This one looked like it was further off into the future--exciting news!

http://www.videography.com/brief/mainv/0,2444,33265,00.html

Damn... that is good news! Wonder what it will cost. Probably
more then the Xl1S.... oh well...

Chris, it might be interesting to add a DV News channel to
this forum? That way all items can be posted there and
easy referenced. Now they get stuck inbetween other
messages

Oh hell yeah! Screw interlacing, my dream camera is coming! OK OK my dream camera would be if the XL2 had this feature. I don't care for "palm sized cameras", though it would be good as a stealth cam to pick up 24fps while an XL2 (I hope) delivers the 24fps the rest of the time.

IMO this a step back.

1) 24fps has been standard for how many decades? It is outdated. Film (the reason for 24fps) is much faster and sensitive than 60-70 years ago and the CCDs in our cameras are getting better with every new generation, so it would make sense to shoot at higher frame rates to get a smoother and more fluid motion.

2) 24fps are quite flickering when you pan the camera.

3) When we say the frame-mode on the XL1 looks much better than the normal mode, then we compare to film and the biggest similarity is the flickering. (Although I do prefer movie-mode, too)

4) The film industry will change to HDTV (at whatever standard) anyway sooner or later, making all we use now completely obsolete. And they will surely not run at 24fps. At least not only. It takes only a button to change framerate.

I think this is just a marketing gag to make all the wannabes who dream of a 35mm blow-up buy this camera. The little problem is even if they really finish something that will be blown up it will be so late that 35mm will be dead then and everything will be projected digtially already. The company should name the new camcorder the "Dreamer set", because that´s exactly the name the old Arriflex 16s was given by the camera houses because they sold so many of these old units with 3 so-so prime lenses to so many "aspiring" filmmakers.
I am sorry for being so cynical, but that is the way it is. If someone makes a good movie nobody will say: "well, great movie, but, sorry, I don´t like it. You should have done it at 24fps".

Would 24fps be a reason for buying a camera? Not for me.

Okay, I admit I have a little advantage here in Europe with PALs 25fps.

forgot something:

Progressive scan - YES

That´s what I want. Not 24fps. But real progressive scan.

I think the point is that we are all used to seeing real movies at 24fps and video at 60 fields per second. They have a very different look to them, even when movies are transferred to NTSC video. Shooting in 24 frames per second in the first place can help achieve that movie-like feel. It doesn't scream out to the audience "Hey I am just a guy with a camcorder!" 60 fields per second just has that "news" or "camcorder" feel to it. It seems cheap to me and always has. Progressive scan definitely could help that even if it were running at 60 frames per second.

When digital cinema rolls around movies will still be 24 frames per second. Yes it is strobey and doesn't have super smooth pans. Your brain is required to work a little harder (and perhaps be more involved in the show, so to speak) to fill in the gaps between frames to simulate continuous motion. But until movies increase their frame rate (which won't be until digital cinema is in nearly 100% of theaters everywhere, which will take a long, long time) we'll have to put up with 24fps as the "movie-like" frame rate. :)

When watching movies you are NOT wathcing 24 fps
footage.. What you are watching is 48 fps footage.
They double is each frame! And I think HDTV was
supposed to support 24 fps as well (not sure about
this)...

This camera supports 24, 25 & 30 fps... So in my
opinion it is good! You can choose yourself what
you want! Here in europe we watch 25 FPS everyday
of our lives, not flickering thus far (new widescreen
tv use 100 hz here... so they create 3 extra frames
each second... but not much people have these TV's
yet)

I'm with you, Peter. Sounds like Panasonic schmaltz.

Film is 24 frames per second. The shutter shows each frame twice. Hardly 48 frames per second. 24 individual pictures per second. When converted down to video you still get 24 individual images per second, not 60. BIG difference in the way the motion is perceived.

To be honest though, I wouldn't buy this camera blindly. I'd have to see the results in action first.

Yes, HD is finally coming into its own, and the primary reason for that is the Sony Cine-Alta camera which records at 24p (Panasonic also has a 24p camera which is less popular). 24 fps is, as others have mentioned here, an aesthetic that will not likely change overnight if at all. There have been attempts over the years at higher frame rate projection (Doug Trumbull's Showscan, a 65mm image projected at 60 fps, is one) but they have not captivated audiences.

Regarding Peter's "Film is dead" theory, it will be a number of years before that is true. The cost of theater conversion is currently prohibitive, even though the DLP technology is available and impressive. And few filmmakers consider the HD image to be an acceptable substitute for 35mm. George Lucas is one, but on the other hand, Steven Spielberg has said "I'll shoot film until the last lab in LA closes its doors".

I've shot and transferred both 60i (Digi-Beta) and 24p (HD) to 35mm for projection, and 24p is a no-brainer, with far fewer artifacts. I'm positive that 24p Mini-DV will be a substantive leap in quality over 60i Mini-DV for 35mm blowup as well as digital projection.

