are we all filmmakers now?

Cranky said:
Instead of pushing archaic 24fps into 21st century more energy has to be directed in devising a single universal frame rate for video and movies, or maybe a set of rates that convert more gracefully into each other.
Click to expand...

Archaic or not the fact that you bring this tired debate up in every other thread is trolling. I'm starting to get cranky...
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Archaic or not the fact that you bring this tired debate up in every other thread is trolling. I'm starting to get cranky...
Click to expand...
This is a pub... er cafe, isn't it?

What do you call when people want "that 24p thing" just because 24p is more "cinematic", this is what they have been told, though they themselves don't really care and often don't see a difference?

I was myself all for 24p, when it was used mainly for movies. Suspension of disbelief and stuff. But now seeing its proliferation into documentaries and even into home videos, I am not that thrilled. From what I've read, BBC increasingly uses 25p in projects that do not really require it, and many English viewers are not happy with the trend. Travel Channel uses 24p for many of its shows. These are reality shows, I mean, real people travelling in real world, what is wrong with reality frame rate?

Today I will go to Best Buy and ask for a consumer camcorder with 720p60. Maybe my request and me leaving without a purchase will help Best Buy realize that interlace sucks, but 24p sucks too. Maybe they will call Canon, Sony and Panasonic and tell them: "out customers demand 720p cameras", and the manufacturers will oblige. Yeah, right.

Trolling? No, I am just easily agitated :)
 
This is scary because this is exactly what happened with iMovie. Everyone became an editor overnight. I still have to convince clients that "real" editors (by that, I mean people who have spent years learning the craft) can improve a project IMMENSELY. It's not just butting scenes together. Just as it is not simply pushing the "record" button on the camera. Upside: a lot more stuff is produced. Downside: most of it is not worth watching.
 
Cranky said:
what is wrong with reality frame rate?
Click to expand...

The fact that reality doesn't have a frame rate...?

I wouldn't worry about what consumer tools' specs are "going to do" to the industry. 24P consumer cameras have been available for many years now, and I haven't noticed any negative impact upon actual professionals or their work. Like so many have pointed out, the equipment in your hands is not what makes (or fails to make) you a professional, or a film-maker.
 
Besides, it's the mindset behind creating better gear for consumers that no doubt helped yield the DSLR video option, that with it's problems and all still helps many more shooters achieve looks they didn't dream of previously.
Who knows what the next step will be? But it's company's trying to create things for regular people that end up making the best innovations.
 
I think a higher frame rate needs to be adopted for 3D films. The motion artifacts of 24p become problematic for polarized 3D imagery. The talk right now is going to 48p as it downscales easily to 24p and there isn't much improvement in motion rendering when you go above that. And with digital projection it's just a matter of pushing a button to change frame rate.
 
christriplet said:
I wanted to faint. Will the Canon hv30's, hv40's and Canon t2i's make everyone
think they are on the same level with Spielberg, Tarantino or Rodriquez?

God Help Us if it does!
​
Click to expand...

Uh . . . why?

Sorry; others have danced around this, delicately hinted at it, but I'll come right out and say it . . . this is a ridiculously insecure, elitist attitude. This is no different from professionals who were used to everything costing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars getting bent out of shape when 24p became available for only a few thousand dollars. Their "club," as they saw it, wasn't quite as exclusive as it used to be, and they found it threatening.

So what if grandmothers are shooting with 24p? So what if some kid thinks just having 24p makes him think he's Spielberg? Nothing will have changed. Nobody will do anything they weren't already doing with other video cameras. And no one is actually threatened that wouldn't have been anyway. The only people who should be worried are those whose stuff isn't very good themselves.

Did typewriters threaten John Steinbeck? Does MS Word threaten John Grisham? Did paintbrushes and easels threaten Picasso? Did any of them ever worry that "them common folk" had access to the same tools they do? Extremely unlikely. Do professional screenwriters worry that anyone can get Final Draft?

I worry more about people who think something should only be reserved for an insular group, myself.
 
Sad Max said:
I wouldn't worry about what consumer tools' specs are "going to do" to the industry. 24P consumer cameras have been available for many years now, and I haven't noticed any negative impact upon actual professionals or their work. Like so many have pointed out, the equipment in your hands is not what makes (or fails to make) you a professional, or a film-maker.
Click to expand...
The equipment makes an image fluid or stroby. It is orthogonal to the choice of shots and to the play of actors. With all other things being equal I would prefer watching a documentary with higher frame rate. The fascination with "film-like" images works against me. I watched just two Blu-ray discs from Ken Burn's National Parks series, and stopped. In a feature movie I follow the characters and don't pay much attention to background, so I can live with 24p. In a documentary I look at all these mountains and forests and rivers, and I would prefer to see them without stutter, after all HD promised to deliver image as if I am looking through a window. Sorry, I have no windows that exhibit stutter.

24p is no good for a granny. 60i is no good either. What a granny needs is 60p: easy to edit, no combing, no pulldown, just scale down for a DVD or drop every other frame and upload to the Web. Pure bliss.
 
^^It's funny, for some reason you quoted my post, then followed it with text that isn't in any way a response to the post.

I don't mind or anything, it's just kind of odd.
 
Cranky said:
24p is no good for a granny. 60i is no good either. What a granny needs is 60p: easy to edit, no combing, no pulldown, just scale down for a DVD or drop every other frame and upload to the Web. Pure bliss.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't granny get to choose what works for granny?
 
If she's really, really, really old, she's yearning for the days of nitrocellulose stocks and center perforations...
 
Okay, to all the 24p haters -- what is your problem? Leave us alone. You know what you can do? If you don't like the "stroby" look, the consumer electronics industry has a solution -- buy one of those sucktacular 120hz TV sets, and voila -- all your strobing complaints go away. Watch all your favorite movies in that "reality" look. Go right ahead, if that's what you want.

But for those of us who choose that frame rate specifically for the aesthetic it provides, why on earth do you feel compelled to take it away from us?

Reminds me of those who were chanting for film to die. Yay, that's just great -- let's make LESS choice available to the shooter, so we all win! (or something -- I've NEVER understood their logic).

If you don't like 24p, don't use it -- there's not a camera on the market (other than the early JVC HD100s) that offers 24p that doesn't also offer 60i or 60p. But for the rest of us, you can have our 24p when you pry it from our cold, dead fingers.
 
I said to a doctor who had just informed me he could buy my Arri 535, "I could buy a rocket but it wouldn't make me an astronaut."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top