24p is on the way out!

[J.R. Hudson]

60p or 24p

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1422460&posted=1#post1422460

Artistic choice aside, as a viewer, 60p looks like reality tv.

Give me 24p or give me death.

 

[JonathanLB]

One comment on page 5 is totally wrong. You can't tell if it's HD or SD if you're not more than 3-4 times the height away from the screen? First I think you have it totally the opposite way. The closer you are, the more you can tell if it's crappy resolution. This is always true. If the pixels are bigger, you can see them when you're close, but not when you're far away. I have no idea where you get this misguided logic.

Second, I sit sometimes 6 feet from my 40" HDTV, trust me I can tell the difference between not-so-good SD and the absolutely amazing HD quality. It's NOT a marketing gimmick, only a blind person would say that. Like my friend Sean said, who is a med school student and very bright guy, "I always thought the whole HD thing was stupid, DVD looked good enough to me, but then I saw the HDTVs playing Blu-ray movies and I don't need to hear any stats or other information, I'm sold!" That's exactly how it is. I also thought at the time, what's the big deal? DVD looks good. Then I saw what I COULD be watching instead, which is just gorgeous, and now I have trouble watching a movie on DVD if I know I could be watching it on Blu-ray. If it's a comedy, who cares. But if it's an action movie give me Blu or give me death!

I don't know why 24p is idealized, though. I think it's one choice, it's great and all, obviously I shoot in 24p, but to say that anything higher than that looks bad is kind of silly. There's nothing wrong with something being MORE realistic, rather than having the absolute minimum number of frames that you can pass off as film, I mean come on. More frames would give smoother motion on action shots and I think that'd be fantastic.

 

[karapetkov]

Man I think this is a cool idea. By the way, what camera does this? I would love a cam that will stay @ 24 fps and has the ability to ramp up when you choose it to.

RED cameras can do ramps already, so this would be just a modification of a ramp, which can be put in a firmware upgrade.

There are camera's that allow for ramping -
but the issue with what Karapetkov is talking about would be projection.
I know of no system that allows for ramping projection.

Yes, the projector is the key here. Probably some next generation digital projector. They're actually computers anyway, so, I think it's mostly a software\programming thing.

But the real question is - how would this look? :

Static shots at 24fps and moving shots ramping up to a different framerate.

For example - slow pans and dolly shots at 28-36 fps or fast pans and epic crane shots at up to 48-60 fps.

*

This would save on storage too. And rendering times, cause if the whole thing was shot at 48fps that's double time for rendering.

Maybe some innovative digital cinema company should look into this. I heard about one that is planning to release revolutionary digital cinema projectors.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

24p is idelaized because it looks perfect.

Do you really want to watch The Road Warrior (Thinking action film) in 60p ? As stated, and redundant, the temporal look and feel of 24fps is magical. Truly.

-

Ramping ? Do it in post.

 

[karapetkov]

No, I mean...

The camera ramps in-shot from 24fps to 48fps but then this is played back as normal motion and not slo-mo. The goal is to have the smooth pans of 48fps in an otherwise 24fps magical timeline.

The camera ramps up just for the moving shots and then the projector also ramps up and displays all that as normal motion, giving you the smoothness.

Actually my idea is, specifically, to preserve the 24 fps magic, while taking the advantage of the higher speeds for moving shots.

I'm a 24 fps man too.

 

[MichaelP]

What happens to the sound when the projector is playing back at different frame rates? Sound would always need to be double system for playback with tight sync metadata. Not to mention that the production itself would need to shoot the higher frame rate for pans - kind of a headache - especially if there is sync sound being recorded on set - the the editing systems need to have that metadata in order play back... I don't see that happening.

While a projector may have the ability to play back different frame rates, programs themselves will be played back at a single frame rate for a while -

Michael

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

What happens to the sound when the projector is playing back at different frame rates? Sound would always need to be double system for playback with tight sync metadata. Not to mention that the production itself would need to shoot the higher frame rate for pans - kind of a headache - especially if there is sync sound being recorded on set - the the editing systems need to have that metadata in order play back... I don't see that happening.

