60i or 24P
- Thread starter lynx
- Start date
It depends entirely on what your artistic goals are.
jdmoviemaker
Well-known member
yeah
yeah
I agree with David 100% , you may want 24p for one project and 60i for the next , If its supposed to be a cine-like film , I say go 24p . Play around with it for a while and be creative
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
yeah
I agree with David 100% , you may want 24p for one project and 60i for the next , If its supposed to be a cine-like film , I say go 24p . Play around with it for a while and be creative
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)film is film video is video,video shows the world as it is film makes it look romantic,all this 50i 25p [uk]is rubbish video is video film is film.
Beeblebrox
Well-known member
I always shoot 24p. I just like the look of it better, even for stuff that usually has more of a "video" look. I produced a reality show pilot last year and it's shot in 24p as well. Gives it more of a feature documentary look.
Kevin Dorsey
Veteran
He doesn't have a film camera, he has a Canon XH-A1. And if shooting a short with that camera, 24p would lend itself better to a narrative project, IMO. Lynx, check compatibility with FC studio 2 and the 24f and 30f modes with the Canon cameras.
jdmoviemaker
Well-known member
you fogot about -frames per second- , film cameras run at 24fps wich is why movies have so much more of a in-depth picture. It would look much different if you filmed a movie in 60i.
jdmoviemaker
Well-known member
there is no "best"
there is no "best"
there is no better , 60i is good and 24p is good. If you want to soot a movie , shoot in 24p. If you want to shoot a documentary , I would go with 60i.
they are both good in their own ways , Its like apples and oranges. You want to use the apple for apple juice , and you want to use the orange for orange juice. My point: they are both good , but you need to know what you are doing first. You don't see football games in 24p , you usually don't see a talk show in 24p , so why would you want to choose.
if your main goal is to shoot a movie , shoot in 24p
if your main goal is to shoot a reality tv show , documentary , talk show or a football game , shoot in 60i ( you dont have to , but if you want the best for what you are doing , shoot in a frame-rate that works the best.
there is no "best"
there is no better , 60i is good and 24p is good. If you want to soot a movie , shoot in 24p. If you want to shoot a documentary , I would go with 60i.
they are both good in their own ways , Its like apples and oranges. You want to use the apple for apple juice , and you want to use the orange for orange juice. My point: they are both good , but you need to know what you are doing first. You don't see football games in 24p , you usually don't see a talk show in 24p , so why would you want to choose.
if your main goal is to shoot a movie , shoot in 24p
if your main goal is to shoot a reality tv show , documentary , talk show or a football game , shoot in 60i ( you dont have to , but if you want the best for what you are doing , shoot in a frame-rate that works the best.
txsbluesguy
Active member
24-25-30-30
24-25-30-30
ok I really don't post too much in these type discussions because it its pointless to hash all this out again ...... but a visit to the dentist this morning has left me cranky and resolve never to comment really low along with hearing a comment similar to this yesterday ...... so here's my statement FWIW
"film cameras run at 24fps which is why movies have so much more of a in-depth picture"
I cant tell you how many time I've heard that a movie is movie because of 24FPS. I've even heard that 24fps has been left that way to keep it looking different than video more dream like and less real so the viewer is more likely to suspend disbelief and buy into the story ...
its economics and engineering ..... no art involved
24 fps is the slowest they can project with a two bladed shutter and not have it flicker. two bladed shutters were chosen because they pass more light than ones with more blades. better light efficiency means brighter screen which customers love. also less heat and less powerful lamps. which the theater owners love Any other frame rate does the same any slower the picture flickers any faster and they use more film. it is the crossover point between customers eyeballs and studios pocketbooks.
PAL 25 FPS and NTSC 30 FPS have 50 fields and 60 fields per second respectively. 50 fields per second is 50 Hz. 60 fields is 60 hz. AC distribution in UK is 50hz. in the us it's 60 hz. Europe didnt pick 25 FPS because its closer to film it was used because there would be less circuits necessary to convert the AC cycles. the same with the US and its 60/30 relationship.
