iamloser said:
It's all the same, Neil!
More concrete info on ProHD
- Thread starter Barry_Green
- Start date
It's all the same, Neil!
thisiswells
Retired
"24p DOES have a place though"
Exactly. A few weeks ago David Spade was hosting Saturday Night Live. During one of the segments involving a movie director and a few actors and film crew, the director called action and the shot immediately cut to the view of the camera they used to shoot the movie, which appeared to be a 24P something. They dimmed the main studio lights and had only a few Leco's on-set for dramatic effect. Interesting to me why (when they have 24P capable cameras) they continue to use them in traditional interlaced format for the bulk of the episode. However, when shooting a "movie skit" they switched one of them (or perhaps they have an additional camera they stays setup this way -or- they bought/rented only for this instance) over to 24P since they acknowledge the motion rendering of film at 24 frames establishes "movie" in viewers heads and they use the "video" look for everything else.
The shots look terrible. The motion rendering drove me nuts. I do not think it was an interlaced camera set to a 1/30 shutter however there is no way to be certain.
You know SNL also produces those funny little mock-television-commercials and they appear to be shot on film. Pro35's and a Varicam a possibility? well sure.... but I think they were making those funny spots that play right before the real commercial break as to confuse viewers into thinking they are real ad's, long before 2002 when VariCam was made available. Interesting.
The producer of the show, Lorne Michaels, really does know what is up. I simply mean that this country's arguably most experienced comedy television producer (honored by this year's Mark Twain prize and eight Emmy's over the years) recognises the asthetic difference among 60i video, 24p video, and film and with discernment makes his choice to actually use all of them \with discretion for maximum impact. Interesting.
Yes, 24P video does have a place.
Brian
Exactly. A few weeks ago David Spade was hosting Saturday Night Live. During one of the segments involving a movie director and a few actors and film crew, the director called action and the shot immediately cut to the view of the camera they used to shoot the movie, which appeared to be a 24P something. They dimmed the main studio lights and had only a few Leco's on-set for dramatic effect. Interesting to me why (when they have 24P capable cameras) they continue to use them in traditional interlaced format for the bulk of the episode. However, when shooting a "movie skit" they switched one of them (or perhaps they have an additional camera they stays setup this way -or- they bought/rented only for this instance) over to 24P since they acknowledge the motion rendering of film at 24 frames establishes "movie" in viewers heads and they use the "video" look for everything else.
The shots look terrible. The motion rendering drove me nuts. I do not think it was an interlaced camera set to a 1/30 shutter however there is no way to be certain.
You know SNL also produces those funny little mock-television-commercials and they appear to be shot on film. Pro35's and a Varicam a possibility? well sure.... but I think they were making those funny spots that play right before the real commercial break as to confuse viewers into thinking they are real ad's, long before 2002 when VariCam was made available. Interesting.
The producer of the show, Lorne Michaels, really does know what is up. I simply mean that this country's arguably most experienced comedy television producer (honored by this year's Mark Twain prize and eight Emmy's over the years) recognises the asthetic difference among 60i video, 24p video, and film and with discernment makes his choice to actually use all of them \with discretion for maximum impact. Interesting.
Yes, 24P video does have a place.
Brian
PappasArts
Veteran
<<<You know SNL also produces those funny little mock-television-commercials and they appear to be shot on film. Pro35's and a Varicam a possibility? well sure.... but I think they were making those funny spots that play right before the real commercial break as to confuse viewers into thinking they are real ad's, long before 2002 when VariCam was made available.>=>=>=
My friend works on those SNL commercial skits. I will have to ask him what they use.
michael pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
My friend works on those SNL commercial skits. I will have to ask him what they use.
michael pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
thisiswells
Retired
Michael,
Cool. Thank you. I would really, really like to know.
Also, if you can ask him what equipment they use for post processing and color enhancement and if they're shooting film please find out what kinds of film.
Thank you,
Brian
Cool. Thank you. I would really, really like to know.
Also, if you can ask him what equipment they use for post processing and color enhancement and if they're shooting film please find out what kinds of film.
Thank you,
Brian
Simon Wyndham
Well-known member
One of the points I tried to establish was that we only view 24p as being 'higher quality' and more cinemtaic because our eyes have been conditioned that way.
Now imagine the reverse. Imagine that film had always been 60fps and that TV was always 24p. After all these years of watching that way around we would now regard higher framerates as being the superior cinematic look. It's not because 24p IS better for story telling, it's just that our eyes have been trained to think that way. And my point is that if enough people made cinema at much higher progressive rates it would 'recondition' peoples eyes.
24fps is simply too low for what some films try to do with their cameras these days. Blade 2 and Bourne Supremacy for example would not have been anywhere near as headache inducing and sickly to watch if they had been shot at a higher rate. Perhaps a compromise should be tried. 60p is still going to have slightly different motion characteristics from 60i don't forget.
