More concrete info on ProHD

[Barry_Green]

Interesting article/press release about the ProHD camera at:
http://www.videosystems.com/e-newsletters/HDVatWork_3_23/index.html/#1

[ccroo]

Barry, did you read Steve Mullen's article about ProHD? Does this format still use interframe compression? Still no nice discreet frames like the Panasonic camera we're expecting?

[Gary_McClurg]

When you go to the page there is a picture of a girl holding a camera on the cover of the magazine. Is that a DVX or could it be something else?

I don't know what issue that is. Maybe some photo shop guru could blow it up.

[ChuckS]

I remember all of the transition from 1" to D2 and D1, Digibeta etc., and I always felt like I was getting bent over. All of the equipment was north of $60K.

For some reason I'm excited to see new products from Panasonic, Sony, Ikigami, and JVC, all with significantly better quality and prices that are getting incredibly low. Maybe after all of these years of dealing with "trying to keep up with the Jones's" this is actually going to benifit the consumer.

I'm sure that the Panasonic HDX will be a competitive product, but that JVC looks pretty sweet. This is cool :thumbsup:

[Digigenic]

When you go to the page there is a picture of a girl holding a camera on the cover of the magazine. Is that a DVX or could it be something else?

I don't know what issue that is. Maybe some photo shop guru could blow it up.

That's an older issue, a year or two old, maybe more. I'm not sure what camera she's holding, but it looks like a Sony VX to me.

About the article though, in reference to the PCM audio code crunching trickery, do all HDV camcorders have to perform similar tricks with audio or is it just this camera? It smells...well, I mean it sounds fishy :)

[Barry_Green]

Barry, did you read Steve Mullen's article about ProHD? Does this format still use interframe compression? Still no nice discreet frames like the Panasonic camera we're expecting?
Exactly -- no discrete frames, instead it uses a group-of-pictures of six frames. It's the same as HDV, with all the same benefits and all the same drawbacks.

However, I've got to admit I didn't really follow what Steve was trying to describe as far as how the motion is created. He made it sound like the camera's actually running at 48fps, then blending two 48fps frames together to create each 24fps frame.

I hope I read that wrong, because if that's what they're doing, it had better be optional! If that's the only way it records, I may have just lost all interest in that camera (which is too early to say, of course, until we see the footage, but I want my 24 frames shot as 24 distinct filmlike frames, not some weird blended 48fps thing!)

[Flintstone]

Maybe this is the filter they talk about to achieve smoother motion in 24 and 30p? :evil:

[Barry_Green]

Maybe. But if it does, it seems inevitable that it'll look more like video than film does. Video (as in 60i) has perfectly smooth motion ... but it looks like video. Film has stuttery stroby motion, but it looks like film. I think those of us interested in 24p want it because we want our productions to have that "film" look. Smoothing out the motion (by shooting at 48fps) wouldn't be something I'm looking forward to. It's all speculation until we see the footage, but this has certainly given me pause.

[Policar]

Seems to me that shooting at 48fps (assuming a 1/48th shutter) and combining to 24fps would look a lot like 24fps shot with a 1/24th second shutter.

I don't think that's what the article means, but I couldn't tell what it meant if not that. Weird...

[10s]

My 2 cents:

Given that the film market is heavily biased against video, even 24P, we need pictures that come as close as possible to our film grained 35mm friends so we can make money delivering movies.

Yes there are all sorts of arguments to break with the "film look" and embrace the video look, well, you can fight that one with the distributors and show me your deal agreement afterward. I'd be happy with a beautiful 35mm film look and distribution and the check.

We need tools that will get us in the door. For those that want to do birthdays, etc... my little Sony DV keeps me happy for this stuff. ( it's a good lil camera)

We must have a Film Look for narrative commercial work, this is the 1st priority.
1. 24fps is part of the look.
2. True progressive scanning is also a must. ( this is really the most important issue)
3. Latitude is super important and color depth too.
4. Resolution is important. 720p scans well into 35mm prints and it looks good on screen. I think 720 is the lowest acceptable resolution for production that can go to film, DVD and television.

All the other stuff I whine about is important but we could survive it in fits of moaning misery. The JVC must deliver a solid performing "Film Look."

[Barry_Green]

I asked Steve to clarify what was meant, and he basically confirmed that yes, it is doing exactly what I thought -- shooting at 48fps, and blending the images together to create a simulation of 24p, with the goal being to reduce the "judder" of 24fps acquisition.

Holy cow, I hope that's wrong.

That would totally ruin the whole point of shooting in 24P! One shoots in 24P because they're trying to emulate the look of motion picture film, which runs through the camera at 24 discrete frames per second. The judder is an integral part of the process! If they "smooth it out", they'll likely destroy that magical quality. Heck, if I wanted smoother motion, I'd shoot 60i -- that gives perfectly smooth motion with no judder effect at all. It's the judder that turns 24P into what it is, and what we like so much.

So, well, I'm hoping that the way JVC is implementing it will make it an optional filter. If they make it such that it always records its 24p that way (which wouldn't be 24p at all, it'd be something more like CineFrame 24 at that point) then I can safely say I just lost all interest in this camera. I mean, I'll hedge by saying "let's see the footage first", but I can't fathom how this would be a good thing.

[SergejIvanovits]

It is a kind of imitation of the "new" 48fps filmcamera. The JVC records 48p and "blends" 2 frames to 1 as I understand it. It should give a nice smoother movement. The 24fps "magical quality" is also a limitation. The judder effect is something most of the DPs don't want to see. I guess the Pal JVC would be a 50p->25p camcorder and the final resolution would be higher than the Z1's. It looks nice to me.

[Robert_Niemann]

Well, I do not believe in all this "The judder effect on a video camera, that records in 24p, is the same judder effect of a film camera". I watch so many films in the movie theater, and there is nearly no strobing in (quick or slow) panning shots. So I am looking forward to the new JVC invention of putting two real progressive frames in one (as it is described in the article) in a very hopeful way.

[David Jimerson]

As to whether or not 24p strobes -- renders motion -- exactly like 24fps film, yes, it does. You will see quick pans in movies in the theater, but they will either be so quick that all imagnes are blurred, or they will be following something which is the center of attention -- thereby distracting you from the stroby background. You'll see it if you look. These are all techniques which have been developed over many decades of film shooting, and they work. Treat the 24p cam the same way, and you'll get the same (motion render) result.

TWO 48fps frames combined into ONE 24fps frame will NOT be the same as 24p. There will be a slight difference in any motion between the two -- there HAS to be. That difference will have to be reconciled, and there will be a resultant loss of quality.

