Greetings my fellow filmmakers. I just joined this group about 5 minutes ago and did a brief scan through the technical posts before I signed up. I know this question has likely been asked umpteen times but.......I have been a commercial photographer for about 12 years now. I shoot film, reversal film. I understand film whether it be reversal or negative. I hear alot of people talking about the "film look" and have learned this means different things to different people. In my opinion if you want the "film look" shoot film. The reason film looks so good has nothing to do with a 24fps rate but everything to do with resolution, latitude, and great optics. The only thing that comes close to film is of course HD. My first feature project is being shot on video because I simply do not have the money to shoot film. That said, I was planning on shooting on the Varicam (HD) but a friend let me look at the DVX footage that he had done recently and I was completely blown away. I can save a ton of money going the DVX route although I will be sacrificing resolution, and latitude. The optics can be adapted. But here's the question from a film guy. What is the point in capturing 24p when the DVX is simply downconverting to tape in 60i anyway. I don't see the point in capturing a progressively scanned image when what is on the tape is the only thing that matters. I have no plans to transfer to film and I think the best I can hope for is a "straight to video" release. Personally I prefer an interlaced image when the camera is moving (panning for example). Perhaps I'm missing something other advantages in shooting in 24p mode that some of you more technically proficient types could enlighten me with. ;D
Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
- Thread starter Javanino
- Start date
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
To be honest, if you're not outputting to film, it is almost entirely the look of it. I agree that film looks great mostly because of lattitude, color detail, and depth of field. Nonetheless, the frame rate has something to do with it. Studies have been done, and people react differently to 24fps than they do to 60. Anecdotally, I can confirm this 100%. Yes, video is not film, but 24fps really does make a difference. People have tried projecting film at 60fps and people in general did not like how it looked.
If you have any chance for film transfer, the varicam will definitely be worth it. If you plan to distribute on HD, the varicam will be worth it. It has not only more resolution, but better dynamic range and much bigger ccds. If you're going for standard definition distribution only (dvds, etc.) and you have the money, I'd go with an sdx900 and possibly a dvx to use for b-roll. The sdx has better dynamic range, twice the data rate (artifacts in red objects dissapear almost completely), and big ccds...which means much shallower DOF (though nothing approaching 35mm, but if the iris is open, it's more than sufficient). Lastly, the sdx900 features a removeable lens and 16:9 native CCDs. It also features a massive price tag, but not nearly as bad as the varicam's.
24p's other advantage is distribution. You can speed it up to 25p for PAL or add pulldown for ntsc or you can make 24p native DVDs which look much better on HDTVs and (because you only have 24fps instead of 30fps) look better at lower data rates. 30p cannot be converted to 24p nor PAL very easily.
If you plan only to distribute in the US, you may want to shoot in 30p. It looks very good, is easier to work with, offers much smoother pans, and still has a most of 24p's dramatic look.
To be honest, the best solution is to demo each camera then do test shoots in each frame rate. Also, if you want to see both cameras in action, Wild Boyz on mtv is shot on dvx's and Arrested Development on Fox is shot primarily on an sdx900.
One issue regarding DVDs is that they have 4:2:0 color space, like PAL DV. NTSC DV is 4:1:1. this means that you will end up with something around 4:1:0 color space, which is 1/8th the color information you'd have natively. The varicam and sdx900 both have 4:2:2 color space, which will produce much nicer dvds.
But don't get me wrong, the dvx is flat out amazing for a minidv camcorder under 4,000 dollars.
To be honest, if you're not outputting to film, it is almost entirely the look of it. I agree that film looks great mostly because of lattitude, color detail, and depth of field. Nonetheless, the frame rate has something to do with it. Studies have been done, and people react differently to 24fps than they do to 60. Anecdotally, I can confirm this 100%. Yes, video is not film, but 24fps really does make a difference. People have tried projecting film at 60fps and people in general did not like how it looked.
If you have any chance for film transfer, the varicam will definitely be worth it. If you plan to distribute on HD, the varicam will be worth it. It has not only more resolution, but better dynamic range and much bigger ccds. If you're going for standard definition distribution only (dvds, etc.) and you have the money, I'd go with an sdx900 and possibly a dvx to use for b-roll. The sdx has better dynamic range, twice the data rate (artifacts in red objects dissapear almost completely), and big ccds...which means much shallower DOF (though nothing approaching 35mm, but if the iris is open, it's more than sufficient). Lastly, the sdx900 features a removeable lens and 16:9 native CCDs. It also features a massive price tag, but not nearly as bad as the varicam's.
