Is the 7D the better 5D for filmmakers?

Okay, this is starting to veer off into the classic film vs. video argument about what the "film look" is, and whether "it's lighting" or "no, it's dof", etc.

24P is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for the "film look". But to understand this we should separate out the "Film Look" from the "Movie Look".

Movies look like MOVIES because of all that goes into them: lighting, art direction, sound design, camera moves, production value, all those things.

Film looks like film because of the integral tangible properties of the medium: the 24 discrete tangible frames per second, grain, film gamma, etc.

I assert that the "film look" (i.e., making something look like it was shot on film) has nothing to do with lighting or shallow DOF or whatever. You can shoot film in broad daylight, at full wide angle, at f/16, everything in focus from 1' to infinity, and it'll still look like film. You can shoot 60i video with hyper-shallow DOF (watch sports like tennis or baseball, they do this all the time) and it'll look like video.

There have been miles and miles of home movies shot on 8mm film that look nothing like a "movie", but look everything like film (because it IS film).

The vast majority of movies are shot on film, or on video trying to emulate the look of film. The vast majority of television dramas are shot on either film or on 24P video. No primetime dramatic television show is shot on 60i video (that I can think of). And I can't think of any that use 30P either. 60i video is used for news, live broadcasts, award shows, and talk shows, things like that.

24P is used extensively by moviemakers and high-end television production, and it's used because it implies a higher production value. As long as it's used appropriately; I've seen award shows shot in 24p and it just looks dumb; we expect awards shows to be "live" so adding the 24p look to it just ruined the experience and made everything feel "off".

In short: the "film look" means emulating the tangible properties of film: cadence, grain, gamma. The "movie look" means emulating the look of movies, and that means combining the "film look" with film-style lighting, cinematography techniques, production design, framing, composition, camera movement, etc.
 
From time to time I come across the reports that a filmmaker used 30fps with a film camera. This does not happen often but it does happen. So, shot on film, but no film look?

To me, 30p is film-looky enough, the major issue is converting to 25fps. Also, deploying to the Web may be a hassle -- e.g. Vimeo only recently added 30p support for HD videos.

BTW, before deploying HD in Europe, EBU was considering using 60Hz scanning rate. This did not work out, but if it did no one would care for 30p being less "filmic". And it allows more freedom in camera moves. It is objectively better than 24/25-fps.
 
Well sure it's objectively better for camera moves etc...but so is 60p...and then even 120p. More frames...more information more fluid motion.

But to answer the OP's original question....yes the 7D is the better 5D for filmakers.
 
Ian-T said:
Well sure it's objectively better for camera moves etc...but so is 60p...and then even 120p. More frames...more information more fluid motion.
Click to expand...
Yep, but 30p still retains (to me, at least) that not-so-real film look that 60p does not have. Hence, 30p is a happy medium. Or it could be, if Europe went with 60Hz HD.
 
In short: the "film look" means emulating the tangible properties of film: cadence, grain, gamma.
Click to expand...

Barry, as you must already know, "cadence" is not an inherent property of "film". You can shoot film at various frame rates. You can also shoot film at different ISO settings, you can shoot various formats of film, you can shoot color saturated film or black and white film and lots of stock in between, etc. Clean film, grainy film, film with different gamma qualities, etc. A tangible trait of "film" is NOT 24p. Using your example, that would be an example of "movie-like", not "film-like", because we are 'conditioned' in 'movies' for the 24p cadence, not because of it being 'film'.
 
30p vs 24p. I think the culprits for making something look "video" like go well beyond 6 frames. They're somewhat insignificant when viewed in context of video artifacts such as interlaced fields, compressed / thin color space, no random grain, highlight clipping, sharp lines against highlights, moire, and so on. Regarding the 100 years of conditioning, so much has changed aside from framerate that I'm not sure that argument holds water. No one was doing skip bleach 30 years ago and rarely do it now. Vision stocks look a world of difference compared to 3 strip technicolor.

If audiences can change from black and white to color, silent to sound overnight, I don't think they're going to miss flicker either. If the standard were changed overnight to 30p, they'd get used to it in a day. Flicker is an artifact dating back to the lowest threshold before the image would have a visible stutter. It was then raised from 18 to 24 to accommodate the shortcomings of early sound. The decision was economic, not aesthetic.

If too much sharpness from 30p equals too much reality in a negative way then why bother shooting on good lenses or at higher resolutions.

