PDA

View Full Version : to all the 30p haters



booggerg2
11-23-2008, 08:13 AM
I see nothing un-cinematic about the cadence in this 5D2 clip..

http://www.vimeo.com/2125645

Granted, the guys behind this video definitely lacks finesse and should have locked the exposure down. Nonetheless, the day you get your crappy DOF adapter + prosumer camera to shoot available light footage like this and the day they make prosumer cameras + DOF adapter combo as compact as the 5D2 + lens is, I'll shut up. 24P? many of us could care less if we can achieve results like this without too much hassle.

Zak Forsman
11-23-2008, 08:24 AM
good for you booggerg2. very happy for you.

although, i wanted to ask... did you watch the video flash video or the file he uploaded? because despite the shooter's talent for composition, the full 720/30p file he uploaded looks less cinematic in terms of frame rate cadence than the vimeo conversion. the native file has that "soap opera-y/broadcast news feel" that i, personally, don't care for. i'd rather shoot with the Nikon D90 than this, given the choice.

booggerg2
11-23-2008, 08:35 AM
Still looks great to me... I don't settle for the cinematic look simply based on cadence. It is the whole package. The overall look of the image matters more to me than the cadence difference between 30p and 24p.

Zak Forsman
11-23-2008, 08:50 AM
understood. for me, it's the whole package as well. i just don't leave 24p out of that package. :)

it would be like someone trying to sell me a bicycle with three wheels. and when i finish scratching my head, and try to tell them its a tricycle, they insist "no, you want to buy a bicycle, and this is a bicycle with three wheels." and before i can say anything else, they show me a video and add "see, look how good it performs when Lance Armstrong rides it". that doesn't change the fact that fundamentally it is not bicycle.

likewise, the canon's video is missing a fundamental aspect of what has separated cinema from television for decades. i don't care if steven spielberg shoots a demo with it, it's still a tricycle, i mean, it still looks like broadcast video.

MichaelP
11-23-2008, 09:04 AM
Frame rate is not a religion... you use the frame rate that best tells the story you want to tell. If I were doing online video of fast moving action and wanted to keep motion resolution but the full progressive quality to since it was going to be displayed on progressive monitors, I would consider 30p (as long as the encoder doesn't drop a "field" to make it 15fps). If I am doing dramatic narrative, I will go 24p. etc.

The rest is really in the way the image is composed, lit, and how the camera moves, etc. I have seen plenty of mediocre images shot with the RED from productions that confuse resolution with overall quality. There are many factors to making it right.

Michael

Zak Forsman
11-23-2008, 09:11 AM
frame rate is not a religion. but cinema is, for me, anyway.

bimdas
11-24-2008, 06:17 AM
i come from pal land so my opinion probably doesn't matter but the op has a point. how have people become so damn obsessed with 24p?
a film doesn't remind me of a soapy unless it has bad acting, cheesy dialog and a crap plot. I've heard people go on about the psychological effect of 24p on how it evokes that story telling part in the mind and how it dates back to the flickering of the flames when people use to sit around campfires and tell tales. are you f*%king serious? people get of the cheeba! i haven't heard that much wank in all my life!
if film had always been shot on 28p, would we all be obsessed with that number? or 32p or 80p... etc.
I'd rather stare at a nicely shot picture that tells a story rather than the multitude of 24p dully shot, badly composed, films out there that tells none i'm remotely interested in.
By the way Zak, I really like your films and think I would still like them if they were shot in 15p at a resolution of 320 x 240 compared to watching alien vs predator on an imax screen.

booggerg2
11-24-2008, 07:41 AM
bimdas: Remember, people here regard a few spliced together still life shots of grass and leafs as "cinema" or "filmlike", as long as it's 24P it's all good.

David Jimerson
11-24-2008, 08:12 AM
Do we have to go through all this . . . again?

jaybirch
11-24-2008, 08:31 AM
I would prefer to get very nice, production quality HD footage in 30fps and make it look more "filmic" .... than take some awful quality, filmic looking footage in 24fps, and try and make it production quality.

Not everyone is buying this camera to make films anyway... alot of my clients will happily sacrifice the film look (or wouldn't even notice) to get sharper images with more contrast.

booggerg2
11-24-2008, 10:57 AM
another incredible night time footage.. http://www.vimeo.com/2314305

gowhitesox99
11-24-2008, 12:06 PM
educate a novice as to what the argument is.... 24p vs 30p what will the difference look like? The only vid editing I have done so far is with standard def, looking to jump into HD with a canon HG20 soon. I am gathering as much info as I can.

MY old standard def tape video camera had 2 settings.. on and off... so needless to say I have some learning to do..

Thanks all

PJ

Zak Forsman
11-24-2008, 12:13 PM
I would prefer to get very nice, production quality HD footage in 30fps and make it look more "filmic" .... than take some awful quality, filmic looking footage in 24fps, and try and make it production quality.

Not everyone is buying this camera to make films anyway... alot of my clients will happily sacrifice the film look (or wouldn't even notice) to get sharper images with more contrast.
neither the Nikon nor the Canon are production quality. neither would pass a QC report without noting "creative intent" on all the hits one would get.

we just have a difference of opinion, i suppose. my point of view is from that of an indie filmmaker. if the goal IS "filmic", the cadence of 24 frames per second is fundamental. the quality of the footage is very important, but secondary to the foundation. the Nikon's image quality sucks and the Canon looks like a cheap soap opera. The only reason I've opted for the Nikon is because i'm making a film on characters' inability to communicate effectively through social networking, video diaries, webcams, et cetera so the inherent flaws in the D90's image are tied to the content of the story. thus, appropriate. if I needed footage that was playing on a television and needed it to look unlike a motion picture, i'd use the Canon. I did that on HEART OF NOW (http://www.sabipictures.com/heartofnow) -- a character had some video footage they shot, so I switched my HV20 over to 29.97 for that footage. use the right tool for the right job. I wouldn't use either of these DLSRs as my "go to" on any other projects. :)

jaybirch
11-24-2008, 12:25 PM
It is a bit of an assumption to say the the canon cannot be considered production quality when so few people have properly worked with one. From what I have seen, I think many people will be making broadcast quality material with this cam.

jaybirch
11-24-2008, 12:32 PM
use the right tool for the right job.

that's why I said not everyone is buying this camera to make a film with.

Personally, I can see alot of music videos and adverts being done on this cam... basically stuff with quite a small amount of camera movement.

Zak Forsman
11-24-2008, 12:44 PM
i haven't seen a music video shot natively in 29.97 (let alone 30p) since the 80's with the exception of a Stone Temple Pilots video made to look like it was shot in the era that gave birth to MTV. it;s a good one by the way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqq08Ar5DRM :)

i'm not being too presumptuous on whether these cams are "broadcast quality". I have sent many projects in for professional QC reports. and the Canon and Nikon footage wouldn't pass without my say so. And my clients (Sony, Warner Bros, Paramount, Fox, etc) wouldn't accept either as an A-Cam. I could use them as a B-Cam with a specialized look, but that's it. the skew and wobble would set off red flags down the line.

jaybirch
11-24-2008, 03:27 PM
you can't have seen too many dance music videos then. Alot of that crap is shot in 30fps and still gets onto the major music channels... you can argue whether that is broadcast quality, but it is being broadcast and paid for by someone.... and, I don't know about in the states, but in Europe the 80s trend is massive.... so expect plenty more terrible 80s style videos, if that comes across the pond.

Anyway, all I know is that I can make alot of cash out of that camera, so that is all that I needed to think about when ordering mine :)

J.R. Hudson
11-24-2008, 03:37 PM
frame rate is not a religion. but cinema is, for me, anyway.

Agreed. In fact, I agree with every post by you in this thread,


Do we have to go through all this . . . again?

Apparently. I think it's the people who wish they had 24p that are dying to get everyone to admit 30 isn't so bad.

It isn't of course, but I ain't using it.

jaybirch
11-24-2008, 03:47 PM
I have a hvx200... i love the 24p look and feel of this cam...

I just don't think 30p is the make or break deal on the 5D camera.. which is what this thread originally talked about. This forum isn't JUST for film makers

Zak Forsman
11-24-2008, 03:55 PM
you can't have seen too many dance music videos then. Alot of that crap is shot in 30fps and still gets onto the major music channels... you can argue whether that is broadcast quality, but it is being broadcast and paid for by someone.... and, I don't know about in the states, but in Europe the 80s trend is massive.... so expect plenty more terrible 80s style videos, if that comes across the pond.

