to all the 30p haters

I always find that a bit unpersuasive. There's no need at all for any technical issues or difficulties when editing 23.976 instead of 29.97.

But, in the end, you make the decisions about what works for you.
 
Imagewise, it's amazing..

But the movement of 30p is not my kind of thing.

But again.. the images was just amazing!
 
drdimento said:
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.
Click to expand...
To add an 'Old School' perspective to an already sage set of statements...
peering back into the history of art ( film making is both art and science right?) we see the same pedantic discussions going back to the beginning of art itself, or so it seems. In modern times, the culprit is often the sales aspect of hardware et al. So long as we cling to a seemingly endless pursuit of the next big thing, the artist is easily duped into distractions that have to do with purchasing upgrades that purport to 'improve' his art, even as they enrich the merchant.
Added to this is the inevitable last throes that a dying format or species must go through before the inevitable next big thing has properly taken over.
It's really too bad but as a rich society, it seems we can afford to digress from the art and delve endlessly into academe as long as our pocketbooks and unlimited Internet ontime will permit.
As a human factors professional I always ask "what is the lowest common denominator that gets the job done?" ... and I author for that.
Self-referential art is only partially fulfilling, when our medium is so public.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
To add an 'Old School' perspective to an already sage set of statements...
Click to expand...

Wow, how nicely and fluidly put. It's so interesting to watch the evolution of the 24p to 30p scenario and how some feel that with video "it can't be film if it isn't 24p" and the truth is . . it isn't film . . huh?

How sweetly stated about the "art" and the shape of it all let alone the more I see this 35mm DSLR stuff like the 5D MK II I think video cameras better catch up or they are gonna go bye bye. I have gads of footage from a friend with panning, motion, low light, colorful scenery, etc. and I mean that camera in 30p is absolutely the most real picture I have seen yet. And to think the price of that baby is right there with a just a decent video camera, not a high priced one, let alone a video camera with an adapter and all that complicated set up, wherein the 5D MK II one just changes lenses and the DOF is REAL 35MM effect because it is. Not "equivalent" stuff but real . . then . . get a canon to nikon adapter like he has and you have total lens control inside the movie making "auto" TTL. I think I'm in love . . AND . . at a sweet 5MB a sec (avg on 18 untouched raw clips) for video which is only 300MB a minute or 18GB an hour . . NOT BAD!
 
I love the image quality from this camera but I would love to see it running at 24p. I would definitely use this camera for commercials or music videos, but not films so much.

Amazing job from Canon and I look forward to what comes from this progress.
 
Abaddon said:
Not with my budget. But a 24p video image at least looks more like film.
Click to expand...
Many film buffs would argue the fact that any video image looks like film.

Just playing Devils advocate here.

To put it simply. The difference between Video @ 24p and Video @ 30p is marginal when comparing Film to Video.

Yes, there's a difference between video at 24p and 30p but it's minimal, IMHO.

Nothing looks like film but film, so far. They're getting close though.

I just find all this talk about Video looking like Film quite interesting.
24p is just one small step in reaching that goal.

MAH
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Many film buffs would argue the fact that any video image looks like film.

Just playing Devils advocate here.

To put it simply. The difference between Video @ 24p and Video @ 30p is marginal when comparing Film to Video.

Yes, there's a difference between video at 24p and 30p but it's minimal, IMHO.

Nothing looks like film but film, so far. They're getting close though.

I just find all this talk about Video looking like Film quite interesting.
24p is just one small step in reaching that goal.

MAH
Click to expand...

I can definitely tell. And unfortunately, I can sometimes be taken out of a film because of it. Make a film with 30p and some people will complain. Make a film with 24p, and no one will complain. No one sane anyway.

I'm not stressing it though. It's just a matter of time before the option is available for cameras like this.
 
Abaddon said:
I can definitely tell. And unfortunately, I can sometimes be taken out of a film because of it. Make a film with 30p and some people will complain. Make a film with 24p, and no one will complain. No one sane anyway.
Click to expand...
Maybe not in the same way but those who shoot with Film may still trash it. Hell, Spielberg still bitches at Lucas over Film vs Digital. :)

Again, I'm betting that most people would fail a blind A/B test. Maybe not most filmmakers, just most people.

And I can get lost in a movie shot on a cell phone. It's all story for me.

MAH
 
I like the D90 better than the Mark II. It looks more like film does, and not just because of the frame rate. It has nicer colors. The mark II has colors that are not natural. AND, in low light, the images look strange, nice, but strange, but the way the camera gathers light isn't how it really looks in low light in real life. There is a distinct look that 5Ds give those low light shots, and they are very nice, but very unnatural. It's better than gain, or noise, but I'd probably still have to do so much to alter the scene with lighting and exposure to get a scene to look natural that by the time I was done lighting it I could have used a D90.
 
Rick Horton said:
I like the D90 better than the Mark II. It looks more like film does, and not just because of the frame rate. It has nicer colors. The mark II has colors that are not natural. AND, in low light, the images look strange, nice, but strange, but the way the camera gathers light isn't how it really looks in low light in real life. There is a distinct look that 5Ds give those low light shots, and they are very nice, but very unnatural. It's better than gain, or noise, but I'd probably still have to do so much to alter the scene with lighting and exposure to get a scene to look natural that by the time I was done lighting it I could have used a D90.
Click to expand...

Ah, Rick. Come over to this forum have you?

I like the look of the D90. Looks quite nice. A little grainy though in dark scenes.
I think the 5D actually looks too natural, and that's the problem. It looks too real, less like film. Very sharp as well. Sharpness can be altered though, lack of sharpness can't be. Colours can be altered as well.

We all know that post work can do wonders for most cameras.

