Chris Johnston
Veteran
Their term, not mine. but about 4 times a month I do a Live "something" where people can watch in realtime.
do you mostly shoot 24p or 30p or 60p and why?
- Thread starter robfilms
- Start date
Their term, not mine. but about 4 times a month I do a Live "something" where people can watch in realtime.
Given that, should we be shooting 60i then as well? Because that's ultimately where it's going.
Chris Johnston
Veteran
If you're being argumentative cause it's the interwebs...
then yes, YOU should be shooting 60i.....strike that. YOU should be shooting 15 fps with a pxl 2000 for delivery to imax. ;-)
If you're not being argumentative, perhaps you could answer the question you quoted me on.
If you say, "you like the way it looks" OK.... (hell, I like the way 8mm looks) If not, please explain
then yes, YOU should be shooting 60i.....strike that. YOU should be shooting 15 fps with a pxl 2000 for delivery to imax. ;-)
If you're not being argumentative, perhaps you could answer the question you quoted me on.
If you say, "you like the way it looks" OK.... (hell, I like the way 8mm looks) If not, please explain
The fact that you're making a nonsensical point in no way means that my counter-argument is mere trolling.
And speaking of nonsensical...
Uh, okay.
Perhaps you're simply unaware that most television (especially broadcast) is delivered in either 1080i60 or 720p60. So, by your ill-concieved point, why are you not shooting 720p60 or 1080i60 for television?
I shoot primarily for the web and at 24p. I like the look of 24p, and it requires slightly less bandwidth than 30p (6 frames per second at an average of 5 minutes of length is 1,800 frames that don't have to be streamed). However, occasionally some of this material ends up broadcast, and for them it's not a problem to simply export out into whatever they need it to be. So I fail to see what the problem is.
One should pick the framerate for a particular reason, whether visual or technical in a sense that is relevent to the production at hand, not for some broadcast spec that will be archiac one day. Do you really want to deliver a project in 60i that, a few decades from now, will either look like crap in an all-progressive world or lose half of its resolution in order to deinterlace it?
Chris Johnston
Veteran
Gary, Didn't mean to imply trolling, just my unusual sense of humor. Seriously, I will try to explain my logic and responce to the OPs question about "FRAMERATE and WHY". If you don't see my logic, or don't agree with it, fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I shoot almost entirely at 1080 30p (I can't even recall the last time I handed off anything at 60i) (and to me, 60i SHOULD be called 30i because that's what it is...but that's not the world we live so....) I'm sure that we can both agree that the difference visually between 60i and 30p is minimal. (In some cases, depending on movement/content, any given framegrab you may not be able to tell the difference?) I shoot progressive because the post work flys better for me. Some stuff I have to run through Cineform first, some stuff I just edit AVCHD, I even have one local station that still broadcasts in 4x3 SD.
I don't think there is a problem really. As we both mentioned, Lots of stuff on tv was shot at 24FPS, and it looks perfectly acceptable. (Although, technically, we both know that some hardware/software combo somewhere is manufacturing a bunch of frames, which technically reduces the image quality.) If I have the opportunity to deliver the content at a framerate that minimises that image degradation, the I feel I have the obligation and responsibility for my client to do that. (even if they don't notice it.)
Unfortunantely, that spec frequently requires me to provide content in a format that meets a certain framerate, resolution, bitrate, etc etc. While we might both agree that at one point it may be "archiac", currently it is what it is, and I have to live with it.
No. To be honest, I don't care AT ALL what it will look like in a few decades. My obligation is to the client and making sure they are happy with the product when it is aired. After the rights are signed away and the check is cashed I try to forget about it. A few years ago I did some commercials for AARP and their "When I Grow Up" campaign. They were happy with the product, signed away the rights, check cashed, blah blah blah. Then a couple months later I see it being broadcast with a completely different voice over. I was pissed, but got over it quickly. It's theirs, not mine anymore. I certainly don't/won't care what it looks like in decades.
In short, and in responce to the OPs question, I think you should always shoot and deliver in the format that the product is going to be delivered in. (EDIT; or better) If you disagree, fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
as the dvxuser who posed the original question, i again want to thank all who have responded in sharing their work process.
the extended conversation has also been interesting in offering insights how there is never one way to accomplish what we do.
years ago when i started in this business i was so so very very sure that there was a right way and a wrong way for everything.
after many clients and many films and many audiences, i am far less convinced about my surety.
ymmv
be well.
rob
smalltalk productions
nyc
the extended conversation has also been interesting in offering insights how there is never one way to accomplish what we do.
years ago when i started in this business i was so so very very sure that there was a right way and a wrong way for everything.
after many clients and many films and many audiences, i am far less convinced about my surety.
ymmv
be well.
rob
smalltalk productions
nyc