Now imagine the reverse. Imagine that film had always been 60fps and that TV was always 24p. After all these years of watching that way around we would now regard higher framerates as being the superior cinematic look. It's not because 24p IS better for story telling, it's just that our eyes have been trained to think that way. And my point is that if enough people made cinema at much higher progressive rates it would 'recondition' peoples eyes.
24fps is simply too low for what some films try to do with their cameras these days. Blade 2 and Bourne Supremacy for example would not have been anywhere near as headache inducing and sickly to watch if they had been shot at a higher rate. Perhaps a compromise should be tried. 60p is still going to have slightly different motion characteristics from 60i don't forget.
braw
Well-known member
Simon Wyndham said:
This is true. However, we're at where we're at, and you have the freedom to shoot at whatever you want based on how much money you have. However convincing the Hollywood dinosaur to conform to your standards is a little tough. 24 frames is what we have in cinema. We have been conditioned to accept that as what a "movie" is. You could try and pioneer a new standard like a few have tried as far as frame rate, but right off the bat people will see it as off weather they can pinpoint it or not.
We should just be thankful we live in a time where we actually have the option to shoot at a filmlike framerate for relatively inexpensive, or shoot at a framerate that has little perceived motion blur. :beer:
I remember shooting on a PD150 and thinking, wow, this is a great picture, but it doesn't look like film. Now we are scrutinizing **** like latitude and resolution. In my opinion, massive progress has been made to the point that the average Joe has a hard time discerning.
Simon Wyndham
Well-known member
You need to think out of the box. When cinemas are all using digital projection there won't be the same problems with framerate because the projector will show whatever is thrown at it. There won't be a need to change equipment just to change framerates. If a director decides to shoot a new movie in 60p then he/she will be free to do just that.
And that's another point I want to get across. Once digital projection is the norm in cinemas the framerate issue will go away because filmmakers will be able to choose whatever they want.
And that's another point I want to get across. Once digital projection is the norm in cinemas the framerate issue will go away because filmmakers will be able to choose whatever they want.
braw
Well-known member
Simon Wyndham said:
Most definitely. Eventually they will all be digital projectors. It won't be for a while I'm sure, so if you can get a camera that can shoot 24p for today’s films, and it can also shoot at 30p or 60p, then you're set for the future. I have faith Panasonic will give us such a tool. When digital projectors are the norm, there will probably have been several newer cameras that will be released on the market. However if Panasonic covers the bases most are anticipating, the HDX will most definitely still be a viable tool 10 years from now. :thumbsup:
thisiswells
Retired
I keep hearing about the fabled concept of, "when theatres are digital. . ." argument and while I do not claim to know what theatres are like in other parts of America, here in my small town of 180,000 (Amarillo, Texas) our United Artists is entirely equipped on all sixteen screens to handle digital cinema projection. Yes, high definition digital cinema projection. They have been for several years. Materials can be provided on D5-HD tape for their or a computer format then converted. I am unsure if each booth has a deck inclusive or if media is streamed from a centralised server... It is High-Def for certain.
Why would I know this? My 8,000 member church makes advertisements and plays them before movies at UA. Yup, neat huh? It isn't terribly expensive (remember: town of 180,000) And yet, the movies themselves are still printed on film.
Really it makes sense if small town advertisers could play videos (or in the case of my church: really fantastic motion graphics with sub-frame video inserts) since it has a higher value proposition than simply a slide with your product or service.
Point is: It's here, in a small town. Is this an anomaly or are there other UA's like this?
Brian
Why would I know this? My 8,000 member church makes advertisements and plays them before movies at UA. Yup, neat huh? It isn't terribly expensive (remember: town of 180,000) And yet, the movies themselves are still printed on film.
Really it makes sense if small town advertisers could play videos (or in the case of my church: really fantastic motion graphics with sub-frame video inserts) since it has a higher value proposition than simply a slide with your product or service.
Point is: It's here, in a small town. Is this an anomaly or are there other UA's like this?
Brian
Flintstone
Well-known member
As far as 24p vs 60p goes, one thing you have to remember, rotoscoping will take two to three times as more effort to do in 60p then in 24p. It's already a very expensive and timely process.
I've given up on this thread. Too much misinformation.
Clearly, people should shoot at whatever frame rate they find more aesthetically pleasing. Different artists use different brushes, so there really is no right answer here.
That said, music videos and dramatic content shot with the varicam are almost always done in 24p, and that's not to save tape space. Just worth considering that in the one place where there is a definitely choice between two frame rates, 24fps beats 60.
And, no, the 60fps film standard was poorly recieved largely because of how it looked. It was 70mm so of course it looked impressive, but people saw it as "weird' and not like a normal movie. Cost and compatibility were big issues, too, but even if they weren't, it would have failed.
Furthermore, for PAL/NTSC compatibility, 24fps (or 25fps) rule all. But whatever, to each his own. I don't want to hear any more talk about "strobing" though, since it's a phenomenon I've yet to experience in any way which lowered the quality of the motion rendered. I actually prefer how pans look in 24p over 60i, though I do pan a bit slower usually, but just because of my tripod's limitations, not because of the camera's.
