Why 1/48 shutter speed?

[Asthuriel]

I have read a lot that filming in 1/48 is mandatory, so I am now doing the shutter speed control trick, to get 1/48 with 1.8 aperture in cine mode. And to be honest, I can't understand why. Everything is now a whole lot darker, so I need tons of lights everywhere.

So, why is the 1/48 so important? :hv20-smilie50:

[Ian-T]

You don't have to use 1/48 shutter....but....typically in movvies..ie theatrical releases...for television etc. ..they film in 24 frames per second and use what you call a 180 degree shutter (which is 1/48). This shutter speed mimics the natural motion blur you see in film. 1/24 will not cut it and anything slower will give you too much blurry streaks...sure it increases the light into the cam....but if you are going for the "film--like--look then the proper way to go about it is using 24fps and 1/48 shutter speed.

In the case of not enough light...you need to do as the professionals do....and add light to the scene. If you are not interested in getting a more cinematic type of look to your work...just go with what the cam spits out in auto.

[bluegrass]

While on the subject of creating film like video, I have to wonder if as Hollywood moves more & more away from film to digital, if 50 years from now, we are going to continue to see Hollywood emulating film like products or will they have embraced something newer?

I would think that is happening now to a great degree because of tradition. I'm sure eventually the technology will advance to the point where we can produce a "filmlike" product by pushing a button but will most people continue to push that button in years to come?

[Ian-T]

I don't know bluegrass...it seems there are a lot of folks who would prefer 60fps as opposed to 24fps (not me) and as we move more and more towards digital I believe movies will also change in that respect. We might eventually see a mix-up of different frame rates depending on the types of films etc. This might be that something new.

[Rikki]

Interesting but...

The way things are just now, its as if film makers are trying to break all links with reality.

Look at a film from the 1990's then compare to most modern movies.

The modern ones are all green/blue tinted, not like reality at all. So aligning framerates might not be in the studios best interests.

[Michael Davis]

The story, as was told to me at film school, is that when they were inventing motion picture cameras, they just kept increasing the frame rate until it finally looked good. 12 FPS looked stupid, 18 wasn't quite there, finally at 24 they felt "this looks pretty close to real-life" and left it there. Now, after 100+/- years of watching movies, that's what we as audiences have come to expect as "normal." Personally I think even when the last actual film stock is discontinued we'll continue to use 24 frames but what do I know. I for one am one of the people who prefers 24 frames over 30; I think 30 frames a second looks too "real." Stupid, I guess, but that's just one man's opinion.

The reason this matters to us now Asthuriel is that the way a traditional motion picture camera that uses film works in exposing light to the film is different from the way the digital sensors in our video cameras operate. It's something that when shown to you with a real 35mm camera it makes perfect sense very quickly, but describing it can be long winded and boring, so: I've warned you in advance. :P

Remember the animation that plays when Pac Man gets killed by a ghost? His mouth opens up wide until he's a half circle and then it goes so far back until he's looks like a cheese wedge and then he dissapears. Well, the shutter in a film camera operates like that. Except for the dissapearing part. :) It's a piece of plastic that looks like Pac Man and can open and close it's mouth. It sits in front of the actual frame of film and it spins. The shutter spins one time for every frame of film that goes by, so if you're shooting 24 frames of film per second, it will spin 24 times a second.

The part of the shutter that is Pac Man's body blocks light when its in front of the film frame, but when the gap in the shutter (Pac Man's mouth) is in front of the film, light is getting passed through. The larger Pac Man's mouth is, the longer light is allowed to hit the film as the shutter spins.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trying to talk to you like you're a child, honestly the Pac Man analogy is the way it was described to me by a 40 year old teacher when I was 20.

The shutter can close it's gap very narrow, meaning that for one full spin of the shutter only a small time is spent letting light through, or it can open up pretty wide. It's normally left at exactly half open, which is exactly a half circle.

So anyway this is what's called a 180 degree shutter, because for each full 360 degree spin of the shutter, half of the time light is getting past and the other half of the time, the other 180 degrees of the spin, light is being blocked. This is pretty normal shooting: 24 frames a second, 180 degree shutter, that's what you're watching most of the time when you're watching movies.

There is no way to shoot a "360 degree" shutter, or let light through for an entire spin, because during the time that light is not getting past the shutter, the camera is pulling the next frame of film into position to expose. So at least some time is necessary out of the spin to block light so we don't see the insides of the camera working. (This is something digital cameras can do, since they don't have to pull a strip of film past the lens.)

