72030pn vs. 72024pn

R

rileypoor

Member
Could someone please explain the benefits/differences of shooting in both 30pn and 24pn. I believe it will be easier to integrate P2 files with HDV footage at 29.9 correct? If someone could take a moment to explain their take on the differences and benefits of each I would much appreciate it.

This may sound naive but I was wondering if 30 looks better going to 24 in post rather than 24 going to 30? I would imagine it would.
 
24 gives the look and feel of film. 30 doesn't, 30 gives you a hybrid look that's sort of between film and video.

What type of footage will you be mixing with? You said HDV at 29.9, but that's not enough info. Is it just straight interlaced 60i HDV? If so, and you want the P2 footage to match, you'd be better off shooting 1080/60i on the P2 cameras...
 
Thanks Barry!

Thanks Barry!

Thanks I appreciate the advice on the 24 vs 30. I had found in my research and after speaking to a friend who shoots the camera quite a bit that I should be shooting 24pn.
He also told me the only real reason to shoot in 30pn is if your shooting for TV and even then you can bring the 24 footage to 29 with compressor and it will look fine. Is this true?

The other footage that will be mixed into the project will be 16mm film and possibly some HD footage shot from the big Sony F900's

Please feel free to leave any other comments.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that 24p is so idealized as being the standard, when actually the only reason they ever went with 24 frames a second was because the studio execs figured out that was the minimum number of frames you could get away with per second and still have smooth motion. I just wonder how much longer the 24fps standard will last. I'm not convinced it's truly some supreme number that "just makes sense."

Also I think a lot of times what people like to define as the "film look" may be indeed "the film look" but it's not the be-all professional look. For instance, if someone's idea of truly the ultimate visual standard is to see 24 frames per second with a certain grain texture, etc., that's fine, it's a preference, but that doesn't make it factually the best output for any type of shooting. I think sometimes there is absolutely such thing as too clean of a look, that is sometimes associated with "the video look," like you may not be going for a smooth, crystal sharp image, it may ruin the look of what you're trying to do. In that case, though, I have to disagree with people who want to make a big fuss about the way you acquire the footage, i.e. we want a high resolution, grainy film look, let's go shoot with 35mm. No, shoot with the RED One, for instance, add grain in post, and do whatever else you want in post too, bleach bypass, etc. There once was a time where to get any look you needed to shoot with film and color correct it appropriately in a telecine lab with a colorist. But that's just not the case anymore. Everything can and should be done in digital post-production with digital programs. It's irrelevant I suppose what I think, though, because that'll be the reality whether people like it or not in a short order of time. You can't tell whether something was shot with film or digital if it was put together properly. If you didn't tell audience members that Attack of the Clones was shot with the Sony F900 they would have no clue. That's proven by the fact they actually tested the F900 on The Phantom Menace for several shots, never revealed which shots those were, and nobody has been able to say "that shot, that one, and that one were the digital ones." Of course not. It's also funny though because you have people who insist they can tell film versus digital, when really it's not possible with even a camera as good as the F900 and that's not that good of a camera relatively speaking today (it's like, what, seven years old and shoots 1080p). I'm sure it's true that film can be scanned at 4k, but I think it's an irrelevant fact for the most part because 1080p footage can be output to film prints and look the same as footage acquired in 35mm.

I can't tell much of a difference between 24p and 30p personally, not if the lighting was great, the camera was great, etc. I think you notice elements like that more. I am just not sure what it would look like if you had 48 frames per second instead of 24.
 
cool thanks for the extra insights! After a small test shoot looking at the footage in post it looks like 24 may be the best for me. As I understand it for DVD replication and web uses you are best of shooting in the 24pn mode and as I said if you are shooting a specific project for Television then you may want to shoot in 29.9 as that is the TV standard.

For anyone trying to match a "film look or feel" to their footage 24 may be the best way to go.

feel free to put me in my place as I am just learning all of this and am fully open to corrections or comments!

Thanks DVXusers!
 
rileypoor said:
cool thanks for the extra insights! After a small test shoot looking at the footage in post it looks like 24 may be the best for me. As I understand it for DVD replication and web uses you are best of shooting in the 24pn mode and as I said if you are shooting a specific project for Television then you may want to shoot in 29.9 as that is the TV standard.!
Click to expand...

Not really. It's entirely an artistic choice. That should be what you worry about first; final output form can be managed no matter what you choose. Decide what you want it to LOOK like; don't worry about technobabble concerning output until you get there.
 
JonathanLB said:
It's interesting that 24p is so idealized as being the standard, when actually the only reason they ever went with 24 frames a second was because the studio execs figured out that was the minimum number of frames you could get away with per second and still have smooth motion. I just wonder how much longer the 24fps standard will last. I'm not convinced it's truly some supreme number that "just makes sense."
Click to expand...

24p is not idealized as the "Supreme" number. It's just the number of fps that associates with film. There is a whole philosophy of why 24 frames is chosen in contrast to any other framerate. But it's not because it's a superior number, maybe more... adequate per say. There are film cameras nowadays that have the ability to record 48 frames per second. It's not that 24 is a supreme, but that's what film has identified itself with.
 
the whole 24fps is based upon persistance of vision, basically how many frames of motion it takes for the human eye to see it as a fluid motion. but i feel that at certain times things look better being shot at 30p, or 60p. i shoot mostly action sports stuff, and it doesnt really look the best at times in 24 because of the fast motion, so i shoot that at 30p. but thats my feel for it and others may shoot differently.
 
Last edited:
Basically, I'd say, if your product has anything to do with actual film (either film sources or a film-out of the final product), you'll want to work in some form of 24p (the 30->24 conversion is relatively ugly). However, if your project is video all the way through, and especially if a good percentage of your clientelle will be watching on older non-progressive TVs, then 30p may be desireable. It looks better on an interlaced TV than 24p... as the Green Barry said, it's sort of an intermediate that gives you a "filmic look" at a frame rate that works better with (non-progressive) video displays. It's also a little more forgiving of less-than perfect camera motion!

-Barry
 
Shoot a sequence in 24P and again in 30P and see if you can tell the difference, all other things being equal. IMHO, I think the "P" is more of a factor in the film look than the 24. I find it much easier to shoot fast motion and pans in 30P, in fact, guidelines for shooting film restrict the speed of a pan because 24fps is not able to handle a fast pan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top