[Flintstone]

Actually, I probably would not mind having this blended frames filter. Although I agree with you Barry, it should be optional (menu selectable). But for a lot of work that I do, it would be very interesting, if this filter is well done. I don't think it will emulate motion to the extent of 60i, but having something in between 24p and 60i sounds great. But I won't hold my breath until I see the results. If this filter is improperly done, it could look really bad. But I'm guessing that this "feature" will fill in the gap for those that want 24p, but are a bit nervous about the perceived 24p judder (which is very subjective).

[Flintstone]

TWO 48fps frames combined into ONE 24fps frame will NOT be the same as 24p. There will be a slight difference in any motion between the two -- there HAS to be. That difference will have to be reconciled, and there will be a resultant loss of quality.
You mean because of the added pseudo motion blur the filter would create? I think you're right about that. Nevertheless, I'm curious how it will be rendered. Only time will tell.

[thisiswells]

I do not know for certain if it is possible to mimic the attributes of film stock running through a cine camera without two ingredients that cine cameras have that video cameras do not:

a real shutter

accurate exposure properties, for lack of a better term



shutter is what determines motion. 180 degrees (video term 1/48 at "24" frames) would be considered pretty standard.

a 45 degree shutter (1/200,apx. I don't have the calculater in front of me. at "24" frames) is referred to as a narrow shutter angle and is a primary contributory to the stroby-motion look of fast-moving objects or just about an handheld camera movement. See the opening of saving private ryan for an example of that look.

sometimes a cinematographer will shoot a narrow angle to obtain a perceived increase in sharpness, as your camera is stopping motion more often the images lack motion blur... but all you are really changing is motion attributes and not sharpness.

sometimes a cinematographer will shoot a 200 degree shutter for slightly more motion blur and perhaps some may notice it, though to me it is a negligable difference from 180. I understand many Panavision films are shot this way, but I have not been on a Panavision shoot that has to confirm this.

video cameras just don't have a real shutter. that is a blanket statement, and is directed at any-non-varicam camcorder. i have used the varicam and understand reasonably well that its' shutter broken down in to angles and divisions of a second, so for folks familar with a cine camera would be comfortable with it and those familiar with video would be comfortable as well. HOWEVER, I am not entirely convinced that todays electronic implentation of a shutter angle actually presents accurate approximation of how that shutter would function in a cine camera.

For example, on the varicam the method of changing frame rates is using the "Synchro-Scan" shutter. So, the same place you dial in your 180 degree shutter you keep scrolling until you hit settings such as 1/48 or which creates 48 frames per second images and so on. A cine camera simply does not work that way; adjusting your shutter doesn't change your frame rate... especially contrast this the DVX where "Synchro-Scan" is a shutter-only adjustment, right Barry? That is, until you start doing the "12fps and 15fps" shooting methods, right Barry? I would love clarification on this, honestly if I am incorrect on any of this, but so far I understand right now as I am typing this post, none of these cameras have an accurate electronic implementation of a shutter. Shutter angle or shutter speed simply should not affect frame rates -or- the illusion of frame rates. I think the reason why these little cameras look stroby is due to the fact there is not a proper shutter on them to allow for anything else.



OKAY, my thoughts on exposure controls.

The weirdness of video (to me) is that if I overexpose an image all that means is that my whites are clipped and my blacks are compressed and aren't really black anymore and my colors are less saturated.

On a negative film, single stop of over exposure does clip whites, but it enriches blacks and over saturates colors since you are in effect allowing more light to hit your film resulting in more saturated colors. This all assumes you go for a "one stop pull" in telecine and not going to print film.

The converse is true of underexposing a single stop on negative film, which really wasn't that good of an idea until the new stocks started handling it better... Anyways, underexpose a stop and request a "push process" on transfer and you would end up with a reduced contrast image with a mellow color palette.

Has your video camera ever acted like this in regards to whites, blacks, and color saturation? Mine hasn't.

Please correct me on how I could understand the shutter of a video "24P" camera and how manufactures intend to correct the nuances of its' implentation to assist in its' "film look."

Additionally, please correct me if I do not understand the properties of over-under exposing negative films and the processing used in telecine to optimize your choices.

If you really want to get in to the nitty gritty of why video lacks an authenthic film look, read about why Kodak films rely on a dozen or so different-sized emulsions to increase dynamic range similiar to the way our eyes have rods and cones to detect varying degrees of intensity. Very interesting stuff!! CCD's contain lots pixels but they are (to the best of my knowledge) identical in size... it is no wonder video cameras have limited dynamic range compared to our eyes! And we were born from a cosmic collision and evolved... um, right. If only video manufacturers were God, and no that is not implying that Kodak is, :-)

[thisiswells]

One other thing: How is it possible for an inter-frame compression format to record discrete frames (rhetorical ?) Explain to me again how JVC is implementing Progressive, discrete frame recording to tape without using an intra-frame method?

I need to learn more about this compression format before I open my mouth any further, but it seems reasonable to think you can't do it.

Brian

[Digigenic]

Awesome post Brian

Very strong points
Now that we have achieved desirable frame rates, I think there should be more attention brought to the shutter systems within these camcorders.
When, if at all do you think we’ll have better shutter systems implemented into these camcorders?

I’ve often speculated about possible solutions to achieving greater dynamic range and color with existing sensors that are being introduced on DSLR cameras, but I never spent much time focusing and/or speculating on improving the shutter system.

With regard to the typical camcorder sensor though, I’ve thought as I’m sure others here have about the possibility of a hybrid sensor developed with Fuji’s SR CCD design in mind, as used in the S3 Pro DSLR to achieve a greater dynamic range, and the Fovean sensor as used in the Sigma SD9/10 to overcome issues with achieving accurate color. Wouldn’t a hybrid sensor between these two be a possible, albeit costly solution?
I realize that there will be better solutions in the future, but I was just speculating on what could be done with what we know currently exists in sensor technology. As far as shutters, I haven’t a clue.

[xander76]

One other thing: How is it possible for an inter-frame compression format to record discrete frames (rhetorical ?) Explain to me again how JVC is implementing Progressive, discrete frame recording to tape without using an intra-frame method?

I need to learn more about this compression format before I open my mouth any further, but it seems reasonable to think you can't do it.

Capture and compression are two different things, and there's no reason that interframe compression can't be used for progressively captured frames. All interframe compression does is save space by storing the difference of the current frame from the frame before it, and this can be done with both interlaced and progressive images.

An interlaced camera will create a series of interlaced images, and a progressive scan camera will create a series of progressive images, but the compression scheme doesn't really care about how the images were made. As far as an interframe compression scheme is concerned, the CCD hands it a series of images in each case, and it just needs to remove information that is redundant from frame to frame.

Note also that interframe and intraframe compression are not mutually exclusive; I'm fairly certain that all interframe schemes also use intraframe compression for I-frames.