As far as the "Dreamer set" label...there have already been numerous DV films that have achieved theatrical release and made profit. Not an unattainable dream at all! And I can't really see the relevance of the Arri 16S analogy. 16mm is alive and well, and successful films and many television shows are being shot on 16 still. I'm working on one right now--"Scrubs", on NBC--and no-one's complaining about the image quality! In fact, one of the real problems of video is that the optical block and processing keeps improving, making each generation of camera quickly obsolete; whereas that same funky 30 year old 16S with its turret-mounted lenses could be right alongside our Aatons on set tomorrow and produce perfectly good pictures (put a modern lens on it and it would produce identical pictures).

By the way, we are entering pilot production season here in LA, and already I'm hearing about many pilots slated to be shot in HD, up substantially from last year. Although I said earlier that we are a while from having HD dominate theatrical presentations, it is making significant inroads into television productions that would normally be shot on film. Can't say as too many of us in the camera guild are thrilled about it either (I'm more of a fan of DV than HD in certain ways) but we don't have much of a choice!

I've shot plenty of videos over the years as well as a lot of real film. Let me tell you NOTHING video approaches film overall, but the one thing that makes video look like...well...ah...VIDEO is that it runs at either 60i or 30FPS. It just looks cheap and amateurish to me and I've always hated it (especially 60i). Turn on your tv and watch some of the more quality shows. Even sitcoms like Seinfeld and shows like Malcolm in the Middle are shot on film, not video...and they look phenomenally better, mainly due to that frame rate.

I'm sure lots of people on this forum have software to achieve the "film look". Now putting that stupid assumption that all films are scratched and dirty, make a conversion of something you shot with your videocamera at either 30FPS or 60i. What do you notice? The 60i looks like really cheap and really bad faked film, but is obviously video. The 30FPS looks much more like film, but still has that video look to it, even though EVERYTHING else may look perfect, with or without any kind of "film look" applied.

I for one have strayed away from purchasing another video camera since the late 80's. Up until I shot that recent short with Joe listed on another thread here, I have barely touched a video camera in 10 years. I have shot exclusively film (8mm or 16mm) and have achieved far superior results than is available from any video camera. I am VERY anxious to see this camera in action, for I truly believe those who say the frame rate does not matter or think that a 24FPS rate is a degredation will be convinced to sell off their current cameras. At least, anyone who wants to shoot productions that look like a real film production will.

This is by no means a gimmick. This is something we have needed for a damn long time.

Oops, I think I have opened a pandora´s box and would like to close it again.

Because the whole thing is an aesthetic discussion therefore a matter of taste and of what we are used to see onscreen. And because it is hard to change you habits and preferences once you have developed your own. That´s why I said I do prefer the movie-mode on the XL-1, too, because I just like the look better. But on the other hand I would lunge for a higher frame rate to get rid of the ugly flickering during a fast pan or sideway-dolly where the "holes" between 2 frames just make my head ache.

Maybe I should add that I am not so exposed to the framerate problem since here in Europe we use PAL with 25fps at 720x576 (DV) and not NTSC with 30fps at 720x480 (DV).

As for the "dreamer set": the name does not imply that the camera itself is bad, after all it is 16mm which is still better than any camera below HD, what I meant was that many wannabes believe they will rocket to Hollywood by just owning the camera, because they follow the formula "better camera = better filmmaker". I hope nobody here feels insulted by this, but I think you are all making movies/videos anyway, so this should exclude you from the wannabies. ;-)

I´d say let us wait until the Panasonic comes out and see how good or bad it really is.

For now on I am to remain quiet and eagerly await the user comments when the camera is out.

Cheers,

Because of HD's poor showing in sales, many people think that HD will be a while in coming. Personally, I think HD offers many advantages...with the exception of cost for the home consumer. Once the cost of these sets are within reach to most households, HD will skyrocket, especially because of it's compatibility with non-interlaced computer driven imaging. The computer, HDTV crossover potential is too great Then we'll see that HD cam also hit the bigtime. Progressive DVD players are already being sold, altho' most consumers don't know what that means. Personally, I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for what Hollywood or broadcast is using. Give me good resolution and smooth, flicker free recording technology, anyday. BTW, as long as I'm wishing for the moon, let's do all this at modest, less than 2Mbps bitrate. If you want the "film" look, use diffusion filters. I never heard of a still photographer INTENTIONALLY blurring his images (chuckle) unless he was feeling romantic.

I've been deinterlacing my DV footage by converting each individual field to a frame, effectively giving me 60 FPS. The smoothness of motion, especially in slomo, is incredible.

But you are effectively halving your resolution when you
extract each field to a frame, right? What technique (how)
did you use to do this?

Yeah, ya never get something for nothing. Resolution suffers, but, throw in a sharpness filter and the loss is less noticeable. Also, by deinterlacing this way, each field/frame appears 1/30 of a second apart so interlacing artifacts disappear. It's kind of like temporal de-interlacing, to coin a term. The process is done thru TMPGenc. For more details and TMPGenc templates, visit:
http://people.freenet.de/codecpage/
Scroll down and check out the post for Oct 27, "doubling frame rates".

Peter, I've got news for you. Super 8mm film FAR beats out the resolution, contrast and everything else about video too...even with the XL1. 16mm actually only has a very slightly larger useable frame area and as such does not offer too much more of a significant improvement in resolution. Plus, there are labs that will custom slit down any 35mm filmstock (reversal or negative) to Super 8mm so you can even shoot like the big boys do with T-grain filmstocks. These facts have been documented many times in the industry. Video has a long way to go, but as you no doubt noticed, your PAL 25FPS camera looks pretty damn good.

billravens, "If you want the "film" look, use diffusion filters." Not trying to be an ass here, but that does not work. At least not to anyone who knows better. 30FPS with diffusion filters still looks like video.

