Video of same thing in 24p vs 30i vs SD vs HD

[DoubleIt]

I am still trying to explain the difference between 24p and 30i in both SD and HD. Does anyone have footage of the same exact thing (Same shot, maybe something in motion) that is in 24p, 30i in both SD and HD? Or something sort of similar? I think this would be the best way to explain. Thanks!

[John Kary]

The SD vs HD part is purely resolution difference. The image frames are handled the exact same.

Adam Wilt's website explains how 24p and 30i compare on a technical level. 24p basically duplicates fields of the 30i signal to make the video appear to be 24 solid frames. Different methods use different duplication rates (2:3 or 2:3:3:2). The same method is used when you telecine film to tape, only with digital video it never touches celluloid.

Read all about it here: http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html#24pRecording

[THoff]

How you view 24p vs. 30i can also makes a huge difference -- whether you watch it on a computer (and using what software) or make a DVD/high-definition disk and watch the material on an interlaced TV, a progressive LCD/Plasma etc.

[Sunstream]

Simply stated
S-Standard or H-Higher than Standard D-Definition
HD is ANYTHING with more pixels than your average old TV.
There are endless configurations in HD, think of it as >SD.
24p - the p stands for one progressive (full) frame. 24 is amount of image refreshes in one second. i- is partial refreshes in pairs - 30i has 30 pairs of partial (every other line) images, 30p has 30 full images per second. The more the number the smoother the motion. 60p is crisp and clear, closer to what your eyes see. 24 is like old film cameras.
You can shoot in one and view in another, but images are repeated or eliminated to match time. If you are watching 24p in 30i you are watching repeated frames.

[Sunstream]

I shoot almost everything in 60fps because that to me is what HD is. Low light forces me to shoot 30p (the lower the number the longer you can expose and the better the light sensitivity)
I think 24p (in video cameras) is the most overrated thing going, but some people like that old time film camera look, along with that "soft" film look. To each his own.

[danbrains]

WHERE you view it can also make a huge difference.
24p looks alot better in low light, say cinema, situations.
where as on a computer or TV screen it doesnt look as good.

personally i think 24p can look great, but usually go the interlaced counterpart because i use slow motion alot and slow motion progressive footage looks horrible.

[Sunstream]

That is exactly why you shouldnt use 24. Im not certain, why you would ever use interlaced for slow motion. Shooting Interlaced gives you 48 fields, yes 48 pictures will make it easier to slowmo but now you get 48 fields of every other line, which in order to fill in you will now have to line double, cutting in half your resolution. This makes no sense, shoot 60p and give yourself full frames to work with. Or at least 30p so you can repeat a full rez frame instead of doubling a half rez field.
...and by the way, where you look at it has little effect on how it looks as far as original frame rate. It is still the same images going going into your brain in the same rate. What could make a difference is the device that is eminating the light of the image (brightness, contrast, refresh rate, etc)

[Sunstream]

The only time you should ever consider shooting 24p or i if you have any inclination of wanting to slow it down, is if there is not enough light to do anything else. ...or if you like that stuttery slow mo look

[David Jimerson]

You don't shoot 48 interlaced fields per second. What you do is shoot 60i and line up each 60i field with a 24p frame. Glass-smooth slo-mo.

Yes, you take a resolution hit, but at SD resolutions, it's not that noticeable.

What's better is shooting 60p and slowing it down to 24p. Same glass-smooth motion, no resolution loss. But you can only do that in HD.

[David Jimerson]

The only time you should ever consider shooting 24p or i if you have any inclination of wanting to slow it down, is if there is not enough light to do anything else. ...or if you like that stuttery slow mo look

It's purely an artistic choice. If it's not to your taste, then so be it, but don't make an axiom out of it.

Personally, I can't stand anything intended to be dramatic shot at 60 fps or 60i. Looks too much like reality.

[Sunstream]

Sorry if I wasnt clear, I was referring to not shooting 24 for SLOW motion in HD
and if you were to shoot 24 frames interlaced that would give you 48 fields.

[David Jimerson]

Well, yes -- I would certainly agree; for slo-mo, you don't want to shoot 24p.

But there's no way to shoot 24 fps interlaced.

[TimurCivan]

in kill bill they did a 50% slowdown when buck comes in tot he hospital room and Beatrix is on the floor with the knife... but it looked really cool.