Edited To Add: If you need proof that progressively scanned images can be encoded in MPEG-2, pop just about any DVD of a major motion picture into your player. DVDs of features that originated on film are almost always encoded to disc at 24p, and the DVD player adds in a 2:3:2:3 pulldown dynamically. MPEG-2 is the interframe compression scheme used by both ProHD and DVDs.

[Barry_Green]

Regarding the JVC "motion smoothing" filter -- I asked Steve Mullen and he says that it is optional, you can disengage it. That's good news.


sometimes a cinematographer will shoot a 200 degree shutter for slightly more motion blur and perhaps some may notice it, though to me it is a negligable difference from 180. I understand many Panavision films are shot this way, but I have not been on a Panavision shoot that has to confirm this.
Film gets shot at a variety of shutter angles, which directly controls shutter speed. Anywhere from around 1/40th to 1/60th is in common use. It all looks like film, but the faster shutter speeds will render crisper motion, with more strobing, and the slower shutter speeds will give you blurrier motion, with less strobing.

Common shutter angles on film cameras include 180, 172.8, 156, and 144 degrees, as well as 200 and 220.


HOWEVER, I am not entirely convinced that todays electronic implentation of a shutter angle actually presents accurate approximation of how that shutter would function in a cine camera.
There is a potential difference. I postulated on this on 2-pop a few years ago. Basically, in a film camera, the shutter is a rotating disc. In a video camera, the shutter is pretty much a "timer", once 1/60th of a second has gone by, the camera just stops exposing; there is no physical intervention of a physical piece that blocks the light. In a film camera, a rotating disc with a hole in it reveals the light to the film, then blocks the light. In a video camera, the CCD has pretty much an on/off switch, and the duration of how long it's "on" is the shutter speed.

Theoretically (and practically), they deliver similar results. One difference, however, is that because of the way a rotating disc works, different parts of the film frame will be exposed at different times. The way the disc rotates, the upper-left corner would be exposed first, and then more and more of the frame until the entire frame is exposed, and then when the shutter starts to close, the upper-left corner will be covered first, while the lower-right corner would be covered last. Theoretically it could make for a slightly different "look" when compared to a video "shutter", where the entire frame is uncovered simultaneously, then covered simultaneously.

However, as a practical matter, it appears to be basically a non-issue; I split-screened DVX footage shot against film footage, identical footage of identical subjects shot side-by-side at identical moments in time, and there was no discernible difference in motion between the film and DVX footage.


A cine camera simply does not work that way; adjusting your shutter doesn't change your frame rate...
Well, yes and no. Adjusting the shutter angle doesn't change your frame rate, but changing your frame rate will change your exposure time, and changing the shutter angle will also change the exposure time. So the two are linked. A 180-degree shutter at 24fps yields an exposure time of 1/48, that same shutter at 30fps yields an exposure time of 1/60.

On the DVX and the VariCam, frame rate and shutter speed can be adjusted independently of each other. You can have 24p at 1/1000 if you want, or 24p at 1/24, or basically any rate between 1/24.1 and 1/250.


Shutter angle or shutter speed simply should not affect frame rates -or- the illusion of frame rates.
They don't, unless you start talking about using shutter speeds slower than the frame rate. You can set any shutter speed when running 24p, without it changing the fact that it's still running at 24p. 1/24 or 1/1000, you'll still be getting 24 frames per second, with the difference being the amount of blur (and the amount of exposure). Same as on a film camera, if you adjusted the shutter angle from 359 degrees (which is impossible) down to 5 degrees or so. It works the same (with the aforementioned difference of a rotating shutter vs. the on/off nature of a CCD).

Now, if you run a shutter speed that's longer than the frame duration, that *will* affect frame rate. For example, if you run 24p with a shutter speed of 1/6, what will end up happening is you'll get effectively 6fps footage on your tape. Each frame is held and buffered until the full exposure is satisfied, and then written to tape, so even though it's writing 24 frames to tape, only 6 of them will be unique, it'll be duplicating five frames during the buffering process.


I think the reason why these little cameras look stroby is due to the fact there is not a proper shutter on them to allow for anything else.
I disagree. The cameras look stroby due to the way people use them. As mentioned before, when compared against genuine film, at exactly the same shutter speed and shooting identical footage, moving the camera identically, there was no discernible difference in strobing between actual film and DVX/24p. Film strobes exactly as much as the DVX/XL2 in 24p.


On a negative film, single stop of over exposure does clip whites, but it enriches blacks and over saturates colors since you are in effect allowing more light to hit your film resulting in more saturated colors.
Video isn't like negative film, it's like reversal film. You don't want to overexpose on video, just like you don't want to overexpose on reversal. To accomplish what you want, you'd rather want to lean towards underexposing. On reversal film, and on video, underexposing brings more saturated colors.

[ccroo]

Boy, Barry. You sure got a handle on this stuff! Thanks for sharing.

Raoul

[Simon Wyndham]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034.pdf

From page 7 onwards explains 24fps proscan in video, and why it does in fact strobe more than film. Alan Roberts, the guy who wrote the article seriously knows his stuff. You'll find his setups for filmlook in HD cameras all over the world.

[Simon Wyndham]

I might also add that that article also gives hints on camera adjustments to help reduce the strobey effect and bring it more in line with film, although the kinds of adjustments in question are only available on the full size cameras and require expensive charts and scope monitoring to get right.

[David Jimerson]

Roberts was referring to the HD cams being used at the time (mid-2002), and he doesn't specify which ones. That was before the DVX. Barry's DVD demonstrates that the DVX's motion rendering, the strobiness, is *identical* to film's.

[SergejIvanovits]

Who wants strobiness? I don't.

[David Jimerson]

Who wants strobiness? I don't.

We know. You don't care about the film look. You've made that abundantly clear.

But we're not you.

[Simon Wyndham]

Jubal, Alan was referring to cameras such as the F900 using PsF, as well as the Varicam (which has been around for a number of years). What he says there also applies now. I've been in many conversations with him about the subject of filmlook recently. It matters not whether it's a DVX100 or a Varicam, as he points out even 24p is more strobey than real film due to the way video and film handle different frequencies. That's why he suggests these can be adjusted in the larger cameras (there are seperate detail frequency settings in those cameras for edge detail etc).

[David Jimerson]

I don't doubt his veracity, or yours.

I also don't doubt the results of tests and demonstrations I have viewed with my own eyes, including my own, wherein the strobiness and motion rendering were identical.

[Policar]

I just shot a 20 minute short (almost done!) with a shutter speed of 1/36th of a second for most of the footage, because a ton of it was shot on a (relatively poorly used) glidecam. The rest was shot between 1/48th and 1/60th for syncho-scan. NOTHING strobes so far as I can tell. Nothing looks super-smooth like 60i, either, though.