Anyway, all I know is that I can make alot of cash out of that camera, so that is all that I needed to think about when ordering mine :)

okay. i get it now. it's about making money and following trends. haha! just kidding, man... having some fun. enjoy your new camera.

Zak Forsman
11-24-2008, 03:59 PM
you can't have seen too many dance music videos then.

well, you got me there. :)

jaybirch
11-24-2008, 04:23 PM
i get it now. it's about making money

too right :Drogar-Dum(DBG):
my passion is travelling, and shooting lucrative video pays for that.

You should check out those dance music vids though... awful music, terrible ideas, bad direction, 30fps, crap lighting.... but amazing women

J.R. Hudson
11-24-2008, 04:41 PM
This forum isn't JUST for film makers

Unfortunately.




Ha. I kidd, I kidd. :beer: :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

gowhitesox99
11-24-2008, 05:29 PM
educate a novice as to what the argument is.... 24p vs 30p what will the difference look like? The only vid editing I have done so far is with standard def, looking to jump into HD with a canon HG20 soon. I am gathering as much info as I can.

MY old standard def tape video camera had 2 settings.. on and off... so needless to say I have some learning to do..

Thanks all

PJ

bumping myself!!

yommytacoe
11-24-2008, 11:57 PM
I personally think 30p looks strange. it's cool if you like it though...

ddp
11-25-2008, 12:30 AM
I suggest you stay uneducated. It'll save you from getting into circle arguments based on personal preferences...... which will most likely lead to deleted posts by the mods as they try to keep it civil in here......:beer:


bumping myself!!

jaybirch
11-25-2008, 05:20 AM
Just out of interest (and sorry if this is a dumb question) but do films get upped to 29.97fps in NTSC countries? If so, how does it look?

Maybe because I see so much stuff at 25fps in PAL, I don't see enough 30fps footage to see it's problems.

gowhitesox99
11-25-2008, 06:36 AM
I suggest you stay uneducated. It'll save you from getting into circle arguments based on personal preferences...... which will most likely lead to deleted posts by the mods as they try to keep it civil in here......:beer:

I want to learn enough to know what the argument is about :)

Zack Birlew
11-25-2008, 09:02 AM
Well, for filmmakers, obviously, 30p isn't even an option at this point. Maybe when digital projection kicks up into full gear the 24p/30p frame rate debate won't matter anymore, heck, someone could make a film on an old JVC HD10U if they wanted to in that case. But that isn't the case because the whole digital projection and distribution issue is still rather in its infancy.

However, for internet shows and maybe some TV spots here and there in NTSC countries, the 5D Mark II will be fine. But by not having 24p, Canon has cut out the vast majority of filmmakers and have handicapped the camera's flexibility, especially in regards to special effects work as 30p is a big leap from 24p in terms of time and effort. Also, who knows what people will like, maybe those internet shows and/or TV spots want 24p for the specific look it gives or, in the case of TV spots, being able to convert to 25p for foreign distribution.

You've also got to consider that maybe filmmakers want to experiment and use the 5D Mark II for a specific shot or purpose as B-cam. The new "X-Files" movie used an HVX200 for one of the chase scenes simply because they needed something light and easy to run with versus having to lug a big 35mm film camera. Maybe they need the 5D Mark II for a pickup or covert filming scene or in instances where they can't light up everything, whatever, but because it's not 24p, it loses that whole capability and, in a way, hurts Canon as far as advertising potential goes. The HVX200 example works again for "Cloverfield", some of the film was filmed on an HVX200 and nobody could really tell when intercut with everything else. So, a new filmmaker might think, "Hey, I can afford that camera. If it was good for them, it's good enough for me!"

Sheesh, I remember Canon's ad for the GL2. It involved somebody holding a camera while running in the running of the bulls event with a bull barreling down on them. Like that ad meant anything for filmmakers when there were ads for the DVX100 on the opposite page listing not only 60i and 30p but also 24p "for filmmakers". I don't know why Canon shoots themselves in the foot again and again, I think they must like it or something. A few years later and still, they're playing catch up with what people want.

Also, don't bash the D90 so much. Try using one and seeing what you can get out of it. It can really shine when you set it up right with the workarounds and, I find, adding some basic color correction to make it pop and with a little sharpening (about +20 in Final Cut Pro). After doing that and exporting after a single render, it's REALLY nice! Working uncompressed is the secret with it. If you convert to Prores, it'll eat away at the footage and cut back on your ability to color correct. Save all compression for export.

Tony Robinson
11-25-2008, 11:09 AM
I firmly believe the necessity of 24p is overrated for films never destined for a film print. Progressive scan is a must. As is shallow depth of field. Nothing screams "video" more than everything in a shot being crystal clear.

ecking
11-25-2008, 12:03 PM
It is a bit of an assumption to say the the canon cannot be considered production quality when so few people have properly worked with one. From what I have seen, I think many people will be making broadcast quality material with this cam.

I've used the Mark II, Zak is right, it isn't production quality at all. This will all blow over in a few weeks when everyone gets to try one. It does some things well and many more thing not so well. I read you mentioning a client earlier, don't use it to shoot for clients. Outside of people doing extremely short things and personal projects with it (vimeo will love this), it isn't a serious piece of video equipment. It's proof of concept more than anything else, things can only get better from here. I wish I could post some stuff up but the for some reason the Canon Canada is still uptight about it getting out there for some reason.

Wait until the technology is put into real video cameras, unless your a photojournalist who just needs the occasional quick shot, this is not the camera to be making money with.

jaybirch
11-26-2008, 05:03 AM
this is not the camera to be making money with.

Perosnally, I don't work in film or tv... but in and around the stock video industry (mainly travelling around the world getting nature shots).... It is an absolutely huge, lucrative and growing sub market and the 5D and others like it will take it up a level, due to quality, shaprness, contrast, DOF but most importantly, it's size. The industry revolves around fairly simple, tripoded shots.... so the 5D seems almost perfect for taking on location. Rather than lugging a HVX, redrock and a huge tripod around.

and to add another twist... 30fps makes up around 95% of sales in stock video. I'm sure it is a sub industry that is looked down on for most pros.... but alot of people on here could probably fund a decent $6figure production by selling off top quality stock on the side. I'm pretty sure my 5D II will pay for itself 100 times over by the time the DSLR revolution (or someone like Red) produces a proper, workable model.

It's all a case of getting the right tools for the job.. as someone said before. For me, the 5D II seems to tick nearly every box.... but i'm sure for alot of people on here, it is nowhere close to what they need, yet.

booggerg2
11-26-2008, 07:23 AM
I've used the Mark II, Zak is right, it isn't production quality at all. This will all blow over in a few weeks when everyone gets to try one. It does some things well and many more thing not so well. I read you mentioning a client earlier, don't use it to shoot for clients. Outside of people doing extremely short things and personal projects with it (vimeo will love this), it isn't a serious piece of video equipment. It's proof of concept more than anything else, things can only get better from here. I wish I could post some stuff up but the for some reason the Canon Canada is still uptight about it getting out there for some reason.

Wait until the technology is put into real video cameras, unless your a photojournalist who just needs the occasional quick shot, this is not the camera to be making money with.

Do you consider a DOF adapter hooked up a XHA1 or EX1 to be production capable equipment? I can tell you straight up right now that the 5D2 wil be a better video camera than the aforementioned setup for wedding videography when it comes to acquiring B-Roll footage.

And yes, I consider wedding videography to have higher quality standards and "production" value than the crap you see on local cable channels or crappy commercials shot for local mom n' pop shops..

booggerg2
11-26-2008, 07:28 AM
Unfortunately.




Ha. I kidd, I kidd. :beer: :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

Yes all the crappy indie films and their makers unite!

Ha. I kidd, I kidd. :beer: :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

bimdas
11-26-2008, 09:15 AM
ok lets put this to rest. can someone shoot something in both 24p and then in 30p with the same camera, same shutter/iris etc, and then upload them both so we can actually see the difference. Has anyone ever done this before?

of course it cant be of a wall or test chart, that would be silly.

smartwombat
11-26-2008, 01:45 PM
unless your a photojournalist who just needs the occasional quick shot Bingo ! Many small newspapers are looking to the web, with video, as another outlet.
The BBC trust recently rejected a bid by the BBC to produce more local news on the web, and one of the considerations was (unfair?) competition against smaller local commercial news organisations.
I see the 5DmkII as a good enough still camera and good enough video camera for local newspaper news gathering in one package.

ecking
11-26-2008, 10:42 PM
I can tell you straight up right now that the 5D2 wil be a better video camera than the aforementioned setup for wedding videography when it comes to acquiring B-Roll footage.

