GH2 Philip Coltart's : RED Epic verus Panasonic GH2 Comparison

DBP said:
I don't want to stir the pot too much on the old 24p debate, but has there ever actually be a hollywood-level dramatic narrative shot and distributed at 60p? or 30p for that matter?

I agree that the motion cadence is very different, but to me, the different feel with sports/news/soap operas is at least somewhat to do with shooting style, framing, lighting, editing etc etc...

It'd be neat to see an artistically acclaimed feature at 60p just to truely see how much it ruins it for us.
Click to expand...

To answer your question, only 1 that I can think of. "Public Enemies" with Johnny Depp was shot digitally at 24p but included some 60p sequences (only in theateres where it was DIGITALLY projected). I saw it in such a theater and found it quite jarring and did not like the 60p sequences at all - however I did find it fascinating to be able to compare and contrast on a big budget commercially released movie. I am not sure if the blu-ray kept these 60p sequences or converted everything to 24p but to get an idea of what it looked like, simply run any of the home theater software or TVs that have the "true motion" or similar feature and add frames to bring 24p to 60p. To me it looks like a bad soap opera and ruins the movie but see if YO(U like it.

- Blackout
 
Chaos123x said:
I don't think 60P looks more real I think it makes things look cheap and fake. Motion blur is a good thing.
Click to expand...

This is the artistic thing that people don't get. 60p does in fact make things look more real - which makes a dramatic thing such as a narrative fictional movie take on the look of the 6 o'clock news or "the making of" behind the scenes footage. Costumes look like costumes, sets look like sets.... something of the hypnotic artistic suspension of disbelief illusion is lost. More 'REAL' looking is not necessarily BETTER for artistic pieces. If such were the case, all painters would be photographers, not painters.
 
I really have to disagree the only reason people use 60i or 60P when they are doing a reality show or a Blair Witch type movie is so it resembles "home video" footage so people think it looks like it was shot on location in the real world to give it that news or amatuer feel.

But thats not how my eyes see the world, the way I see looks more like 24p film then 60P. If I wave my hands in front of my eyes real fast it blurs, instead of staying perfectly clear.

60P looks like 80's porn, News, Soap Operas, Home video. I think it looks like total garbage.

Try watching any big budget movie with that motion smoothing tech, I bet you will be ready to destroy the TV before its over.
 
Blackout said:
To answer your question, only 1 that I can think of. "Public Enemies" with Johnny Depp was shot digitally at 24p but included some 60p sequences (only in theateres where it was DIGITALLY projected). I saw it in such a theater and found it quite jarring and did not like the 60p sequences at all - however I did find it fascinating to be able to compare and contrast on a big budget commercially released movie. I am not sure if the blu-ray kept these 60p sequences or converted everything to 24p but to get an idea of what it looked like, simply run any of the home theater software or TVs that have the "true motion" or similar feature and add frames to bring 24p to 60p. To me it looks like a bad soap opera and ruins the movie but see if YO(U like it.

- Blackout
Click to expand...
Hmm...I think the problem here is the mixing of two different frame rates. I don't like the look of hyper real 60p either but if I were to watch something in 60p then it should all be in 60p. I would expect it to have that "jarring" effect when bouncing between the two. That would interrupt anyone's visual experience.
 
Blackout said:
To answer your question, only 1 that I can think of. "Public Enemies" with Johnny Depp was shot digitally at 24p but included some 60p sequences (only in theateres where it was DIGITALLY projected). I saw it in such a theater and found it quite jarring and did not like the 60p sequences at all - however I did find it fascinating to be able to compare and contrast on a big budget commercially released movie. I am not sure if the blu-ray kept these 60p sequences or converted everything to 24p but to get an idea of what it looked like, simply run any of the home theater software or TVs that have the "true motion" or similar feature and add frames to bring 24p to 60p. To me it looks like a bad soap opera and ruins the movie but see if YO(U like it.

- Blackout
Click to expand...

How would that work? Would the whole movie have to have been rendered out as a 60p file, with remaining scenes as 24p clips on a 60p timeline ? Or would the projector have the ability to switch playback modes for a given scene?

Because 24p clips rendered out to a 60p file have a bit a of a different motion cadence compared to native 24p files. Same with converting 60p to 24p. It's not a massive difference, but it's there.
 
Ian-T said:
Hmm...I think the problem here is the mixing of two different frame rates. I don't like the look of hyper real 60p either but if I were to watch something in 60p then it should all be in 60p. I would expect it to have that "jarring" effect when bouncing between the two. That would interrupt anyone's visual experience.
Click to expand...

I think that wa sthe intention of the director who was playing around with what digital film making could do so he decided to make some scenes 'hyper real' which ended up in them looking hyper fake. To me at least. I just got the blu-ray from newtflix I'll see if they left it that way or not.
 