Back on topic.
As for the original discussion of 24p vs 30p, I prefer 24p. I just don't think most people would notice the difference.

MAH
 
Abaddon said:
Not with my budget. But a 24p video image at least looks more like film.
Click to expand...

Actually two of our "regular" clients have stated that they like what we've done to our picture saying that it looks more real and . . . then the one said "like film" while the other said "like a Hollywood look" and this is all since we switched to XHA1's and shooting 100% 30p for all clients so far.

Dunno about that 24p fetish.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
. . . To put it simply. The difference between Video @ 24p and Video @ 30p is marginal when comparing Film to Video.
Yes, there's a difference between video at 24p and 30p but it's minimal, IMHO. Nothing looks like film but film, so far. They're getting close though. . . . MAH
Click to expand...

This is a "right on" approach to "real" and just what I've been saying all along . . which is pretty much the same thing I been saying about with all these "formats" and "codecs" where when you put it in front of "John Q. Public" or "Mary R. Public" they can't tell one from the other so long as the "Composition - Style - Creativity" are right on no matter how much money you have in your gear or how complicated and uncompressed, native, or impressive your work flow is with converters, filters, and other NLE tools let alone adapters, lenses, all kinds of field gear, etc. After all a DVX100 won awards right out of the box in 30p for crying out loud. What a fool to not put all kinds of camera support gear AND shoot 24p. How dare him/her :)
 
Thing is eventually all these video DSLR's will probably have frame rate choices just like the HV20, A1, DVX, etc... and this will all be a moot point.

Also, if Canon can put 24p into an HV20 it wouldn't kill them to do so in future video capable DSLR's. We can argue about whether you need 24p to make a good film but why not have the choice between 24p and 30p in the first place?

There is nothing wrong with a filmmaker embracing an unconventional frame rate or workflow, but why argue against those that want to stick with 24p. Personally, if I were shooting a film tomorrow and had the choice between 24p and 30p on the same camera I'd easily go 24p. Until 30p becomes more accepted why make it harder for your film to sell or play properly to an audience, whether they be a packed theater of average joe's or a single studio executive?

If you're going to all the trouble and spending all the time and money and enduring the draining of personal sanity to make a film why not set yourself up for success as much as possible before a single frame is shot? Maybe I'm biased against 24p, but I grew up on it since until recently all films were shot in 24p. I don't think I'll ever loose the desire to stick with the tried and true cinematic frame rate that is so ingrained in my subconscious.
 
Last edited:
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
For what it's worth, I agree that every camera should have 24p as an option.
I just think it matters more to filmmakers, that's all.

MAH
Click to expand...

I actually think that with the technology available already why fix the frame rate to 30p . . OR . . 24p. Why not just a small amount of "programming" give the camera purchaser 1p to 100p or 1p to 30p if the camera and card writing can't keep up. Why pick 24 and 30 as the only game?

After all, it's not like they have to put a monkey inside the camera who is trained to only crank the handle at 24p and 30p, it's just a programmable switch that could just as easily be 16p like some movies I've seen that really look neat, not more filmic or better just neat . . or even . . a 10p to get that Charlie Chaplin effect.

Geez, we're talking about a camera here that sells for nearly 3 grand and you only get a body what's it cost to have a guy sit down and program a frame rate . . $1,000 maybe $10,000 spread over how many cameras ?? So raise the price $10.

That's what I think. I'd love to be able to shoot some training videos in 100p or 60p (no "i") to get better education slow motion results like one I had to use a high speed camera on and shoot 300 frames a sec to be played back at 10 frames per second and recorded to 30p video so we could actually see oxidation of liquid metal occurring on the surface in the "real" WOW. Imagine that out of a DSLR . . I Want One.
 
drdimento said:
I actually think that with the technology available already why fix the frame rate to 30p . . OR . . 24p. Why not just a small amount of "programming" give the camera purchaser 1p to 100p or 1p to 30p if the camera and card writing can't keep up. Why pick 24 and 30 as the only game?

After all, it's not like they have to put a monkey inside the camera who is trained to only crank the handle at 24p and 30p, it's just a programmable switch that could just as easily be 16p like some movies I've seen that really look neat, not more filmic or better just neat . . or even . . a 10p to get that Charlie Chaplin effect.

Geez, we're talking about a camera here that sells for nearly 3 grand and you only get a body what's it cost to have a guy sit down and program a frame rate . . $1,000 maybe $10,000 spread over how many cameras ?? So raise the price $10.

That's what I think. I'd love to be able to shoot some training videos in 100p or 60p (no "i") to get better education slow motion results like one I had to use a high speed camera on and shoot 300 frames a sec to be played back at 10 frames per second and recorded to 30p video so we could actually see oxidation of liquid metal occurring on the surface in the "real" WOW. Imagine that out of a DSLR . . I Want One.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Of course we don't know if a D90 or 5D mkII can do it now but yeah, when a newer model can why not give more flexibility in the frame rates? Just for the chance of releasing a premium priced DSLR with video? I can't see that many higher end photographers, you know the ones that shoot medium and full format film/digital and use D3X's and Canon 1D mkIII's really caring that much about video modes. Although Nikon and Canon might decide to keep the pro video features in a higher end body knowing that video and film people will pay the extra money for it, considering we pay $3,500 to $5,300 for our DVX's, HVX's, etc... and add to that the 35mm adapters and lenses. Maybe they've got this all planned out for the next couple years.

At the current state we're in 24p, 30p, and 60i should be the very least we get. I can see 720 / 60p as the next popular frame rate though.

This is also an obvious advantage of the Scarlet that no one else can touch or might not for a while after Red's stuff hits the street, except an HVX which comes closest to Scarlet's variable frame rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top