Fine, see for yourself, like I said I've used it. This isn't a video camera, and definitely not a video camera messiah. All I'm saying is this technology will be put into video cameras...but better! It's just short ways away, wait for that, instead of forcing yourself to work within the huge constraints the 5dmk2 will place on you.

jaybirch
11-27-2008, 01:01 PM
http://vimeo.com/2358413

I think they got close to a filmic look on this one. The trained eye will be able to spot the 30fps... but most people wouldn't notice at all. The lighting, dof, music and narrative make it cinematic to joe the plumber and his mates.

ellsworth
12-03-2008, 10:26 AM
I don't think you can lock the exposure or ISO with the 5D2:thumbup:

jaybirch
12-03-2008, 02:30 PM
I don't think you can lock the exposure or ISO with the 5D2:thumbup:

You can

booggerg2
12-03-2008, 03:04 PM
http://vimeo.com/2358413

I think they got close to a filmic look on this one. The trained eye will be able to spot the 30fps... but most people wouldn't notice at all. The lighting, dof, music and narrative make it cinematic to joe the plumber and his mates.

Nah, that video sucked. Plus, you can see the hot pixel on the right side of the frame. Unfortunate...

Chance White
12-03-2008, 03:37 PM
Nah, that video sucked. Plus, you can see the hot pixel on the right side of the frame. Unfortunate...

It looks like it was shot on a cell phone. :)

I'm with Forsman, Hudson, etc and don't understand the opposing perspective. Are some people more sensitive to cadence then others? I think not because I believe that even Joe the Plumber would 'sense' that something was off and that a 30p/60i video does not look professional or cinematic without knowing exactly what is wrong with it...

That again, is why 24p is the standard.

David Jimerson
12-03-2008, 03:46 PM
I firmly believe the necessity of 24p is overrated for films never destined for a film print. Progressive scan is a must. As is shallow depth of field. Nothing screams "video" more than everything in a shot being crystal clear.

That's an interesting perspective, considering the reason you think shallow depth of field says "film" and deep depth of field says "video" is what a lot of people say the "only" appeal of 24 fps is -- because you're used to seeing shallow DOF in cinematic movies and deep DOF in "reality" or "video" projects. :)

jaybirch
12-04-2008, 05:13 AM
Do you people really believe that crappy soap operas look more "filmic" here in PAL land, shot in 25P?

FPS is one piece of the puzzle, that is all....

and as for the vimeo video looking like it is shot on a cell phone, you must have a pretty good cell phone with a fast lens

Chance White
12-04-2008, 07:51 AM
and as for the vimeo video looking like it is shot on a cell phone, you must have a pretty good cell phone with a fast lens

I wasn't being *entirely* serious. :beer:

jaybirch
12-04-2008, 08:17 AM
a cell phone with a letus adapter and 85mm lens might look a bit weird!

Chance White
12-04-2008, 09:36 AM
a cell phone with a letus adapter and 85mm lens might look a bit weird!

The way of the future... The way of the future...

zijital
12-12-2008, 07:21 AM
24p? why not 21p or 13p or heck, why not time lapse at 1/79P?

I think 24p looks "better" b/c it looks "worse." we're used to subconsciously seeing the "worse" frame rate at the movie theater and think "better" b/c of the higher production value (wonderful color timing, amazing sound, perfect sound track, etc.)

but there will be a time in the near future as the film workflow is finally put 6 feet under & all the movie theaters will be able to project in 24fps, 30fps, 60fps, 120fps... and guess what? hollywood will start making movies in 30fps, 60fps, 120fps...

once that happens "better" = better. and everything 24p will show its age. 24fps works b/c it tricks the eye just enough to look like motion. 30fps is 25% more & has 25% more motion to look more real

mrbrycel
12-12-2008, 09:46 AM
I thought vimeo only lets you upload HD in 24p? wouldn't that clip have had to been in 24p to be HD?

manglerBMX
12-12-2008, 10:19 AM
vimeo converts the flash version to 24p, but the source file is not changed.

Zak Forsman
12-12-2008, 10:26 AM
24p? why not 21p or 13p or heck, why not time lapse at 1/79P?

I think 24p looks "better" b/c it looks "worse." we're used to subconsciously seeing the "worse" frame rate at the movie theater and think "better" b/c of the higher production value (wonderful color timing, amazing sound, perfect sound track, etc.)

but there will be a time in the near future as the film workflow is finally put 6 feet under & all the movie theaters will be able to project in 24fps, 30fps, 60fps, 120fps... and guess what? hollywood will start making movies in 30fps, 60fps, 120fps...

once that happens "better" = better. and everything 24p will show its age. 24fps works b/c it tricks the eye just enough to look like motion. 30fps is 25% more & has 25% more motion to look more real
in most cases, i don't want it to look "more real". i can look at old home movies on vhs for that. i want it to look cinematic. who is leading this multiple framerate revolution you speak of? digital had george lucas, 3D has james cameron. who is your "james cameron"? :)

Robbie Comeau
12-12-2008, 10:33 AM
I'd go 24pA any day.

I think I've shot 30p, (29.97) on my DVX ONCE, and it was for a corporate company.

Other than that, I stay away from it as much as possible. Why ruin the film? (haha, just my opinion).

Def. nice video. I think the lenses and color grade made up the "film" effect, not the frame rate. It looked like a british TV show :)

Robbie

Zak Forsman
12-12-2008, 10:35 AM
robbie, british tv shows run at 25 frames per second.

zijital
12-12-2008, 02:13 PM
in most cases, i don't want it to look "more real". ... i want it to look cinematic. who is leading this multiple framerate revolution you speak of?

my argument is that 24p looks more cinematic now, but will look dated in the future.

who is behind more fps revolution? well take a look at the red cameras. $3000 gets you 120fps fall 2009*

I really think many people behind 24p will switch over to 60p, 120p, etc. once they see a demo of it at NAB (or wherever) & a couple more companies (Sony, JVC, etc) jump on board

but for now, to each his own...



*NOTE "fall 2009" on red calendars = "some time after WWII & hopefully before 2019"

Kevin Lee
12-12-2008, 05:13 PM
60fps and 120 fps are generally used for slowmotion shots there is no reason to run that many fps for viewing. 30p is an excellent framerate, but film has always been 24 fps.

bjdowns
12-12-2008, 05:16 PM
24 fps also has its advantages for SFX work. Who wants to rotoscope 120 frames per second?

drdimento
12-12-2008, 08:33 PM
. . . looking to jump into HD with a canon HG20 soon. I am gathering as much info as I can. . . PJ

If your thinking that direction, try out the HV30, I have heard a lot of good with it AND it's just a few bux more at New Egg or B&H:

HV30 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539289-REG/Canon_2680B001_VIXIA_HV30_HDV_Camcorder.html)

A friend of ours just cut the HV30 and an XHA1 together and said it looked nice and needed barely more light than the DVX100B (which we also have) and he said the XHA1 actually performed side by side with the DVX which was our conclusion also with regard to light. We have an A1 in our broadcast unit for commercials and infomercials and will go live broadcast tomorrow morning at 8a so we'll see how all goes. We have a back up dvx just in case

zijital
12-15-2008, 09:55 AM
24 fps also has its advantages for SFX work. Who wants to rotoscope 120 frames per second?

well if you don't like doing a lot of SFX, why not 12fps? many animations are done at that.





(ugg... why am I feeding this thread? this is more endless than a Bud vs MGD debate)

DELTA_Rotary
12-15-2008, 12:50 PM
I see nothing un-cinematic about the cadence in this 5D2 clip..

http://www.vimeo.com/2125645

Granted, the guys behind this video definitely lacks finesse and should have locked the exposure down. Nonetheless, the day you get your crappy DOF adapter + prosumer camera to shoot available light footage like this and the day they make prosumer cameras + DOF adapter combo as compact as the 5D2 + lens is, I'll shut up. 24P? many of us could care less if we can achieve results like this without too much hassle.


I'll take being able to pan/move my camera, shoot variable frame rates, and complete manual control of my picture over the ability to shoot the next episode of Days of Our Lives with available light.


PS. 120hz TVs look terrible as well.

drdimento
12-15-2008, 01:13 PM
I'll take being able to pan/move my camera, shoot variable frame rates, and complete manual control of my picture over the ability to shoot the next episode of Days of Our Lives with available light. PS. 120hz TVs look terrible as well.

No disagreement from me. I was just watching the posts and guessing that budge was an issue since there was a palmcorder in there and was just suggesting that an HV30 is a nice handheld option with a lot of bells and whistles and although I don't personally own one "yet" I'm in the process of adding one as a third camera B Roll in a three camera gig.

