30P vs. 24P

Re: 30P vs. 24P

It's interesting, when I was shooting a lot of 16mm TV spots back in the early 1990's, we very often ran the film cameras (Arri 16SR's) at 29.97 so that we could do the film to tape xfr also at 29.97. The theory was that it gave 16mm more of a 35mm look and made for a cleaner transfer. Funny, the film guys are out shooting at 30 and the video guys who are already at 30 are shooting 24, maybe one day we'll all meet at 27...
 
Re: 30P vs. 24P

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=Events;num=1090204590;start=0#11 date=07/19/04 at 05:20:20]

The 20% difference in frame rate between 24p and 30p is not all that much.  With HDTV moving toward 30p, a lot of us will be shooting in this in any case.  [/quote]

To support your point the Japanese don't use 24p with HD, don't understand why we would want it, and just provide it because we are a major market. All HD in Japan is 30p or 60i. I think they have even professed a desire for 60p at some point. In talking with them they feel that with HD you want the sharpest image possible and anything that introuduces blur is counter productive.

Okay, who wants 60p... raise your hands people... :-)
 
Re: 30P vs. 24P

..yeah, IMHO the biggest reason that motion pictuers havent swithced to a video framerate, is that that motion blur and motion rendering gained from the slower 24 fps (at standard 180 degree shutter) give the image a more dreamlike, and otherworldly appearance,, rather than the reality look of video. most people want to see and feel a part of somthing larger than normal life when watching a film.. and its generally accepted that those particular qualities of 24p help the audience sort of get caught up and lose themselvs in the "dream" that is being presented.

obviously its been may years where 30 fps films would have been very feesible.. but the change has not been made. its sort of like asking someone why they would rebuild an old model T and drive it around.. when the new cars do everything better and easier.. well its just not the same feeling now is it?
 
Re: 30P vs. 24P

That's I think the thing.

Today, people associate the 24P look with "professionalism"...because, until recently, only people shooting with large budgets could afford to shoot film (forget 8mm, that just looks horrid :P)

So, because video was cheaper, every aesthetic characteristic associated with video has become "cheap" in our minds, both the 30fps, lack of latitude, etc. I mean, filmmakers have done their best to eliminate grain, dust, and weave from their footage for years! And now, with that not being an issue, we try to emulate it, because it is the "professional" look.

24 Frames per second has been the standard mainly because it's the lowest frame rate possible that can sync up easily with sound (remember, 18fps was the standard pre-sound era). Nobody cared whether or not 30 frames per second, 48 frames per second, or 100 frames per second was better or not, because when processing film, it being such an expensive process, you increase your costs unnecesarily. 24 FPS was a choice made out of money, I think, rather than art.


Now, I'm the first to promote 24P. It *does* indeed look professional, and I personally like the look of it over 30P and 60i. But I'm also the first to admit that I may in fact just be tainted because I want to be a professional, and this emulates the professional frame rate.

Either way, whatever they choose will be fine for our children's children, if 24P went gone like the Do-Do, they'd think the professional standard WAS 30P (or 60i, for that matter) - because it *would* be.
 
Re: 30P vs. 24P

[quote author=Mitch_Ives link=board=Events;num=1090204590;start=15#21 date=07/20/04 at 09:29:43]
Okay, who wants 60p... raise your hands people...    :-)[/quote]
60P exists as part of the HDTV standard. 1280 x 720 x 60P. The Panasonic VariCam shoots 1280x720x60P already. And any HDTV set can display it.
 
Re: 30P vs. 24P

..good observations mike :)

however.. interestingly enough, 24p was first used because of a random chance based off of a bet! and later adopted as a standard.

heres the scoop ..taken from cybercollege.com:

It started with a $25,000 bet.  

In 1877, that was a lot of money.

Edward Muybridge, an Englishman tuned American, needed to settle a bet.  Some people argued that a galloping horse had all four feet off of the ground at the same time at some point; others said this would be impossible.  (No feet touching the ground; how could that be!?)