Now all a piece of film is is a sheet of plastic with some glue on it, and tiny shavings of silver poured over it, like glitter. When light hits these silver bits, they react and form patterns. Later when you shine light through the plastic the silver patterns block some light and let other light through and you have a picture. At first they were black and white because there was only one type of silver on there but then film scientists realized that different types of silver bits would only react to blue light and other bits red and they put all different kinds of bits on one piece of film and you get color. This is why film wears out so easily, the silver stuff rubs off a little bit every time the movie is played.

So anyway if you took a piece of film and put it on a table and left it there, very quickly you'd overexpose the film because the silver bits would keep forming patterns until there was no usable picture. Also, the longer you let light hit film, the more things that are happening in real time get exposed to that one frame of film. So when you let light hit the frame of film longer, you get motion blur and eventually it's unusable.

Think of how fast you can move your hand over the course of 2 seconds. If you expose a piece of film for two seconds while you move your hand, the silver is trying to draw your hand at every moment of those two seconds onto one piece of film.

So if you want to see really sharp detail, you try to expose the film for as short a time as possible by closing the gap in the shutter. But we need light to make those silver bits arrange themselves, so the less amount of time you expose your film, the less light gets in, so the more light you'll need on your subject.

We've established that a film camera shooting 24 frames of film a second will spin the shutter 24 times in one second. That means each full spin takes 1/24th of a second. If the shutter is at 180 degrees, for half of the time it's blocking light. It's only allowing light through half of the time, or for 1/48th of a second each spin. So there's your 1/48th. Keep in mind that these fractions are used in video and still photography, but when you're shooting with a motion picture camera you refer to the size of the opening in the shutter in degrees. But we can leave that behind because now that you understand the relationship, we can move on and just talk about the fractional shutter speeds we'll be using with our digital video cameras.

Hopefully everything has made sense so far. If we're shooting at 60i, we're taking 60 pictures a second (obviously they're put into fields and interlaced and all that other good stuff but for this discussion we're going to just talk about shutter speed). 60 pictures a second is a lot more than 24 pictures a second, meaning that the amount of time each picture can get light is much shorter.

If you're shooting 24 frames a second, with a shutter speed of 1/24 (remember, this is only possible because there is no real shutter and no film, this is all just a digital sensor emulating the way film works) each picture is getting 1/24th of a second of light. This is the most light a picture can get. The frame takes one twenty-fourth of a second to play, and the shutter lets light through for one twenty-fourth of a second. There's never a time when the shutter is blocking light.

At 60 frames per second, with a 1/60 shutter speed, every picture only gets 1/60th of a second of light. That's why by it's very nature 24P is better in low light situations than 60i. Because each frame of video is getting more light at 24P than 60i.

So now you're saying that's all well and good but my camera can go lower then 1/24. How is that possible if the maximum limit of 24 frames a second is 1/24 (or 1/60 for 60 FPS)? At 1/12 shutter speed on 24 FPS, the camera is doubling the image over two frames. So for the first frame it takes a picture for 1/24th of a second, then in the next frame it lays that previous picture over it, AND takes a new picture for 1/24th of a second and uses that in this and the next frame, and so on. At 1/6, one picture goes over 4 frames and things get super stroby and look stupid. And only video cameras can do this. A motion picture camera is incapable of displaying light for longer (or even as long) as a frame of film is queued up to be exposed. So that's why anything shorter than 1/48 is considered VERY video-ish. Because film cameras can't do 1/24 at 24 FPS, and certainly not 1/6.

In the opposite direction, when you see a war movie with an explosion, and you can see all the individual bits of dirt fly up in the air, that was shot at a super fast shutter speed. At 1/48, that dirt is flying so fast that it would come out as a blur on film, but if you use a 1/200 or 1/2000 shutter speed, you're getting very accurate pictures, which need a TON of light to develop properly.

So you can go faster than 1/48th and it not give away that it's video, but NEVER under. (Unless you're doing, I dunno, a dream sequence or something, and you WANT that terrible blur.)

Finally, (I promise I'm winding down) the aperture is something completely different. It's the size of the hole letting light into the area where the shutter is. It's possible to be at 1/48th and be getting way too much light into the camera. In this case, you just close the hole up (the larger your F-Stop number, the smaller the hole) so if you're shooting outside at 1/48th shutter and 1.8 F-Stop aperture, and it's WAY to bright, you have two choices, make the shutter faster (which is going to make your motion super crisp, something you might not want for artistic reasons) or close the aperture.