Personally, if I could get some "hands on" time with the 5D2 I'd maybe make a move but short of time, short of bread, and short of insider knowledge, I resolve to stick with our vid gear and keep moving forward :D

denverkr
12-31-2008, 10:52 AM
I just thought I'd add my two cents, since everyone seems to be an expert on the subject of 24 fps. First off, this always seems to happen anytime a new forward thinking technology or concept is introduced. We immediately try to tear the production tool down by pointing out it's flaws and "what it don't got." This could either be because someone just made a purchase for a prosumer HD camera or 35mm adapter setup and is having buyers remorse or they're just plain comfortable in their old ways; change can be hard. Secondly to the 24 fps issue, I'll be candid and say I prefer the 24 fps but that may only be because I've been conditioned to that. 24 fps and "cinematic" have become synonymous with each other because perhaps as one earlier post pointed out, DOF and color grading (other just as essential "cinematic" elements) aren't applied to 29.97 fps. In any event this debate could go on and on here and so since I'm really not an expert in 24 fps, let's put this debate to bed by inviting you to read:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

It's an interview with James Cameron who I'm sure all of you will consider an expert. Be sure to read through the entire article where he discusses frame rate.

Lastly, let me just say, at the end of the day what ultimately determines the value of a production is it's response by it's intended audience. Some productions may have a poor production value aesthetically or what we'd consider poor but then it has over a million views on youtube. Who's to say how good something is, or what equipment was used (5DMK2) when it achieves it's intended take away. Your average person which essentially is our audience doesn't know jack squat about dynamic range, DOF or this holy grail 24 fps, they just want to be entertained.

Just my two cents though.

Bests,
Denver

Jarek Zabczynski
12-31-2008, 11:39 AM
I see nothing un-cinematic about the cadence in this 5D2 clip..

http://www.vimeo.com/2125645

That's great...I can.

Regardless...it's more of a technical aspect. Certain applications demand 24p footage. No 24p is a complete deal breaker.

drdimento
12-31-2008, 11:46 AM
. . . Lastly, let me just say, at the end of the day what ultimately determines the value of a production is it's response by it's intended audience. . . . Your average person which essentially is our audience doesn't know jack squat about dynamic range, DOF or this holy grail 24 fps, they just want to be entertained. Just my two cents though. Bests, Denver

WoW, a GREAT 2 cents worth for sure . . AND . . IMO absolutely RIGHT ON! This is what I been saying for the last six months.

HD has advanced to the point where with the broadcast and reproduction equipment that is out there and the amount of HD being tossed around, a viewer absolutely cannot tell the difference from one HDV, P2, AVCHD, or ??? You name it. I mean, we have cell phones and hand held ipod's running AVCHD which obviously puts this MP4 Format to the extremes on compressability extremes.

We ran all kinds of tests with various formats shooting the same exact scenes with three different HD formats and then mixed the order for everyone of the scenes and in the end when the viewers rated the results (so we could figure out what to do with equipment and workflow requirements) the viewers could not tell the difference between a $600 palmcorder and a $6000 HD solid state. In other words, why would we put all the time, cost, and energy into one format when the viewer liked all three formats equally. Obviously, camera controls come into play which gives the producer more opportunity and composition but in the end the image was acceptable compariably.

Thus, in the end we went cheap, easy to use, and replaceable with a host of inexpensive attachments and accessories with long reach and a cheap wide angle for under a 100 bux for the close ups.

What it boils down to is . . composition, style, and creativity. I've written a book on it from the users perspective (the viewer is the user) and therein they care less about how you got it. What turned me to think this way? A guy with a couple HV30's kicked our wedding productions and we had over $15,000 worth of gear in place AND had to manage 270 GB's of hard drive date on biggie dual xeon dual core machines and worked hard to make our production while he used a macbook pro and had it done in a few days. In fact, that same guy is now doing "same day edits" (which we are too now) :thumbup:

Again, that's "Composition - Style - Creativity" by ME Dr Dimento :huh:

denverkr
12-31-2008, 12:23 PM
Duly noted Dr Dimento, to add to that, professional photographers get a little unnerved every time some beginner goes out and buys a Rebel EOS for under a $1,000 K at BestBuy or Costco and wants to break into professional photography. Their concern is technology and manufacturing processes have reached a point where professional tools are now accessible to anyone. If I were to break out my crystal ball, I'd predict that the video industry will follow suit, making professional video tools accessible to anyone who wants to pick up a camera and make a Spielberg feature, but in the end the tool is only as good as the worker's hands it's in. So the elements Dr Dimento pointed out "Composition - Style - Creativity" are as sound as ever. And as for us in a rapid changing industry I came a cross a good rule of thumb when considering making the next big purchase, if isn't 10x then what you're already accustomed to, it's probably good to wait until there is. Or a quote I heard once, "Fix it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." Sound advice in this economy. Anyways, not trying to sound all philosophical or anything but these are true principles.

Bests,
Denver

drdimento
12-31-2008, 08:43 PM
. . . professional photographers get a little unnerved every time some beginner goes out and buys a Rebel EOS for under a $1,000 K at BestBuy or Costco and wants to break into professional photography. . . Denver

Thanks "denverkr" :dankk2: And to this part above, with the economy dropping, the local "Digital Debbies" are picking up the Nikon D40 through D90's at Best Buy and hitting the wedding market through friends and other "girl" connections at a fraction of the costs of Pro Photographer in order to supplement the household income and just shoot the wedding and give the folks a color corrected and cropped and effects Photo CD using HP software (or similar) that came with their printer and the bride runs to Wal-Mart of Walgreens and keeping her wedding costs low because of the economy . . prints her own or through some online printer at a fraction of the costs of the pro. Here the market as totally turned into tub scum. If it were not for our broadcast we'd be crying and even that client has canceled the first months shoot next month in the next twelve month contract (contract is for 5 shows a month or a total of 52 for the year whichever comes first.) But the paper (contract) won't help us with January's budget of "zero" income.

Thus what business is out there, more important than ever is the whole "Composition - Style - Creativity" to keep the ship afloat. To highlight this for the newbies or those wondering "what to do" in this baaaaad market, we recently did a corporate video that was at or slightly below market wherein the client was almost ready to cancel but we threw in a plant tour for their board meeting video and put some hype and music intro's to the Board Meeting, Presentations, and Plant Tour, and put a couple extra hours in the project including some dolly shots of their heavy duty mobile equipment and the words today from the client were (copy/paste) . . .


"I just wanted to tell you that the video looks great! Well worth the wait. Very professional and the audio sounds great. I'm going to watch it a second time for any revisions and then I'll pass it on to our CEO to watch. . . . "

I post this comment not to brag but to say, we put some extra effort into the project over the norm and especially because of the market condition which cost us but we focused on giving them a video that "came alive" instead of the typical "stuffed shirt" corporate stuff and had to work hard on the audio even to include export/import to fix the technical presenter when he walked away from the mic for the entire technical presentation plus worked the PPP into the video with overlays to point out things he did not.

The marketing director when on to say, that she is going to insist that we do all their work from now on just because we obviously put more into our work and that the video style was creative and exciting for their company AND that they'd like to do a website AND corporate mailer. Where did all this come from? Not our SD camera but . . .


COMPOSITION - STYLE - CREATIVITY -- Again I'm no expert at it but when hobbiest and amateurs with HV30's were making my stuff look below standard we went to get down and dirty film school last year by going to ever conference we could make it to in order to rub shoulders not with camera makers or software makers but with "fellows" in the business to "see" and "learn" how and what to do then take it a step further.

"denverkr" makes a good point about wearing it out before jumping into the next "bleeding edge" technology before "making it" with the old and making it is earned not by having the best camera but the BEST "Composition, Style, and Creativity"

Happy shooting to all and have a Happy New Year. Now I'm off to Yahtzee for another 17 mins before 2009 :)

denverkr
01-01-2009, 09:56 AM
Thought you'd all enjoy:

http://www.vimeo.com/2681050

Shot on Canon 5DMK II.

drdimento
01-01-2009, 10:17 AM
Thought you'd all enjoy:

http://www.vimeo.com/2681050

Shot on Canon 5DMK II.

"denverkr" careful or the letus and red guys are gonna put u on their "not so popular" (being kind) list :cool:

David Jimerson
01-01-2009, 10:54 AM
I just thought I'd add my two cents, since everyone seems to be an expert on the subject of 24 fps. First off, this always seems to happen anytime a new forward thinking technology or concept is introduced. We immediately try to tear the production tool down by pointing out it's flaws and "what it don't got." This could either be because someone just made a purchase for a prosumer HD camera or 35mm adapter setup and is having buyers remorse or they're just plain comfortable in their old ways; change can be hard.

