to all the 30p haters

jaybirch said:
http://vimeo.com/2358413

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

Nah, that video sucked. Plus, you can see the hot pixel on the right side of the frame. Unfortunate...
 
booggerg2 said:
Nah, that video sucked. Plus, you can see the hot pixel on the right side of the frame. Unfortunate...
Click to expand...

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

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

That again, is why 24p is the standard.
 
Tony Robinson said:
I firmly believe the necessity of 24p is overrated for films never destined for a film print. Progressive scan is a must. As is shallow depth of field. Nothing screams "video" more than everything in a shot being crystal clear.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting perspective, considering the reason you think shallow depth of field says "film" and deep depth of field says "video" is what a lot of people say the "only" appeal of 24 fps is -- because you're used to seeing shallow DOF in cinematic movies and deep DOF in "reality" or "video" projects. :)
 
Do you people really believe that crappy soap operas look more "filmic" here in PAL land, shot in 25P?

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

and as for the vimeo video looking like it is shot on a cell phone, you must have a pretty good cell phone with a fast lens
 
Last edited:
24p? why not 21p or 13p or heck, why not time lapse at 1/79P?

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

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

once that happens "better" = better. and everything 24p will show its age. 24fps works b/c it tricks the eye just enough to look like motion. 30fps is 25% more & has 25% more motion to look more real
 
zijital said:
24p? why not 21p or 13p or heck, why not time lapse at 1/79P?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robbie
 
Zak Forsman said:
in most cases, i don't want it to look "more real". ... i want it to look cinematic. who is leading this multiple framerate revolution you speak of?
Click to expand...

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

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

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

but for now, to each his own...



*NOTE "fall 2009" on red calendars = "some time after WWII & hopefully before 2019"
 
60fps and 120 fps are generally used for slowmotion shots there is no reason to run that many fps for viewing. 30p is an excellent framerate, but film has always been 24 fps.
 
gowhitesox99 said:
. . . looking to jump into HD with a canon HG20 soon. I am gathering as much info as I can. . . PJ
Click to expand...

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

HV30

A friend of ours just cut the HV30 and an XHA1 together and said it looked nice and needed barely more light than the DVX100B (which we also have) and he said the XHA1 actually performed side by side with the DVX which was our conclusion also with regard to light. We have an A1 in our broadcast unit for commercials and infomercials and will go live broadcast tomorrow morning at 8a so we'll see how all goes. We have a back up dvx just in case
 
bjdowns said:
24 fps also has its advantages for SFX work. Who wants to rotoscope 120 frames per second?
Click to expand...

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





(ugg... why am I feeding this thread? this is more endless than a Bud vs MGD debate)
 
booggerg2 said:
I see nothing un-cinematic about the cadence in this 5D2 clip..

http://www.vimeo.com/2125645

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


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


PS. 120hz TVs look terrible as well.
 
DELTA_Rotary said:
I'll take being able to pan/move my camera, shoot variable frame rates, and complete manual control of my picture over the ability to shoot the next episode of Days of Our Lives with available light. PS. 120hz TVs look terrible as well.
Click to expand...

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

Personally, if I could get some "hands on" time with the 5D2 I'd maybe make a move but short of time, short of bread, and short of insider knowledge, I resolve to stick with our vid gear and keep moving forward :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top