I think selective depth of field, random grain, highlight compression and color space are bigger factors in what makes something feel cinematic. One of the reasons, 35mm adaptors have such a "filmic" look is the GG creates a texture akin to grain. Color space is also a big concern. Cheaper video cameras often don't have the tonal range you get from film or high end digital capture. With highlight clipping it's especially noticeable in smaller chipped cameras which is why 35mm adaptors and RED often mask the harsh clip with the inherent flaring of a shorter depth of field. Another reason we often employ diffusion on 2/3" cameras. Then there's random grain. From frame to frame, grain on film is never in the same spot but pixels are. This is something that is perceptible. Random has a more organic less artificial feel than fixed.

Now when you consider Citizen Kane with its deep focus is still supremely cinematic. Perhaps it boils down more to progressive, texture (grain) and highlight compression.

The main reason I'm downplaying frame rate is that in the 90's when I was shooting almost exclusively on film, we did loads of videos and commercials at 30 FPS. Not for a moment did anyone think it looked like video, just sharper film.
 
Buck Forester said:
Barry, as you must already know, "cadence" is not an inherent property of "film". You can shoot film at various frame rates. You can also shoot film at different ISO settings, you can shoot various formats of film, you can shoot color saturated film or black and white film and lots of stock in between, etc. Clean film, grainy film, film with different gamma qualities, etc. A tangible trait of "film" is NOT 24p. Using your example, that would be an example of "movie-like", not "film-like", because we are 'conditioned' in 'movies' for the 24p cadence, not because of it being 'film'.
Click to expand...

I know this has probably been mentioned before but wasn’t there an experiment around 15 years ago where one shot film at 60fps and tried to get it accepted in Hollywood. But the problem was it looked too much like…um…video? Or too real? I forgot the specifics behind this story but it’s kind of old news.
 
Ian-T said:
I know this has probably been mentioned before but wasn’t there an experiment around 15 years ago where one shot film at 60fps and tried to get it accepted in Hollywood. But the problem was it looked too much like…um…video? Or too real? I forgot the specifics behind this story but it’s kind of old news.
Click to expand...

Ian, I'm not sure but I wouldn't doubt it. Shooting 60p is a big jump in perception than from 24 to 30.

My point is that Barry put "24p cadence" in the "film trait" category and not "movie trait" category. That's simply not accurate because a piece of film is what it is, just individual frames strung together... it has nothing to do with how fast or slow the series of frames are made into a moving picture.

So, that then makes "24p cadence" an attribute of "movie-like". As Barry said himself above, the attributes of movie-like include "lighting, art direction, sound design, camera moves, production value, all those things". Throw 'cadence' in there too, then you can see my point... all things being equal, if I had to toss one attribute out it'd be 24p (I'd trade it for 30p) because to me the other attributes of "movie-like" are more important than +/- 6 fps. But this ain't science, it's obviously subjective.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but -- okay, you do have a point, but I'd have to file it under pedantics. Film, as a matter of course, is shot and played at 24fps in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, unless it's shot in Europe for broadcast, in which case it's shot and projected at 25fps.

It may not be absolutely technically correct to say that all film is shot at 24fps, but it would be close enough to correct that I'm comfortable in saying it. There are exceptions, such as when film is used for slow-mo stuff, but even then it's played back at 24fps.

To discard 24p -- that to me is ... incomprehensible. The DVX utterly revolutionized the video camera segment, precisely because of the 24p attribute, which is the primary and in fact the "signature" attribute that differentiates film from video.
 
I'm a director/cameraman in a small market.. We shoot hundreds of thousands of feet of 16mm film each year. It is all for commercials. Most of it is shot at 30 fps.

Our reels are enthusiastically received at agencies all over the country, from large NY agencies to smaller creative shops in mid-sized markets. The single most-often hear comment is, ""I can't believe that is 16mm"". This comment is never, never meant to be taken, ""it looks like tape"". It is always said in belief that it ""looks like 35"".

Really, other than trying to do good lighting and having a great colorist, we don't do anything any different than most people. But we always shoot our 16mm at 30 fps. And our 16mm NEVER LOOKS LIKE TAPE.
Click to expand...

http://www.cinematography.net/30FPS.HTM

This discussion predated HDTV, it is like 15 or so years old, people talk about 30fps usually meaning "30fps, interlaced". Still, some was shooting 30fps on film even then. They do now too.
 
