Tools never limit an artist or a being on a mission. What a man can conceive he can achieve.
to all the 30p haters
- Thread starter booggerg2
- Start date
Tools never limit an artist or a being on a mission. What a man can conceive he can achieve.
Either way he could still have accomplished the task one longer than the other but the one much more precise. To each his own is the afford on tools. Still the quality of the paint of the artist was not in the tool he used but rested entirely within his mind where he produced the "composition - style - creativity" (CSC) of the masterpiece each and every time; the tool(s) just aided in the speed and ease in the process.
By all financial standards our business had gone down significantly in equipment professional by most professionals yardsticks but by re-evaluating the process our CSC and revising those standards while cutting our equipment costs literally in half to where any "Joe the Videographer" could get in the business, we have increased our quality, our output ease, and changed our whole profile of archiving back to when we first stated AND - WITH Hi Def.
Tools don't get the job done right - people do. Tools just help.
Agreed the tools help shape and achieve your vision. On the other hand without them I do not believe you can just achieve your vision just because you are talented.
How come we do not have a rash of Nikon owners complaining about not having 30p on our D90s? Seems like to many people are justifying 30p... if you like it great for you but I would never shoot in anything but 24 so the 5D does not interest me as of now. In fact I sold my whole Canon/L lens collection just to have 24p with the D90. Just personal taste.
How come we do not have a rash of Nikon owners complaining about not having 30p on our D90s? Seems like to many people are justifying 30p... if you like it great for you but I would never shoot in anything but 24 so the 5D does not interest me as of now. In fact I sold my whole Canon/L lens collection just to have 24p with the D90. Just personal taste.
Jim Anderson
Well-known member
The bottom line is, most post facilities prefer 30p to work with. They can easily encode to 15fps for crystal clear Flash files (for the trailer) and give it a 24p look anyway in post. The fact that it still is progressive keeps it from having that "video" look. That was the advice I was given after shooting this feature on the HVX in 720/24p. www.southafricamovie.com
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
IMHO a video camera would still produce video-like footage if it worked at 24fps, and a film camera would still produce movie-like footage if it ran at 30fps.
The "look" can be seen in a single still frame, as far as I'm concerned. It's DOF, colo(u)r, gamma, etc.
point taken, but this is a temporal artform and you're going to discount motion characteristics?
encoding flash files at 15fps is not the convention anymore. that was done to reduce file size as was encoding video clips at 320x240 pixels. any post facility that prefers to use a non-broadcast standard of 30p is highly suspect in my mind. try delivering a 30p master to Deluxe or Technicolor and see how long it takes for the phone to ring.
Last edited:
re: temporal artform & motion characteristics
- bear in mind I'm a Brit and seldom see anything BUT a 25/50 frame rate - on my TV it's always the same frame/field rate whether it's video or something that was originally 24p sped up to 25. When would I be exposed to 24? - I don't go to the cinema that often!
On the PC, looking at peoples' efforts here, I don't really notice any significant differences in motion between 24fps and 30fps files (so long as it's smooth without random glitches and jerks)..... so maybe I'm just blessed that I'm immune to the issue?
Even if I struggled really hard to notice a difference, I'm quite sure that the effect is absolutely dwarfed by other considerations as far as the film look is concerned.
Out of interest, if you had to make a choice between two weird options (!) - what would you rather be limited to playing with....
a) a really good video camera modified to run at 24, but with no ability to play with color?
b) the same camera set to only run at 30fps, and editing with color adjustments?
Cheers
- bear in mind I'm a Brit and seldom see anything BUT a 25/50 frame rate - on my TV it's always the same frame/field rate whether it's video or something that was originally 24p sped up to 25. When would I be exposed to 24? - I don't go to the cinema that often!
On the PC, looking at peoples' efforts here, I don't really notice any significant differences in motion between 24fps and 30fps files (so long as it's smooth without random glitches and jerks)..... so maybe I'm just blessed that I'm immune to the issue?
Even if I struggled really hard to notice a difference, I'm quite sure that the effect is absolutely dwarfed by other considerations as far as the film look is concerned.
Out of interest, if you had to make a choice between two weird options (!) - what would you rather be limited to playing with....
a) a really good video camera modified to run at 24, but with no ability to play with color?
b) the same camera set to only run at 30fps, and editing with color adjustments?
Cheers
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
option A doesn't exist thankfully. and I would require both. but in terms of your exercise, I would choose A and live with the camera's default color and depth of field characteristics.
looking at the history of cinema, you can find all manner of vibrant color vs black and white, narrow depth of field vs deep focus, low res 16mm vs high res 70mm... but they all are unmistakably cinematic and they all have 24fps in common. it's fundamental.
looking at the history of cinema, you can find all manner of vibrant color vs black and white, narrow depth of field vs deep focus, low res 16mm vs high res 70mm... but they all are unmistakably cinematic and they all have 24fps in common. it's fundamental.
I've always wanted to conduct a study on this issue. Take a scene that was professionally lit, with proper art design, shot with a high-end camera, the works. The same scene is shot twice and edited in the same manner, with the only difference being the framerate, one is 24 fps and one is 30 fps.
Now take a random group of strangers and show them both scenes, then conduct a poll as to which scene "looks more like a movie." The result might be interesting.
Now take a random group of strangers and show them both scenes, then conduct a poll as to which scene "looks more like a movie." The result might be interesting.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
let's agree then. a double-blind wouldn't work on me unless I was blindfolded. thats the only way I couldn't tell the difference. maybe i'll do a test today... same frame composition, one at 24fps and the other at 30fps.
a double-blind wouldn't work on me unless I was blindfolded. thats the only way I couldn't tell the difference. maybe i'll do a test today... same frame composition, one at 24fps and the other at 30fps.Out of interest (again)... does your sensitivity to frame rates mean that you're always aware that you're watching a movie, instead of 'supending your disbelief' and truly getting absorbed into the plot?