One thing I did notice: I shot some footage at 30p with a 1/30th of a second shutter speed, and it looks MUCH smoother, but in a bad way. I had to convert some of this footage to 24p for the movie, and 80% of it looks okay because it's a telephone conversaion, but when a character moves, it's horrible. Even before conversion, the motion was incredibly different.

The "strobiness" people complain about and "film look" people herald as so great are really the same thing, just one in big doses and one in small doses. I don't do hand-held with the dvx as much as I might with another camera, but other than that 24p hasn't cramped my shooting style at all. Strobiness is much less of an issue than one would expect if you use the camera at all practically.

[Simon Wyndham]

It all depends on how the camera is used, but also those frequencies. I'm alan for clarification on this, but the way I understand it it's the sharpness of video that makes the strobiness more apparent. It's not that video actually strobes more than film in 24p, but that the strobe is more noticable because of the way edge detail is handled. When the picture is less sharp (or edges are anti-aliased more) it means that the motion blur from the strobiness can 'blend' more from frame to frame. But as I say I'm trying to get a better clarification off Alan.

Policar, just off the point for a second, why did you use 1/30th shutter? When I first started using psf mode with my camera I assumed it was defaulting to a 1/50th shutter (I use PAL), and a friend and I were perplexed as to why there was so much motion blur. It looked dreamy. I later discovered that the camera needs the shutter switched on and forced into 1/50th mode to get the correct motion cadence. So I'm slightly confused as to why you used 1/30th instead of 1/48th for most of it? Was it for effect?

[Neil Rowe]

... ive never had a problem finding "strobe" / "jutter" /"jitter" / "flicker" in any 35mm feature ive watched on the big screen or on dvd. once you look for it , youll find it very easily . the issue is just that people dont know how to use a 24fps aquisition camera like the DVX correctly , and then when they sit there staring at the footage looking for the "film look" they notice the strobe. i challenge anyone of these untrained people to rent a 35mm camera, and shoot the same thing they shot with the dvx, and bring me back some perfectly smooth and motion jutter free footage. we can talk tech all day about how the digital process is different than te mechanical and chemial film process, but at the end of the day the results are indiscernable to the human eye or brain anyway. this whole "strobe" issue is an old dead horse. i hate to see it get dug up just to kick it again. the issue here is whether smoothing out 24p is a good thing. .. my personal answer is of course no. i think that they may have done that just because so many people in the video world do not understand 24p, and how to handle it. specifically in japan . they shoot almost everything 60i, and mostly dont understand why we want this "jittery" 24p. being that the camera is from a japanese manufacturer, it was probably their technicians under this line of thinking and in that sort of understanding that came up with the *sweet* idea to try and fix what didnt need fixing. granted japan makes most all video cameras, and the make plenty of true 24p cams as well. it could be some obscure technical obstruction that made them do it like this for the camera or HDV or whatever. at any rate. its nothing to get our undies bundled about. it might still look fine. like barry said well have to wait and see. i personally am not too google eyed over the JVC to begin with anyway because its mpg2, and tape based. i couldnt care less about the interchangeable lense. i can change the streering wheel on my car too, but dont hold your breath waiting for me to do it.

i think htat the HDX will have alot of the same P2 functionality as its big brother the SPX800. so if anyone wants a glipmse of what the HDX could have, just check out the SPX800 brochure and pay attention to what the P2 functionality has to offer.

this JVC camera looks like its going to be a very nice camera. should make alot of people very happy. true 24p or no true 24p.. at least its a step forward in the industry. well have to wait and see just how farthat step will take each one of us in our own personal journeys.

[Simon Wyndham]

The strobing to me is a non issue. Films these days use a lot of handheld, so I don't believe people when they say that you shouldn't do this or that with film or progressive.

However I think people are completely misunderstanding me and beocming defensive for no reason at all. People here like 24p because they want to get as close to film as they possibly can. I'm trying to point out something that could help things to look even more like film and I'm trying to find out the knowledge from someone who has made filmlook on video his lifes work in recent years. I'm trying to help you guys!

[SergejIvanovits]

We know. You don't care about the film look. You've made that abundantly clear.

But we're not you.

You can't mean that filmlook = strobiness. Strobiness is something a cameraman don't want to have. The magical look can't be the strobiness. The magical look is the color, dof and all those things making a film look like film but strobiness is a weakness.

[Neil Rowe]

well, ...strobiness isnt really a weakness, its an asthetic choice that creates a more surreal visual experience which allows the view to get into the story more.. at least thats one of the reasons why 24fps was kept as the motion picture standard frame rate over all these years. they could have changed it at any time once the technology was there. it had the same motion back then as it does now, ..and simply put, thats because they wanted to keep that motion. otherwise they could/would/should have started shooting everything at a higher framerate years ago in the name of progress.

[Simon Wyndham]

No, 24fps was not kept as an aesthetic choice. Not really. There's the cost of the film for one thing. A roll of film wouldn't last as long and would have to be changed more often. The cameras and indeed the projectors would need to be running at double speed for higher framerates hence increasing the chance of something going wrong. Then there is the simple issue of light. Simply put higher framerates on film require much more light, and even with todays stocks it would mean increasing light output for the same effect in a given shot.

I think that when 50 and 60p become common in future HD cameras and even on DVD's with films that have been shot entirely on high end HD cameras at those frame rates, that feature films at 24p will start to look a little rickety by comparison, and may well follow suit.

I like 24p for one reason, and one reason only. People associate the cadence with high end productions. At the moment. This doesn't mean it will stay that way.

Higher framerates in cinemas would open up more possibilities for camerwork and camera movement and avoid some of the motion sickness problems of some current films.

I would be very interested in seeing a 60p HD shot movie on a big screen. Very interested indeed.

[Simon Wyndham]

For those interested here is Alans response;
http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=003375#000002

[David Jimerson]

You can't mean that filmlook = strobiness. Strobiness is something a cameraman don't want to have. The magical look can't be the strobiness. The magical look is the color, dof and all those things making a film look like film but strobiness is a weakness.

I certainly mean that the strobiness is the result of motion rendering which is identical between the DVX and film, and that it's a big part of the film look.

[David Jimerson]

For those interested here is Alans response;
http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=003375#000002

You misrepresented what I said. What I *said* was that paper was written before the DVX and applied to then-existing HD cameras. I didn't say Alan Roberts could not or would not reach the same conclusion re: the DVX; I only said that a paper written then, not taking into account developments SINCE then, is not necessarily informative of the discussion immediately at hand.

[SergejIvanovits]

...they could have changed it at any time once the technology was there. it had the same motion back then as it does now, ..and simply put, thats because they wanted to keep that motion. otherwise they could/would/should have started shooting everything at a higher framerate years ago in the name of progress.

