GH2 mts file posted

Psyco said:
No its not - 24p is retro, and nothing else. 50p would be the way to go, but it looks like Panasonic is not willing to give it to us for such a low price.
Click to expand...
I would certainly agree that 24p is "retro," while interlace is "retrograde" :) BTW, Panasonic "gives us" 1080p50/60 in a TM700 for a shockingly low price of $790 (via amazon).

The smeared 24p was only a (bad) solution for the technical and financial possibilities decades ago. Every one back then would have been very happy if they could have done it in 50p.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately (for your argument) most major movie productions continue to shoot in 24p despite of technical ability to shoot and deliver at higher frames rates (which seem to be used for acquiring footage for slow motion sequences). However, I haven't really heard of anyone (of any importance to be mentioned that is) who performed acquisition of footage in an interlaced format (except for cases where progressive footage is stored in an interlaced wrapper).
 
Homunculus said:
svecher what does all this mean to layman?
Click to expand...

Well it's a low-level summary for the following observation
Blackout said:
looks like crap either way whatever the hell it is...
Click to expand...
Low-bitrate interlaced footage is probably fine for shooting one's kid's soccer games, especially if one is a very basic computer user. However, something tells me that this user will likely gravitate more to one of Sony's products. To me there is always some inherent contradiction to stereotyping this hypothetical imaging enthusiast "soccer mom/dad". For example, if they are so [presumably] afraid of using even the most basic editing package, how would they make a DVD for grandma? Or do all grandmas watch Youtube now?

In any event, for most type of footage that people on this forum care about it "will look like crap." High-bitrate high frame-rate 1080p would be an interesting option for shooting footage that will be slowed down and cut into a 24p project. Or as a standalone project for fast action footage -- for later delivery via Vimeo or down-mixed to one of consumer formats.
 
Psyco said:
The smeared 24p was only a (bad) solution for the technical and financial possibilities decades ago. Every one back then would have been very happy if they could have done it in 50p.
Click to expand...

Please show me a citation that proves this. AFAIK 24p has been the standard because of how close it comes to mimicking the way the human eye sees the world...it had nothing to do with technical issues, it simply worked the best. That's why I like it, not because it "looks like film." It is true that once upon a time film was shot at 16 and even 8 fps, and that may have been due to technical issues, but again...citation from an academic source please.
 
Ben_B said:
Please show me a citation that proves this. AFAIK 24p has been the standard because of how close it comes to mimicking the way the human eye sees the world...it had nothing to do with technical issues, it simply worked the best. That's why I like it, not because it "looks like film." It is true that once upon a time film was shot at 16 and even 8 fps, and that may have been due to technical issues, but again...citation from an academic source please.
Click to expand...

The human eye works much faster than 24fps, even faster than 50fps (about 60-65fps). The only referens I could find in 5 minutes was Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auge
Sorry, only the german version contains this information (paragraph: Facettenauge).

Only 24fps and the world would look really ugly. And why still 24p in cinemas....because its cheaper...still! With 24fps and a low light situation, we won't see the flickering - so its enough to make money with it. Technically 50p would be possible, and it would look much better - and a bit different (more "detailed"). But it will be more expensive and that is enough for Hollywood to not use it. (And it is not such a "cool new feature" like 3D to work as a marketing advantage.)

The situation gets worse if you try to watch 24fps in normal light (the "speed" of our eyes scale with the avaluable light). But the worst is looking nearly parallel to the screen - you will see the flickering. Ok, normaly you look straight at the screen, but your eyes can still see the flickering, its just your brain that suppresses the effect.

50fps is pretty close to our normal perseption (did you never think of, why 180° shutter feels more natural with 24/25fps? ;-) It will also make watching a movie less exhausting for our eyes).
 
argh! not this again.

people prefer 24p other people dont. live with it

and for technicality's sake
human eye isnt 24p.
24p is derived from sound in the old days so sound would sync.
24p is projected at 48fps with 2 frames repeated thats why its 180 shutter

I love 24p.
you dont see me hating on 60/50p so dont hate on 24p.
live with the fact that other people like things that you dont.
 
I've heard that seasoned yoga practitioners can undercrank or overcrank the FPS on their reality perception sensors. Also, constant practice is key to seeing the real "real 3D" by utilizing the so called "third eye."

In my own experiments attempting to synchronize the mysterious triangle of mind-universe-screen I have only so far been successful at reproducing the infamous "mud" issue when consuming copious amounts of certain distillates.
 
Ben_B said:
Please show me a citation that proves this. AFAIK 24p has been the standard because of how close it comes to mimicking the way the human eye sees the world...it had nothing to do with technical issues, it simply worked the best. That's why I like it, not because it "looks like film." It is true that once upon a time film was shot at 16 and even 8 fps, and that may have been due to technical issues, but again...citation from an academic source please.
Click to expand...

It had a lot to do with technical issues, as well as financial issues. 24fps was a happy medium, a good balance of all the variables. Virgin eyes tend to prefer 30fps to 24fps from studies.

The human eye retains residual images. That means, perceived flicker is greatly diminished above 15fps. The cinema standard is actually 48fps with repeated frames to reduce the strobe effect. - One guy in film school wondered why God would make us to have this residual image, which seems like a handicap. He actually prayed about it. He then realized that if we did not have this residual image, blinking would be really annoying. We all laughed at that, and actually thought it made sense.

I agree with Ben, as I particularly like 24fps 1/48. It cuts down on captured movement, which blends everything together in a more dreamy quality. It smooths out much of the "ugly" motions in reality.

(note: psyco and dcloud have good short posts on this, on page 3 of this thread.)
 
Last edited:
svecher said:
Is it ok to hate on interlace?
Click to expand...

Hilarious! ...and yes!

svecher said:
I've heard that seasoned yoga practitioners can undercrank or overcrank the FPS on their reality perception sensors. Also, constant practice is key to seeing the real "real 3D" by utilizing the so called "third eye."

In my own experiments attempting to synchronize the mysterious triangle of mind-universe-screen I have only so far been successful at reproducing the infamous "mud" issue when consuming copious amounts of certain distillates.
Click to expand...

What is the firmware date on those distillates? Anyways, I hear that they are all flattering on women, but not good for run and gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top