Personally I'd prefer (if I could) to watch films in super-mega-duper high def on a wrap around screen with no flicker whatsoever... so that I'd truly feel like I was there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising your right to enjoy and persue a cinematic experience based upon a historic choice of frame rate, but for what it's worth, to me it seems a little like vintage car enthusiasts or 78rpm record collectors in a way. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Cheers
Personally I'd prefer (if I could) to watch films in super-mega-duper high def on a wrap around screen with no flicker whatsoever... so that I'd truly feel like I was there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising your right to enjoy and persue a cinematic experience based upon a historic choice of frame rate, but for what it's worth, to me it seems a little like vintage car enthusiasts or 78rpm record collectors in a way. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Cheers
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
as a filmmaker, I lost my ability to not notice the filmmaking long ago. i see the off-screen choices made by the actors, what the editor likely cut around to build a performance, the added meaning held in composition, color and luminance choices, the structural rhythms, the sonic landscape and how it informs the experience, etc, etc...
knowing the magician's tricks is the sacrifice we make for expanded sensitivity to the "form" of this artform, in addition to our sensitivity to the content held within. it's impossible for me to separate the two.
knowing the magician's tricks is the sacrifice we make for expanded sensitivity to the "form" of this artform, in addition to our sensitivity to the content held within. it's impossible for me to separate the two.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
and it's important to be studied, I think. i don't know how apt this comparison is (and I'm not particularly a fan of either) but say you take what is essentially the same content, under the guidance of Robert Rodriguez you get Sin City. In the sole hands of Frank Miller, you get The Spirit. the general audience may not be able to discern why one worked and the other didn't, but they certainly know the performances worked in one and not the other, they sense an unevenness throughout the telling of the latter.
but we filmmakers, on the otherhand, can diagnose the problems through our increased sensitivity to how these things are put together. we know of the director's ability to elicit a compelling performance, we know that one of these guys thinks in terms of single frames that may or may not work when cut together, while the other thinks in terms of how each shot pushes us to the next organically. i don't think it necessarily takes anything away from the experience of watching a film. i think it adds a deeper understanding of it. how many screenwriters' minds must be whirling away, thinking in terms of the mechanics of story construction every time they're confronted with something like what Charlie Kaufman produces?
but we filmmakers, on the otherhand, can diagnose the problems through our increased sensitivity to how these things are put together. we know of the director's ability to elicit a compelling performance, we know that one of these guys thinks in terms of single frames that may or may not work when cut together, while the other thinks in terms of how each shot pushes us to the next organically. i don't think it necessarily takes anything away from the experience of watching a film. i think it adds a deeper understanding of it. how many screenwriters' minds must be whirling away, thinking in terms of the mechanics of story construction every time they're confronted with something like what Charlie Kaufman produces?
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Yup! Look what I never intended to shoot with a cheap point-n-shoot cameraTools never limit an artist or a being on a mission. What a man can conceive he can achieve.
Http://www.gearninja.com
I'd still say that the quality of direction, casting, acting and editing etc etc, is what made the most difference between those films, dwarfing by orders of magnitude any subjective differences that a different frame rate would have made.. but hey
If 24fps is that important to you, that's your prerogative, I do find it fascinating though.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
If 24fps is that important to you, that's your prerogative, I do find it fascinating though.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
I'd still say that the quality of direction, casting, acting and editing etc etc, is what made the most difference between those films, dwarfing by orders of magnitude any subjective differences that a different frame rate would have made.. but hey
If 24fps is that important to you, that's your prerogative, I do find it fascinating though.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
we agree on that. did you see a mention of framerate in my comparison of the two?
anyway, framerate is one of those things that the general audience cannot directly put their finger on, but instinctually sense the difference... associating the 24fps cadence with cinema and the 30fps cadence with soap operas and news broadcasts. i'll post that comparison today of the two today.
I really wish you would not have posted that, I'm about $1,500 lighter now.
I think you've hit on the real button of visible truth to a viewer which is after all who the 24p or 30p project is really intended for right? The truth is that most viewers don't know, don't care, don't want to know.
We ran 6 months of on and off surveys of viewers here before we went our second generation HD. In the process we had them look at various pieces generated from P2 and HDV clips and from cameras in the $6,000 to $600 and I think the exercise was best summed up by an accountant who was in the viewing audience as a rater who said, "Do you know what a 1040x is?" When our small team of three looked at each other and nodded we didn't he said, "What you are trying to tell me is the same. I don't have a clue what you are talking about and I don't want too. I'm an accountant and I watch movies for entertainment. You guys just make good movies and I'll watch them regardless of how you get it done."
That was in my summation to corporate to say . . "All our projects end up being broadcast on 30 frame so why would we want to produce in anything other than 30 frame? At 24 frame there must be a new frame generated somewhere by duplicating or interpolating a new frame on some 3:2 or similar mathematical scheme to get a broadcast format. Moreover, since most movie theaters are rapidly moving to electronic projection, why not go with the future instead of hanging onto old crank style frame formats? After all, the real truth in the projects quality and saleability will not be because of it's frame rate but because of it's - composition - style - creativity - and that's it."
This was where the concept of frame rate in our organization dropped off at the street corner and we opted for 100% 30p with the odd artistic piece shot in 24p for fun. And, bear in mind that most NLE's will make a 30p for viewability on a 30 system and thus the whole "fun" of 24p begins to dissipate the moment digitizing begins let alone opens the door for "issues" when done so.
Just some thoughts on 24p (editable natively) and 30 p which is viewable and editable natively in NLE's.