Barry_Green said:
Yeah, but -- okay, you do have a point, but I'd have to file it under pedantics. Film, as a matter of course, is shot and played at 24fps in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, unless it's shot in Europe for broadcast, in which case it's shot and projected at 25fps.

It may not be absolutely technically correct to say that all film is shot at 24fps, but it would be close enough to correct that I'm comfortable in saying it. There are exceptions, such as when film is used for slow-mo stuff, but even then it's played back at 24fps.

To discard 24p -- that to me is ... incomprehensible. The DVX utterly revolutionized the video camera segment, precisely because of the 24p attribute, which is the primary and in fact the "signature" attribute that differentiates film from video.
Click to expand...


I'm with you all the way. For those who choose to go against the grain, I'm good with that! I'll let you guys pave the way for 30P while I stick to the tried-and-true.
 
I don't know if this adds anything to this conversation, but-
24 frames per second was the MINIMUM frame rate that the motion picture pioneers determined audience viewers perceived the images as continuous motion. I'm sure if there were not a budgetary reason, they would have chosen a higher frame rate like 30fps.
IMAX movies are shot on film, and their frame rate is something is like 60 fps, am I right?
I'd like to experiment with 30fps myself, I think it gives a sense of heightened realism. I'm glad the 7D supports it!
 
Barry_Green said:
To discard 24p -- that to me is ... incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

Barry, who is "discarding" 24p? I'm just saying it's not as important in creating a "movie-like" look as all the very important other factors you mentioned. Just because it's not as important for many of us on the list of movie-like attributes doesn't mean it's incomprehensibly discarded.

And there is no way you can accurately say 24 cadence is an attribute of "film" even if you use a defense and say, "well, in effect it is because most film is shot that way" because that's still not attribute of the film itself, that's an attribute of the camera speed. El periodo.

I'd rather have a camera that shoots 30p with great gamma control, color space, DOF range, dynamic range, shot under control of a cinematographer using great lighting and camera movment, than a flat recording camera that merely shoots 24p. That's an extreme example, but it just shows the other attributes are more important to me than merely 24p. The other attributes are very real too. And if shot properly at 30p many would not even notice, and certainly not the public watching it.
 
Buck Forester said:
And if shot properly at 30p many would not even notice, and certainly not the public watching it.
Click to expand...
I would, i dont get how peoples dont realize that we are forced to use 30p and most us are here because of film making and we would like to have the pictures similar to those from our TV's or cinemas which were shot at 23.976 from like 80 something years.I like the look of not so smoth movement because more smooth movement looks just cheesy ,i hate 30 cause it makes me thinking "oh it looks so amateur like shot with my minidv cam".It can have DOF but if movement will be too smoth then it looks similar to movement from your old camcorder,and this is for sure not professional look.
Its the same reason why many CGI look so fake in films ,they are captured with software which can capture in 30 frames per second cause it drops frames when you want to capture 24 ,movement is smoothened by software if there are some errors during capture and outcome is as convincing as your latest playstation game - not really.Many feature films with mocap CGI look wrong because it feels too smooth ,too perfect too "videogamelike".
 
If you're engrossed in a movie at the theater while eating a box of Milk Duds, do you really notice if there are 24 or 30 Milk Duds in the box?

And if you threw a Milk Dud at the guy talking loudly in the front of the theater, would he notice if the Milk Dud flew at 24 feet per second or 30 feet per second before it hit him?
 
Last edited:
Buck Forester said:
If you're engrossed in a movie at the theater while eating a box of Milk Duds, do you really notice if there are 26 or 30 Milk Duds in the box?

And if you threw a Milk Dud at the guy talking loudly in the front of the theater, would he notice if the Milk Dud flew at 26 feet per second or 30 feet per second before it hit him?
Click to expand...

:huh:
Im starting to think that people who dont mind 30p just dont see the difference between 24p and 30p.So for me talking with those guys about 24p vs 30p is like talking with them about aliens from space or ghosts.Its just... no words.
 
I'm well aware of the differences. I just don't buy that 30p makes something look video like. Capture interlace then yes. Everything looks wrong interlaced. Frame rate is not the Big factor that makes something look cinelike. Progressive is.

This is a truly fascinating and more objective discussion: http://www.cinematography.net/30FPS.HTM

I think each has its pros/cons but to adhere to 24p like religion..just...no words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top