GH5 Game Over, Panasonic

dvbrother said:
I really dislike the look of 60p for narrative. One interesting approach is something I think James Cameron mentioned for the upcoming (shudder) Avatar movies: variable frame rates within the film. If I remember correctly, he wanted the dialogue and "normal" scenes to be 24p but when the action/camera movement demanded it, the frame rate would dynamically ramp to 48 or 60p. With film projection, this was impossible. But with modern digital projection, multiple frame rates within a single film are possible. Just as Cameron forced the exhibition industry to update to 3D with Avatar, I expect him to force dynamic frame rates with the release of his future films. Say what you will about him, he has always pushed the envelope of cinematic technology.
Click to expand...
That sounds even more terrible than movies jumping between wide screen an IMAX 4:3. Jarring. Takes you out of the story.
 
Ron Evans said:
All the stuff I have done since shooting film in the 60's is to record an event and the goal every time was to make it appear live. I was delighted when I moved to video away from 18 or 24 fps so that I shot in 60i for a much smoother real look. Clearly counter to the goals of most of you. My aim was not to make a movie but to record a live event as close as possible to what one would have seen if one was there. I fully understand the effects of slower frame rates and grading to create the desired emotional effects. However the effect I want is to be there and at most looking through a clear window. I shoot UHD60P on both my GH5 and GH5S one not moving at all the other different framing but most of the time also not moving. Shutter is at 1/60 ( all my stuff is indoors ) so is a little motion blur so not starkly sharp. Mainly edit in a 60i project ( allows me to crop/pan/zoom into the UHD file ) and go to DVD or Bluray at 60i.
Click to expand...
Why do you interlace?
 
joe12south said:
Why do you interlace?
Click to expand...

1920x1080 Bluray is only interlace sample rate of 60 ( you should have noted I do not like slow frame rates , I like the smooth movement ) and for DVD the spec is also interlace . 60P is not an option for either. 1280x720 is an option at 60P for Bluray but for me I can see the resolution difference and 1920x1080 interlace on most modern TV's is sharper.
 
stoneinapond said:
How about Camembert vs Brie?
Click to expand...
Exactly!

The whole idea that one is better than the other and that you would not be able to make a movie with 60p is in my opinion sheer nonsense.
And no, people who like 60p are not necessarily unartistic.

I'd suggest we call the whole thing off in 24p!

 
I love James Cameron and I am sad that people give him so much crap constantly. This guy pushes the envelope and has the guts to actually experiment and question norms and really push forward visual experiences and question long held paradigms. I don't think there needs to be fear there about everything changing around him, there is room for both - and frankly I celebrate his creativity and technical contributions. I am extremely excited to see what he does with Avatar 2-5 and I love that he is experimenting with blending high budget cinema with long-term TV style narratives. Long duration storytelling (think Breaking Bad, This is Us) simply would not work in a 2 hour window. Sometimes you really need 10 hours to tell a story - if it is done right.

In every single dimension - creatively, technically, visually, etc. - he's trying new things and taking risks. That's to be celebrated. Yet here the media is, writing negative pieces, bashing his unqiue takes on things, all while simultaneously and hypocritically complain about the death of Hollywood as they won't take risks.
 
joe12south said:
That sounds even more terrible than movies jumping between wide screen an IMAX 4:3. Jarring. Takes you out of the story.
Click to expand...

If the goal is total immersion then yes I agree. And knowing that Cameron comes from the "total immersion" school, this idea does have the potential to backfire. But the idea of different frame rates in a single film sounds liberating to me. And a potentially cool new tool in the right hands. Just as step-frame is a technique (repeating every frame for slow-motion or for a staccato real-time effect), why shouldn't faster frame rates also be a tool? Again, I agree that 60p is just not something I want to watch on a theatrical screen for 2 hours, but I definitely see it as some kind of expressive technique within a more traditional 24p story that might be cool.
 
I was going to write "game over 60p..." but I would have to see this in action (no pun intended) to really make a judgement. It would definitely free of the camera to move around some more for high energy stuff but the jury is out. I watch and film a lot of sports so I am the wrong person to talk about liking 60p.
 
Cary Knoop said:
It seems you just don't want to let go.

Ok, so John P. Hess likes 24p, so what?

What are you proposing?
Keep ridiculing and discrediting filmmakers who have another opinion?
Create a McCarthy commission to ban all filmmakers for life who even think of using other framerates?