24p's other advantage is distribution. You can speed it up to 25p for PAL or add pulldown for ntsc or you can make 24p native DVDs which look much better on HDTVs and (because you only have 24fps instead of 30fps) look better at lower data rates. 30p cannot be converted to 24p nor PAL very easily.
If you plan only to distribute in the US, you may want to shoot in 30p. It looks very good, is easier to work with, offers much smoother pans, and still has a most of 24p's dramatic look.
To be honest, the best solution is to demo each camera then do test shoots in each frame rate. Also, if you want to see both cameras in action, Wild Boyz on mtv is shot on dvx's and Arrested Development on Fox is shot primarily on an sdx900.
One issue regarding DVDs is that they have 4:2:0 color space, like PAL DV. NTSC DV is 4:1:1. this means that you will end up with something around 4:1:0 color space, which is 1/8th the color information you'd have natively. The varicam and sdx900 both have 4:2:2 color space, which will produce much nicer dvds.
But don't get me wrong, the dvx is flat out amazing for a minidv camcorder under 4,000 dollars.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
[quote author=Javanino link=board=Events;num=1092196047;start=0#0 date=08/10/04 at 20:47:27]The reason film looks so good has nothing to do with a 24fps rate but everything to do with resolution, latitude, and great optics.[/quote]
I think the reason you're confused here is because your basic premise is incorrect. The film look is almost entirely due to the 24fps frame rate.
Take a look at standard high-def video (meaning, 60i, as from a 700-series Sony before they invented the 24P camera). It has extremely high resolution, great optics, the best latitude a video camera can deliver... and looks NOTHING like film. It looks like very sharp, very clear, high-definition video, but it's video video video all the way.
Then take a look at the DVX. Low resolution, standard DV latitude (maybe a little bit more)... but put it in 24P and it looks very filmlike. It completely makes you think "hey, that's not video..."
Of course film's color response, gamma, latitude, and the shallower depth of field all play important roles in the overall look as well, but in my opinion the single most important factor in emulating the "film look" is the 24fps frame rate. It is the deciding factor in what makes the DVX look like film and other cameras look like video.
[quote author=Javanino link=board=Events;num=1092196047;start=0#0 date=08/10/04 at 20:47:27]The reason film looks so good has nothing to do with a 24fps rate but everything to do with resolution, latitude, and great optics.[/quote]
I think the reason you're confused here is because your basic premise is incorrect. The film look is almost entirely due to the 24fps frame rate.
Take a look at standard high-def video (meaning, 60i, as from a 700-series Sony before they invented the 24P camera). It has extremely high resolution, great optics, the best latitude a video camera can deliver... and looks NOTHING like film. It looks like very sharp, very clear, high-definition video, but it's video video video all the way.
Then take a look at the DVX. Low resolution, standard DV latitude (maybe a little bit more)... but put it in 24P and it looks very filmlike. It completely makes you think "hey, that's not video..."
Of course film's color response, gamma, latitude, and the shallower depth of field all play important roles in the overall look as well, but in my opinion the single most important factor in emulating the "film look" is the 24fps frame rate. It is the deciding factor in what makes the DVX look like film and other cameras look like video.
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
...the point is that the 24p is encoded/telecined into the 60i on tape.. your not left with 60i.. your left with a tape from which you can extract the original 24p fps again.. we all do this, and edit in real 24p, and can make 24p DVDs .. have 24p copies for filmouts.. give projects the filmlook from the 24p framerate.. make 24p web streaming files and so on.. your question is legit, but comes a bit short knowledged.
if the camera simply shot 24p, and then converted it to regular 60i your right there would be no point, but it doesnt do that... it shoots 24p, and then telecines it (just like any other film to video telecine..with the option of an adnavced telecine for cleaner 24p extraction) to the tape .. allowing you to take the tape and use any NTSC equipment to edit it or transfer it to your NLE. but once in the NLE the original 24p fps can be taken back out of the 60i file.. so you actually are shooting, and using true 24p in any aspect of the process that you would like to.