Clearly, people should shoot at whatever frame rate they find more aesthetically pleasing. Different artists use different brushes, so there really is no right answer here.
That said, music videos and dramatic content shot with the varicam are almost always done in 24p, and that's not to save tape space. Just worth considering that in the one place where there is a definitely choice between two frame rates, 24fps beats 60.
And, no, the 60fps film standard was poorly recieved largely because of how it looked. It was 70mm so of course it looked impressive, but people saw it as "weird' and not like a normal movie. Cost and compatibility were big issues, too, but even if they weren't, it would have failed.
Furthermore, for PAL/NTSC compatibility, 24fps (or 25fps) rule all. But whatever, to each his own. I don't want to hear any more talk about "strobing" though, since it's a phenomenon I've yet to experience in any way which lowered the quality of the motion rendered. I actually prefer how pans look in 24p over 60i, though I do pan a bit slower usually, but just because of my tripod's limitations, not because of the camera's.
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
... or whatever frame rate they happen to accidentally roll the knob to.
Sorry, Policar. It was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.
bgundu
Veteran
It's interesting the phenomena of 24FPS. The experience of going to the cinema and seeing images on the big screen somehow codes are brain into thinking higher production value and the "cinematic experience" If you actually tune out and actually ignore the gripping action, story, and sound, and really focus on the FPS, you'll realize how strobby it is. It's confusing for our brain to see similar motion attributes outside of a theater and on your TV at home. You can't argue with the fact that 24fps is 24fps, and no matter what, there's not much you can do about that. I personally the look of what is produced by the DVX at 24p. As an FX artist, the fewer progressive frames the better.
Digigenic
Well-known member
Yes, and the cinema experience continues to evolve.
IMHO
As preferential resolution and frame size increases beyond the margins of 35mm and even 70mm, I believe that the preferential frame rate will increase beyond 24 fps as well. By no means am I claiming 24 will die, I just think that we’ll see other frame rates come to life…
IMHO
As preferential resolution and frame size increases beyond the margins of 35mm and even 70mm, I believe that the preferential frame rate will increase beyond 24 fps as well. By no means am I claiming 24 will die, I just think that we’ll see other frame rates come to life…
thisiswells
Retired
Agreed. Think IMAX and Cinedome.
Brian
Brian
thisiswells
Retired
Also, for whatever it is worth:
My little town has more foundation dollars to burn on education than perhaps any other place I know of... A great example of this is the planetarium at our children's museam...
"The Don Harrington Discovery Center is proud to introduce the world's ultimate digital theater system. Amarillo is the fifth installation in the universe of the Digistar 3. The Space Theater will take visitors beyond the stars with educational and entertaining presentations that will delight your eyes and ears. The immersive experience will take your imagination to new places and expand your definition of the BIG PICTURE!"
http://www.dhdc.org/planetarium.html
So, yes this little town of 180,00 people has a sixteen-screen digital cinema theatre (United Artists) and one of the most technically sophisticated digital cinema systems in the world for a planetarium... and yet, little to no filmmaking community exists here... of course we're trying to change that!!
Brian
My little town has more foundation dollars to burn on education than perhaps any other place I know of... A great example of this is the planetarium at our children's museam...
"The Don Harrington Discovery Center is proud to introduce the world's ultimate digital theater system. Amarillo is the fifth installation in the universe of the Digistar 3. The Space Theater will take visitors beyond the stars with educational and entertaining presentations that will delight your eyes and ears. The immersive experience will take your imagination to new places and expand your definition of the BIG PICTURE!"
http://www.dhdc.org/planetarium.html
So, yes this little town of 180,00 people has a sixteen-screen digital cinema theatre (United Artists) and one of the most technically sophisticated digital cinema systems in the world for a planetarium... and yet, little to no filmmaking community exists here... of course we're trying to change that!!
Brian
Brian...I grew up in Amarillo and yes I remember the Discovery Center. The schools took us there a couple of times while growing up. I also picked up a large scar on my head one year while sledding down the hills near the DC. Amarillo is a great place, I hope you appreciate it as much as I do.
Theaters in Europe, lead by Scotland, are converting to digital projection more rapidly than anyone anticipated. For a current update on the American studios' and exhibitors' progress in standardizing digital projection specs in the U.S., go to www.filmmaking.com and click on the ShoWest logo in the upper right hand corner. The pressure for theaters to convert to digital projection is relentless due to Hollywood's most critical motivator - money: Digital movie distribution costs a mere fraction of the cost of film distribution.
Digigenic
Well-known member
I love Texas, aside from the seasonal affective disorder that hits and lasts from December to March, I feel like a summer child for the rest of the year.
We all know Austin's film community is developing faster than Akira, and it is spilling into the outer areas. Here in Houston particularly, where our film community seems to have a hunt and hibernate mentality is expecting to receive a large portion of that spill.
It'll happen...thisiswells said:
We all know Austin's film community is developing faster than Akira, and it is spilling into the outer areas. Here in Houston particularly, where our film community seems to have a hunt and hibernate mentality is expecting to receive a large portion of that spill.