Forget the FPS and all of the hype if there is something that people notice its will be the interlace vs progressive. tape something in 30p and something in 24p and ask 100 people and see how many can tell the difference.
better yet do a bad movie in 24p and do a good one in 30p and see which one people pick
24-25-30-30
ok I really don't post too much in these type discussions because it its pointless to hash all this out again ...... but a visit to the dentist this morning has left me cranky and resolve never to comment really low along with hearing a comment similar to this yesterday ...... so here's my statement FWIW
"film cameras run at 24fps which is why movies have so much more of a in-depth picture"
I cant tell you how many time I've heard that a movie is movie because of 24FPS. I've even heard that 24fps has been left that way to keep it looking different than video more dream like and less real so the viewer is more likely to suspend disbelief and buy into the story ...
its economics and engineering ..... no art involved
24 fps is the slowest they can project with a two bladed shutter and not have it flicker. two bladed shutters were chosen because they pass more light than ones with more blades. better light efficiency means brighter screen which customers love. also less heat and less powerful lamps. which the theater owners love Any other frame rate does the same any slower the picture flickers any faster and they use more film. it is the crossover point between customers eyeballs and studios pocketbooks.
PAL 25 FPS and NTSC 30 FPS have 50 fields and 60 fields per second respectively. 50 fields per second is 50 Hz. 60 fields is 60 hz. AC distribution in UK is 50hz. in the us it's 60 hz. Europe didnt pick 25 FPS because its closer to film it was used because there would be less circuits necessary to convert the AC cycles. the same with the US and its 60/30 relationship.
Forget the FPS and all of the hype if there is something that people notice its will be the interlace vs progressive. tape something in 30p and something in 24p and ask 100 people and see how many can tell the difference.
better yet do a bad movie in 24p and do a good one in 30p and see which one people pick
jdmoviemaker
Well-known member
there are going to be people out there who can tell the ddifference, 24p is 24p and 30p is 30p. The point is , that people notice the quality of the film. You do a 60i motion picture , and all you see is a cheap movie done with a wal-mart handycam. 24P gives the look that moviemakers want , and if moviemakers desire the look of a 60i videocamera, they might as well use one!!! Why even waste money on a pro videocamera if you are going to film in 60i. You ask PRO moviemakers on what they would use and you would get at least 98% of 24p.
You have to think of the tech. when making a movie , because if every movie was gone out and shot with a 60i handycam , you have a bunch of indies with wal-mart cameras going out and filming motion picture film that you see in the theatres. If everyone used 60i it would put panavision , sony cinealta and arriflex out of the picture and every director you see will be at wal-mart looking for there video camera that there going to shoot their next million $ film with.
You do realized that there are 60i only cameras out there are are of amazingly good quality and are many times more expensive than your prosumer 24p camera right? Exactly, people do noticed the quality of the film. I've seen plenty of 24p stuff that looks exactly like it was shot with a "wal-mart handycam" because of poor lighting, blocking, shot choices etc. Then I've seen 60i movies that are indistinguishable from expensive motion picture.
I've always wanted to try an experiment. Take two clips shot identically, one with 60i and one with 24p and have an average group of movies goer look at both and pick the one they liked. I suspect most of them can't tell the difference.
No it's not what the filmmaker wants. The point made above is that 24 fps isn't a framerate handed down from above that make everything filmlike. It's a compromise that happened to survive the test of time and now everybody is buying into it.
Again, the quality is in the film, NOT the camera. According to your logic everybody with a DVX would be rich and famous because all their films are worthy of theatrical distribution.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
jdmoviemaker
Well-known member
what I was trying to say was if directors used 60i video instead of film cameras , a director might as well go to wal-mart and buy a 60i camera. It sounded a little wierd when it was on my reply
but you are right. I can understand what you are saying , but the only way you are going to get film like video is from 24p.