Brad...

:-)...oops, I've been busted. But, I'm curious, what's the fascination with "film look" anyway? Seems like the only reason I've heard is, "because it's always been done that way by Hollywood". What if I'm not into romantic looking documentaries, or photo histories?

Personally I think EVERYTHING looks better if originated on film, but some things many people say look better on video (the most common one I've heard is porno movies, due to the more fluid motion). If you are trying to shoot something with a story, then I see no use for video for as I've stated before, it just looks like a cheap home movie made on Daddy's camcorder, regardless of the quality of camera, lighting, editing or sound is. It just looks amateurish.

Now before anyone asks the question "what about that latest projection training video Joe spoke of in another thread. Would you have shot that on film?" The answer is no. In that situation, part of the humor is mimicking those bad shot on video training tapes and sleazy used car salesman commercials. Shooting on film (or at 24FPS) would've taken away from the humor.

Shoot that exact same production shot for shot on real film and transfer over to video for editing and the finished tape will look much more professional. I have been shooting video and film since the early 80's. This 24FPS will absolutely take over once people see it. :)

I really enjoy reading through good discussions like this. Inevitably I learn something new about both film and video technologies.

Those of us who love watching movies would be hard pressed to argue that stories skillfully ccommitted to film can be beautiful visions to behold. I recently saw "Tortilla Soup" for the first time and found myself mesmerized by just how beautifully it was shot and lit...on film. And, as an old film buff, I equally enjoy watching old b&w films.

But there are few truths more self-evident than that video will replace film as the mainstream motion picture medium. Aesthetics are fun but economics and sheer practicality are driving this train. Cinematographers, actors, directors, producers, et.al. may be a noisy lot but they have no meaningful power to stop the train. Either get on or stay behind at the station.

As an optmistic trend it looks like the video equipment industry is quickly rising to the challenge of producing imaging technologies that can rival and even exceed film's possibilities. Certainly this trend is being driven in no small part by the parties above.

So, from my seat, it's profoundly myopic to assert a position that includes statements like "...video will always...", or "...video will never...". The financial and human capital being devoted to video's development very likely exceeds the total of capital ever devoted to film's development by several orders of magnitude. The odds are overwhelming that you'll be caught bare-butt wrong, perhaps as soon as you click the Submit button.

It's up to us as admittedly small participants in this exciting trend to seize the day by learning to use the current technology to its fullest advantage, spend every otherwise idle hour learning about developments to which we are not normally exposed and to be advocates for future developments in the industry. Remember, when there is change there is opportunity. Let Speilberg shoot on film to the last unexposed frame. God bless him, with his talent I hope he just keeps shooting on -anything- that we can all see! Film, Etch-A-Sketch, whatever.

OK, I'll get off of the soap box now and fade back into lurker-land on this thread.

well, Brad...all I can say is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"....aka, whatever rings your bell. I submit that the average moviegoer doesn't recognize nor care about the difference until someone says "hey, that's not cool". Then watch the sheep jump on the bandwagon.And, you make an excellent point, Ken. Video requires different lighting techniques, and YES skill, than film. If you put a film maker on a video production, you'll get a video that looks like crap. Put someone experienced with video, without a preformed OPINION about video vs film, and I promise, you'll get a good looking video.
And finally, I'm not hoping to, nor do I want to replace film. Film has its place in art and entertainment. All I'm saying is that video has its applications that film won't meet. Just apply the tool to the right job.....people get so wrapped around the axle they forget about using a philips screwdriver when its a philips head screw.

I have this things that has bothered me for quite some
time now. This discussion of film vs. video is nice, but I
never here anyone on movies shot on film but transferred
to DVD for example. A zillion people (me included) have
DVD's and/or watch them. Now I never hear anyone complain
on this? Why is this? Because it was shot on film? Well,
you ARE watching video here!!

If you like DVD movies and don't think it looks like cheapy
camcordy stuff then we can mimick it too, because as stated
above video is video. If a movie (shot on film) can look good
on a DVD then ours can too! You only need to do it differently.

Since I am in a PAL country, thus shooting at 25 FPS, I can
easily create progressive DVD material that has at least
the motion signature of film (allmost 24 FPS, and progressive).
Ofcourse I would need to match this with proper lighting,
makeup, sets, wardrobe etc. But I am working in the same
resolution as DVD, so, in theory I must be able to create the
same look.

Any thoughts on this?

Shooting at 25FPS, yes with proper lighting, lenses and such you should be able to achieve a very film-like look. Here in the US at 30FPS, it just won't happen no matter how much digital processing there is because of the motion. Hollywood movies transferred to DVD look the way they do because they were originated on film at 24FPS.

How many people here have seen the Duality video? You can download it from www.crewoftwo.com Now granted some of the cgi stuff isn't quite up to Lucasfilm spec (it is a Star Wars takeoff), but just look at the thing overall. It looks completely like a Star Wars movie being played back on a video medium...except for the motion. It is too fluid.

