Simon Wyndham
Well-known member
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.
More concrete info on ProHD
- Thread starter Barry_Green
- Start date
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.
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.
SergejIvanovits said:
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
Simon Wyndham said:
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
Well-known member
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?
SergejIvanovits said:
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.
..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.
..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
Well-known member
We don't have other than 24 fps film as the industry standard today.iamloser said:
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.iamloser said:
I don't know. I never was a technician. If something is good to my eyes than it is good.iamloser said:
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.iamloser said:
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)iamloser said:
..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 ?
#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
Well-known member
Only if it helps you.iamloser said:
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.
..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.
..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
Well-known member
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.
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.
You're basing your entire point of view on two seconds out of one movie?
SergejIvanovits
Well-known member
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.
..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.
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
iamloser said:
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.