The new 48fps film projection is here but I guesss never going to be a new standard because it needs millions and millions to be invested all over the world. Why invest if what we have can make money?

Back to strobiness. Everyone sayes you have to tread your 24p camcorder like a 35mm filmcamera. Why? Because during all those years cameramans all over the world had to learn how to work around this weakness. They don't want strobiness and I guess noone of you wants to watch a strobi film in the cinema.

[Simon Wyndham]

Jubal, I don't see how the development of the DVX makes any difference. It displays 24 or 25p in exactly the same way as any other proscan camera. What applied then applies now to the DVX too.

[Policar]

I shot 1/36th for glideam shots because the extra motion blur made the glidecam footage look smoother Yes, there was more motion blur, but not so much more than it was noticeablee. I shot 1/30th at 30p because I accidentally hit the scene file setting knob or something, and my settings got screwed up. I've been more careful from then on, but it was interesting to do comparisons between the tooage. The difference is immense. Most of the time I shoot with a 1/48th of a second shutter, by the way, and while there is more motion blur than in 60i, you WANT more motion blur in 24p. Also, strobiness is often used for an effect. Just watch gladiator, etc. The uneven and fast shutter gives everything a sharp, kinetic, flickery look. Obviously, good aesthetics in film making are not limited to creating beautiful images, but also beautiful motion. Slow motion, time lapse, and tricks with shutter speed can all do this. So there's an example of major intentional strobing.

I disagree about your quote regarding 24 fps. Yes, 24fps was chosen because it was the slowest sound film could be synced (before that, 16fps was the norm and thank god it's not anymore.) Now, it's largely aesthetic. A lot of stuff shot on the varicam destined for TV only is shot in 24p. Why? It's not because the varicam doesn't do 60p, because it does, and it's not to save tape, because 24p uses just as much space. Then again, plenty of stuff is shot on the varicam NOT in 24p. And a 60fps film standard was introduced years ago. Where did it go? No where.... Just watch sports on a big HDTV. That's abou what 60p on a big screen looks like. Nothing too exciting, but very sharp.

Anyhow, what's it matter? Ideally, we could switch between frame rates as film makers can choose between film stock and lighting to get a different look. This already happens on TV (between 60i and 3:2 pulldown 24fps), and 24fps is chosen for almost all dramatic content.

60fps has been around for ages and it hasn't replaced 24fps. I doubt it ever will.

[David Jimerson]

Back to strobiness. Everyone sayes you have to tread your 24p camcorder like a 35mm filmcamera. Why? Because during all those years cameramans all over the world had to learn how to work around this weakness. They don't want strobiness and I guess noone of you wants to watch a strobi film in the cinema.

No one says "I want STROBE. Give me more STROBE, please." What they DO say is that they want a particular motion render, and part and parcel of that IS the strobe. If taking away the strobe also takes away the look, then heck, I'll work around the strobe. I know you don't want to, but that's your deal, not mine. (Not sure why, after all this time, you still can't handle that.)

I’ve seen many HD productions with fabulous production value, brilliant cinematography, outstanding color, “film-like” DOF (though I find that to be a canard), which looked like really, really, really good video. It's great for what it is, but that’s not the look I want.

[Simon Wyndham]

Yes there was once a film system that tried 60fps. However I have read different accounts as to why it failed, many of them have nothing to do with a 'video look' as most people who did get to see it in action have commented on how utterly amazing it looked. More likely it failed because of the cost of re-equipping cinemas, or some other cost related issue. With digital projection this isn't an issue.

Many are pushing for a 1080 50 and 60p standard in high def. Traditionalists may stick to 24p. But a lot of DP's see the strobiness as a defect rather than an advantage. There will be a nostalgic value to it, but if enough people shot HD at 60p and enough people saw it, it would become accepted. And once people see it more they may well question why some things they see are juddery. At the moment people often see a difference but don't know what it is. But if 60p was widespread in cinemas more people would be exposed to it and it would possibly lose it's video connotation. But only if enough people shot that way.

Personally in this digital cinema age I would like to see a 100fps system in HD. The images would be stunning.

[David Jimerson]

Personally in this digital cinema age I would like to see a 100fps system in HD. The images would be stunning.

The motion rendering would be indistinguishible from the real world; that's faster than the human eye refreshes.

And that's all well and good, but as Neil (iamloser) points out, there's an aesthetic quality that's lost, a surreality which I rather like. Someone shooting in 24p for artistic reasons would not be doing so out of "nostalgia" any more than someone sitting in front of a canvas and painting is, what when we have fabulous technology which makes it unnecessary.

It's all about what you want your product to look like. I'm not looking for indistinguishible from the real world.

[SergejIvanovits]

There was once a film system with 60fps and now there is a film system with 48fps. Biger framesize, the frames are closer to each other, better motion rendering and less production costs. I think the JVC's 48p->24p going to be good. "Unlike other methods of recording 24p, ProHD is the first format to record to tape at a rate of 24fps" It means you can film transfer frame by frame. Isn't it just what you want?

[David Jimerson]

I think the JVC's 48p->24p going to be good. "Unlike other methods of recording 24p, ProHD is the first format to record to tape at a rate of 24fps" It means you can film transfer frame by frame. Isn't it just what you want?

No one has seen any footage from the JVC, so who knows? It might be fabulous. However, two technical issues with what you post:


1) No one transfers to film straight off the raw tape. There will be post done. How it’s pulled down originally has little to no effect on film transfer suitability after post. As long as you can extract those raw 24p frames, life is good. That having been said, it wouldn’t at all bother me if a 24p cam recorded in true 24p to the tape. But considering you’re going to do post before you transfer, it doesn’t really matter in a practical sense. Recording back to tape in true 24p before the transfer may well be a help, but at the acquisition stage, not really. At least not in that particular context.


2) As I pointed out earlier, combining two 48fps frames into a single 24fps frame will mean you will have to reconcile the motion difference between the two, and that will necessarily result in a quality loss.

[Neil Rowe]

..in my post i clarify that the asthetic look of 24p is only one of the resons why we still use it today. which is true. but lets take a closer look.. i realise that cost of film would be higher ith higher frame rates, and equipment wear and tear would have to be considered. but these are simple issues that i dont believe are major contributers as to why we still use 24fps. the durability of the film itself and the speed and durability of the equipment used to run it could be changed without much hassle. you have to consider how long film cameras and film equipment has been able to run much faster than 24fps over the years and is how weve always gotten slow motion. it wouldnt require much of a change to simply always run fatser with a more durable film stock. and as far as the cost issue. well i dont think that if you told any hollywood producer toady that their film stock would cost 2x as much as it used to ,, that it would stop any of them from making the film. i think if it had any effect at all we woud see ticket prices go up a few cents, and maybe DVD/VHS sale prices go up a few cents. and it doesnt require more light to run the filmstock faster untill the framrate exceeds the maximum allowable rate before the shutter speed/angle has to increase. so you could easily shoot 30p up to close to 48p with the same light.