However, on our HV20s 1.8 is as open as it can get, so when you're in a dim room shooting at 1/48th and 1.8 isn't letting enough light in, you have to (as Ian-T so eloquently put it) "do as the professionals do....and add light to the scene." I couldn't say it better myself.

If this wasn't too long winded, boring, or unreadable I'd be happy to try and answer any questions you have after reading all that. :P

[tcindie]

A big part of why film looks like film is the slower frame rate. Otherwise it would just look like TV.. and with a shutter speed equal to the framerate it REALLY looks like TV, no matter what your frame rate, because that would be a 360 degree shutter (which is not possible, as it would be constantly open and would result in a big blurry mess on a strip of film)

My most recent favorite quote on lighting is.. well it's mine, I said it.. but Someone said something about "if you are serious about your film and low-light quality"

The only response applicable, and now my favorite lighting "self-quote" is...

"If you're serious about your film, you'll turn on some lights."

[Asthuriel]

Mr. Davis, I have been participating in forums for almost 7 years now, and I can tell you without any doubt that yours have been the longest, better answer I've ever recieved. I'm in awe somebody could take the time to give such and explanation for free! I guess there's still nice people out there in this world. Most of the doubts I had are now clarified.

Your answer also encouraged me to do some testing filming things in motion to see the difference. And yup, there it is. I think I never noticed before because I had only tested filming my face or static objects in my poorly lit room. But now I'm impressed about what I can get of my HV20! I guess the day I make my first short film I'll have to buy some good lights.

What you said about filming outside is also true. Everything is too bright at 1.8 aperture. So I had to close it a LOT. The only problem here is with so closed an aperture, my DOF get's like... eternal. Everything is in focus. Is there a way around this? A NON 35mm adapter way?

I'm sorry my newbieness is at full display here, but I guess everybody starts somewhere, right?

[Erik Bien]

Keeping a wide-open aperture outdoors when shooting at 1/48th is as simple as opening your wallet (it always starts that way, doesn't it?) and buying some neutral density filters. What the lighting instrument giveth, the ND taketh away.

[Asthuriel]

Gosh. Filters. And here I was, thinking those were useless.

Maybe off-topic, but, now that I know what are the ND filters good for, could somebody please tell my what are the UV and the F-DL good for? They usually come in trios.

And, should I need to buy more than one ND?

[Erik Bien]

UV filters are usually touted as good for "removing atmospheric haze" but I've found their effects to range between 'slight' and 'non-existent'. Most folks use them as a clear lens protector, if at all. ND filters come in grades which correspond to how many f-stops worth of light they gobble up (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter) has a helpful table).

You can also try a polarizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization#Polarization_effects_in_everyday_life ), itself about .6ND.

Edit: (F-DL ... hmm; I think they're intended for shooting daylight film under florescent lights?)

[lasssman]

If this wasn't too long winded, boring, or unreadable Absolutely not! That was an excellent explanation - thanks!

[lasssman]

You can also try a polarizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization#Polarization_effects_in_everyday_life ), itself about .6ND. But polarizers also darken the sky and saturate the greens.

[lasssman]

Just to clarify on 60I - by this logic should my minimum "desirable" shutter speed be 1/120? Or 1/60?

[Ian-T]

Just to clarify on 60I - by this logic should my minimum "desirable" shutter speed be 1/120? Or 1/60?
It should be at 1/60:hv20-smilie77:

[lasssman]

So - 60I is 30 fields / sec, 2 fields per frame? Sorry I know this is basic but I'm new to HD :hv20-smilie51:

[Ian-T]

Actually 60i ( or 59.94) = "60" interlaced fields = 29.97 frames or 30 frames per second. SO you are right when you say 2 fields per frame.

[mattias]

i think they stopped at 16, then increased it later to get enough bandwidth for the audio track. silent films are typically 16 or 18 fps and sound film 24.

/matt

[lasssman]

Actually 60i ( or 59.94) = "60" interlaced fields = 29.97 frames or 30 frames per second. SO you are right when you say 2 fields per frame.Thanks Ian-T - I got it the wrong way around.

