At work one of my friends there has shot a music video on the side where most of the footage is 24p, except something went wrong with the frame rate conversion so the motion is definitely off in Premiere Pro. If you were looking carefully, I'm sure any normal person could tell the difference. But... everyone who has seen it hasn't made a comment on the motion looking weird.

I don't think most people can tell the difference between 24p, 30p, 60i, and 24p gone wrong. I'm thinking it's a big waste of time/effort.

Hi Glenn!

What camera was used? What shutter speed? (1/48 etc...)

Most people say to get that look, use high production techniques in lighting, camera handling, etc, etc...

But really, if you shoot a home video with 24p, people should be able to tell a difference no matter how it was shot. Even in available light with an unsteady camera.

24p looks absolutely different from interlaced. I've shown the difference to people with no video/film experience at all and its imediately obvious just switching back and forth 60i and 24p. If you plan on doing a telecine from your video footage it's especially handy.

In my opinion, shooting NTSC video in 24 fps makes no sense if you're not planning to blow your work to film.
It's the "p" (as in 30p) that's important if you're looking for a more filmic motion. Each frame shot in progressive mode is clean and free from interlacing artifacts. That's all I need.
My vote for 30p!

Aren't certain shows done in 30p? It just ain't quite "right," to me. . .I think maybe Farscape is? Maybe some of the newer Highlander episodes that don't quite look so good? I think it's just been molded into us psychologically that 24p looks "classier" than 60i, even 30p, and I just can't knock it back out.

Norm-

Most sitcoms and television dramas are shot at 24p not 30p. I've never seen a sitcom in the theater so I suppose there IS a reason to use 24p even if you are not going to output to film.

"In my opinion, shooting NTSC video in 24 fps makes no sense if you're not planning to blow your work to film.
It's the "p" (as in 30p) that's important if you're looking for a more filmic motion. Each frame shot in progressive mode is clean and free from interlacing artifacts. That's all I need.
My vote for 30p"

That's true to a point, but not entirely (not to mention if not one then why the other?). To the experienced eye 24p is noticeably different then 30p as mentioned in Adam Wilt's review of the DVX100a. As for going to film? Well, of course that's the point of 24p. The 24p cameras were designed for film-making thus: 24p. It's that simple. There's no other reason for it but that's the intended market so it makes perfect sense (and it looks great).

PS 30p looks great too but it can't easily be transfered to film.

Hey Josh,

The look of 24p - Absolutely it's psychological.

This reminds me of something I learned in music history class. Follow me on this one.

The Gregorian monks originally sang only in modes. A mode is basically a scale (you musicians will know what I'm talking about). At one point in history, the major 3rd was completely absent from all music. In fact the major 3rd sounded harsh and ugly to the monks' ears.

Ugly!? Modern music wouldn't be what it is today if their preferences for the major 3rd hadn't changed. You can't make a major chord without the major 3rd! You can't have Mozart, The Beattles, and Britney without the major 3rd. But the fact that this scale degree, which we view now as being totally vital to music, was once frowned upon sheds some light onto how we can be "psychologically programmed."

Major 3rd: we used to hate it. Now we love it.
24p: we love it now. Maybe some day we'll hate it?

Maybe some day, a Gregorian monk will introduce a new framerate like 12.5 progresivelaced. Until then, I'm shooting 24p cause it creates a pleasant response in my brain. And 60i makes me ill.

<<To the experienced eye 24p is noticeably different then 30p>>

To this particular set of eyes, I can't say that I can always tell the difference, unless I see the same shot (with plenty of motion) done in both modes. I've shot in XL1 Frame mode (effectively 30p) for years and been very pleased with the results. Not to say I won't use the 24p mode on the XL2 when I get it. I just think that the visual difference between 24 and 30 is barely noticeable, especially when compared to 60. If it wasn't for the issues transferring to 24 fps film, I think I would probably stick to 30p.