..anyway. my point is still that they could have and would have switched to a different frame rate a long time ago if they really thought that 24p was so bad. i mean cmon... look at all the developments in the industry. millions of doolars spent each film just to put some little cgi effect in or some explosion on a boat. .. you cant honestly think that if the industry really hated the look of 24p and its strobiness, that it wouldnt have done away with it a long time ago.. its there intentionally. which is why even with all digital production and digital projection or distribution like DVD and digital cameras where it costs no more to shoot 48p or 60p or 60i than it does 24p.. they still shoot or render in 24p.check out any direct to DVD/ VHS animated film.. its done in 24fps. if they thought it was better to do it in 60i and lose the motion jitter ...they would.
again , its beacuase when were not sitting and staring at the screen watching for motion jitter, its stil there going unnoticed, and cgives the movie a certain asthetic look that is somewhat more dreamlike and somehow more pleasing to the eye. and lets the viewer relax and imagine somehow more than the look of 60i or higher framerates. its pshycological. and im not a pshycologist so i dont have all the brainy answers in that department.. but i do know that cinematographers work with it- not around it. and its been prooven many times to be more pleasing asthetically, and its a big part of why the framerate is still around, and the primary filmmaking framerate still today, and likely for a long time to come.

[SergejIvanovits]

..in my post i clarify that the asthetic look of 24p is only one of the resons why we still use it today. which is true. .We don't have other than 24 fps film as the industry standard today.

.. .. i realise that cost of film would be higher ith higher frame rates, . No, that's is the main point with this 48 fps film that because the frames are closer to each other you can save meters of film during production. Just search this board you can find a link to the inventors website.



.. ...it wouldnt require much of a change to simply always run fatser with a more durable film stock. and as far as the cost issue.. I don't know. I never was a technician. If something is good to my eyes than it is good.


.. ... look at all the developments in the industry. millions of doolars spent each film just to put some little cgi effect in or some explosion on a boat. .. you cant honestly think that if the industry really hated the look of 24p and its strobiness, that it wouldnt have done away with it a long time ago.. .. Production and distribution isn't the same. And what I was saying is that they hade to learn to live with the limitation of the 24fps film. Just ask some cinematographers like Laszlo Kovacs or Wilmos Zsigmond about how to work with a camera if you don't want strobiness.


.. check out any direct to DVD/ VHS animated film.. its done in 24fps. if they thought it was better to do it in 60i and lose the motion jitter ...they would..
Animation is 12fps. You shoot each frame tvice. If the movement need it than we make 24 frames / sec. It's all about to save money. If it is a computer generated animation not cartoon (hand painted) than it is 24 fps with motion blur. If it is a tv show than 50i without motion blur. (I'm in Pal)

[Neil Rowe]

..what are you talking about?.. seriously, i have no idea. i dont think you understood wht i was saying in alot of these quotes you are referencing...

#1 first off, there are plenty of movies entirely made and distributed in 60i or 50i in pal land. ..but the point of my whole post was to help explain exactly why 24fps IS the main industry standard for theatrical motion picture and other dramatic productions.

#2 ive read all about the 48p thang, and all roger eberts schpeil. .. the film still costs more. and if its less than 2x as much.. well then your only helping me make the point that i was trying to make.. that the cost of the film for 48p production is not a big factor which would stop us from switching to it.

#3 as far as me talking about the speed and durability of the film. and you saying that "if it looks good to your eyes than it is good"? i have no idea what you are talking about .. your answer has no discernable direct correlation to my statement.

#4 as far as me talking about all the money spent on developments.. i was making a point that the industry goes to great lengths to break new ground and make a better movie experience.. and that if 24p was holding them back it would have been gone a long time ago. they wouldnt spend millions on computer effects, and not even batt an eye at the fact that the frame rate they were going to finally display it all in was a "limitation" or some sort of liability. again they learned to work with it becuase it is what they wanted.. not around it . just like if you want a rock hard body you have to put in the work.. if you want a 24p film, you have to put in some more work, but the result is what were after .. a beautiful 24p film. we work WITH it because it gives us what we want.

#5 12fps? are you talking about old claymation or what? im talking about animated movies meant as a cinematic viewing experience. they are far and away done most commonly in 24p because the creators understand the benifit of the 24p aesthetic for the cinematic story they are trying to tell. saturday morning cartoons or the old rudolph claymations are not what i was referencing there. and they add motion blur to the computer generated 24fps animations because actuall 24fps image aquisition has motion blur in real life.. just like the DVx and film cameras do. if it wasnt there it would look more stacatto. because it is computer generated and each frame is rendered independedntly as a still and would not otherwise account for natural motion blur as found in the film/video or human eye.

does this help ?

[SergejIvanovits]

does this help ? Only if it helps you.

Why don't you just show your magical strobiness with all those benifit of the 24p aesthetic for the cinematic story you are trying to tell? If it looks good to my eyes than I will tell you it is good.

[Neil Rowe]

..im sorry, can you rephrase the question please.

..if your asking me to show you the proof is in the pudding.. i have to wonder if you really havent ever wtached a theatrical motion picture in the theatre or seen one on TV. you should know excactly what the 24p aesthetic looks like by now.

[SergejIvanovits]

You don't have to worrie about me, I know the 24p magical look if you are talking about film and the magical 25p look if it is a video but was just curious about your magical strobiness you are fighting for. Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing.

If you are watching the movie A fish called Wanda 00:13:27 - 00: 13:29 (pal dvd, it goes faster than the original film) you can see the strobiness I never want to see in any other film again. It is just ugly. Is it something you like and want? Is it art? It's just ugly.

[David Jimerson]

You're basing your entire point of view on two seconds out of one movie?

[SergejIvanovits]

This movie is the best to show what the ugly strobiness is. The hole movie is screaming strobe but this 2 seconds is so critical that I can't understand why didn't they cut it away.

