What is the deal with 30P ?

The only time I ever shot anything but 24p was when I was experimenting with slo-mo. I shot 30p for that. Then I realized that I don't like slo-mo and never did it again.
 
I don't think it's such a silly notion with the coming age of digital projection.

24 fps has its issues, and a lot of people believe that 30p is actually a little better for moviemaking. I personally think 30p doesn't look like live video, but is a little less strobey than 24p, and therefore may actually be a little better for digital filmmaking. But I like both and think they both work for dramatic narratives.
 
30p is usefull for TV/video production that doens't need/want the 24 look, but still needs the benefits of Progessive capture.

For example 30p is well suited to video productions aimed for broadcast and webcast, while keeping compatibilty with exsisting 60i workflows. 30p is also great for TV/video production when you may want to take Screenshots for various uses.

For example, think about the need for both Compatibilty of a 30fps system, and the multi-media usability of Progressive images in the news world. Shoot 30p for the baordcast, encode it cleanly to the new-webcast, grab soem clean stills for the website story, and still send the feed out to other stations who can cut it normally.


I'm not really a "film making" type guy. I've never shot 24p. I'm a "TV" guy. That's what I do. However I see the huge benefits in P over I for production, and find 30p the best way to use them in an established workflow I'm comfteble with.

- Mikko
 
30p is good for tv. It doesn't require a funky pulldown. It fits perfectly into a 60i timeline. It's progressive. It has a somewhat filmlike motion to it. Definitely more so than 60i. So, I could see why some people would want to shoot 30p for stuff that is destined for tv broadcast. My opinion, anyways. I'm actually about to start working on doing my own weekly news program and selling it to a local station here. I am thinking of shooting it 30p. It would catch motion a bit better than 24p. And, I will have a distinctive look from the other local news programs around. But, if I don't shoot 30p, it'll be 24pn :)

Jason
 
Kholi said:
I'd like to see a narrative that's all 30p. I think it could be kinda interesting.
Click to expand...

I just like the fact that slightly faster pans are more tolerable in 30p. You can also shoot 60i in HD and simply decide after the take whether to make a shot slowmo or 30p (with good deinterlacing). This only works if your deliverable is 720p or SD.

Macgregor does this all the time with 50i.
 
30p is no good for something that's going to be transferred to PAL though. 30P is a hybrid look between film and video, it's more video-looking than 24p, and a lot more film-looking than 60i. For webcasts it's fine. But if you would have any reason to want to transfer it to PAL, 30p is the worst format to shoot in.
 
When you watch film shot at 24fps projected, the shutter of the projector is closing between each frame. Theoretically your eye dosen't catch this because of 'persistence of vision', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision , and your brain smoothes out the motion between each frame. When you watch video shot at 24P you see each frame in succesion with no 'black' in between, making strobing more obvious. Some people feel that 30P is more of a projected filmlike experience. Personally, I like the strobing of 24P.
 
I shoot 30p for events all the time. Stuff for organizations that goes straight to DVD. It wouldn't really be appropriate to shoot 24p, but 30p gives a nice "polished" quality over 60i in my experience.
 
Also, if you have any notion of transferring to 24 fps film (or converting to 24 fps for any reason other than slo-mo), 30p is your worst choice.
 
Ahh, but that notion will fade in the coming years. I'm pretty sure that a good percentage of the films at Sundance were projected digitally from HDCAM. In the future, even the smallest fests will project HD and probably from BluRay or HD DVD discs.

Transferring to film nowadays is pretty much a waste of money, unless it's the distributors money and it will actually need to be shown on film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top