GH2 24p is a hard sell on he public

Sun

Sun

Carbonite Member
To lay people who know nothing about video always pick 720P 60fps over 1080p 24p.

On the Pans and motion shots they notice the difference right away.

I have to say I'm disappointing that people are disappointed and disappointed that 24p is not the finished article. Does anybody realistically think 30p could happen when the hack rolls out?
 
Sun said:
To lay people who know nothing about video always pick 720P 60fps over 1080p 24p.

On the Pans and motion shots they notice the difference right away.

I have to say I'm disappointing that people are disappointed and disappointed that 24p is not the finished article. Does anybody realistically think 30p could happen when the hack rolls out?
Click to expand...


You can do 1080p@30fps today if you record audio externally (1080p@24fps + 80% slowmo mode + speed up in post to 30fps).

Test for audio drift with H4n here:

 
Sun said:
To lay people who know nothing about video always pick 720P 60fps over 1080p 24p.

On the Pans and motion shots they notice the difference right away.

I have to say I'm disappointing that people are disappointed and disappointed that 24p is not the finished article. Does anybody realistically think 30p could happen when the hack rolls out?
Click to expand...

As just about every major TV show and movie currently being shot digitally is shot at 24p I'd beg to differ. Only Japanese TV seems to be fixated with 30p...

Noah
 
there are a couple of interesting points about that.

i find that many of the "lay people" who have the issue with 24p. have often just seen a 24p clip where the cameraman wielded his camera as if it were an old 60i camera.

i do find it comforting that most people i know who own (or have at least watched at length) these 120/240hz/tru-motion/whatever TVs that turn beautiful films into video. tell me that the "look" of it freaks them out.
HOORAY! taste isnt completely dead among the masses!
 
Given the current technical infrastructure, 720p60 is probably the optimal direct-to-YouTube format for most people. Compared to 1080p, 720p looks smoother, shows less noticeable compression artifacts, and is less likely to glitch when streamed over the internet. YouTube videos are displayed in either a small embedded SD frame, or blown up to full-screen size. In either case, the perceived quality difference between 1080p and 720p is negligible. Underneath it all, there are no consumer videocams with fine enough optical resolution to truly resolve 1080 lines of video, not even the AF100 or 5DMkII. And if you're not prepared to put serious work into post-production, 24p video will not look like film straight out of the camera anyway.
 
lpowell said:
Given the current technical infrastructure, 720p60 is probably the optimal direct-to-YouTube format for most people. Compared to 1080p, 720p looks smoother, shows less noticeable compression artifacts, and is less likely to glitch when streamed over the internet. YouTube videos are displayed in either a small embedded SD frame, or blown up to full-screen size. In either case, the perceived quality difference between 1080p and 720p is negligible. Underneath it all, there are no consumer videocams with fine enough optical resolution to truly resolve 1080 lines of video, not even the AF100 or 5DMkII. And if you're not prepared to put serious work into post-production, 24p video will not look like film straight out of the camera anyway.
Click to expand...

I have it on good authority that just slapping a 'Technicolor' logo on a video from a 5D will make it look 'just like film'...

As it is I'm becoming less, and less inclined to even be serious with some of these types of threads.

I believe few 'lay' people even remotely think about frame rates, or 'video' vs. 'film', etc. Most Hollywood productions have sufficient post processing that few people are really disgusted with 'the poor quality' visuals... they are usually disgusted by the story, acting, or whatever... lack, or excessive, special FX, or whatever...

I also believe many people just get into filmmaking and 'point and shoot', are the greatest producers of complainworthy material, and it doesn't make a hill of beans difference if it was shot 24/25/30/60/120 fps...
 
Last edited:
I never thought about filming slow motion and speeding it up in post. It seems like bit of a hassle.
 
Sun said:
I never thought about filming slow motion and speeding it up in post. It seems like bit of a hassle.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it does work. It is currently the only way to get the highest bit rate at 30fps (on the GH2).
 
Lay people also always think louder sounds better and more contrast and brightness looks better.

60fps looks better than 24fps only because you have less time in between frames to screw it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top