I'd say, live and let live!
Click to expand...

You need to calm down. There is no conspiracy against you. Shoot whatever you want to. I don’t give a crap what you do. There was a discussion about 24p and this came out with perfect timing so I posted it as another perspective on the subject. Simple as that. If you insist on shooting at 60p nobody here is going to stop you but that doesn’t mean many of us for decades to come will stop using 24p. Deal with it.
 
I too have no argument with John's video. For me he re-enforced my understanding that there are at least two very good reasons that 24P is the choice for film and will be for some long time. Money ( cost of production and storage now and for film) and illusion is easier with less frames. I am fine with that as my projects are live events where to me ( and him in fact ) the realism of 60P or higher is fine.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Do you realize that most soap operas in history were shot on film?
Click to expand...

???

If you mean primetime weekly soaps such as Dallas and Dynasty, this would be true. Typically, 35mm film at 24 fps.

But when people talk about the "soap opera look", they are referring to daytime daily dramas such as General Hospital. These are shot at 60i, broadcast live in the beginning and later moving to recording on tape. Though it's possible there is the rare example of a daytime soap shot on film, I cannot think of even one.
 
Thomas Smet said:
There is no conspiracy against you.
Click to expand...
It's not about me.

Thomas Smet said:
There was a discussion about 24p and this came out with perfect timing so I posted it as another perspective on the subject. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Posting another perspective in 9 postings included this:

"People have tried 60p and it looks fake and cheap like anybody could have shot it."
"...24p resonates with people to have a certain level of magic".
"The only people that truly hate 24p and the only ones even aware its a thing are those shooting video who never mastered the art of shooting at 24p so they lashed out against it."
"Only video producers who don't understand 24p hate it. "
"60p opens up too much laziness where not as much care is needed anymore to compose shots. "


So 60p looks fake and cheap, 24p is magic, and people who disagree have never mastered the art of shooting at 24p or are video producers who don't understand it, and oh yeah, 60p shooters are lazy!

Is that giving a perspective on 24p or is it merely attacking those who may have a less narrow view on framerates?
 
Cde. said:
It seems strange to take the artistic freedom line to argue against 60p, given that 24p is the default and the mere mention of shooting in an alternate framerate strikes horror into the hearts of cinephiles.
Click to expand...
Bullseye!
And some do not seem to shy away from attacking those who do want to use this artistic freedom as them being uninformed, unartistic, lazy, having a lack of mastery, etc.
 
Cary Knoop said:
4k@60 is cool! 4k@120 will be even better!

What gamers have long ago discovered is that high frame rates are more realistic, sharper and just cooler.
This is only now slowly realized with video makers, but some will undoubtedly stick with what they think is the "magic" 24p.

Think about it, what is really sharp with a 1/48 of a second shutter speed? Oh right the wallpaper in the background!

:)
Click to expand...
Are you pretending that this post is free from snark?
 
I think a strong case can be made that it's the 1/48th-second motion blur of 24p cinema that contributes the most to "the film look". The 24 fps cadence argument seems much weaker for two reasons. Traditionally, 24p films were projected at 48 fps in order to minimize frame rate flicker. That still wasn't enough, however, to eliminate perceptible frame rate stutter when the camera panned across wide-angle shots. Frame rate flicker and stutter are things we've learned to accept about 24p, but they aren't what makes it esthetically pleasing. To my eyes, it's the motion blur that gives 24p its dream-like quality.

My hunch is that it's the rigid adherence to the 180-degree shutter angle "rule" that makes 60p look too clinical for cinema. Most digital cameras can readily shoot 60p with a 360-degree shutter angle, producing 1/60th-second motion blur. That's a lot closer to 24p's 1/48th-second motion blur than 1/120th-second, and I think it produces much more pleasing results, while eliminating all traces of frame rate stutter.
 
KMR said:
But when people talk about the "soap opera look", they are referring to daytime daily dramas such as General Hospital. These are shot at 60i, broadcast live in the beginning and later moving to recording on tape.
Click to expand...
Yet I am supposed to believe that those immensely popular shows were not capable of generating emotional responses because they were not in 24p? :)

Of course the real criticism from Nolan and other about the "soap opera look" has nothing to do with 60i but has to do with frame interpolation.
Nolan just wants viewers to see what the filmmaker intended.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top