Regarding Rob's thoughts on DVD: The fantastic improvement in that medium over VHS (the previous wide-spread movie-watching format) has served to illustrate the vast superiority of film as an origination medium, if anything. Just because the results are both seen on a television is not to say that film and video will appear the same by any means. The processes retain their unique characteristics even as they take on certain of the attributes of the format they are displayed in.

It's easier to see when video is transferred to film and projected: the material gains the grain structure and 24 fps characteristics of film, but a very different rendition of color, contrast, tonality and resolution. This is a tricky point to make without visual aids, so I'll give up on this one, perhaps someone else can make more sense than I...

I will however question Brad's assertion that 16mm has only slightly larger useable image area than Super 8. Full aperture 16mm has greater than 300% of the area of Super 8 (both having approximately a 1:33 aperture), and Super 16 (at a 1.66 aperture) has closer to 400%.

Finally, I do agree that economic reasons will force all but the most celebrated i.e. powerful filmmakers into digital eventually--but really, it's not going to happen overnight. There are plenty of political forces in the way of that. As far as the amount of money that has been spent on film vs video technology development, witness the fact that while Arriflex has just introduced two brand new 35mm production cameras, Sony has not yet developed a digital camera truly designed for the motion picture industry (they are still using a chassis that is based on a news camera design). Kodak continues to introduce new film stocks every year that expand the cinematography palette.

The reality is, the cost of film stock, processing and printing (saved by shooting digitally) is not a huge line item in an $80 million feature. And in a film that costs under $10 million, the savings on the above items are generally offset by the cost of the transfer from digital to film for projection. The equipment costs the same to rent (I'm talking HD vs 35mm here, of course a DV feature is going to win out on this one) and production time is fairly equivalent, since you still need to light digital to make it look pretty. So it's not that much of an economic no-brainer at the current time.

Sorry, I'm prattling on, too late at night for this sort of thing...! Blah blah blah, head slumps on keyboard...

(my capatalized words are not to shout, yell or insult
people but to highlight the important words in my
sentence!)

I think my point is a bit missed here, perhaps I did not
explain it well.

" Just because the results are both seen on a television
is not to say that film and video will appear the same by
any means. "

Ofcourse this is true. Something will not magicaly look
the same if they are different. What I meant was that
with DVD (or any other home viewing media) the lines
IN WHICH TO WORK are the SAME! VHS is VHS. DVD is
DVD. If you make a movie that was shot on film and
one that was shot on video theoritacally you SHOULD be
able to get the EXACT SAME image (if you shoot on 24
or 25 FPS video that is)... I'm talking image here. This
must be possible because you are working in the same
constraints.

That is the point I am trying to make. If a movie shot on
film can look good (pleasing) on a VHS/DVD/TV then a
movie shot on video should be able to attain the same
if done right (correct FPS, correct lighting etc.)...

Hope this explains it a bit better. Not to start any flaming
or something, just to explain whats in my mind..

Ofcourse the otherway around does not hold true. A video
transferred to film and then watched side by side will
not be the same since the format (film) alows far more
(resolution, color depth etc) then video can produce. I am
not talking about this way (although I believe good results
can even then be achieved).

Thanks for reading

<If you are trying to shoot something with a story, then I see no use for video for as I've stated before, it just looks like a cheap home movie made on Daddy's camcorder, regardless of the quality of camera, lighting, editing or sound is. It just looks amateurish. >

If this was the case then why do people contine to use video for feature films (ie Steven Soderburg). This is a very sweeping statement and on a forum like this where video professionals graciously help others it's also quite insulting. Of course video will never look as good as 35mm film, no one expects it to. How could you possibly make something that cost $20 000 to shoot look as good as an $80 million production.
We shoot video because we enjoy making movies, docos etc. I and I asume every member of this forum can't afford an Arri with Zeiss lenses. Enter video. I put 110% into my work and I am always totally professional about it. My work does not look as good as Lucus, or Spielburg, but it is my work, not the work of 300 people and 80million dollars. We just want to get the best look possible from the equipment we can afford and enjoy the fun and challenges of doing it. I don't expect to crack into Hollywood with my work, hell, I wouldn't want to go near the place. @%$# Hollywood.
Instead of sitting there procrastinating about how we don't have 35mm film cameras we get what we can and just go and do it. Punk Lives!!!!!!

AMEN!!!! Adrian

Thanks for the support Bill

In the end, content rules over all. If you have a compelling story, the video vs. film debate becomes utterly meaningless. Generally speaking, an audience doesn't care if they're watching video or film. All that matters is the story. Frankly I think this discussion is a big non-issue. Just do the best you can with the tools at hand. You can comunicate with video just as you can with film. They're two very different mediums. I've seen beautiful and ugly on both. What really counts is the brain behind the eye behind the viewfinder.

I agree with what Rob had to say. That's why I'm excited about the prospect of a 24fps progressive MiniDV camera! That's been my point all along, actually. I don't think that I will ever get involved with film with the stuff I make unless someone else is footing the bill. I also have absolutely no plans to transfer my video to film (Blair Witch Project was the worst thing I have ever seen on a movie screen. It had almost zero color and detail). But with the 24p camera, it would make this possibility real and the film would look MUCH better than it would if sourced from any other video frame rate. And I wouldn't have to slow it down like I would with PAL 25 fps. Of course I'd only do this for stuff like film-festivals, etc.

