Is all 24p created equal?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
We've had this discussion before. Often buried inside other threads. So I want to bring it out in the open. For years I've struggled with the suspension of disbelief when it comes to content shot on 24p video. It doesn't move like film, is the argument I've always made. When I say that, often I am referring to subject motion. The way that objects on the screen are rendered in motion. Not the way the camera is moved or the color grading or the latitude of the image or the the use of grain or not. To me there is definitely a differnce between a feature film shot on a Canon DSLR versus film or an Alexa. The latter two enable a suspension of disbelief for me that the former does.

That said, I'm willing to concede that I may be wrong and I would be happy if I am. Here's why. Recently I've been watching episodes of Stargate Atlantis. A show shot in 2004 on the Sony F900 and in the later seasons on a Panasonic HDX900. Most of the show has that suspension of disbelief for me. It moves like film. But there are a few scenes here and there that clearly move more like video and I spot them right away. Which leads me to believe I may be wrong. It may very well be a combination of shot choices, editing, lighting, color grading and so on.

If that's true I'll be happy. Because that means any 24p camera should be able to create that same suspension of disbelief and really comes down to technique rather than technology. Yet I've still seen a lot of videos from talented people who know what they are doing, yet their projects still move like video. So I'm a little confused and don't know where I stand on the issue.
 
well. what you are seeing is the detail from different sensor. If you see 5D's footage on big screen you will immediately know whats going on there.

to be extremly simple, it is the resolution, the detail that RAW cameras preserves and therefore gives you a nice flow on the edges. Versus the roughness from the 5D

24p is always 24p, its just 320p vs 4k. or you can say its h.264 (from 5d) vs 444 RAW (RED and up)

not only they compress color , they compress the image a hell lot in terms of detail (its 320k mp3 vs 98k mp3) like that.
 
craigbowman said:
So you think its only the gear and people have absolutely nothing to do with it all all?
Click to expand...

In the past yes. Because even if you look at amatuer film the subjects on screen still move like film and not like video. But I'm not married to the idea that with video it all has to do with gear. I think (hope) technique plays a bigger role than I previously assumed.
 
roxics said:
But I'm not married to the idea that with video it all has to do with gear. I think (hope) technique plays a bigger role than I previously assumed.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that what you're noticing has to do with a lot more than 24p. Yes, even with amateur stuff shot on film, it looks like film. It's not just the 24p motion, but also the look of the film emulsion, the grain... possibly things like gate weave on cheaper cameras.

But what really lends to your immersion in the film, the suspension of disbelief you cite? What makes a film engaging and believable? It's not the camera. I'd argue that lighting and sound have a heck of a lot more to do with it. Bad lighting is going to destroy anything that 24p has to offer. And, believe it or not, poor production/post-production sound will have a massive impact on the viewer's perception of the pictures.

Plus, the handling of the camera makes a big difference. Bad camera moves, such as lots of cheesy zooms, plus bad framing and focus, and wobbly handheld... these can all add up to something that is terribly unpleasant to watch. Film or video, 24p or not, if the DoP/camera op cannot function, it doesn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top