If my last reply sounded a little strange because I did not know how to really explain it.
but if you ARE filming in 60i it does not mean you are not making a movie, you are just using a different method of FILMING a movie.
but I will say myself I would choose 24p for a movie :beer:
sorry for the confusion :dankk2:
but you are right. I can understand what you are saying , but the only way you are going to get film like video is from 24p.
If my last reply sounded a little strange because I did not know how to really explain it.
but if you ARE filming in 60i it does not mean you are not making a movie, you are just using a different method of FILMING a movie.
but I will say myself I would choose 24p for a movie :beer:
sorry for the confusion :dankk2:
I've run this experiment, as have many others on this site. What can I say? You're wrong. If there's MOVEMENT, people can tell. They can't necessarily describe the difference, but they can tell. And by "they," I mean almost everyone.
If you want to try it yourself, try it with some nicely-lit smoke in the background.
Keep in mind, you have to show it to them on a screen which can really SHOW the difference, i.e., a TV screen; computer screens and projectors de-interlace.
Dan Vance
DVXUser Sponsor
Just to keep the history straight, 24fps was chosen when 'talkies' came out, so that the sound could be recorded optically on the edge of the film. The minimum speed to eliminate flicker with a two-bladed shutter is 18 fps, as the 'flicker-fusion' frequency of the human eye is (about) 35 Hz.
The 'argument' that 24fps was a choice due to the technology is not really relevant, as the choice of speed is very subjective. If for some reason films had started out with 60i, just for the sake of discussion, there would still be reasons to try different frame rates. If it was a totally 60i world, there would still be people, maybe lots of them, who upon seeing something shot at 24P, would go "Wow! What a cool effect. I'm going to shoot my film at 24P!"
The point is that there are no 'good' or 'bad' frame rates, it all just depends on the look you want or like.
The 'argument' that 24fps was a choice due to the technology is not really relevant, as the choice of speed is very subjective. If for some reason films had started out with 60i, just for the sake of discussion, there would still be reasons to try different frame rates. If it was a totally 60i world, there would still be people, maybe lots of them, who upon seeing something shot at 24P, would go "Wow! What a cool effect. I'm going to shoot my film at 24P!"
The point is that there are no 'good' or 'bad' frame rates, it all just depends on the look you want or like.
Beeblebrox
Well-known member
For what it's worth, I have never ever in all my years seen anything shot at 60i that was indistinguishable from an expensive motion picture. They look utterly and completely different from each other. It's not a quality difference. It's a difference in the way the picture is generated. A picture acquired and exhibited in 60i, whether SD or HD, has that "live" look, like most late-night talk shows, reality shows, and sporting events. Even narratives, like soaps or some of the early HD productions in 60i have this look, and there is simply no mistaking it for film.
artificial p
artificial p
all this p and film talk amuses me,motion pictures have been given a romantic look from the early days,no one can say these films looked like the real world now that p recording is the great in thing with video anything other than p recording for films is frowned on,i find this reasoning arrogant.the world looks as it is p wont alter this.
artificial p
all this p and film talk amuses me,motion pictures have been given a romantic look from the early days,no one can say these films looked like the real world now that p recording is the great in thing with video anything other than p recording for films is frowned on,i find this reasoning arrogant.the world looks as it is p wont alter this.
I'm now shooting 24p only in SD or HDV. Mostly due to if people are watching my DVD's on a DVD player hooked up to a HDTV (LCD or Plasma like more and more people every year.) the footage shot, edited and delivered at 24p (23.97) looks far superior on a progressive monitor, such as LCD, Plasma or DLP. If it was a Standard Def Tube TV. Then you can't tell. Why? 24p and not 30p or 60p? Standard Def DVD format (box top units) only recognize 60i and 60i (24f with a 2:3 pull down from a 60i source) this signal is recombined in the DVD player then sent out through the HDMI cable or Component cables to the HDTV (LCD) in a progressive image. 24p source looks stunning, 30p or 60i looks like interlacing video regardless how you encode it. I haven't tried 60p since I'm running FCP Studio 1 which doesn't have that option.