Now my question is this: Will this new Panasonic do a 3:2 pulldown effect for NTSC just like DVDs do? I'm curious about that. I really hope Canon makes an XL2 and has this built in as a feature.

Chris, I totally agree with you, and I'm sorry that I felt the need to post a relpy but I'm not sorry for what I said. I was just p.o'd by such a sweeping scathing comment, especially with the numbrer of pro guys who are always posting useful info. I really appreciate the info from this board, and the fact that it isn't like most of the others, and I'd hate to lose the input from experienced professional people

afterburnerDV,

I have no idea who Steven Soderburg is. Perhaps you could elighten me as to what he has done. Regardless I think you are taking my comments too personally when I am just trying to make a general statement regarding frame rate. Thus, I think you are missing my point (perhaps I have worded it poorly), so let me try to reword.

My argument is that video at 30FPS will always look like "video". Video to me looks amateurish and cheap. Why? It is because of that 30FPS frame rate. I have seen FILMS shot and projected at 30FPS and it carried that same "cheap" look to it. Thus I am not saying that no one on this forum should ever bother taking the lens cap off of their video cameras again. What I am saying is that 30FPS looks to me and everyone I have ever shot film with like a home video movie. Sure some look better than others when coupled with a good camera, good lighting and so forth, but it still has that homemade look to it. Does that make sense?

To further elaborate, on one shoot in particular when I first started shooting on film, 30FPS was actually an option for us and was recommended by a fellow at the video transfer shop for a precise "frame by frame" transfer to video (which was to be it's final mastered format). Intrigued by the theory, we shot a test roll and HATED it. All of unanimously said "we mine as well be shooting video". So I'll say it again, I seriously believe that 24FPS will take over once people see it with their own eyes. THAT's my point. ...and I'll be the first in line when Panasonic releases this camera! :)

As far as your preceived threat of losing professional videographer's input to this board because of my statement earlier, that is ludicrous. Any true professional should be able to understand the point I am trying to make and they should already understand the limitations of any given format (video or film as well as any budget reasonings). If my comment above scares professionals off, then I will truly be shocked.

Brad,

Steven Soderbergh is a filmmaker. He has won numerous awards including back-to-back Oscars for Best Picture (Traffic and Erin Brokovich). Some of his other films are The Limey and the recent remake of Ocean's Eleven. His Hollywood breakthrough was in 1988 with Sex, Lies & Videotape. His next film, due out this summer, is Full Frontal with an A-list cast and is shot 85% with a Canon XL1S and transferred to 35mm.

I submit to you that the vast majority of the moviegoing public doesn't know and wouldn't care about 24fps vs 30fps. What matters is the story... Content is King. And compelling talent and expert direction. That's all that really counts.

The films you listed that I am aware of were shot on film at 24FPS. It will be interesting to see how his new movie looks.

I agree with you most people don't know the difference, but I also think there is a subliminal thing going on too in favor of 24FPS. I don't ever recall saying that everyone in the world would agree that 24FPS is better than 30FPS. I only said that I, me, personally find 24FPS far superior to 30FPS, and I furthered that comment with an honest statement that everyone I have ever worked with feels the same way. These are opinions that were stated as opinions. I don't know who "afterburnerDV" is, but he is overreacting as if it is some kind of personal attack.

Brad...

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I will also concur that people I know who are dedicated to film have the same opinion as you. I will suggest, however, that it isn't too smart to step into a forum dedicated to the professional use of video and bad mouth the format. In this case, I would suggest you consider your motives. Yes, you worded that rather badly and rather inconsiderately. Your negativism isn't appreciated, at least by myself.

I would disagree with you on the difference being related solely to the frame rate. If this were the case, PAL would be a logical choice. PAL still looks like video. Why? I submit that's because video CCD's have less latitude than film. Given that, whites wash out easily, blacks get muddy or the image is underexposed. If the lighting doesn't fill properly to reduce the contrast, all kinds of effects pop, not the least of which is banding and posterization...that's what I find disagreeable about porno flicks. Combine that with the tendency to hand hold a video camera, beacuse it's light and portable, and you get the home video look.


The positive side of the format has already been pointed out in posts above. Not all of us have the resources of Spielberg. Given that film and video each have their drawbacks and advantages, I think this forum should concentrate on what makes the DV format better, not worse.

Returning to the original thread, I think 24p is a step in the wrong direction for DV. 30 FPS is limited in its ability to stop motion. 24FPS is even more limited. Instead of DV trying to be a wannabe film format, why not concentrate on making it its own venue, focusing on what makes it uniquely "video". I think trying to get the "film look" with video is like trying to make plastic perform like aluminum. It just ain't gonna happen. That's only my opinion, and I accept that.

P.S. here's an interesting thread on this subject:
http://www.dv.com/db_area/community/Forum13/HTML/000509.html

Just to put a little more oil into that fire here: ;-)

Why watch any shot-on-film movie on TV? They are all aired at 30fps and will get this ugly video-camera look! Oh, my god! Titanic will look like a home-made amateur-video on my TV!

