24 p what is it good for?

Barry_Green said:
The solution is to buy a product that does what you need. To buy something that DOESN'T do what you need, and then complain about it, is -- well, that just sounds like a bad idea. And a waste of time.

The way I see it you can either a) work with what you've got, b) change to something else that does what you want, or c) sit around complaining. Two of those paths will result in a positive outcome, and one won't accomplish anything.

You could be working right now, using either the extremely common 24p-to-25p conversion workflow, or the probably even-more-common de-interlacing 50i-to-25p workflow.

The product is what it is. It's your responsibility to buy the right tool for the job. Buying the wrong tool, and then complaining about it, is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Mr berry i dont know were you live but in europe there absolutly no way that 24 p is bettter than 25 p your old friends in panasonic has mad a big misstake why cant they just fix it. Its like make a car that need 95 oktan 83 oktan.

"You could be working right now, using either the extremely common 24p-to-25p conversion workflow," and what program is that for avid?
 
glnf said:
In Europe using 25p opposed to 24p is highly advisable because it equals the mains frequency. Lights flicker (a little but they do) in the same frequency. When the camera is in sync with the mains it doesn't cause any problems. When shooting with 24p there is always a risk of a slow (1 sec) flicker caused by interference. When shooting 24p in Europe one is forced to work with professional light gear. The same applies to shooting tube TV-sets. When an old TV is in shoot one is forced to shoot 25p or 50i.

There is obviously no stylistic difference between 24p and 25p. TV films are usually shot 25 frames/s on film. No-one can spot a difference to 24f/s, not even on a film-out in a cinema.

Bluray discs support 25p. It's a myth that they don't do it. 24p has just been added. If worse comes to worse 25p always go into 50i, again like all the TV productions shot on film.

And considering how problematic it is to mix 24p and 25p/50i footage (old material, material from TV and archives and material from other cameras) in postproduction I will never buy a camera limited to 24p. Pity about the GH2.

By the way. I can't see any reason to shoot 24p in Europe except if it goes straight to a film-out for a cinema release. Can't be that many GH2 users, with all respect. So: why, why why????
Click to expand...

+100

Again...its just too many think that 24p makes footage "look" like film...anyone with a GH2 going to have their recordings put onto actual film?
Light frequency is also a key issue with 24p with us PAL users.
Anyway...the GH2 will probo get hacked have 25p and we then can all be happy.
 
Last edited:
roei z said:
(BTW which one looks better? this or slowing to 24p?)
Click to expand...

Good point. There used to be the argument that the experience of seeing a film in a cinema is so much different from watching a film on TV that the slight speed-up for television broadcast was actually quite handy. So the question used to be (or still is) what the main means of the distribution was. (Nowadays a film usually finds a larger audience in airplanes than in cinemas, so things have really changed.) I remember, that the genre of the film sometimes had an influence on the choice of frame rate. For action one was rather aiming for a speed-up (on TV), for drama with long and wide shoots one was rather aiming for a speed down (in cinema). US production obviously didn't face that question.
 
roei z said:
(BTW which one looks better? this or slowing to 24p?)
Click to expand...

Oh, and I forgot - In the days of film one could save on film stock and lab costs by shooting 24f/s. Quite an issue for independent and low-budget film-makers.
 
http://www.paradiso-design.net/videostandards_en.html

Pretty good summary info to review. sometimes some terms still confuse me.

Before bluray's arrival, 24p wasn't a big deal. Progressive or interlaced. Then 24p with ultra high bitrate from bluray disk looked so much better. But most people have been watching 24p content on SDTV or HDTV with 29.97/30Hz or 59.94/60Hz. I wanna upgrade my HDTV so that I can watch 24p source in 23.97Hz output. Those who experienced the true 24p display really liked it. Of course 24p is good for consumers and good for producers. It will be good for many more years. But the studio will continue to produce interlaced disks to attract wider consumer market. Not everyone owns the latest and the greatest HDTV setup.

I think 24p will eventually win over 25p... I know it's such a bold statement... but Asia has the major TV makers and their domestic markets adapted NTSC.
 
lpowell said:
I sure wish this had been the case, as it would enable me to play back my DVD collection at 24p on my progressive-output Blu-ray player and watch it on my 240hz HDTV. But alas, all NTSC DVD content is recorded in 59.94i interlaced format, with 3:2 pulldown used to encode 24p movies:

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.8
Click to expand...
Sorry, that's just not true. I've been authoring and publishing DVDs in native 24p for years and years. You absolutely positively do not have to author a 60i MPEG2 file, you can create and export a 24P progressive MPEG-2 file and author that to DVD as 24P. The DVD player itself takes care of adding pulldown or not.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Sorry, that's just not true. I've been authoring and publishing DVDs in native 24p for years and years. You absolutely positively do not have to author a 60i MPEG2 file, you can create and export a 24P progressive MPEG-2 file and author that to DVD as 24P. The DVD player itself takes care of adding pulldown or not.