[Neil Rowe]

..i think your missing the point. as david jimmerson (edit: doh! jubal28 )pointed out. nobody wants excessive strobe. thats not what were talking about were talking about the little bit of motion jitter cause from shooting in 24p at apx 1/48 shutter speed or 180 shtter angle when the camera is handled properly to work with it, yet keep it there and alive as a rythmic undercurrent which sucks the viewer in.

its like using nitro to make your car go faster.. not to blow the car up. were not saying it should be stroby or jittery . were saying that the strobe and jitter is there, and we learn how to work it just right so that we have images that arent apparently or obviously strobey or jittery, but it IS still there, and on a subconscious level, it makes the image and motion more appealing. its like putting just enough alchohol into your margarita to make it enjoyable and get you buzzed.. not dumping it in till it tastes like gasoline, and you dont know what the heck is going on and are puking all over the floor.

the moral of the story is that it sweetens the image and motion.. like sugar in your lemonade.. but were not talking about just dunpming sugar in. were talking about having it in there as a seamless ingreidient that the person drinking it doesnt really say. "this is like drining pure sugar" and they dont say "this is bland" they just drink it own without ever noticing or thinking about that is has just the perfect amount of sugar to make it taste just right and go down smooth. .. tats pretty much what the 24p aesthetic is.. its not supposed to be forefront and look all jittery .. its supposed to go unnoticed, yet still be there. so that it doesnt draw attention to itself, but it adds its special touch and just makes the movie feel more surreal and magical from behind the scenes without the viewer ever quite grasping the reason why the movie just feels and looks better.

[David Jimerson]

I haven’t seen AFCW in 15 years, so I have no idea if it strobes badly or not. I also don’t know if you just have a bad DVD, but taking your word for it . . .

It’s still just one movie out of tens or hundreds of thousands. Sorry; I can’t condemn an entire artistic process on a single bad result. Nor is it necessary for me to defend a single bad result when I can give many, many, many examples of beauty.

[braw]

its supposed to go unnoticed, yet still be there. so that it doesnt draw attention to itself, but it adds its special touch and just makes the movie feel more surreal and magical from behind the scenes without the viewer ever quite grasping the reason why the movie just feels and looks better.

I have found myself defending the 24p thing to other tech heads before. They always seem to take the stance that faster is better. This is coming from tech geeks that spooge over how many fps they get in Unreal Tournament. It's an artistic thing almost exclusively at this point. It's what people want, it's what major companies still use for TV. Why do companies spend so much developing a camera that emulates film motion? It's unnatural for a video camera to record at that rate, but they made it.

People prefer the film look for dramatic content. That's really all there is to it. :beer:

[SergejIvanovits]

Nothing wrong with filmlook or 24fps. But all equipments has its limitation, weakness and the 24 fps filmcamera's is the stroby or jittery movement if you don't fallow the rulles developed during years by cameramans all over the world. Just ask Wilmos Zsigmond, he can tell.

It is just unnaturally to human eyes to watch a stroby movement. JVC try to do something about it with this filter and I just can't wait to se how it works. That was all about. I don't want to change your artistic whatever you like.

[Shaw]

One thing proponents of high frame rates don't realize is that there are very strong psychological ties to low frame rates. Of course, some of our preference for 24p (instead of say, 30p) is due to years of movies in 24p. Low frame rates require your brain to interpret more "between the lines." It literally takes more brain power and quite literally "pulls you in" by grabbing your attention (it requires more attention). High frame rates cannot offer this. Does this mean high frame rates are bad? Heck no. I don't want to see football in 24p. 24p DOES have a place though.

[David Jimerson]

david jimmerson (edit: doh! jubal28 )

It's all the same, Neil!

[thisiswells]

"24p DOES have a place though"

Exactly. A few weeks ago David Spade was hosting Saturday Night Live. During one of the segments involving a movie director and a few actors and film crew, the director called action and the shot immediately cut to the view of the camera they used to shoot the movie, which appeared to be a 24P something. They dimmed the main studio lights and had only a few Leco's on-set for dramatic effect. Interesting to me why (when they have 24P capable cameras) they continue to use them in traditional interlaced format for the bulk of the episode. However, when shooting a "movie skit" they switched one of them (or perhaps they have an additional camera they stays setup this way -or- they bought/rented only for this instance) over to 24P since they acknowledge the motion rendering of film at 24 frames establishes "movie" in viewers heads and they use the "video" look for everything else.

The shots look terrible. The motion rendering drove me nuts. I do not think it was an interlaced camera set to a 1/30 shutter however there is no way to be certain.

You know SNL also produces those funny little mock-television-commercials and they appear to be shot on film. Pro35's and a Varicam a possibility? well sure.... but I think they were making those funny spots that play right before the real commercial break as to confuse viewers into thinking they are real ad's, long before 2002 when VariCam was made available. Interesting.

The producer of the show, Lorne Michaels, really does know what is up. I simply mean that this country's arguably most experienced comedy television producer (honored by this year's Mark Twain prize and eight Emmy's over the years) recognises the asthetic difference among 60i video, 24p video, and film and with discernment makes his choice to actually use all of them \with discretion for maximum impact. Interesting.

Yes, 24P video does have a place.

Brian

[PappasArts]

<<<You know SNL also produces those funny little mock-television-commercials and they appear to be shot on film. Pro35's and a Varicam a possibility? well sure.... but I think they were making those funny spots that play right before the real commercial break as to confuse viewers into thinking they are real ad's, long before 2002 when VariCam was made available.>=>=>=

My friend works on those SNL commercial skits. I will have to ask him what they use.

michael pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms

[thisiswells]

Michael,

Cool. Thank you. I would really, really like to know.

Also, if you can ask him what equipment they use for post processing and color enhancement and if they're shooting film please find out what kinds of film.

Thank you,
Brian

[Simon Wyndham]

One of the points I tried to establish was that we only view 24p as being 'higher quality' and more cinemtaic because our eyes have been conditioned that way.

Now imagine the reverse. Imagine that film had always been 60fps and that TV was always 24p. After all these years of watching that way around we would now regard higher framerates as being the superior cinematic look. It's not because 24p IS better for story telling, it's just that our eyes have been trained to think that way. And my point is that if enough people made cinema at much higher progressive rates it would 'recondition' peoples eyes.

24fps is simply too low for what some films try to do with their cameras these days. Blade 2 and Bourne Supremacy for example would not have been anywhere near as headache inducing and sickly to watch if they had been shot at a higher rate. Perhaps a compromise should be tried. 60p is still going to have slightly different motion characteristics from 60i don't forget.

[braw]

Now imagine the reverse. Imagine that film had always been 60fps and that TV was always 24p.

This is true. However, we're at where we're at, and you have the freedom to shoot at whatever you want based on how much money you have. However convincing the Hollywood dinosaur to conform to your standards is a little tough. 24 frames is what we have in cinema. We have been conditioned to accept that as what a "movie" is. You could try and pioneer a new standard like a few have tried as far as frame rate, but right off the bat people will see it as off weather they can pinpoint it or not.

We should just be thankful we live in a time where we actually have the option to shoot at a filmlike framerate for relatively inexpensive, or shoot at a framerate that has little perceived motion blur. :beer:

I remember shooting on a PD150 and thinking, wow, this is a great picture, but it doesn't look like film. Now we are scrutinizing shit like latitude and resolution. In my opinion, massive progress has been made to the point that the average Joe has a hard time discerning.