Do you not get how simplistic and insulting that is?

There are other possibilities, such as recognizing that change simply for the sake of change is foolhardy, as well as having already gone through many, many possibilities and understanding what works best for you. If a new tool doesn't have it, then it doesn't have it.




http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

It's an interview with James Cameron who I'm sure all of you will consider an expert. Be sure to read through the entire article where he discusses frame rate.

Cameron's preference is Cameron's preference. That's really all you can say about it. It's not a universal truth.

Lee Wilson
01-02-2009, 02:24 AM
First off, this always seems to happen anytime a new forward thinking technology or concept is introduced. We immediately try to tear the production tool down by pointing out it's flaws and "what it don't got." This could either be because someone just made a purchase for a prosumer HD camera or 35mm adapter setup and is having buyers remorse or they're just plain comfortable in their old ways; change can be hard.

Nonsense.

Selling a basic and willful lack of control as forward thinking technology is silly, conversations that aim to wrestle control over basic functionality are neither buyers remorse nor dogmatism.


I read your use of 'change can be hard' here as 'stop struggling and take what the corporations want you to have, ask for no more'.


In any event this debate could go on and on here and so since I'm really not an expert in 24 fps, let's put this debate to bed by inviting you to read:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

It's an interview with James Cameron who I'm sure all of you will consider an expert. Be sure to read through the entire article where he discusses frame rate.


Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) only works on those who lack their own opinion.

Citing someone's subjective opinion certainly does not 'put the debate to bed'.



Lastly, let me just say, at the end of the day what ultimately determines the value of a production is it's response by it's intended audience. Some productions may have a poor production value aesthetically or what we'd consider poor but then it has over a million views on youtube. Who's to say how good something is, or what equipment was used (5DMK2) when it achieves it's intended take away. Your average person which essentially is our audience doesn't know jack squat about dynamic range, DOF or this holy grail 24 fps, they just want to be entertained.

The entertainment argument is peripheral, I often see it presented in these kinds of conversations as an 'either or' proposition.

What do you want, DOF and 24p or a good film, because you realise DOF and 24p don't make a good film don't you ?

Yes we realise.

danap
01-02-2009, 05:39 AM
I think that in some not so distant future orthodox 24p + exagerated overusage of DOF + unmotivated graininess + over-colouring + (optional) shaky takes will be considered to be as dated, anachronistic as it was the case with split-screen and intense zooming in "films" from the seventies. As an antidote against nevrotic 24p fixation, watch some of Eric Rohmer's films. Rohmer's cinematography is utterly "barebone". 24p or whatever-p does not mean anything for his movies where conversation "overshadows" the picture. While Rohmer uses available DOF, it is often underexploited. Why? Rohmer thinks, as many of the great directors, that great films are primarily existentially meaningful stories. Lightning is also kept to a strict minimum. No fx, no effects. No rack focusing. No TV-like change in DOF-depth. Simple, primitive... yet.... exquisite picture taking. Had Rohmer used a Sony EX1 (24p/25p/30p) or a Canon 5D Mark II (30p), his films would have remained as exquisite. I could have written tons about why too much "cinematography" kills stories. I think that lot of the misconceptions about, 24p, DOF and some recent "colouring" fashions may come from film-schools, where easy "recipes" are served to students.

The 24p/30p debate is, in my opinion, not an aesthetic, but a business issue. Would you, ladies and gentlemen, do me the favour to load your batteries and shoot real stories with your 5D Mark II and leave the test area to the real testers ?

Al MacLeod
01-02-2009, 05:48 AM
Read the Cameron thing....

"SMPTE tests done about 15 years ago showed that above 48 frames the returns diminish dramatically, and 60 fps is overkill. So 48 is the magic number."

How do you get in camera sound at 48 fps?

Lee Wilson
01-02-2009, 09:41 AM
Read the Cameron thing....

"SMPTE tests done about 15 years ago showed that above 48 frames the returns diminish dramatically, and 60 fps is overkill. So 48 is the magic number."

How do you get in camera sound at 48 fps?


The same way you get sound at 24p fps.

Lee Wilson
01-02-2009, 09:52 AM
I think that in some not so distant future . . . . .

blah blah blah . . . .


. . . . where easy "recipes" are served to students.


People simply want control over their cameras, this does not exempt them from good film making.


Would you, ladies and gentlemen, do me the favour to load your batteries and shoot real stories with your 5D Mark II and leave the test area to the real testers ?

Yet another long post telling people to - 'stop posting and shoot' :crybaby:

The irony hurts. :)

Al MacLeod
01-02-2009, 10:08 AM
The same way you get sound at 24p fps.

With the HVX200? I thought the over sixty setting were sans sound. How do you do it?


edit...Opps....canon area...sorry

Lee Wilson
01-02-2009, 10:16 AM
With the HVX200? I thought the over sixty setting were sans sound. How do you do it?


edit...Opps....canon area...sorry


Ah ! I see !

I thought you were talking about 48 fps in general, not a specific camera.

You could always record into a dedicated digital recorder and sync it in post.


P.S. if you are after sound at 48 fps - and the HVX2000 looses sound over 60 fps - you should be ok ?

drdimento
01-02-2009, 06:40 PM
I think that in some not so distant future orthodox 24p + exagerated overusage of DOF + unmotivated graininess + over-colouring + (optional) shaky takes will be considered to be as dated, anachronistic as it was the case with split-screen and intense zooming in "films" from the seventies. . . .

Man-O-Man do I agree with this comment! This whole fetish with 24p and hand held camera moving around is getting ridiculous. Geez, I'm a major "Bourne" fan and have the special "security box" set but I have to say this about the series . . the first was awesome cinematography and color grading but the last I nearly got up and left because that steady moving back and forth motion almost made me sick. I actually got dizzy (like I'm not most of the time anyways) and I've spoken with a lot of people about the movie and so far only one of them has said that they liked the camera movement. Moreover, only that one liked the 3/4 black screen that represented the back of somebody's head in the film while all the others said, "What's with this? Shooting the back of peoples heads?"

IMO, all this fuddy duddy camera games will eventually date a movie and like said above will classify it as a "old millennial" thing (or some really hot buzz phrase that means OLD). Geez, if going to do a steadi cam or mobile shot . . one can get a nice right for under a grand now or even under 600 on ebay and the movement is practically a gonner . . or just get Apple FCS2 and use motion. Not hard.

joe 1008
01-04-2009, 12:22 PM
All that 24p vs 30p discussion got thrown upon us because the 5D is lacking 24/25P. Otherwise nobody would talk about it. Everybody woudl shoot the way he likes it, about 80% of us would do so in 24/25p. Period.

Fortunately there is a workaround in post with, for example, Twixtor. Some people say one is going to force a device to do something it wasn't built for. IMO same with 35mm adapters. So, where's the point?

Finally: I believe that our brains have to switch to "campfire mode" to be able to visualize told stories. 24p, shake and flicker help a lot to reach that state. This behaviour is very ancient and might be defined genetically. But after 10.000 years of 30p our view - and our genetic codec - might change... :)

ESTEBEVERDE
01-04-2009, 02:40 PM
The proof is in the pudding!

Shoot what you like how you like and let the viewer(s) vote with their eyes and recommendations. ;-)

drdimento
01-04-2009, 03:16 PM
The proof is in the pudding!

Shoot what you like how you like and let the viewer(s) vote with their eyes and recommendations. ;-)

Thank you! That is what I been saying for the last year and people just keep saying that the specs and the right gear is everything. And, more than anything else it's about Composition - Style - Creativity !!

joe 1008
01-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Thank you! That is what I been saying for the last year and people just keep saying that the specs and the right gear is everything. And, more than anything else it's about Composition - Style - Creativity !!

Not really. If you don't manage to realize your idear because of the limitations of your tools, Composition, Style and Creativity might become quite frustrating.

drdimento
01-04-2009, 07:45 PM
Not really. If you don't manage to realize your idear because of the limitations of your tools, Composition, Style and Creativity might become quite frustrating.

Tools never limit an artist or a being on a mission. What a man can conceive he can achieve. :D

joe 1008
01-05-2009, 10:00 AM
I can imagine Michelangelo with a pencil but I can't imagine him painting the Sistine Chapel with it. Tools define your work.

drdimento
01-05-2009, 10:28 AM
I can imagine Michelangelo with a pencil but I can't imagine him painting the Sistine Chapel with it. Tools define your work.