Sorry, but I have to make fun of this.

And here comes the bonus question:

Why buy the 24fps panasonic if you have to cinvert it to 30fps to to be able to play it on your TV at home?

In the US a transfer to film for showing in real theaters the framerate might justify buying it, but not if you don´t plan to air it elsewhere than your TV. But on the other hand, will the framerate matter at all? Even if shot at 24fps a blind person will see that this is just a blown up video. Or did anyone believe the Blairbitch, ehm, Blairwitch was shot on Eastman 35mm stock?


Here is my definition:

Film:

To be used for release on big, big screens by people with $$$ where video has not got a chance with its lower contrast ratio and lousy resolution.

Video:

Everything else and everyone who has no plans getting his work on a big silverscreen.

Looking forward to getting stomped onto my head for this ;-)))

Cheers,

Hold your head up proud Peter. You are doing what you love and video allows you to do it. Make the movies you want, try new things, stuff it up, learn from your mistakes, make the next one better. Use everything you can possible get your hands on, imagination is the secret, don't ever be afraid to use it. That's the beauty of video, you can try something and if it dosen't work you can tape over it.

One thing that I find interesting about multi FPS cameras
is slow or fast motion, not saying that this camera would
be ideal for that. Just an interesting option to have. Some
slow motion footage can look incredible cool, if shot in
slow motion (higher FPS).

Just my two $

"Why watch any shot-on-film movie on TV? They are all aired at 30fps and will get this ugly video-camera look! Oh, my god! Titanic will look like a home-made amateur-video on my TV!"

This comment only proves the impression that I have been receiving over the last 24 hours...the people here (at least the ones who have posted negatively against my comments) don't understand how this all works and instead seem to think that I am bashing THEIR production.

It is clear now with this mis-informed quote and the intentionally rude post above it by billravens that the "professionals" on this board still do not get my point and at least Peter for one has no idea technically as to the reason why 24FPS looks like it does, even if projected at 30FPS. Sorry for rustling everyone's feathers. I had no idea the people on this board could not handle a discussion between the two formats and instead would take any comment with the word "film" as some sort of direct personal attack. This is insane, and I hope that all of you who have been replying with anger from my posts that shoot in 30FPS "frame movie mode" will stop doing so immediately, because you are shooting in that mode to achieve a certain look, a look of which this new Panasonic camera will improve on even further. Why is it that no one seems to understand this? Any professional videographer should understand the difference, whether they like the look or not. So why all of the anger? If you like the 60i look, then why not post that along with your reasonings instead of just getting angry? Maybe you like 30FPS, but don't feel anything lower would give you the look you want. Fine, then why don't you post that? Maybe there are other people on this forum that feel exactly the same way that I do with regard to frame rate motion (which by the way I already know there are), but they are afraid to post because they don't want to get in the middle of a big foolish argument with people who apparently don't understand technically what the difference is.

With this new camera (most probably followed by a slew of others), there will be no reason why the MiniDV format playback can not look just as good as a production shot on film and transferred to DVD just like you would purchase at a store. Aren't you people excited??? I most certainly am.

Shame on that new technology. Shame on me for being excited about it.

hmmm.....didn't realize I was being "intentionally rude". My apologies if I've offended you. I thought I had posted some good arguments, but, I didn't get anyone offering information to refute what I said. I would invite anyone who disagrees with my comments to write in....so I can learn. I can accept criticism that's backed by fact instead of ego and testosterone. I can admit I'm wrong when I beleive I have been. I don't resort to name calling, nor do I respond to name calling. If my criticism pushes your button or yours pushes mine, perhaps we should each ask ourselves why that is so. I'm sorry you're not happy here, Brad. But, it's not my job to make you happy. Nor is it your job to please me. That's called co-dependency. Sorry about that.

BTW, I shoot frame movie mode to avoid those horrid DV interlacing artifacts. Now THAT'S something I consider ugly.

lets look at it from another angle on these hand size dv camera's ( most will aplly to ALL camera's - pro, consumer, future)

each FPS progessive/interlaced will have a different "look" , effect = another TOOL to use when we shoot ..

the new panasonic 24P repords to tape using the 3:2 to get it on tape at 30fps ... motion will look different then if you use a 30i or 30P camera .... another tool

so pick your tool .. perhaps for section you may want the interlaced look , other sections 24p ... other 30P ... it still ends up on tape around 30fps ( except the HD24p)

it's all optional ..choose what you like for effects or because that's what you like ...

i do think that if they were inventing the " film" camera today they would NOT choose 24fps ...

i've been out of the "film business" since 1998 ... but when i use to shoot commercials we shot film at 30fps !! and they looked like FILM on TV ......

perhaps digital projectors will give everybody what they want ..
shoot HD , 24P , 30P , 60i , NTSC ,PAL it will project all of them ?

I think all of us understands that different FPS will always
create a different motion signature, even if it is changed to
a different FPS (although this could change the signature a
bit). It is like math, you can explain it. Wether you like it or
not is your opinion, which is your own to have ofcourse.
I think Brad has some very good points, especially if you
keep in mind that some of the things he writes are HIS
opinion, he is entitled to that (don't forget this).