The problem was that galloping hooves move too fast for the eye to see.  Or, maybe, depending on your belief, just fast enough that you could see what you wanted to.

Definitive proof was needed.

To settle the bet once and for all — the argument had been raging for decades — Muybridge hired a photographer to set up 24 cameras along a race track to snap still pictures in a rapid sequence as a horse galloped by.

When the pictures were developed, it was found that the horse did indeed have all four feet off the ground during brief moments, thus, settling the bet.

But, during this process they found out something else — something that was to eventually make that $25,000 look like pocket change.  

When the pictures were viewed in rapid succession, an illusion of motion was created.  

A motion picture!

Later, we would give impressive names to the two factors that created this illusion of motion — the illusion that lies at the base of both motion pictures and television.

The phi phenomenon that explains why, when your view a series of slightly different still photos or images in rapid succession, an illusion of movement is created in the transition between the images.

Persistence of vision, which explains why the intervals between the successive images merge into a single image as our eyes hold one image long enough for the next one to take its place.
In actual fact, there is nothing moving in motion pictures.  It's all an illusion based on these two phenomena.  Note in the illustration on the left that an illusion of motion is created, even when successive pictures are presented at a relatively slow rate.

Motion picture projectors present images much faster, at 24-frames per-second, with each of those frames flashed on the screen twice. This high speed makes the transition between images virtually invisible.

So, as a result of a $25,000 bet, the foundation for motion pictures and television was inadvertently established.


But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Although the foundation may have been laid, watching a series of drawings or still photos flip by is very different than sitting back and watching a movie.  

To see how the process got started, we need to back up to 1822. In that year, Joseph Nicéphore Nicepce in France was first able to produce a crude photographic image. But, it was Lous Daguerre in 1839, who came up with a process that could actually be considered photography.

His photos were referred to as daguerreotypes. (Note: If you invent something, you can name it after yourself and be famous throughout history!)

But, there were obvious problems with this process — in addition to everyone having to learn how to spell daguerreotype.

The only way to capture real-life images was to make metal plates light-sensitive by painting them with a liquid solution while you were in a darkroom, and then running out and exposing them one at a time in a camera, and then running back into the darkroom and developing them. Not a simple or fun process.

A gentleman by the name of Hannibal Goodwin greatly simplified the process in 1889, when he developed a transparent, pliable film base called celluloid.

The next step was to create long strips of film where a series of still pictures could be captured in rapid succession. Cameras and projectors were developed that could do this at a rate of 16 frames per-second. (The rate was later moved up to 18, and eventually to 24 per-second.)

A few years later the concept was adopted by George Eastman of Eastman Kodak fame.  He added some of his own innovations, and eventually standardized the film for cameras and projectors.


heres the direct link:

http://www.cybercollege.com/frtv/frtv001.htm
 
Re: 30P vs. 24P

Just a note that there (was?) higher frame rates available for specialty films. Showscan ran at 60fps (originally 72x). When shot on 65mm and projected it provided a much more 'real' feeling. You could see every wing beat in a bird flight as well as water splashes. Detail was amazing on the big screen, such that new makeup techniques had to be used. This format has been used for some simulator rides and special theaters since it provided more of a sense of motion. (like live video on the big screen) BrainStorm (the movie) was planned to be shot 24 for live action and 60 fps for dream sequences. (in special theaters) That never happened due to budget issues.

There have been some others such as 48fps used in simulators.
 
Re: 30P vs. 24P

I'm also not *particularly* convinced that "convergence" is coming with the speed and alacrity that it's given credit for.  It "seems" logical, even inevitable, but history is strewn with the burned-out carcasses of predictions of engineers and "intellectuals" as to what future society will look like . . . people have this funny habit of doing what they want do, rather than what some egghead thinks they should do . . .  ::)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top