[Michael Davis]

Technically your logic train was correct, even though the 60 recorded images get arranged into fields and interlaced into 30 (29.97) frames, at 60i at a shutter speed of 1/120th, each of your fields would have been exposed for half the time the time they possibly could, so it's not like you were crazy for asking that. Even though it ends up in 30 frames the sensor does record 60 independent images, that's why it's called 60i. (And even that's technically incorrect, since the sensor is just always sensing, and it breaks the data up into fields or frames or whatever the computer in your camera tells it to.)

Shooting 60i at 1/120 would be like running a film camera at 60 frames per second at 180 degrees shutter (if you shoot faster than 24 frames a second, then play it back at 24, you get slow motion.)

But at 60i, you're really free to do whatever you want because at that point you're not getting a very traditionally film-y motion or look, and 60i at 1/120 is not going to turn out like 24p at 1/48th. :P

[Ian-T]

Personally I think 60i and 1/120 shutter is perfect for "smooth" looking slow motion. But unfortunately the HV20 only hits 1/100 before it does a jump to 1/250 (I think....I'm away from my cam right now). But 60i and 1/100 is sort of a happy medium.

I always understood that for folks with cams that are not native 24p....shoot in 60i at 1/60 shutter which will help you when you deinterlace to 24p in post to obtain that cinematic motion blur. A 1/120 shutter will take away that blur and produce a sharper looking image (which is why it's optimal for slow mo playback). Going higher in your shutter will produce a more jittery (Saving Private Ryan) look...which is excellent for high action scenes...but takes away from the smooth look of slow motion. I've been seeing many people crank up the shutter speed for their slow motion ...and to my eyes it is not as smooth as if you used 1/120 (or there abouts).

[Michael Davis]

The great part is (at least in America) at the start of 2009 we won't have to worry about 29.97 fields and conversions and interlacing any more because we're turning off NTSC.

[w.pasman]

I'm usually shooting with high shutter speed, typically 1/120 or 1/250. It gives the sharpest images although you have to be careful not to run into too large sensor gains which would give noise. I would always start with the best possible images, and do the degrading (such as blurring) in post.

Appropriate blurring can always be done in post, deblurring can not at least not to my knowledge.

IMHO the low shutter speed is mainly to hide the bad shake that you get even in the slower pans, due to the too low refresh rates of 24fps in the standard movie encoders. What we really need is just higher refresh rates but that's the more expensive solution. In the lack of an affordable true 50p or 60p format I think the best way out at this point is to go with the 50i or 60i format.

[Ian-T]

I'm usually shooting with high shutter speed, typically 1/120 or 1/250. It gives the sharpest images although you have to be careful not to run into too large sensor gains which would give noise. I would always start with the best possible images, and do the degrading (such as blurring) in post.

Appropriate blurring can always be done in post, deblurring can not at least not to my knowledge.

IMHO the low shutter speed is mainly to hide the bad shake that you get even in the slower pans, due to the too low refresh rates of 24fps in the standard movie encoders. What we really need is just higher refresh rates but that's the more expensive solution. In the lack of an affordable true 50p or 60p format I think the best way out at this point is to go with the 50i or 60i format.It's funny....I thought about doing this same thing before. What do you use to blur the motion? Though the picture will be sharper (at higher shutter speeds) wouldn't we still have less resolution using 60i as opposed to 24P?

[Michael Davis]

If you have a workflow for getting 1/250 footage to look like 1/48, by all means share that, because then one could shoot with the safety of 1/250 and know they could "damage" it back down to look like 1/48th.

[w.pasman]

What do you use to blur the motion?

I never blur because I dont like it but it should be both in the video compressor (to generate properly motion blurred video) and in the editing program (to create motion blur). I guess that VideoFilters/Blur/Motion Blur should do the job in FCS2? And maybe "motion compensated deinterlace" in compressor?


wouldn't we still have less resolution using 60i as opposed to 24P?
60i has double frame rate and therefore allows higher shutter speed without looking shaky. With proper deinterlacing playback it will look just as sharp as 24P in slow-moving parts. And also sharper during the fast moving parts, because it requires a lot less blur than 24P to avoid shaking.

[Ian-T]

60i has double frame rate and therefore allows higher shutter speed without looking shaky. With proper deinterlacing playback it will look just as sharp as 24P in slow-moving parts. And also sharper during the fast moving parts, because it requires a lot less blur than 24P to avoid shaking.Yeah..I understand this...but I guess what I am saying is that you lose vertical information when you shoot interlaced. You have more vertical info when shooting 24 progressive frames as opposed to 60 interlaced fields.