Then again, some other people have written good things
about it too. I think we can all agree that more cameras
with more options should be a good thing (generally).
Ofcourse some people don't need this, others will. I agree
with Chris that the story is the most important (and I think
Brad agrees with this too), most people will watch it in
30 FPS or 24, the don't know, and see the difference.

Some people will see the difference though, even if they
aren't familiair with the differences. It all ends in what you
like, what resources and equipment you have. I think if
we all had the choice (and I am talking about the people here
who want to make movies that will hopefully be seen in
theaters) we'd shoot on film (at this moment). But most of
us cannot afford this. We all understand there are differences
between the formats, lets just accept this and do what we
love: MAKE INTERESTING MOVIES (Tv series, commercials etc.)
the way we want and can.

Hope I've not stept on any ones toes here, lemme know what
you think...

Enjoy the weekend!

well said, Rob. I'm fallible, perhaps not always expressing myself in the best way. It's great to hear from others who can say it better than I.

Brad, please be so kind and give me a technical explanation as I don´t seem to know what I am talking about.

PS: You got at least one thing wrong, I am not negatively responding to your comments, if have a little closer look at the postings you´ll see that I posted way before you did. So I make a U-turn and blame you commenting negatively on my comments. :-)

PPS: I already said this is going nowhere, we are discussing taste here. So why argue at all? I like my burger with onions, I don´t care for others. I can only eat what I like. So what?

Cheers, keepin the fire burning and having a lot of fun ;-)

Peter, Brad is not saying that just because you view something on video that it looks amateur. He is saying that things that are SHOT at 24 frames per second have a more "professional" look in his opinion than things that are shot at higher frame rates. It doesn't matter if you are viewing it on video or not. Professionals have been using 24fps for a long long time where consumers have not had this chance. That's the basis of the opinion and I am also excited about the prospect. That's why DVD movies look more professional (one of many reasons, actually) then any camcorder footage thus far. With new 24fps cameras, you can now create footage that looks just as good if not better than those DVDs if you have careful lighting, direction, composition and soundwork.

What I am a bit leary on is that the new Panasonic camera is pretty small from what I gather. It's a handheld unit. I'll have to look at it's 24fps mode and make a true decision then. But until then I am excited that they are offering it. Next I want a MiniDV camera that also shoots 120 or at least 60 full progressive frames per second that, on playback, slow down to normal 30fps for incredible slow motion.

Hey wow jeepers. This thread certainly has taken on a life of its own!

Ugliness and backbiting aside, it seems to me that the real issue at debate here is whether video is best relegated to its native medium, which is 60i and displayed on a monitor or video projector; or should it move forward and emulate the cinema world, at 24p and possibly transferred to film for projection. Fortunately this new Panasonic camera allows for both possibilities, doesn't that make it a win-win for both camps?

I think that the general public, while not being able to describe perhaps why they feel the way they do, would probably pick a 24p presentation over 60i if they were given a side by side comparison, if the subject matter was theatrical in nature. The 60i look is thought of as representing "reality", i.e. news, live television, sports, cop shows, reality shows, etc. It's what they have grown up seeing, and that ingrained conditioning would be hard to break.

I would also offer that the public has become more visually sophisticated with the introduction of high resolution TV's and DVD's, digital cable and satellite in the past few years. People now demand a sharper, cleaner image where once they were satisfied with an aging console set with tinfoil over the rabbit ears. Another proof that the public is becoming more visually savvy is that a few years ago, letterboxing was scandalous to much of the population--rather than realizing they were actually getting more of the original image of a 1:85 film, they thought they were getting ripped off because there were black bars on their set. Now, most people are comfortable with the look, widescreen DVD's are standard, movies are sometimes shown on broadcast and cable in their original format, and even television series such as "ER" and "The West Wing" are now shot and broadcast exclusively in the 16:9 format.

The point I am rambling around is that yes, I do think there are psychological factors that can trigger a certain effect in viewers, whether they know about it or not, and frame rate is most definitely one of them; and 24 fps is what the movies are about!

Brad, as someone who has shot film, I am surprised that you would say "With this new camera, there will be no reason why the MiniDV format playback can not look just as good as a production shot on film and transferred to DVD". There are plenty of reasons why this is not so, and you have referred to them in earlier posts. Nevertheless, I am hoping and praying that this camera makes lovely pictures, although Panasonics are not traditionally known for this. The single reason I own an XL1 is that I feel it has the most pleasing image quality of all the options out there, especially in Frame Movie Mode.

Finally, I dug Adrian's "@%$# Hollywood" post. It bespeaks to the reason I and perhaps most others are posting here; that DV offers the opportunity to make movies on a virtually non-existent budget, which allows for the kind of experimentation that can be tremendously satisfying and educational. I have in the past shot shorts and features for first-time directors who have taken out loans and gutted their savings just to get their vision on screen, and so far none of them have really achieved the success they were hoping for (and are probably still trying to pay off their credit cards). I'm personally getting involved with DV so that I can finally take my turn in the directing chair, and I know that with this technology I can achieve a look and feel that "sells" as if it was shot on film (while not necessarily looking just like film), and I can do it for a fraction of what those other projects cost. Ironically, Adrian, I do actually own an 35mm Arri and Zeiss lenses (and I even live and work in @%$#'ing Hollywood!); but you can be sure that the Arri will sit in the closet while my DV camera is getting the workout on this upcoming "film"!