[Simon Wyndham]

You need to think out of the box. When cinemas are all using digital projection there won't be the same problems with framerate because the projector will show whatever is thrown at it. There won't be a need to change equipment just to change framerates. If a director decides to shoot a new movie in 60p then he/she will be free to do just that.

And that's another point I want to get across. Once digital projection is the norm in cinemas the framerate issue will go away because filmmakers will be able to choose whatever they want.

[braw]

You need to think out of the box. When cinemas are all using digital projection there won't be the same problems with framerate because the projector will show whatever is thrown at it.

Most definitely. Eventually they will all be digital projectors. It won't be for a while I'm sure, so if you can get a camera that can shoot 24p for today’s films, and it can also shoot at 30p or 60p, then you're set for the future. I have faith Panasonic will give us such a tool. When digital projectors are the norm, there will probably have been several newer cameras that will be released on the market. However if Panasonic covers the bases most are anticipating, the HDX will most definitely still be a viable tool 10 years from now. :thumbsup:

[thisiswells]

I keep hearing about the fabled concept of, "when theatres are digital. . ." argument and while I do not claim to know what theatres are like in other parts of America, here in my small town of 180,000 (Amarillo, Texas) our United Artists is entirely equipped on all sixteen screens to handle digital cinema projection. Yes, high definition digital cinema projection. They have been for several years. Materials can be provided on D5-HD tape for their or a computer format then converted. I am unsure if each booth has a deck inclusive or if media is streamed from a centralised server... It is High-Def for certain.

Why would I know this? My 8,000 member church makes advertisements and plays them before movies at UA. Yup, neat huh? It isn't terribly expensive (remember: town of 180,000) And yet, the movies themselves are still printed on film.

Really it makes sense if small town advertisers could play videos (or in the case of my church: really fantastic motion graphics with sub-frame video inserts) since it has a higher value proposition than simply a slide with your product or service.

Point is: It's here, in a small town. Is this an anomaly or are there other UA's like this?

Brian

[Flintstone]

As far as 24p vs 60p goes, one thing you have to remember, rotoscoping will take two to three times as more effort to do in 60p then in 24p. It's already a very expensive and timely process.

[Policar]

I've given up on this thread. Too much misinformation.

Clearly, people should shoot at whatever frame rate they find more aesthetically pleasing. Different artists use different brushes, so there really is no right answer here.

That said, music videos and dramatic content shot with the varicam are almost always done in 24p, and that's not to save tape space. Just worth considering that in the one place where there is a definitely choice between two frame rates, 24fps beats 60.

And, no, the 60fps film standard was poorly recieved largely because of how it looked. It was 70mm so of course it looked impressive, but people saw it as "weird' and not like a normal movie. Cost and compatibility were big issues, too, but even if they weren't, it would have failed.

Furthermore, for PAL/NTSC compatibility, 24fps (or 25fps) rule all. But whatever, to each his own. I don't want to hear any more talk about "strobing" though, since it's a phenomenon I've yet to experience in any way which lowered the quality of the motion rendered. I actually prefer how pans look in 24p over 60i, though I do pan a bit slower usually, but just because of my tripod's limitations, not because of the camera's.

[Terry_Lasater]

Clearly, people should shoot at whatever frame rate they find more aesthetically pleasing.

... or whatever frame rate they happen to accidentally roll the knob to. :)

Sorry, Policar. It was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist. :)

[bgundu]

It's interesting the phenomena of 24FPS. The experience of going to the cinema and seeing images on the big screen somehow codes are brain into thinking higher production value and the "cinematic experience" If you actually tune out and actually ignore the gripping action, story, and sound, and really focus on the FPS, you'll realize how strobby it is. It's confusing for our brain to see similar motion attributes outside of a theater and on your TV at home. You can't argue with the fact that 24fps is 24fps, and no matter what, there's not much you can do about that. I personally the look of what is produced by the DVX at 24p. As an FX artist, the fewer progressive frames the better.

[ddh]

24FPS and it's strobing or "movement cadence" as I like to think of it adds a bit of a dream like quality to a film and that's part of the charm.
In the final analysis, it doesn't matter how it came about that 24FPS became the norm associated with the cinema experience.

[Digigenic]

Yes, and the cinema experience continues to evolve.
IMHO
As preferential resolution and frame size increases beyond the margins of 35mm and even 70mm, I believe that the preferential frame rate will increase beyond 24 fps as well. By no means am I claiming 24 will die, I just think that we’ll see other frame rates come to life…
:)

[thisiswells]

Agreed. Think IMAX and Cinedome.

Brian

[thisiswells]

Also, for whatever it is worth:

My little town has more foundation dollars to burn on education than perhaps any other place I know of... A great example of this is the planetarium at our children's museam...

"The Don Harrington Discovery Center is proud to introduce the world's ultimate digital theater system. Amarillo is the fifth installation in the universe of the Digistar 3. The Space Theater will take visitors beyond the stars with educational and entertaining presentations that will delight your eyes and ears. The immersive experience will take your imagination to new places and expand your definition of the BIG PICTURE!"

http://www.dhdc.org/planetarium.html

So, yes this little town of 180,00 people has a sixteen-screen digital cinema theatre (United Artists) and one of the most technically sophisticated digital cinema systems in the world for a planetarium... and yet, little to no filmmaking community exists here... of course we're trying to change that!!

Brian

[dat5150]

Brian...I grew up in Amarillo and yes I remember the Discovery Center. The schools took us there a couple of times while growing up. I also picked up a large scar on my head one year while sledding down the hills near the DC. Amarillo is a great place, I hope you appreciate it as much as I do.

[ngmul]

Theaters in Europe, lead by Scotland, are converting to digital projection more rapidly than anyone anticipated. For a current update on the American studios' and exhibitors' progress in standardizing digital projection specs in the U.S., go to www.filmmaking.com and click on the ShoWest logo in the upper right hand corner. The pressure for theaters to convert to digital projection is relentless due to Hollywood's most critical motivator - money: Digital movie distribution costs a mere fraction of the cost of film distribution.

[Digigenic]

I love Texas, aside from the seasonal affective disorder that hits and lasts from December to March, I feel like a summer child for the rest of the year.

So, yes this little town of 180,00 people has a sixteen-screen digital cinema theatre (United Artists) and one of the most technically sophisticated digital cinema systems in the world for a planetarium... and yet, little to no filmmaking community exists here... of course we're trying to change that!!
It'll happen...
We all know Austin's film community is developing faster than Akira, and it is spilling into the outer areas. Here in Houston particularly, where our film community seems to have a hunt and hibernate mentality is expecting to receive a large portion of that spill.