Either way he could still have accomplished the task one longer than the other but the one much more precise. To each his own is the afford on tools. Still the quality of the paint of the artist was not in the tool he used but rested entirely within his mind where he produced the "composition - style - creativity" (CSC) of the masterpiece each and every time; the tool(s) just aided in the speed and ease in the process.

By all financial standards our business had gone down significantly in equipment professional by most professionals yardsticks but by re-evaluating the process our CSC and revising those standards while cutting our equipment costs literally in half to where any "Joe the Videographer" could get in the business, we have increased our quality, our output ease, and changed our whole profile of archiving back to when we first stated AND - WITH Hi Def.

Tools don't get the job done right - people do. Tools just help.

Boomerang
01-05-2009, 10:29 AM
Agreed the tools help shape and achieve your vision. On the other hand without them I do not believe you can just achieve your vision just because you are talented.
How come we do not have a rash of Nikon owners complaining about not having 30p on our D90s? Seems like to many people are justifying 30p... if you like it great for you but I would never shoot in anything but 24 so the 5D does not interest me as of now. In fact I sold my whole Canon/L lens collection just to have 24p with the D90. Just personal taste.

MJ Peg
01-06-2009, 02:59 AM
IMHO a video camera would still produce video-like footage if it worked at 24fps, and a film camera would still produce movie-like footage if it ran at 30fps.

The "look" can be seen in a single still frame, as far as I'm concerned. It's DOF, colo(u)r, gamma, etc.

:)

Jim Anderson
01-06-2009, 04:35 AM
The bottom line is, most post facilities prefer 30p to work with. They can easily encode to 15fps for crystal clear Flash files (for the trailer) and give it a 24p look anyway in post. The fact that it still is progressive keeps it from having that "video" look. That was the advice I was given after shooting this feature on the HVX in 720/24p. www.southafricamovie.com (http://www.southafricamovie.com)

Zak Forsman
01-06-2009, 04:47 AM
IMHO a video camera would still produce video-like footage if it worked at 24fps, and a film camera would still produce movie-like footage if it ran at 30fps.

The "look" can be seen in a single still frame, as far as I'm concerned. It's DOF, colo(u)r, gamma, etc.

:)

point taken, but this is a temporal artform and you're going to discount motion characteristics?


The bottom line is, most post facilities prefer 30p to work with. They can easily encode to 15fps for crystal clear Flash files (for the trailer) and give it a 24p look anyway in post. The fact that it still is progressive keeps it from having that "video" look. That was the advice I was given after shooting this feature on the HVX in 720/24p. www.southafricamovie.com (http://www.southafricamovie.com)

encoding flash files at 15fps is not the convention anymore. that was done to reduce file size as was encoding video clips at 320x240 pixels. any post facility that prefers to use a non-broadcast standard of 30p is highly suspect in my mind. try delivering a 30p master to Deluxe or Technicolor and see how long it takes for the phone to ring.

MJ Peg
01-06-2009, 05:13 AM
re: temporal artform & motion characteristics

- bear in mind I'm a Brit and seldom see anything BUT a 25/50 frame rate - on my TV it's always the same frame/field rate whether it's video or something that was originally 24p sped up to 25. When would I be exposed to 24? - I don't go to the cinema that often!

On the PC, looking at peoples' efforts here, I don't really notice any significant differences in motion between 24fps and 30fps files (so long as it's smooth without random glitches and jerks)..... so maybe I'm just blessed that I'm immune to the issue?

Even if I struggled really hard to notice a difference, I'm quite sure that the effect is absolutely dwarfed by other considerations as far as the film look is concerned.

Out of interest, if you had to make a choice between two weird options (!) - what would you rather be limited to playing with....
a) a really good video camera modified to run at 24, but with no ability to play with color?
b) the same camera set to only run at 30fps, and editing with color adjustments?

Cheers

Zak Forsman
01-06-2009, 05:30 AM
option A doesn't exist thankfully. and I would require both. but in terms of your exercise, I would choose A and live with the camera's default color and depth of field characteristics.

looking at the history of cinema, you can find all manner of vibrant color vs black and white, narrow depth of field vs deep focus, low res 16mm vs high res 70mm... but they all are unmistakably cinematic and they all have 24fps in common. it's fundamental.

Huy Vu
01-06-2009, 05:53 AM
I've always wanted to conduct a study on this issue. Take a scene that was professionally lit, with proper art design, shot with a high-end camera, the works. The same scene is shot twice and edited in the same manner, with the only difference being the framerate, one is 24 fps and one is 30 fps.

Now take a random group of strangers and show them both scenes, then conduct a poll as to which scene "looks more like a movie." The result might be interesting.

MJ Peg
01-06-2009, 05:56 AM
Really, Zak? I can't help wondering if either of us would change our minds with the right series of scientific "double-blind" tests, but that's obviously not going to happen on a web forum!

Oh well, let's agree to differ then - thanks for playing :)

Cheers

Zak Forsman
01-06-2009, 06:02 AM
let's agree then. :) a double-blind wouldn't work on me unless I was blindfolded. thats the only way I couldn't tell the difference. maybe i'll do a test today... same frame composition, one at 24fps and the other at 30fps.

MJ Peg
01-06-2009, 06:46 AM
Out of interest (again)... does your sensitivity to frame rates mean that you're always aware that you're watching a movie, instead of 'supending your disbelief' and truly getting absorbed into the plot?

Personally I'd prefer (if I could) to watch films in super-mega-duper high def on a wrap around screen with no flicker whatsoever... so that I'd truly feel like I was there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising your right to enjoy and persue a cinematic experience based upon a historic choice of frame rate, but for what it's worth, to me it seems a little like vintage car enthusiasts or 78rpm record collectors in a way. Not that there's anything wrong with that! :)

Cheers

Zak Forsman
01-06-2009, 06:54 AM
as a filmmaker, I lost my ability to not notice the filmmaking long ago. i see the off-screen choices made by the actors, what the editor likely cut around to build a performance, the added meaning held in composition, color and luminance choices, the structural rhythms, the sonic landscape and how it informs the experience, etc, etc...

knowing the magician's tricks is the sacrifice we make for expanded sensitivity to the "form" of this artform, in addition to our sensitivity to the content held within. it's impossible for me to separate the two.

Zak Forsman
01-06-2009, 07:08 AM
and it's important to be studied, I think. i don't know how apt this comparison is (and I'm not particularly a fan of either) but say you take what is essentially the same content, under the guidance of Robert Rodriguez you get Sin City. In the sole hands of Frank Miller, you get The Spirit. the general audience may not be able to discern why one worked and the other didn't, but they certainly know the performances worked in one and not the other, they sense an unevenness throughout the telling of the latter.

but we filmmakers, on the otherhand, can diagnose the problems through our increased sensitivity to how these things are put together. we know of the director's ability to elicit a compelling performance, we know that one of these guys thinks in terms of single frames that may or may not work when cut together, while the other thinks in terms of how each shot pushes us to the next organically. i don't think it necessarily takes anything away from the experience of watching a film. i think it adds a deeper understanding of it. how many screenwriters' minds must be whirling away, thinking in terms of the mechanics of story construction every time they're confronted with something like what Charlie Kaufman produces?

Zephyrnoid
01-06-2009, 07:15 AM
Tools never limit an artist or a being on a mission. What a man can conceive he can achieve. :D
Yup! Look what I never intended to shoot with a cheap point-n-shoot camera :)
Http://www.gearninja.com

MJ Peg
01-06-2009, 07:22 AM
I'd still say that the quality of direction, casting, acting and editing etc etc, is what made the most difference between those films, dwarfing by orders of magnitude any subjective differences that a different frame rate would have made.. but hey :)
If 24fps is that important to you, that's your prerogative, I do find it fascinating though.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Zak Forsman
01-06-2009, 07:24 AM
I'd still say that the quality of direction, casting, acting and editing etc etc, is what made the most difference between those films, dwarfing by orders of magnitude any subjective differences that a different frame rate would have made.. but hey :)
If 24fps is that important to you, that's your prerogative, I do find it fascinating though.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

we agree on that. did you see a mention of framerate in my comparison of the two? :)

anyway, framerate is one of those things that the general audience cannot directly put their finger on, but instinctually sense the difference... associating the 24fps cadence with cinema and the 30fps cadence with soap operas and news broadcasts. i'll post that comparison today of the two today.

