24 p what is it good for?

Would anybody be so kind to explain what the current discussion has to do with the original topic, what 24p is good for?

The current discussion seems primarily about RED or other cameras being superior (or not) to the GH2. Is that with respect to higher frame rate (i.e. in the context of the thread), or in a different context (i.e. off-topic)?

Thanks...
 
Technology isn't everything. Creativity is critical. But we upgrade to GH2. We like playing with new toys if we can afford. That's all.
 
Hey again nice heady debate and thanks Barry and David...indeed lets get back on topic . 24p sucks haha ;-)

But p.s I never once said Black swan was a indipendant film but it was however I used this example as it was shot with a variety of cameras that are not RED and has been taken pretty seriously which is my point when it IS possible to shoot with dslrs and look great on the cinema screen..it shows DSLRs can be used as a serious filmaking tool....even with its limitations.
 
roei z said:
the subway shots with the dslr in Black swan have that dreadful canon look
Click to expand...



This is off topic but depite liking my GH2 there is no way i would call the footage i got from my 550D that dreadful canon look, some of the canon users are so biased as to canon superior so called film look but i never tried for that with mine and the colors are not much different on my GH2,regarding quote that dreadful canon look are you refering to canon on line films made specificaly with with the film look or user experience.
 
Sorry, I guess I meant the soft look I always
Identify with canon dslrs, which I personally don't like.
nothing like the gh2, I must say.
 
mimirsan said:
But p.s I never once said Black swan was a indipendant film but it was however I used this example as it was shot with a variety of cameras that are not RED and has been taken pretty seriously which is my point when it IS possible to shoot with dslrs and look great on the cinema screen..it shows DSLRs can be used as a serious filmaking tool....even with its limitations.
Click to expand...

OK, if you're still on about RED and still think we said DSLRs can't be used for anything, then you haven't really paid attention to much of what we've said -- but I hope anyone else reading has taken our points to heart, because they do represent the reality of production. Everyone initially wants to believe they can produce amazing work for $100 and sheer plucky genius, but reality is otherwise. (Everyone always thinks all they need is one good shotgun microphone, too.) And there's nothing wrong with believing that -- initially. But if you don't grow past it and make an effort to understand how -- and why -- things really are, and what better tools really do for you, you're never going to get anywhere.

Which is, bottom line, the concern Barry and I both have in thread. Look, as I said, you can use little foam edge brushes to paint a whole room, but it'll take you three days and a lot of backbreaking work. Or you can knock it out in an hour with a roller and barely ever leave a standing position -- and when you're done, you won't see all the little brush strokes when the light hits the wall. Either way, the room gets painted, but I don't think it takes much to figure out which is the preferable way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top