...the point is that the 24p is encoded/telecined into the 60i on tape.. your not left with 60i.. your left with a tape from which you can extract the original 24p fps again.. we all do this, and edit in real 24p, and can make 24p DVDs .. have 24p copies for filmouts.. give projects the filmlook from the 24p framerate.. make 24p web streaming files and so on.. your question is legit, but comes a bit short knowledged.
if the camera simply shot 24p, and then converted it to regular 60i your right there would be no point, but it doesnt do that... it shoots 24p, and then telecines it (just like any other film to video telecine..with the option of an adnavced telecine for cleaner 24p extraction) to the tape .. allowing you to take the tape and use any NTSC equipment to edit it or transfer it to your NLE. but once in the NLE the original 24p fps can be taken back out of the 60i file.. so you actually are shooting, and using true 24p in any aspect of the process that you would like to.
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
Thanks to all for the input. Firstly, I don't think I'm confused. I just don't agree with the frame rate notion. 24fps was chosen way back because many felt that it was the minimum frame rate they could choose for a moving image. Many wanted to go even slower, 18fps, the favored rate for amateur cameras to of course save film. If one was to shoot at 30 and projected at 30, relatively know one could tell the difference. The problem with higher frame rates is the shutter must also work faster from a 1/48 to 1/60 (using a 180 degree shutter). I think it's all subjective and depends on the eye. I personally prefer a 30fps acquisition and projection, it looks cleaner and less flickery. Since the standard is 24fps, it would be foolish to complicate your life with 30 frames.
Back to the original question, I'm not debating the aesthetic attributes of 24p. However loser, Everything I've read this far from Panasonic says that the camera is capturing in 24p but converts the 3:2 pulldown 60i to tape. Unless you are speaking of the advanced mode which may placing a true 24p to tape. I'm also getting conflicting info regarding this. That's why I'm here. To find out. Inform me but spare me the condescension.
Thanks to all for the input. Firstly, I don't think I'm confused. I just don't agree with the frame rate notion. 24fps was chosen way back because many felt that it was the minimum frame rate they could choose for a moving image. Many wanted to go even slower, 18fps, the favored rate for amateur cameras to of course save film. If one was to shoot at 30 and projected at 30, relatively know one could tell the difference. The problem with higher frame rates is the shutter must also work faster from a 1/48 to 1/60 (using a 180 degree shutter). I think it's all subjective and depends on the eye. I personally prefer a 30fps acquisition and projection, it looks cleaner and less flickery. Since the standard is 24fps, it would be foolish to complicate your life with 30 frames.
Back to the original question, I'm not debating the aesthetic attributes of 24p. However loser, Everything I've read this far from Panasonic says that the camera is capturing in 24p but converts the 3:2 pulldown 60i to tape. Unless you are speaking of the advanced mode which may placing a true 24p to tape. I'm also getting conflicting info regarding this. That's why I'm here. To find out. Inform me but spare me the condescension.
Scottdvx100
Veteran
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
As Barry mentioned 24fps makes a huge difference. If you've ever seen a film shot and projected at high speed (48 or 60 fps, which some simulators are) it will look like large live video.
Both 24p and 24pa are recorded at 24 fps. They are layed to tape in slightly different ways but the 24fps look is built in to both. Both can be extracted to pure 24fps although 24pa provides an easier and cleaner method of doing so.
24p recorded to standard video will appear the same as a film transfered to video (telecine 3:2 pulldown added) so the motion appears the same as if it were shot on film, not video. If you light carefully and treat it like a film camera when moving it then it will provide the same impression as footage originating on film.
24p/24pa can both be used to create 24p DVDs (more footage on DVD since you don't have duplicate frames) and/or go to film.
As Barry mentioned 24fps makes a huge difference. If you've ever seen a film shot and projected at high speed (48 or 60 fps, which some simulators are) it will look like large live video.
Both 24p and 24pa are recorded at 24 fps. They are layed to tape in slightly different ways but the 24fps look is built in to both. Both can be extracted to pure 24fps although 24pa provides an easier and cleaner method of doing so.
24p recorded to standard video will appear the same as a film transfered to video (telecine 3:2 pulldown added) so the motion appears the same as if it were shot on film, not video. If you light carefully and treat it like a film camera when moving it then it will provide the same impression as footage originating on film.
24p/24pa can both be used to create 24p DVDs (more footage on DVD since you don't have duplicate frames) and/or go to film.
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
A progressive picture looks different from an interlaced picture. If you don’t think so, run 60i and 30p next to each other. Theoretically the same “frame rate,” but a marked difference in appearance.