ChipG
01-06-2009, 07:27 AM
Yup! Look what I never intended to shoot with a cheap point-n-shoot camera :)
Http://www.gearninja.com

I really wish you would not have posted that, I'm about $1,500 lighter now.

drdimento
01-06-2009, 07:57 AM
re: temporal artform & motion characteristics . . . On the PC, looking at peoples' efforts here, I don't really notice any significant differences in motion between 24fps and 30fps files (so long as it's smooth without random glitches and jerks)..... so maybe I'm just blessed that I'm immune to the issue?

Even if I struggled really hard to notice a difference, I'm quite sure that the effect is absolutely dwarfed by other considerations as far as the film look is concerned.

Out of interest, if you had to make a choice between two weird options (!) - what would you rather be limited to playing with....
a) a really good video camera modified to run at 24, but with no ability to play with color?
b) the same camera set to only run at 30fps, and editing with color adjustments?

Cheers

I think you've hit on the real button of visible truth to a viewer which is after all who the 24p or 30p project is really intended for right? The truth is that most viewers don't know, don't care, don't want to know.

We ran 6 months of on and off surveys of viewers here before we went our second generation HD. In the process we had them look at various pieces generated from P2 and HDV clips and from cameras in the $6,000 to $600 and I think the exercise was best summed up by an accountant who was in the viewing audience as a rater who said, "Do you know what a 1040x is?" When our small team of three looked at each other and nodded we didn't he said, "What you are trying to tell me is the same. I don't have a clue what you are talking about and I don't want too. I'm an accountant and I watch movies for entertainment. You guys just make good movies and I'll watch them regardless of how you get it done."

That was in my summation to corporate to say . . "All our projects end up being broadcast on 30 frame so why would we want to produce in anything other than 30 frame? At 24 frame there must be a new frame generated somewhere by duplicating or interpolating a new frame on some 3:2 or similar mathematical scheme to get a broadcast format. Moreover, since most movie theaters are rapidly moving to electronic projection, why not go with the future instead of hanging onto old crank style frame formats? After all, the real truth in the projects quality and saleability will not be because of it's frame rate but because of it's - composition - style - creativity - and that's it."

This was where the concept of frame rate in our organization dropped off at the street corner and we opted for 100% 30p with the odd artistic piece shot in 24p for fun. And, bear in mind that most NLE's will make a 30p for viewability on a 30 system and thus the whole "fun" of 24p begins to dissipate the moment digitizing begins let alone opens the door for "issues" when done so.

Just some thoughts on 24p (editable natively) and 30 p which is viewable and editable natively in NLE's.

David Jimerson
01-06-2009, 09:01 AM
I always find that a bit unpersuasive. There's no need at all for any technical issues or difficulties when editing 23.976 instead of 29.97.

But, in the end, you make the decisions about what works for you.

tommetass
01-06-2009, 09:08 AM
Imagewise, it's amazing..

But the movement of 30p is not my kind of thing.

But again.. the images was just amazing!

Zephyrnoid
01-06-2009, 06:15 PM
I think you've hit on the real button of visible truth to a viewer which is after all who the 24p or 30p project is really intended for right? The truth is that most viewers don't know, don't care, don't want to know.

To add an 'Old School' perspective to an already sage set of statements...
peering back into the history of art ( film making is both art and science right?) we see the same pedantic discussions going back to the beginning of art itself, or so it seems. In modern times, the culprit is often the sales aspect of hardware et al. So long as we cling to a seemingly endless pursuit of the next big thing, the artist is easily duped into distractions that have to do with purchasing upgrades that purport to 'improve' his art, even as they enrich the merchant.
Added to this is the inevitable last throes that a dying format or species must go through before the inevitable next big thing has properly taken over.
It's really too bad but as a rich society, it seems we can afford to digress from the art and delve endlessly into academe as long as our pocketbooks and unlimited Internet ontime will permit.
As a human factors professional I always ask "what is the lowest common denominator that gets the job done?" ... and I author for that.
Self-referential art is only partially fulfilling, when our medium is so public.

drdimento
01-06-2009, 10:12 PM
To add an 'Old School' perspective to an already sage set of statements...

Wow, how nicely and fluidly put. It's so interesting to watch the evolution of the 24p to 30p scenario and how some feel that with video "it can't be film if it isn't 24p" and the truth is . . it isn't film . . huh?

How sweetly stated about the "art" and the shape of it all let alone the more I see this 35mm DSLR stuff like the 5D MK II I think video cameras better catch up or they are gonna go bye bye. I have gads of footage from a friend with panning, motion, low light, colorful scenery, etc. and I mean that camera in 30p is absolutely the most real picture I have seen yet. And to think the price of that baby is right there with a just a decent video camera, not a high priced one, let alone a video camera with an adapter and all that complicated set up, wherein the 5D MK II one just changes lenses and the DOF is REAL 35MM effect because it is. Not "equivalent" stuff but real . . then . . get a canon to nikon adapter like he has and you have total lens control inside the movie making "auto" TTL. I think I'm in love . . AND . . at a sweet 5MB a sec (avg on 18 untouched raw clips) for video which is only 300MB a minute or 18GB an hour . . NOT BAD!

Abaddon
01-14-2009, 01:59 PM
I love the image quality from this camera but I would love to see it running at 24p. I would definitely use this camera for commercials or music videos, but not films so much.

Amazing job from Canon and I look forward to what comes from this progress.

Michael Anthony Horrigan
01-14-2009, 02:37 PM
I love the image quality from this camera but I would love to see it running at 24p. I would definitely use this camera for commercials or music videos, but not films so much.

Would you use real film for that?

Emanuel
01-14-2009, 11:10 PM
Take a minute over these posts -- links here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1521606#post1521606

Abaddon
01-15-2009, 07:40 AM
Would you use real film for that?

Not with my budget. But a 24p video image at least looks more like film.

Michael Anthony Horrigan
01-15-2009, 08:45 AM
Not with my budget. But a 24p video image at least looks more like film.
Many film buffs would argue the fact that any video image looks like film.

Just playing Devils advocate here.

To put it simply. The difference between Video @ 24p and Video @ 30p is marginal when comparing Film to Video.

Yes, there's a difference between video at 24p and 30p but it's minimal, IMHO.

Nothing looks like film but film, so far. They're getting close though.

I just find all this talk about Video looking like Film quite interesting.
24p is just one small step in reaching that goal.

MAH

Abaddon
01-15-2009, 09:39 AM
Many film buffs would argue the fact that any video image looks like film.

Just playing Devils advocate here.

To put it simply. The difference between Video @ 24p and Video @ 30p is marginal when comparing Film to Video.

Yes, there's a difference between video at 24p and 30p but it's minimal, IMHO.

Nothing looks like film but film, so far. They're getting close though.

I just find all this talk about Video looking like Film quite interesting.
24p is just one small step in reaching that goal.

MAH

I can definitely tell. And unfortunately, I can sometimes be taken out of a film because of it. Make a film with 30p and some people will complain. Make a film with 24p, and no one will complain. No one sane anyway.

I'm not stressing it though. It's just a matter of time before the option is available for cameras like this.

Michael Anthony Horrigan
01-15-2009, 10:49 AM
I can definitely tell. And unfortunately, I can sometimes be taken out of a film because of it. Make a film with 30p and some people will complain. Make a film with 24p, and no one will complain. No one sane anyway.

Maybe not in the same way but those who shoot with Film may still trash it. Hell, Spielberg still bitches at Lucas over Film vs Digital. :)

Again, I'm betting that most people would fail a blind A/B test. Maybe not most filmmakers, just most people.

And I can get lost in a movie shot on a cell phone. It's all story for me.

MAH

Rick Horton
01-15-2009, 11:52 AM
I like the D90 better than the Mark II. It looks more like film does, and not just because of the frame rate. It has nicer colors. The mark II has colors that are not natural. AND, in low light, the images look strange, nice, but strange, but the way the camera gathers light isn't how it really looks in low light in real life. There is a distinct look that 5Ds give those low light shots, and they are very nice, but very unnatural. It's better than gain, or noise, but I'd probably still have to do so much to alter the scene with lighting and exposure to get a scene to look natural that by the time I was done lighting it I could have used a D90.

Michael Anthony Horrigan
01-15-2009, 12:01 PM
I like the D90 better than the Mark II. It looks more like film does, and not just because of the frame rate. It has nicer colors. The mark II has colors that are not natural. AND, in low light, the images look strange, nice, but strange, but the way the camera gathers light isn't how it really looks in low light in real life. There is a distinct look that 5Ds give those low light shots, and they are very nice, but very unnatural. It's better than gain, or noise, but I'd probably still have to do so much to alter the scene with lighting and exposure to get a scene to look natural that by the time I was done lighting it I could have used a D90.

