puredrifting
Major Contributor
Yes, for those of us who pretty much only shoot 24 fps, having a 30 fps only camera would be singularly unappealing.
Dan
Dan
The end of 35mm adapers and hv20s....
- Thread starter Hunter Hampton
- Start date
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Because it looks "cheap" and "live", two characteristics that indie filmmakers hate for most purposes. Interlaced also displays jaggies and many more motion and edge artifacts than progressive images. Panasonic really re-captured a huge market that they had lost when they introduced the original DVX-100, the first low cost camcorder with true 24fps progressive imaging, it was proven that users were sick of the interlaced look of all of the Sonys that were popular back in the day.
Interlaced has it's purposes, it can look great with soap operas (grimace) or shows that you want to look "live" like a stage show or sporting event. Not everything should look like film, but most of us prefer the look and feel of progressive 24fps images because of about 100 years of conditioning to like film and the filmic look.
Dan
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Take a deeeeeeep breath.
1. I have predicted this "new" DSLR technology for quite some time.
2. This ain't noth'n yet. Wait until you see what is in store with Dynamic Range when the cameras can easily shoot 120+ frames a second with automatic aperture and exposure settings to capture ADR in 24p etc.
3. My post was in response to those who said that the D90 will kill adapters ect. It won't. Only more advanced and mature technology will. (In short order no doubt)
4. And finally, Red to date has explicitly said that Red Scarlett will have a fixed lens and that their will most likely be adapters for it.
Thanks for your post all the same.
Hugs and Kisses.... :beer:
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
I think we need to move to 60p with great lenses and sensors that give rise and birth to a whole new high def pleasing look.
Not hard and harsh like video but smooth and beautiful...
Not hard and harsh like video but smooth and beautiful...
John Sandel
Active member
Ok, that I understand. Sounds like it's principally an aesthetic choice. Thanks.
John Caballero
Veteran
I don't think the 30 fps on the canon is going to be interlaced. Not at all.
Park Edwards
Veteran
for those who say 30p will be acceptable....high unlikely...imagine Lord of the Rings looking like it was a soap opera.
this was canons way to protect their line of camcorders i think
this was canons way to protect their line of camcorders i think
John Caballero
Veteran
This Canon won't be shooting 30 FPS interlaced. It is progresive and there is a big difference. The average viewer out there won't notice the difference. And once all theatrical projection goes digital there will be less of a difference.
Park Edwards
Veteran
Yeah, 30fps, is completely significant. Going digital has nothing to do how many times a frame is captured per second. Sorry man, I'll stand by my opinion, but nobody will accept 30p.
John Caballero
Veteran
Oh but they will, HDTV as posted before is 30 fps not 24.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
100% correct on:
But certainly there will be a new paradigm.
Look at how film aspect ratio has changed.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
John Caballero
Veteran
It is absolutely useless spending our energy discussing 24 vs. 30 framerate. The fact is that the people with a few grand to spare will have a wonderful time with this new camera. It is part of a great trend. Eventually somebody will get it right, maybe RED? Until then lets all be part of the near future.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Shows how much exposure you have gotten. If you go to a PAL country, 24fps films converted to PAL will have a smooth, video-like look. If people there are used to this cadence, it's not a far fetch that it could catch on once people get used to that look.
This is total BS. 24fps vs. 25fps isn't that big a difference to begin with. And since the footage only gets sped up, none of the motion blur changes at all.
30fps looks like video and is completely undesirable. What good is shallow depth of field when none of the motion will look like film?
I really hope they'll add a 24fps mode. I'd switch from Nikon to Canon for this camera.
Chance White
Well-known member
The frame aspect ratio has always been either 2.35 or 1.85. These were based on... That's right film. The standard of 16/9 is virtually identical to 1.85.
Increasing the fps is an aesthetic choice not evolution. With this line of thinking we would be watching movies at 200fps by now.
Increasing the fps is an aesthetic choice not evolution. With this line of thinking we would be watching movies at 200fps by now.
And we would have never seen video cameras with 24p either. But we did. We saw a lot of them. We saw a lot of people get very excited about them. Why? Why would video camera manufacturers go from a 30frame system to a complicated 24frame system requiring pulldown, flags, reverse telecine etc? Why? Because people WANT 24fps > 30fps The desires of the consumer determined the product, not the other way around.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
I like your fighting spirit tiger!
Shoot, if you had even a little bit of knowledge you might even be mildly persuasive.
Nice college try all the same. :beer:
4:3 35 mm original silent film ratio, commonly known in TV and video as 4:3. Also standard ratio for MPEG-2 video compression.
1.37 35 mm full-screen sound film image, nearly universal in movies between 1932 and 1953. Officially adopted as the Academy ratio in 1932 by AMPAS. Still occasionally used. Also standard 16 mm.
1.43 IMAX format. Imax productions use 70 mm wide film (the same as used for 70 mm feature films), but the film runs through the camera and projector sideways. This allows for a physically larger area for each image.
1.56:1 Widescreen aspect ratio 14:9. Often used in shooting commercials etc. as a compromise format between 4:3 (12:9) and 16:9, especially when the output will be used in both standard TV and widescreen. When converted to a 16:9 frame, there is slight pillarboxing, while conversion to 4:3 creates slight letterboxing.
15:9 35 mm European widescreen standard; native Super 16 mm frame ratio. (5:3, sometimes expressed more accurately as "1.67".)
1.75 Early 35 mm widescreen ratio, primarily used by MGM, and since abandoned.
16:9 Video widescreen standard (16:9), used in high-definition television, one of three ratios specified for MPEG-2 video compression.
1.85 35 mm US and UK widescreen standard for theatrical film. Uses approximately 3 perforations ("perfs") of image space per 4 perf frame; films can be shot in 3-perf to save cost of film stock.
2.00 Original SuperScope ratio, also used in Univisium.
2.20 70 mm standard. Originally developed for Todd-AO in the 1950s. 2.21:1 is specified for MPEG-2 but not used.
2.35 35 mm anamorphic prior to 1970, used by CinemaScope ("'Scope") and early Panavision. The anamorphic standard has subtly changed so that modern anamorphic productions are actually 2.39,[1] but often referred to as 2.35 anyway, due to old convention. (Note that anamorphic refers to the compression of the image on film to maximize an area slightly taller than standard 4-perf Academy aperture, but presents the widest of aspect ratios.)
2.39 35 mm anamorphic from 1970 onwards. Sometimes rounded up to 2.40:1[1] Often commercially branded as Panavision format or 'Scope.
2.55 Original aspect ratio of CinemaScope before optical sound was added to the film. This was also the aspect ratio of CinemaScope 55.
2.59 Cinerama at full height (three specially captured 35 mm images projected side-by-side into one composite widescreen image).
2.76 MGM Camera 65 (65 mm with 1.25x anamorphic squeeze). Used only on a handful of films between 1956 and 1964, such as Ben-Hur (1959).
4.00 Polyvision, three 35 mm 1.33 images projected side by side. Used only on Abel Gance's Napoléon (1927).