Thanks to everyone for keeping this hot debate civil. To those who are complaining about the tone of the posts, please do not read in anger which is not there. A lot of the "emotion" is perceived only, and not intended. There's a difference. Let's not take things so personally, okay?

Frankly as far as I'm concerned, it's all in the lighting.

Regarding the Panasonic 24p camera, you can forget about using it professionally if there's no way to do proper zoom and focus control (prosumer Panasonics don't have the ability to use lens controllers). I think it's going to be a big disappointment.

I stand by my assertion that framerate is a non-issue. There's so much more that goes into a Hollywood 35mm film production; primarily a talented DP, crew, *lights* and most of all budget.

Thanks again,

I respectfully disagree, Chris. HOWEVER I would like to see a short (maybe 30 seconds) of 60i footage that has proper lighting and the such that gives it the film look in order to see your point. Are there any examples I can look at? I just want to see how it looks. I don't care about stoyline or anything like that for this example.

What you have to say about the Panasonic prosumer cameras deeply concerns me. Like I said, I hope they offer this as an ADDITIONAL feature in an XL2 someday soon. At least we know that camera will be good.

Joe

Let's pin it down... are we talking about 60i video transferred to 35mm that looks like 35mm, or 60i video that just looks like 35mm?

*Another* thing I think about this Panasonic 24p camera is how the heck are you going to edit 24p video... there ain't a DV editing solution I know of that can do it.

I think Rob Lohman and Joe Redifer's first post on this 2nd page of the discussion sums things up nicely for the way I feel. Since a couple of other things popped up, I'll try and explain/answer them as best as I can. (And Chris is right, I am not mad, so please do not read this in an angry tone.)

Peter, let's say we are shooting a film at 24FPS and then transfer it to video. What do we have? We have 24 frames per second of motion. If we transfer it to NTSC video, we now have 30 frames per second of video, but still only 24 frames per second of motion. Thus every 4th frame of the original "film" must be duplicated in order to bump up the frame rate from 24FPS to 30FPS. So even when playing that back on video at 30FPS, you still only have 24FPS motion to it. In fact, even if we were to transfer our film into some newfangled video format that ran at 120FPS, we would still only have 24 frames of motion per second. If that still isn't clear, perhaps you could think of it this way. Transferring 24FPS to 30FPS is not creating frames, but duplicating frames. So if by that argument the finished transfer is still 30FPS of motion, then why is it that I cannot take a still picture and duplicate it 30 times per second and get full motion video from that one frame? Simple, because you cannot create what is not there, regardless of how many "frames" the display device may play back at. It is kind of like watching vacation slides transferred to videotape. You are seeing 30FPS or 60i from the transfer, but it is just a still frame. Does that make sense? The originating frame rate is all that really matters here, and that is why I am so excited about the new Panasonic and why I feel that this frame rate will quickly become a standard option for all DV cameras in the near future once people see the difference. Granted not all shows are ideally shot at 24FPS. steadichupap's examples of "reality" shows, news, live television and such are actually better suited for 60i. A lot of this has to do with personal preference yes, but also a lot of this has to do with the kind of end result we are looking for in a particular production. Regardless, this is why your example of "Titanic" looking like a video is not valid.

steadichupap, regarding my comment, no you are of course correct that no video that is currently available (or for that matter in the near future) will ever TRULY look like film for a variety of reasons. My comment was more aimed toward making a video production look like a film production *as viewed on video*. I do agree with you that the XL1 cannot be beat right now in the DV format. Joe has let me play with his before and it is a magnificent camera, except for that weird delay in the focusing control that I just can't seem to get used to. If rumor hits that an "XL2" will have 24FPS frame rate capability, then I will definitely hold on, for I agree I think that will be THE camera to have. :)

Chris, regarding lighting, I feel that for a "movie" type of video production, shooting at 60i or 30FPS doesn't give it that "movie" feel, but keeps me subliminally saying "I am watching a homemade video". It's the motion that I am most bothered with and I must agree with Joe that I don't think all the lighting in the world will ever make 60i look like film. Also, I know Joe hasn't responded yet, but I'm 99% sure he is referring to shooting 60i video and trying to light it to look like film. The look of the lighting may hit perfectly, but as soon as the actors and camera start moving around, the "video" effect is still going to be there (at least in my opinion). I know I couldn't much care less about transferring a video I shoot to 35mm film and I *think* Joe basically feels the same way.

Yeah. I want to see 60i shot on video that looks just like a DVD that originated on 24fps film (minus the grain, sound, and all that). It can be a shot of a couple of people walking around in a kitchen... it doesn't matter. I just want to see.

Any NLE can edit 24fps video. What if you recorded some footage from the Titanic DVD (just for example, Macrovision nonwithstanding) into your computer? You could easily edit that around. If the Panasonic does the 3:2 pulldown effect for NTSC just like DVD does, then it shouldn't be a problem. The only real problem would be doing fades and dissolves which all still move at 60i for some insane reason (it should be selectable).