Ah, Rick. Come over to this forum have you?

I like the look of the D90. Looks quite nice. A little grainy though in dark scenes.
I think the 5D actually looks too natural, and that's the problem. It looks too real, less like film. Very sharp as well. Sharpness can be altered though, lack of sharpness can't be. Colours can be altered as well.

We all know that post work can do wonders for most cameras.

Back on topic.
As for the original discussion of 24p vs 30p, I prefer 24p. I just don't think most people would notice the difference.

MAH

drdimento
01-15-2009, 04:17 PM
Not with my budget. But a 24p video image at least looks more like film.

Actually two of our "regular" clients have stated that they like what we've done to our picture saying that it looks more real and . . . then the one said "like film" while the other said "like a Hollywood look" and this is all since we switched to XHA1's and shooting 100% 30p for all clients so far.

Dunno about that 24p fetish.

drdimento
01-15-2009, 04:44 PM
. . . To put it simply. The difference between Video @ 24p and Video @ 30p is marginal when comparing Film to Video.
Yes, there's a difference between video at 24p and 30p but it's minimal, IMHO. Nothing looks like film but film, so far. They're getting close though. . . . MAH

This is a "right on" approach to "real" and just what I've been saying all along . . which is pretty much the same thing I been saying about with all these "formats" and "codecs" where when you put it in front of "John Q. Public" or "Mary R. Public" they can't tell one from the other so long as the "Composition - Style - Creativity" are right on no matter how much money you have in your gear or how complicated and uncompressed, native, or impressive your work flow is with converters, filters, and other NLE tools let alone adapters, lenses, all kinds of field gear, etc. After all a DVX100 won awards right out of the box in 30p for crying out loud. What a fool to not put all kinds of camera support gear AND shoot 24p. How dare him/her :)

Nektonic
01-15-2009, 05:05 PM
Thing is eventually all these video DSLR's will probably have frame rate choices just like the HV20, A1, DVX, etc... and this will all be a moot point.

Also, if Canon can put 24p into an HV20 it wouldn't kill them to do so in future video capable DSLR's. We can argue about whether you need 24p to make a good film but why not have the choice between 24p and 30p in the first place?

There is nothing wrong with a filmmaker embracing an unconventional frame rate or workflow, but why argue against those that want to stick with 24p. Personally, if I were shooting a film tomorrow and had the choice between 24p and 30p on the same camera I'd easily go 24p. Until 30p becomes more accepted why make it harder for your film to sell or play properly to an audience, whether they be a packed theater of average joe's or a single studio executive?

If you're going to all the trouble and spending all the time and money and enduring the draining of personal sanity to make a film why not set yourself up for success as much as possible before a single frame is shot? Maybe I'm biased against 24p, but I grew up on it since until recently all films were shot in 24p. I don't think I'll ever loose the desire to stick with the tried and true cinematic frame rate that is so ingrained in my subconscious.

Michael Anthony Horrigan
01-15-2009, 06:02 PM
For what it's worth, I agree that every camera should have 24p as an option.
I just think it matters more to filmmakers, that's all.

MAH

drdimento
01-15-2009, 06:16 PM
For what it's worth, I agree that every camera should have 24p as an option.
I just think it matters more to filmmakers, that's all.

MAH

I actually think that with the technology available already why fix the frame rate to 30p . . OR . . 24p. Why not just a small amount of "programming" give the camera purchaser 1p to 100p or 1p to 30p if the camera and card writing can't keep up. Why pick 24 and 30 as the only game?

After all, it's not like they have to put a monkey inside the camera who is trained to only crank the handle at 24p and 30p, it's just a programmable switch that could just as easily be 16p like some movies I've seen that really look neat, not more filmic or better just neat . . or even . . a 10p to get that Charlie Chaplin effect.

Geez, we're talking about a camera here that sells for nearly 3 grand and you only get a body what's it cost to have a guy sit down and program a frame rate . . $1,000 maybe $10,000 spread over how many cameras ?? So raise the price $10.

That's what I think. I'd love to be able to shoot some training videos in 100p or 60p (no "i") to get better education slow motion results like one I had to use a high speed camera on and shoot 300 frames a sec to be played back at 10 frames per second and recorded to 30p video so we could actually see oxidation of liquid metal occurring on the surface in the "real" WOW. Imagine that out of a DSLR . . I Want One.

Nektonic
01-15-2009, 08:26 PM
I actually think that with the technology available already why fix the frame rate to 30p . . OR . . 24p. Why not just a small amount of "programming" give the camera purchaser 1p to 100p or 1p to 30p if the camera and card writing can't keep up. Why pick 24 and 30 as the only game?

After all, it's not like they have to put a monkey inside the camera who is trained to only crank the handle at 24p and 30p, it's just a programmable switch that could just as easily be 16p like some movies I've seen that really look neat, not more filmic or better just neat . . or even . . a 10p to get that Charlie Chaplin effect.

Geez, we're talking about a camera here that sells for nearly 3 grand and you only get a body what's it cost to have a guy sit down and program a frame rate . . $1,000 maybe $10,000 spread over how many cameras ?? So raise the price $10.

That's what I think. I'd love to be able to shoot some training videos in 100p or 60p (no "i") to get better education slow motion results like one I had to use a high speed camera on and shoot 300 frames a sec to be played back at 10 frames per second and recorded to 30p video so we could actually see oxidation of liquid metal occurring on the surface in the "real" WOW. Imagine that out of a DSLR . . I Want One.

Amen.

Of course we don't know if a D90 or 5D mkII can do it now but yeah, when a newer model can why not give more flexibility in the frame rates? Just for the chance of releasing a premium priced DSLR with video? I can't see that many higher end photographers, you know the ones that shoot medium and full format film/digital and use D3X's and Canon 1D mkIII's really caring that much about video modes. Although Nikon and Canon might decide to keep the pro video features in a higher end body knowing that video and film people will pay the extra money for it, considering we pay $3,500 to $5,300 for our DVX's, HVX's, etc... and add to that the 35mm adapters and lenses. Maybe they've got this all planned out for the next couple years.

At the current state we're in 24p, 30p, and 60i should be the very least we get. I can see 720 / 60p as the next popular frame rate though.

This is also an obvious advantage of the Scarlet that no one else can touch or might not for a while after Red's stuff hits the street, except an HVX which comes closest to Scarlet's variable frame rates.

Emanuel
01-15-2009, 10:45 PM
The mark II has colors that are not natural.http://vimeo.com/2773216?pg=embed&sec=2773216

Does it really matter? :)

drdimento
01-16-2009, 06:25 AM
Amen. ... and add to that the 35mm adapters and lenses. Maybe they've got this all planned out for the next couple years. . . .

Thanks and I think that "planned out" part is a right on. I actually think that some have the right solution for the "right price" but why give 'em what they want when you can take them through a couple generations of purchases to get there.

You look a the Sony Z7 . . wow, it has it all even an external solid state drive PLUS back up tape and then removable and nikon, canon, etc. adaptable lenses and even slo mo on tape. However, where's that frame variable frame rate that could be there and simplicity in camera set up to avoid complications, let alone balance and ease of removing the battery without having to remove the solid state drive to get to the battery compartment? Why?

How about the "nexgen" as Avid is calling while slowly but surely dropping all the other models forcing one to move forward or lose their way in the dust.

What shocks me is that JVC seems to have just stepped off a ledge OR is silently building the "nexgen" that will be WHAT WE REALLY WANT :thumbup:

danap
01-17-2009, 04:08 AM
I like the look of the D90. Looks quite nice. A little grainy though in dark scenes.
I think the 5D actually looks too natural, and that's the problem. It looks too real, less like film. Very sharp as well. Sharpness can be altered though, lack of sharpness can't be. Colours can be altered as well.Well, then you can twist, degrade, deform, reconfigure the colours of 5D footage with lot more degrees of freedom than with footage originating from the D90.

Moreover, what looks "natural" is not a truth given for eternity, "natural" is definitely not the analogue reproduction of light wave length out there. "Natural looking colours" may be more my personal mental, cultural, sectarian, cognitive, emotional, aesthetic construction of my desire of the colour being natural. "Natural" means then "does something to me" or "reminds me of some early archetypal memories". Most of the time "really natural colours and luminance" convey an utterly depressing impression.

There's nothing less natural in the 5D than in the D90. But there is awfully more details, colour depth, latitude, detail etc. Of course I am discussing balanced colour and light situation and do not address in this reply colour skew, pathological chroma bias, chroma noise and all the pathologies of video pictures.