And, AGAIN with the myth that 24pA records “true progressive” or “24p” to tape. It doesn’t. It’s 60i, just with a different pulldown cadence.
24p is all about the film look, whether it’s ultimately displayed at 24p or 60i. There are other, technical advantages to using it, but really, it’s all about the look – which is retained no matter how it’s stored.
A progressive picture looks different from an interlaced picture. If you don’t think so, run 60i and 30p next to each other. Theoretically the same “frame rate,” but a marked difference in appearance.
And, AGAIN with the myth that 24pA records “true progressive” or “24p” to tape. It doesn’t. It’s 60i, just with a different pulldown cadence.
24p is all about the film look, whether it’s ultimately displayed at 24p or 60i. There are other, technical advantages to using it, but really, it’s all about the look – which is retained no matter how it’s stored.
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
ok.. if your so inclined, you can educate youeself on the inner working of the DVX beyond what I have explained here:
loads of very technically explained info on the dvx100 and its operation.:
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html
and in more beginner terms here:
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/MWSF2003-24p.htm
the second link will take you to a page directly explaining the process of the 24p telecine, and exctraction.
anyway both the 24pn and the 24pa modes shoot in true 24p but they record to the tape with differnt telecines.. neither is true 24p on the tape, but both conversions can be used to extract the original 24p once it is captured to the NLE. however the new advanced telecine mode allows for easier and cleaner extraction when staying in the native DV environment.
ok.. if your so inclined, you can educate youeself on the inner working of the DVX beyond what I have explained here:
loads of very technically explained info on the dvx100 and its operation.:
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html
and in more beginner terms here:
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/MWSF2003-24p.htm
the second link will take you to a page directly explaining the process of the 24p telecine, and exctraction.
anyway both the 24pn and the 24pa modes shoot in true 24p but they record to the tape with differnt telecines.. neither is true 24p on the tape, but both conversions can be used to extract the original 24p once it is captured to the NLE. however the new advanced telecine mode allows for easier and cleaner extraction when staying in the native DV environment.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
I'd say that if you're making a movie, and you're wanting the most filmic look possible on MiniDV, and you have the editing programs that can support native 24P editing, then there's no reason not to shoot 24P. It've fooled people into thinking footage I've taken was shot on 16mm, and I strongly believe that it was mostly because of the 24P motion rendering.
I'd say that if you're making a movie, and you're wanting the most filmic look possible on MiniDV, and you have the editing programs that can support native 24P editing, then there's no reason not to shoot 24P. It've fooled people into thinking footage I've taken was shot on 16mm, and I strongly believe that it was mostly because of the 24P motion rendering.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
The shortest possible answer is: 24P works exactly like film does when it's transferred to tape.
Film shoots 24 frames per second and gets transferred to 60i videotape. DVX shoots 24 frames per second and gets transferred to 60i videotape. Same look, same feel, same aesthetic as film.
The shortest possible answer is: 24P works exactly like film does when it's transferred to tape.
Film shoots 24 frames per second and gets transferred to 60i videotape. DVX shoots 24 frames per second and gets transferred to 60i videotape. Same look, same feel, same aesthetic as film.
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
Arent you on vacation? ;D
Arent you on vacation? ;D
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
Next week...
Next week...
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
It's not about the final result of what is on the tape being 60i or not, it is about the original resolution of the capture - a car driving at the same speed down the street will look diferent when captured at 24, 30i or 30p. This is because of the amount of "samples" taken during the shoot. 24 samples per second versus 60 sample per second for motion is a far different look.
Add to the that the progressive nature for vertucal resolution, you end up with a very differnt result. Once the images have been "sampled" they are stored on DV and in NTSC there is no 24 frame standard, it is always 59.94 fields per second. So in order to put 24 progressivey sampled images to tape (23.976) a 2:3:2:3 pattern is created. 2:3:3:2 was created to allow native DV editing systems to easily throw away the redundant frame for editing without the need for a decompress/recompress pass.
There is NO DIFFERENCE
It's not about the final result of what is on the tape being 60i or not, it is about the original resolution of the capture - a car driving at the same speed down the street will look diferent when captured at 24, 30i or 30p. This is because of the amount of "samples" taken during the shoot. 24 samples per second versus 60 sample per second for motion is a far different look.