While a projector may have the ability to play back different frame rates, programs themselves will be played back at a single frame rate for a while -

Michael

I do.

It is actually not that technically difficult to have synced anything.

It is just here to fore not been that demanded.


Yes. I know that time code for cameras and sound systems are currently pretty expensive.

But they don't have to be.

Look at networking. It's damn near free because it is so widely used. Economy of Scale and all.

I would venture to guess that computer syncing is much more critical in terms of marjin of error than sound syncing.


I don't think it would be very difficult at all to synchronize a sound device to a camera wirelessly.


This is not something that is in any way insurmountable or even that big of a deal.

It is totally doable and only needs some forethought and consideration.


In fact, I am actually shocked it is not widespread already.

 

[MichaelP]

I think you missed the point. If a sync shot starts off at 24fps then speed up to 60fps for a pan, then pack to 24fps as the pan end. Let's say we are following a talking head. The audio is running at constant rate of xxfps.

What happens to the audio during the pan? Does it speed up as well? If so, then it needs to be pitch corrected. Also, the on set camera to a double system audio recorder would need to be in perfect sync - 2x faster would be a 96kHz recording? 3x a 144kHz, etc. Recorders are not recording at those rates yet.

let's say we choose to edit to another shot during the pan - just as the pan is starting - perhaps we cut when the frame rate was at 39fps to another shot that is at 24fps or another pan that happens to be at 43fps - the metadata tracking on a per frame basis for audio to track does not exist - imagine a music track during playback - it will remain at a constant speed at a certain pitch - until the picture track start playing back faster because there is metadata in there says "play faster and at xx fps". Imagines the audio mixer during that session!

There is a reason it is not widespread already.

Michael

 

[karapetkov]

The point about audio is valid.

Although I'm not an engineer\programmer, I think it won't be so hard to sync this all through the pipeline. Via metadata?

The NLE will be the main problem, cause AFAIK, none of the existing ones support something like this.

But if you can get such a feature to work from shooting -> through post, and finally -> for delivery, in the projector, it would be great.

I wonder if such tests been made?

Variable framerate for playback.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Why do we want 60fps for a pan ? Will it not look like a soap opera (Albeit a higher rez) ?

What's the point ?

Panning on the subject in question is the key, staying on the subject while the background does it's fly by.

This is a bizarre notion to me. 60 fps ? 30p ?

:zombie_smiley:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I...

What happens to the audio during the pan? Does it speed up as well? If so, then it needs to be pitch corrected. Also, the on set camera to a double system audio recorder would need to be in perfect sync - 2x faster would be a 96kHz recording? 3x a 144kHz, etc. Recorders are not recording at those rates yet.

let's say we choose to edit to another shot during the pan - just as the pan is starting - perhaps we cut when the frame rate was at 39fps to another shot that is at 24fps or another pan that happens to be at 43fps - the metadata tracking on a per frame basis for audio to track does not exist - imagine a music track during playback - it will remain at a constant speed at a certain pitch - until the picture track start playing back faster because there is metadata in there says "play faster and at xx fps". Imagines the audio mixer during that session!

There is a reason it is not widespread already.

Michael

Hello Michael.

Nope. I got it. Perfectly Crystal Clear.

I would like to add that the audio is recording at the quality we set and would be flagged frame per frame to match whatever speed we set the camera to at any given second in time.

It really just boils down to match and some reasonably simple programming.

I am talking about shooting with both a new frame rate system and time code generator on both the camera and recording device.

