filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com

[Loki]

Apparently 24p ends up as 29.97 fps with pulldown. And it's very hard to do 24 fps with cameras that shoot 24p on tape. I don't know this technology well, but this is what I've been told by people on user groups.

24pN is supposed to produce true 24 fps in projects displayed on 24 fps Plasma screens.

It is actually very very simple to do 24p on tape.. and even easier to bring it into FCP (or whatever NLE) as true 24 fps source material.

Have you been asleep or dormant for the past.. I dunno.. 6 years? where 24p on Tape has been more or less perfected.. and something the DVX has been doing from the start..

 

[Azmyth]

I think the one thing that Adam drummed into my head in this thread is the unlikelihood of a digital movie with no names and a tiny budget making it into theaters.

And if the distributors want to do theatrical, they will blow up even VHS to 35mm, so I give up on that argument :violent5:

I'm going to test out the Cine Frame 30 feature on the Sony Z1U. I have a feeling I will like it. So the fact that the 1080i 60i converts better to 24 fps film-out is of no concern for me with this project.

I think its more along the lines of the unlikelihood of ANY movie, regardless of how it was shot making it into theaters if it does not have name actors or some sort of "new and unique" premise that hollywood wants to exploit. Thats the entire point here, that your chances of a theatrical release have 0 to do with the format you shoot in as long as you maintain whatever the standards are for a theatrical release.

I'm curious to see what you do with your Z1U. I'm happy to see your going to go out and shoot something and not waste time trying to figure out how to fund 35mm before you have anything that would entice people to want to fund it.

 

[Zak Forsman]

The tone of the posts in this thread is getting out of hand. One more disparaging remark about another member's competency will earn you a free vacation from the site. Feedback and criticism are welcomed. Insults are not.

 

[lambert]

Absolutely Zak. Agree completely.

 

[Azmyth]

If I was one of those, I apologize.

 

[filmman]

24p > 23.98 timeline?

24p > 23.98 timeline?

It is actually very very simple to do 24p on tape.. and even easier to bring it into FCP (or whatever NLE) as true 24 fps source material.

Have you been asleep or dormant for the past.. I dunno.. 6 years? where 24p on Tape has been more or less perfected.. and something the DVX has been doing from the start..

I don't have a 24p camera (such as the DVX 100 and 100A), otherwise I would've asked you how do you capture 24p > FCP 5.04 and end up with 23.98.

But thanks for the comment. At least now I know even 24p and not just tape-less 24pN may be captured and edited in a 23.98 timeline.

 

[filmman]

This is no joke: is there anyone from Seattle? I need to get some 35mm film to someone shooting there tonight.

The FedEx shipment didn't get there in time.

 

[El Director]

I'm on the other side of the state in Spokane if that helps...

 

[filmman]

Spokane to Seattle 280 miles

Spokane to Seattle 280 miles

I'm on the other side of the state in Spokane if that helps...

I just checked the distance. It's 280 miles. According to Google it will take 4 hours and 30 minutes driving.

A filmmaker needs film tonight. You don't have 35mm film lying around, do you? But thanks for the quick reply.

Isn't there a film lab in Seattle? I seem to remember something about that. Film labs have film... I'm going to Google it.

 

[filmman]

Alpha Cine is not open on Saturday or Sunday. I thought they might have some film lying around. Oh, well, if you have any ideas were I can get some 35mm film in the Seattle area, please post something here or send me an email vic at felliniesque.com

 

[Barry_Green]

I think the Cine Frame 30 of the Sony Z1U is not the same look as the VHS 29.97 look of old TV. Any thoughts on that?

The "29.97" that everyone thinks they're familiar with, is actually a lie. It's 59.94 fields, not 29.97 frames -- VHS, the NTSC broadcast standard, everything. So 30p looks nothing like VHS. And Cineframe 30 won't look like it either.

Again though -- I wouldn't go that way, unless it was only for the web. Shooting 30p (or Sony's emulated 30p, cineframe 30) will pretty much rule out any ability to make a good-looking conversion for PAL.

If I was stuck doing a film on a Z1U, there's only one way I'd go: shoot 60i, then convert in post to 24p using DVFilm Maker software or Nattress Film Effects.

 

[filmman]

29.97 is not 29.97 frames per second ...

29.97 is not 29.97 frames per second ...

The "29.97" that everyone thinks they're familiar with, is actually a lie. It's 59.94 fields, not 29.97 frames -- VHS, the NTSC broadcast standard, everything. So 30p looks nothing like VHS. And Cineframe 30 won't look like it either.