Maybe the answer is to shoot at higher shutter speeds (to keep as much detail as possible) while using 24p and then blur at will (in post).

[w.pasman]

You have more vertical info when shooting 24 progressive frames as opposed to 60 interlaced fields.


No. The frames of 60i and 24p will be identical for a static scene and camera.
In a non-static scene, yes you have half the vertical resolution in 60i. But as I said, "proper" 24p will do excessive blurring, and this blurring also lowers your vertical resolution, maybe even more than half.

Yes you can shoot at high shutter speed in 24, getting frames each having double vertical resolution compared to the two fields in a 60i frame. But to make the resulting movie visually acceptable you still have to apply the excessive motion blur that makes it IMHO look worse than when you started with 60i.

[slay2k]

The story, as was told to me at film school, is ...

OMG that rocked, I enjoyed reading that alot. Thank you.

[lordtangent]

The great part is (at least in America) at the start of 2009 we won't have to worry about 29.97 fields and conversions and interlacing any more because we're turning off NTSC.


HD 1080i is digital, and it's is interlaced. Interlace is not gonna die that easily.

[Oceanzen]

Thanks Michael Davis for your informative posts. I'm new to this, but that really explained a lot.

On a slightly different note, I'm relieved I'm in Pal land (UK) as NTSC sounds like a bugger to deal with. You say it's not getting used in US after 2009? Are you switching to PAL? new format?

[Halsu]

If you have a workflow for getting 1/250 footage to look like 1/48, by all means share that

Reel smart motion blur plugin does a pretty decent job at that:

http://www.revisionfx.com/products/rsmb/

As far as ND goes, i pretty much always shoot at 1/50 (i'm using PAL) and f1.8 and control the exposure with two linear polarizers:

http://hv20.com/showthread.php?t=1132

The polarizers work as a variable ND filter, giving excellent control over exposure.

[Ma7amee7o]

now, i dont know if this issue was answered or not, but here goes

i set my camera on cine mode usually, but now i see that setting the shutter speed to 1/48 would be perfect for getting the "film" look which is what i am aiming for. although, setting the shutter speed at 1/48 means that i have to choose the "shutter-prio.ae" option under the menu, instead of choosing the "CINE MODE" option which is right next to the "shutter-prio.ae". and on top of that to set up the aperature to 1.8 i would have to choose the "Aperature-prio.ae" option which is also next to the cine mode option. i know im talking alot but, my question is, if i choose cine mode and then go set the shutter speed to 1/48 and the aperature to 1.8, would that de-activate the cine mode option? or does teh fact that i chose cine mode mean that the shutter speed and aperature are automatically 1/48 and 1.8?

if someone clears up all this stuff for me it would be really great, thanks in advance :)

[icarusi]

You say it's not getting used in US after 2009? Are you switching to PAL? new format?

AFAIK the US will use a different system to DVB-T(T2) and/or DVB-S/S2. Japan and Brazil also have a different system. These are for 'broadcast' so it's a TV and STB maker's problem, not for us where 50i vs 60i and 25p vs 24p will be the legacy problems.

My vote would be to standardise on 50p at some future time. It's easier to sync with 100Hz displays and any future 50Hz increment.

[dkim68]

I have read a lot that filming in 1/48 is mandatory, so I am now doing the shutter speed control trick, to get 1/48 with 1.8 aperture in cine mode.
I've heard of the 1/48 shutter speed thing but does 1.8 aperture also go hand-in-hand with a film look?

[dkim68]

Is 1.8 aperture important for the film look?

[Mal]

Is 1.8 aperture important for the film look?

No, although under certain conditions using such a large aperture can give nice, shallow DOF; an added "film look".

[mattias]

the cine gamma option is more important for a cinematic look than the shutter speed, in my opinion. the ability to use longer exposures is a *good* thing about video compared to film, let's use it. cinemode footage is also much much easier to grade, which is *the* most important part of the "film look" process.

/matt

[adrianoroza]

oh, god... i must be very dumb! let me see: 1/12th with 24 fps... doubling two frames... 1/6th... video-ish... aperture... ok, ok... i'll try again tomorrow... good night...

[BeverlyHillsShortsFestiva]

I've seen 72FPS projection (both the film and video versions) from a company that was trying to build the next IMAX innovation. They are still toying with it but it will never catch on.

It did look absolutely amazing in a hyper-real way. It gave everything the feeling of being in 3D when it clearly wasn't, but still looked way too different for people to handle.