 

[Noiz2]

Maybe I should set a few "facts" straight. 24p is not 24 frames a second. 24p is video speed and really ought to be called 23.98p but 24p sounded sexier. It wasn't created "back when" it was created a few years ago so video could shoot with a quasi film frame rate, it had nothing to do with saving money or syncing sound. Film speed is 24 frames persecond, NTSC monitors can't veiw that rate, 23.98 (called 24p) is the same "speed" as video (29.87) not film "speed". So if you shoot film (24) and edit in 24p you still have to pull down the sound to get sync. There are a hand full of cameras that shoot a true 24 frame video, but you need to use special monitors to view that frame rate (or just use the computer monitor).
People shot 24 frame film originally because it was as slow as you could go and have acceptable optical track audio. Silent films were shot at 19-20 frames per second.

People shot 24p mostly because it has the artifacts and look we associate with "real" movies. Once the entire movie going public has been raised on video games and can't remember music that didn't come as an MP3 file probably the "film" look will start being quaint and go out of style. Hopefully I'll be gone by then.
Today even TV shows, if they can get away with it, shoot on 35mm, it just looks better. Cameras that shoot 4k will start to change that but... the last Batman shot in iMAX and it made a pile so that would tend to move the bar in the other direction. To get that resolution they would have to shoot something like 16k digital. I want the server concession on that post!

So I HOPE 24p goes away, since it's SO confusing to so many. But I think it will be replaced by true 24 frame modes. Maybe with digital broadcast we can FINALY end fractional frame rates.

 

[Noiz2]

Sorry kid but that shows a very deep misunderstanding of how audio and film/video work together. You cannot go changing the samplerate to hell and gone on the fly and expect to get through post in one piece.
However it's also pretty much a non issue. Sound is going to be clocking away on it's own and it doesn't really matter what your frame rate is, sound files are only stamped at the start anyway. So it all cuts fine the way it always has.

Hello Michael.

Nope. I got it. Perfectly Crystal Clear.

I would like to add that the audio is recording at the quality we set and would be flagged frame per frame to match whatever speed we set the camera to at any given second in time.

It really just boils down to match and some reasonably simple programming.

I am talking about shooting with both a new frame rate system and time code generator on both the camera and recording device.

 

[JonathanLB]

What's a bizarre notion to me is that J.R. Hudson is more religious about his 24fps than anyone I know is religious about Jesus even, hahaha. I mean my god man, it's not magical, it's the absolute minimum frame count that looks decent, there's nothing to idealize or make magical. In the future hopefully we have the maximum number of frames possible so that the realism and perfection of the medium can be realized. There's no reason to insist upon always having the absolute minimum and then on top of that idealizing it, haha.

Great video games have like, what, 200fps?! Nobody would tolerate 24fps, it would look like crap. The more frames, the more realistic motion you can achieve.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Maybe I should set a few "facts" straight. 24p is not 24 frames a second. 24p is video speed and really ought to be called 23.98p but 24p sounded sexier. It wasn't created "back when" it was created a few years ago so video could shoot with a quasi film frame rate, it had nothing to do with saving money or syncing sound. Film speed is 24 frames persecond, NTSC monitors can't veiw that rate, 23.98 (called 24p) is the same "speed" as video (29.87) not film "speed". So if you shoot film (24) and edit in 24p you still have to pull down the sound to get sync. There are a hand full of cameras that shoot a true 24 frame video, but you need to use special monitors to view that frame rate (or just use the computer monitor).
People shot 24 frame film originally because it was as slow as you could go and have acceptable optical track audio. Silent films were shot at 19-20 frames per second.

....

Thanks for "setting us straight with facts".

I think we covered all the above and then some in the various threads we have been chasing and meandering through but it's always good to repeat and reiterate most especially in a unified thread.

As to silent films, I think we established in other threads that their frame rates were somewhere actually between 16-23 fps. But, I get your general point.

...

People shot 24p mostly because it has the artifacts and look we associate with "real" movies. Once the entire movie going public has been raised on video games and can't remember music that didn't come as an MP3 file probably the "film" look will start being quaint and go out of style. Hopefully I'll be gone by then.
Today even TV shows, if they can get away with it, shoot on 35mm, it just looks better. Cameras that shoot 4k will start to change that but... the last Batman shot in iMAX and it made a pile so that would tend to move the bar in the other direction. To get that resolution they would have to shoot something like 16k digital. I want the server concession on that post!