DVD was designed from Day 1 as a native 24p delivery system.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that it is "possible" to create DVDs with native 24p encoding format. But I bet more studios have been making interlaced disks to cover wider consumer market.
 
mimirsan said:
+100

Again...its just too many think that 24p makes footage "look" like film...anyone with a GH2 going to have their recordings put onto actual film?
Light frequency is also a key issue with 24p with us PAL users.
Anyway...the GH2 will probo get hacked have 25p and we then can all be happy.
Click to expand...

weird.. i don't get any lighting problems when shooting 24p 1/50
 
stonebat said:
I agree with you that it is "possible" to create DVDs with native 24p encoding format. But I bet more studios have been making interlaced disks to cover wider consumer market.
Click to expand...
What additional market would they cover with an interlaced disk? Every DVD player has the ability to convert progressive discs to interlaced.

Recording and mastering in progressive format gives you a wider market base. You can then use that disc on a progressive player to a progressive tv, or on an interlaced player to an interlaced TV, or on a progressive player to an interlaced TV.

Recording and mastering in interlaced means that you are forever stuck with interlaced.
 
roei z said:
weird.. i don't get any lighting problems when shooting 24p 1/50
Click to expand...
It is not that easy to spot. It is not really a flickering but rather a slow pumping of the exposure. It shows much more in cinemas (or projections in a dark room) than on TV-sets. And of course the light source plays a crucial part. As a rule of thumb: Tungsten is OK, FLs can by problematic, streetlights can be very bad.
 
stonebat said:
I agree with you that it is "possible" to create DVDs with native 24p encoding format. But I bet more studios have been making interlaced disks to cover wider consumer market.
Click to expand...

Nope. Any movie you buy on DVD, unless it's among the very first ever put on disc (often a straight transfer of the laserdisc version), will be 24p. Any DVD player can play it. Any DVD player ever made.
 
glnf said:
It is not that easy to spot. It is not really a flickering but rather a slow pumping of the exposure. It shows much more in cinemas (or projections in a dark room) than on TV-sets. And of course the light source plays a crucial part. As a rule of thumb: Tungsten is OK, FLs can by problematic, streetlights can be very bad.
Click to expand...

Thanks.. I'll keep an eye on that
 
stonebat said:
http://www.paradiso-design.net/videostandards_en.html

Pretty good summary info to review. sometimes some terms still confuse me.

Before bluray's arrival, 24p wasn't a big deal. Progressive or interlaced.
Click to expand...

The "big deal" of 24p was never how it was delivered. It's what the frame rate does for the motion cadence. And, of course, the resolution gain over interlaced.

Inserting a 2:3 pulldown out to 60i for display doesn't sacrifice either of those things. Not sure why people STILL think that delivering 24p in a 60i stream means it takes on the characteristics of 60i in all respects, including the "video" look, but it doesn't.
 
stonebat said:
I think 24p will eventually win over 25p... I know it's such a bold statement... but Asia has the major TV makers and their domestic markets adapted NTSC.
Click to expand...
That will happen after most of the world switches their electric current to 60Hz.
 
Barry_Green said:
What additional market would they cover with an interlaced disk? Every DVD player has the ability to convert progressive discs to interlaced.

Recording and mastering in progressive format gives you a wider market base. You can then use that disc on a progressive player to a progressive tv, or on an interlaced player to an interlaced TV, or on a progressive player to an interlaced TV.

Recording and mastering in interlaced means that you are forever stuck with interlaced.
Click to expand...

Well this thread is not about i against p. But since we started: Isn't the same true for Interlaced? Ever player is capable of playing interlaced material and every TV-set can show it. But since modern TV-sets can't show interlaced material in its original manner (interlaced was introduced to reduce flicker on the fast cathode-ray tube) they have to perform some hocus-pocus with it. But hocus-pocus they do anyway.

By the way, have you ever seen a football (soccer) game in progressive? There are still places for interlaced shooting and recording. One reason why the progressive crowd often shouts for 50 or 60p. They just miss interlaced.
 
I see sports in 60p all the time. There's not a single thing about it which interlaced would make better.

I think you're attributing the motion cadence to it being interlaced, but that's not what does it. It's the frame rate. Motion-wise, 60p and 60i (or 50p and 50i) are identical. The progressive versions simply have higher resolution and no interlace artifacts.

(Besides, he was arguing about something other than simply interlaced vs. progressive.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top