By the way, the footage was shot and projected at 72FPS... they also did tests up to 120FPS. Funny thing was, even though it was shot in film, it all looked like extreme Hi-Def.

[Erik Bien]

BHSF,

I believe you're referring to Showscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan) (though I think it's 60fps, not 72).

[Chris]

michael - thanks for the long informative post. Excellent, thanks

[daveperk]

UV filters are usually touted as good for "removing atmospheric haze" but I've found their effects to range between 'slight' and 'non-existent'. Most folks use them as a clear lens protector, if at all. ND filters come in grades which correspond to how many f-stops worth of light they gobble up (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter) has a helpful table).

You can also try a polarizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization#Polarization_effects_in_everyday_life ), itself about .6ND.

Edit: (F-DL ... hmm; I think they're intended for shooting daylight film under florescent lights?)

As a photographer type, I can tell you a polarizer will remove reflections from things like water and glass, and if the sun is in the right spot in the sky it will deepen the blue (removing reflections from water vapor in the air)..

But unless you have sunlight coming from a certain direction, they won't do much of anything except as you say stop down .6.

they make daytime outdoor stuff more colorful and slightly less bright. Lovely effect in photography, and I intend to learn what they do on an HV20 as well.. :-)

[w.pasman]

let me see: 1/12th with 24 fps... doubling two frames... 1/6th... video-ish... aperture... ok, ok... i'll try again tomorrow... good night...

Yes with for instance the HV20 they do the slow shutter speed the most dumb way: duplicate frames. It's beyond me why they can't do this better... yes it would take a little more computations but I assume not that much compared to realtime compression. I assume the more expensive models do this better or am I wrong here?



at 72FPS... they also did tests up to 120FPS. Funny thing was, even though it was shot in film, it all looked like extreme Hi-Def.
Maybe this is the same as with interlacing: you shoot at higher frame rates and as long as the picture is more or less static this looks like a higher resolution?

[bytehoven]

I've seen 72FPS projection (both the film and video versions) from a company that was trying to build the next IMAX innovation. They are still toying with it but it will never catch on.

It did look absolutely amazing in a hyper-real way. It gave everything the feeling of being in 3D when it clearly wasn't, but still looked way too different for people to handle.

By the way, the footage was shot and projected at 72FPS... they also did tests up to 120FPS. Funny thing was, even though it was shot in film, it all looked like extreme Hi-Def.

If it was Showscan, I saw a demo a few years back while in LA. Was one of your demo sequences the car race thru the snowy Alpine village? It did look like hyper-HD now that I have seen beautiful HD projection.

[Keram]

I would first like to say hello to everyone on this excellent and timely forum as this is my very first post in this community.

I felt compelled to register and contribute especially after reading Mr. Davis excellent post describing shutter speed and aperture and why film looks quite as good as it does. Although I too studied all this in film school, yours was such an elegant and condensed explanation that I simply had to chime in and offer my kudos.

Thank you, you have done us a good service.

Keram

[lordtangent]

BHSF,

I believe you're referring to Showscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan) (though I think it's 60fps, not 72).


I want to talk about Showscan and stuff more so I started another thread: http://hv20.com/showthread.php?t=6542

[CycleWriter]

The great part is (at least in America) at the start of 2009 we won't have to worry about 29.97 fields and conversions and interlacing any more because we're turning off NTSC.

How will that affect the cameras and software we're using today?:hv20-smilie01:

[mattias]

ntsc the analog broadcast format and ntsc the digital video format are two completely different beasts. the latter is obviously not being "turned off", so there will be no effect on cameras and software, and yes there will still be just as many issues with frame rates and fields in the future as today. :-)

/matt

[Stephen]

Michael- let me just say that (as others have pointed out) that was one of the most excellent responses I've read in a long time... (sticky... hint, hint). I hadn't ever been able to understand why 1/48th was so important and this was one of those final 'pieces of the puzzle' that allowed the concept to click into place. Thanks so much!

I'm in the process of planning out a short film which will be done using all HV-20s. I have two friends with HV-20's as well who will be shooting at the same time with me, that way we have a three camera shoot going so that when we cut the final footage we'll have a lot of angles and stuff to choose from. I'm planning on setting them all to 1/48th, white balancing, and then using the 'light trick' so that all of the footage looks exactly the same in post. I'll post my results later on (probably a few months from now).

Thanks again!