DBP said:
How would that work? Would the whole movie have to have been rendered out as a 60p file, with remaining scenes as 24p clips on a 60p timeline ? Or would the projector have the ability to switch playback modes for a given scene?

Because 24p clips rendered out to a 60p file have a bit a of a different motion cadence compared to native 24p files. Same with converting 60p to 24p. It's not a massive difference, but it's there.
Click to expand...

I assume it would be the whole movie would have to be in 60p with 24p on it.... most people watching 24p are seeing it that way anyway. I agree it has a slight motion difference but most of the LCD & LED computer monitors out there are at 60p or 59.94 so your graphic card is up stepping the 24p playback. My projector has true 24p playback and (23.976) and it looks a lot better but most people never notice it. I have super sensitive eyes.
 
After viewing a few hacked GH2 videos on vimeo... it is almost mind blowing with good color grading how much it actually resembles film. The Epic is undoubtedly the better camera and has so much versatility that even comparing the 2 in most aspects is an utter joke. But at the end of the day the GH2 is putting out bar none the most "film like" video I have ever seen. I can't put my finger on what it is, but you can't ignore it. I've invested a large amount of time in viewing and downloading many, many clips from the epic, and while impressive... I can't help but be slightly more in love with the cinematic look of the GH2. I mean, I really feel like I'm watching movie and not a high res, well lit, behind the scenes making of a movie. This thing is a beast, and almost no one knows about it.
 
Once again the divide. There are artists who think the only legitimate use of a new technology is to closely mimic the characteristics of an old technology. There are others who choose to embrace a newer technology upon it's own terms. I have no argument with either camp but I tend to favor the newer eyes. For those who believe that 24p is the ultimate and only legitimate moving picture experience, it is still quit possible to shoot actual film. Having been there and done that in the ancient days when there was no alternative, I am quite happy to never expose a frame of film again.

My only point of contention with the brave new world of digital acquisition is interlace. Why?
 
I'm not hung up on old tech, I just think 24P looks better than 60P.

I embraced DSLR's when my peers were hung up on full sized expensive cameras, I use FCP X and embrace it when all the other editors I know are sticking to 7.
 
Chaos... THat's interesting. Why do you like FCPx....? Not to take it off subject but I've heard nothing but bad things about it... Is it just growing pains? I've been a FCP user since I first got FCP 1.0. yep I used it all the way back then.
 
Blackout said:
To answer your question, only 1 that I can think of. "Public Enemies" with Johnny Depp was shot digitally at 24p but included some 60p sequences (only in theateres where it was DIGITALLY projected). I saw it in such a theater and found it quite jarring and did not like the 60p sequences at all - however I did find it fascinating to be able to compare and contrast on a big budget commercially released movie. I am not sure if the blu-ray kept these 60p sequences or converted everything to 24p but to get an idea of what it looked like, simply run any of the home theater software or TVs that have the "true motion" or similar feature and add frames to bring 24p to 60p. To me it looks like a bad soap opera and ruins the movie but see if YO(U like it.

- Blackout
Click to expand...
Blackout said:
This is the artistic thing that people don't get. 60p does in fact make things look more real - which makes a dramatic thing such as a narrative fictional movie take on the look of the 6 o'clock news or "the making of" behind the scenes footage. Costumes look like costumes, sets look like sets.... something of the hypnotic artistic suspension of disbelief illusion is lost. More 'REAL' looking is not necessarily BETTER for artistic pieces. If such were the case, all painters would be photographers, not painters.
Click to expand...
Hi Michael,

Quoted outside, here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...-it-s-raining.&p=860994&viewfull=1#post860994

And there:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?65831-Scarlet-X-for-3D!&p=860999&viewfull=1#post860999

Greetings from Rome,

Emanuel :-)
 
Justyn said:
Chaos... THat's interesting. Why do you like FCPx....? Not to take it off subject but I've heard nothing but bad things about it... Is it just growing pains? I've been a FCP user since I first got FCP 1.0. yep I used it all the way back then.
Click to expand...

FCP X is an amazing NLE. It still lacks a couple of high-end features, multi-cam being one of the most important, but we should have that in the first quarter of '12.

I think many people looked at it the wrong way (iMovie Pro) which it absolutely is not. It is a very advanced program that "thinks different". Problem is, many people can't accept that. And if Apple stays behind it, I think we're in for some some new and amazing editing paradigms in the future.
 
stoneinapond said:
FCP X is an amazing NLE... It is a very advanced program that "thinks different". Problem is, many people can't accept that.
Click to expand...

I accept that FCP X thinks differently than other pro NLE's. Problem is -I don't want it to think differently. I actually do prefer the way Avid MC 5.5 works to FCP X. It's not just me being close-minded to new methods.
 
I would do this if my scene had a fulcrum wherein i wanted the dramatic beat to "pop." but i dont' really see it used to often. id rather jump axis for these kinds of purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top