Again though -- I wouldn't go that way, unless it was only for the web. Shooting 30p (or Sony's emulated 30p, cineframe 30) will pretty much rule out any ability to make a good-looking conversion for PAL.

If I was stuck doing a film on a Z1U, there's only one way I'd go: shoot 60i, then convert in post to 24p using DVFilm Maker software or Nattress Film Effects.

Wow, thanks for explaining this to me. I do want to go to the web primarily; but I don't want to rule out getting a nice PAL conversion either.

So I guess if I shoot 1080i 60i, I should be able to convert to 30p for the web?

What is the best way to do the conversion with FCP 5.04?

 

[Nathyn]

Yes, this is the best way to do it.

-Nate

 

[Barry_Green]

So I guess if I shoot 1080i 60i, I should be able to convert to 30p for the web?

Yes, this is absolutely a trivial task. In fact, that's all the Sony does anyway -- when you put it in Cineframe 30 mode, it just drops one field out of each field pair. You could get identical results in post.

 

[taormina]

The tone of the posts in this thread is getting out of hand. One more disparaging remark about another member's competency will earn you a free vacation from the site. Feedback and criticism are welcomed. Insults are not.

Hey, just be glad you don't have to cull all the FAIL out of this thread!:tongue::tongue:

 

[Kholi]

I just read this entire thread while waiting for people to come so I can go and party...

Wow.

Let the man be, one, and two--Filmman--you should probably just roll a production and let your work speak for itself.

Gotta love User.

 

[Barry_Green]

As Zak was stating, politeness and respectful behavior are prequalifications for participating on DVXUser. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. Let's get back on the supportive/informative bandwagon, and less on the personal, please.

 

[David Jimerson]

Actually the difference they spot is interlaced and non interlaced. I've actually tested this on average viewers so don't tell me I'm wrong. For filmmakers, yes, we can tell. But the audience can't. As soon as you go progressive, they won't know or care.

They would absolutely be able to the tell the difference between 24p or 30p, and 60p. What hardly anyone could tell the difference between is 60i and 60p -- even experienced eyes, depending on the display medium.

It isn't interlaced vs. progressive which makes the difference. It's the time sampling. 24p and 30p are really close together, and thus are harder to tell apart. But 60p isn't, and it's easy.

Also, the more motion there is an a shot, the more "average" people can tell the difference between 24p and 30p. Those 6 motion samples per second do make a difference. You can't just show them relatively static shots and expect them to tell the difference. It's all about the motion.

And, typical shutter speeds make a difference, too. 24p is usually shot at 1/48 or very close to it; 30p is usually shot at 1/60. Relative to the frame rate, that's about the same (and would be 180 degrees at both frame rates on a film camera). The shutter is "closed" for half of each frame's exposure. But 60i/60p are usually shot at 1/60, which means the shutter is open all the time, and that very much helps with what we think of as the "video" look, not whether it's interlaced or progressive. If you made the 60i shutter speed 1/120, you might think it looks more "film"-like, even when it's interlaced. Likewise, you lower the shutter speeds on either 24p or 30p, you'll start seeing them as more video-like.

 

[David Jimerson]

Actually it's not. The average viewer won't be able to tell the difference. They'll notice interlaced vs progressive before they'll be able to tell you what frame rate a picture was shot on. And many cameras don't shoot true 24p. It's simulated like the old Canon XL2.

The Canon XL2 shoots actual 24p.

 

[David Jimerson]

That's what I found out by researching it, El. 24p, when captured in FCP, for example, plays as 29.97 fps.

Not on a 23.98 timeline, if pulldown is removed.

And all 24p digital movies and 24 fps 35mm or 16mm movies telecined -- all play as 29.97 on all analogue TVs. There are only a few Plasma TVs that display 24 fps progressively; all the others display everything as 29.97.

That's true, but it still retains the motion cadence and overall look of 24p or 24 fps.

One of the experts on another user group pointed out something very interesting about the look of 24 fps that we associate with the film look. He said that our perception of 24 fps and the whole film look phenomenon has to do with how we perceive the telecined movies we see on TVs and monitors. In other words, the film look is really the 29.97 fps of 35mm films telecined and displayed on TVs -- that's the 24 fps film look.

But it's not. You're still only seeing 24 pictures per second, not 30 -- or 60, as you would with video. Some of those pictures are repeated to pad out the time, but it's still 24 pictures per second, and the overall look is retained. It does not look perceptibly different on a TV screen than it does when you watch it in the theater.