Add to the that the progressive nature for vertucal resolution, you end up with a very differnt result. Once the images have been "sampled" they are stored on DV and in NTSC there is no 24 frame standard, it is always 59.94 fields per second. So in order to put 24 progressivey sampled images to tape (23.976) a 2:3:2:3 pattern is created. 2:3:3:2 was created to allow native DV editing systems to easily throw away the redundant frame for editing without the need for a decompress/recompress pass.
There is NO DIFFERENCE
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
Sorry - for some reason I hit send when I wasn't done...
As I was saying, there is NO DIFFERENCE in the original motion capture between NORMAL and ADVANCED as both images are being sampled at 23.976 frame per second. The only difference is how they are stored on tape AFTER the capture.
The biggest myth and basically wrong information is that a user must shoot 24pA to go to film. 24pN can go to film just as easily - it is all about how your NLE deals with the cadences and its ability to reverse the pulldown pattern to native 23.976.
And now Canon is repeating the same myth with the XL2. AAGGHHH.
Michael
Sorry - for some reason I hit send when I wasn't done...
As I was saying, there is NO DIFFERENCE in the original motion capture between NORMAL and ADVANCED as both images are being sampled at 23.976 frame per second. The only difference is how they are stored on tape AFTER the capture.
The biggest myth and basically wrong information is that a user must shoot 24pA to go to film. 24pN can go to film just as easily - it is all about how your NLE deals with the cadences and its ability to reverse the pulldown pattern to native 23.976.
And now Canon is repeating the same myth with the XL2. AAGGHHH.
Michael
Scottdvx100
Veteran
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
Both 24p and 24pa can be used for film but for most newer editing programs it's faster and easier to deal with 24pa. Since 24p also requires fields to be recombined and resaved (i.e. recompressed) it also has tends to take longer and lose a little quality. If someone truly wants to edit in a pure 24fps timeline 24pa would be the preferred way even though it can be done with both.
Both 24p and 24pa can be used for film but for most newer editing programs it's faster and easier to deal with 24pa. Since 24p also requires fields to be recombined and resaved (i.e. recompressed) it also has tends to take longer and lose a little quality. If someone truly wants to edit in a pure 24fps timeline 24pa would be the preferred way even though it can be done with both.
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
As I said, if you want to edit at native DV rates, ADVANCED is a fine way to go - but the whole decompress/recompress thing can be taken a bit too far. This means that even though you capture ADVANCED to avoid this during the capture, you are never rendering again? Everytime you render, the picture needs to decompress and recompress - so the quality issue will alway be there.
If I am going to do a film out, I capture or recapture at uncompressed resolution and now have 4:2:2 color space for color correction and don't have to deal with decompress/recompress generational issues of DV. This can be done with either ADVANCED or NORMAL and in the end has no difference and can be done in the same amount of time.
What I am objecting to is the myth that you HAVE to shoot ADVANCED if you want to make a DVD or go out to film. What you HAVE to do is plan according to your post workflow and equipment at your disposal. And basded on that, make the best decision for quality and downstream processes.
Michael
As I said, if you want to edit at native DV rates, ADVANCED is a fine way to go - but the whole decompress/recompress thing can be taken a bit too far. This means that even though you capture ADVANCED to avoid this during the capture, you are never rendering again? Everytime you render, the picture needs to decompress and recompress - so the quality issue will alway be there.
If I am going to do a film out, I capture or recapture at uncompressed resolution and now have 4:2:2 color space for color correction and don't have to deal with decompress/recompress generational issues of DV. This can be done with either ADVANCED or NORMAL and in the end has no difference and can be done in the same amount of time.
What I am objecting to is the myth that you HAVE to shoot ADVANCED if you want to make a DVD or go out to film. What you HAVE to do is plan according to your post workflow and equipment at your disposal. And basded on that, make the best decision for quality and downstream processes.
Michael
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Why 24P if it's only putting 60i to tape?
Michael's exactly right, the whole "film needs 24PA" thing is a complete myth. Either mode would work just fine.
24PN is ideal for editing in a 60i timeline. 24PA is preferable if you're editing on a 24P timeline. Either can be output to video, DVD or film just fine.
Michael's exactly right, the whole "film needs 24PA" thing is a complete myth. Either mode would work just fine.
24PN is ideal for editing in a 60i timeline. 24PA is preferable if you're editing on a 24P timeline. Either can be output to video, DVD or film just fine.