So I HOPE 24p goes away, since it's SO confusing to so many. But I think it will be replaced by true 24 frame modes. Maybe with digital broadcast we can FINALY end fractional frame rates.

We will have an extraordinary selection of frame rates.

Initially I would venture we will see 120< for both capture and playback.

After, it will climb for capture quite rapidly on order of months and for playback on order of years.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Sorry kid but that shows a very deep misunderstanding of how audio and film/video work together. You cannot go changing the samplerate to hell and gone on the fly and expect to get through post in one piece.
However it's also pretty much a non issue. Sound is going to be clocking away on it's own and it doesn't really matter what your frame rate is, sound files are only stamped at the start anyway. So it all cuts fine the way it always has.

O.K. Noiz.

The first time you were condescending and "Set us Straight" I let it slide.

Now you are being excessively rude with you: "Sorry kid but that shows a very deep misunderstanding of how audio and film/video work together." Bull Sh!t.


I submit to you we are talking about a new paradigm and a new timecode system.

Not changing the sample rate. Merely the flags used on the "film" and audio so they can be synced in post.


To put it in it's simplest form, they could both be even be synced via a robust and reasonably accurate real time clock. It is a matter of fairly simple engineering.

This is not something that requires the accuracy of a strontium atomic clock.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

What's a bizarre notion to me is that J.R. Hudson is more religious about his 24fps than anyone I know is religious about Jesus even, hahaha. I mean my god man, it's not magical, it's the absolute minimum frame count that looks decent, there's nothing to idealize or make magical. In the future hopefully we have the maximum number of frames possible so that the realism and perfection of the medium can be realized. There's no reason to insist upon always having the absolute minimum and then on top of that idealizing it, haha.

Great video games have like, what, 200fps?! Nobody would tolerate 24fps, it would look like crap. The more frames, the more realistic motion you can achieve.

Yeah... but here's the thing.


I am saying J.R. Hudson will indeed be able to shoot and display his work in 24p no problem.


It just will not be the dominate frame rate due to consumer demand and artistic choice.


I am totally cool with his love affair with 24p and want nothing more than for him to be able to keep it.


It's all good.


Time just marches on.

 

[filmman]

So please oblige me a little also. I'm an old filmman. You're all saying that regardless of what we shoot (whether 24 or 30), ALL video monitors (whether plazma, lcd, standard tv, etc.) they all show the movies at 29.97?

 

[Noiz2]

So please oblige me a little also. I'm an old filmman. You're all saying that regardless of what we shoot (whether 24 or 30), ALL video monitors (whether plazma, lcd, standard tv, etc.) they all show the movies at 29.97?

I think this was addressed to me so...

NTSC monitors scan at 29.97 FPS. Going into HD broadcast? maybe new frame rates will become standard. PAL is 25fps. 24 fps film is scanned 24 > 30 frames and slowed down to 29.97 in the 3:2 pull down, the reason audio has to also be pulled down in post to stay in sync. 23.98 (24p) is the same "speed" as 29.97 relative to film speed in terms of pull down.

There are video monitors that can sync to non standard frame rates but they are expensive and of little use to your normal consumer since NTSC video is at 29.97.

So yes. And unless your shooting film your not sooting 30 but 29.97.

 

[Noiz2]

Thanks for "setting us straight with facts".

well you seemed to need so real info.

As to silent films, I think we established in other threads that their frame rates were somewhere actually between 16-23 fps. But, I get your general point.

silent started with hand crank and the rates were all over the map. By the time sound killed it 19 was the standard rate in the US.

We will have an extraordinary selection of frame rates.

Initially I would venture we will see 120< for both capture and playback.

After, it will climb for capture quite rapidly on order of months and for playback on order of years.

For the reasons you say 24fps is "dead" money, the above is very unlikley to happen anytime soon ie 20 years. And there is very little reason for it to.