that entirely. I'm just worried at the attitude that 24p should be everywhere. People always want to go mad with a new toy! ;)

As for the number of UK TV productions that are butchered down to 25p... when they’ve been running for years at 50i, it's quite a jolt. On some series they've switched, people have complained, and they've switched back to 50i. Then a few years later they try again, and again, and eventually they just say (bearing in mind this is mainly from non-commercial broadcasters with guaranteed funding, so they can do what they like) "we like, so it's tough".

What's interesting, and it chimes with what you say about appropriateness, is that for things that really are/were shot on film and shown on TV, people accept it - but for things that are shot on video, people often don't.

Cheers,
David.

[Vladimir]

24p mode also seems to perform better in low light situations. I'm not sure why,maybe it increases the sensitivity of the CMOS sensor or something. Cine mode also helps in low light, although it makes the picture darker, it is ironically cleaner.

I'm liking 60i + cine mode the best on my HV20

If you switch down shutter speed from 1/50 to 1/25 at 50i (60i NTSC) - you'l see the same low light sensitivity as 25pf mode (24pf NTSC).

[finkster]

I've ready everywhere that using the 24P mode is necessary on the HV20 to obtain best low-light performance. Say I use 24P mode in a low-light situation and I import the footage to FCE inside the 60i wrapper for editing. If I keep the footage in the 60i wrapper, will I reap the benefits of the improved low-light performance or must I perform reverse telecine? Intuitively, I would think it would make no difference at that point, but want to be sure.

I have not purchased any gear yet so cannot test. Am curious to know before I buy as it may influence my decision to go with FCS or FCE.

[CBarce]

I've ready everywhere that using the 24P mode is necessary on the HV20 to obtain best low-light performance. Say I use 24P mode in a low-light situation and I import the footage to FCE inside the 60i wrapper for editing. If I keep the footage in the 60i wrapper, will I reap the benefits of the improved low-light performance or must I perform reverse telecine? Intuitively, I would think it would make no difference at that point, but want to be sure.

I have not purchased any gear yet so cannot test. Am curious to know before I buy as it may influence my decision to go with FCS or FCE.

Won't make a difference. Same whether kept in 60i, or 24p.

[penumbra]

I've ready everywhere that using the 24P mode is necessary on the HV20 to obtain best low-light performance...
Won't make a difference. Same whether kept in 60i, or 24p. Hi. It appears it does matter. You can easily notice the light difference by testing this yourself. Also, please read http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HV20-Camcorder-Review/Performance.htm

[kaidomac]

As a new HV20 user, I'd just like to chime in with my experiences:

I had a Sony HDR-HC7 previously. I was quite excited to get into HD, but I was extremely underwhelmed by the picture quality and low-light performance on the HC7. The only cool feature on it seemed to be the ability to take slow-motion shots right on the camera. After viewing the 24p vs 60i demos on Canon's website, I was completely sold - it looked good both ways but it really had that "film" look in 24p. I should note that most people I've talked to say they can't see a difference on Canon's demo videos, but it's readily apparent to me, so much so that I sold my Sony and picked up the Canon!

So far I have been extremely pleased. Aside from the slow-mo feature, the only other thing I really miss is LANC (not a big deal thanks to the TOSlink-remote hack). My first "project" was shooting my sister-in-law's wedding (just for fun!)...it came out amazing! My only complaint is that 24p tends to look soft...however, the resulting image quality of the video is so nice that I can overlook that. I do like 60i as well, especially for fast-motion scenes. However, I use 24p on a regular basis now (95% of the time probably) because 60i looks like I'm shooting a video for American's Funniest Home videos. I'm not knocking it (in fact I use it sometimes!), but the reason I personally bought the camera was for 24p mode. I'm really pleased overall with the 24p feature!

Like Frank said, different tools for different jobs. If you're trying to make a film, 24p is great. If you're shooting fast-moving sports or news-style stuff, 60i is great. Having both options on a single camera is even more great! I feel like I can do ANYTHING with this camera and I didn't have to break the bank to do it! I'm really enjoying this thread and the other one on 24p linked earlier...it would be great if we could really drill-down and define the workflow differences for both modes and for various outputs (web, dvd, etc.).

Also, I don't know about the rest of you but CINE mode makes my picture LIGHTER (brighter), not DARKER!

[SnorLars]

Just passing by with a quick question.

If I shoot in 25PF and then replay it cam connected to my LCD TV it will be interlaced and without the cinematic look, right?
So to get the cinematic look I first have to edit and save my 25PF clip as 720p25??
Did I get it right??

[CBarce]

Hi. It appears it does matter. You can easily notice the light difference by testing this yourself. Also, please read http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HV20-Camcorder-Review/Performance.htm

We were talking about in post processing, whether to edit on a 60i time line or a 24p time line.

[2Bdecided]

Just passing by with a quick question.

If I shoot in 25PF and then replay it cam connected to my LCD TV it will be interlaced and without the cinematic look, right?
So to get the cinematic look I first have to edit and save my 25PF clip as 720p25??
Did I get it right??

No, it has the "film look" (stuttery motion, at least - no scratches or weird colour cast!) right out of the camera.

Cheers,
David.