«Most sitcoms and television dramas are shot at 24p not 30p.»
Where did you get that, Jesse?
I know E.R. for instance was shot on film (and still is?), that's why it's 24p.
And I think I remember seing film cameras on the set of Friends also...
Why would they shoot a TV show at 24fps in video, to edit and broadcast on a 60i NTSC network? That means torturing the footage through a 3:2 pulldown and some other complications, when, in fact, just deinterlacing the 30fps produces the film-like motion we're looking for.

24p is more pleasing to the eye, or my eye anyway, mainly for the reasons Jesse mentions: its what we're used to seeing, it's to what we equate the art of film. If you aspire to make film then it only stands to reason that 24fps should be your starting point. I don't think you'll see the film standard of 24fps going anywhere anytime soon, it's been with us for a while.

Norm,

I found this article listing 24p programs for the FALL 2002 line up.
That was two years ago. I wonder what the numbers are now.


http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/print/2774

>>Episodic TV Producers Embrace 24P


The 24P-shot programs airing this fall on the six broadcast networks include:

"8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter," "According to Jim," "Less than Perfect," "Life with Bonnie," "MDs," "My Wife and Kids," "Push, Nevada," "That Was Then" and "The George Lopez Show" on ABC;

"Touched by an Angel" and "Yes, Dear" on CBS;

"Bernie Mac," "Septuplets," "Cedric the Entertainer," "The Grubbs" and "The Pitts" on FOX;

"InLaws" on NBC;

"Girlfriends," "Half and Half," "One on One" and "The Parkers" on UPN; and

"Do Over," "Family Affair," "Greetings from Tucson," "Reba" and "What I Like About You" on the WB.

In addition to the networks' regularly scheduled primetime comedies and dramas this fall, four mid-season replacements - "Letters From A Nut" on ABC, "Baby Bob" and "Queens Supreme" on CBS, and "Oliver Beene" on FOX - are also being shot in 24P, according to Sony's research. >>

I believe this is the list for shows captured to 24p VIDEO. There would be another list for shows captured in 35mm 24fps and then posted in HD 24p.

Hi Glenn!

What camera was used? What shutter speed? (1/48 etc...)

Most people say to get that look, use high production techniques in lighting, camera handling, etc, etc...

But really, if you shoot a home video with 24p, people should be able to tell a difference no matter how it was shot. Even in available light with an unsteady camera.

The camera used was the DVX100. I think 24p is one of those things people really don't pay attention to. It seems to me that the things people pay attention to are:
#1- content
#2- content
Technical:
#3- lighting. Makes a big difference in how professional something looks
#4- major technical flaws- shaky camerawork, bad sound (hard to ignore these things.)
#5- camerawork/nice camera moves.
#6- overall image quality. Color correction/grading and processing plays a role in this. Film naturally looks better.

Things people don't notice are:
- motion
- ?film grain
- chroma crawl on their TV set
- white balance on their TV
- stairstepping and other artifacts
- continuity errors (unless they're really bad errors). In Spiderman2, did you notice how spiderman's mask got better/fixed even though it got burned through during the train scene?
- boom pole shadows
- resolution. It seems to me people don't pay attention to this unless they have an A/B comparison, in which case it's really easy to tell differences in resolution.
- overblown highlights, washed out shadows (their TV set may blow out highlights and they won't notice)
- color accuracy. A lot of TVs have excessive contrast and saturation.
- excessive edge sharpening.
- Unrealistic sound. People are used to movie sound, not real life sounds. Recording of real life gunshots and car crashes sound wimpy without processing.

Regarding this "are TV shows shot on 24p" issue, every show that is shot on film is at 24 fps, not 30 fps as that wastes film unnecessarily. The only reason to go to 30 fps would be to execute a poor-man's sync with a TV set, a practice that has fallen out of favor on all but the cheapest programming (which isn't shot on film now anyway).

The number of TV shows shot on 24p HD has shifted around a bit since two years ago; less dramas and different sitcoms to replace the ones that have come and gone. I don't know of any that shoot at 30p.

Maybe at some point in the future 30p will become more standardized as a "filmlike" alternative. For now, a lot is being invested in 24p HD cameras, it's here to stay for a number of years.

Glenn,

I think you're selling the TV/Film audiences short (not to mention the cinematographers) if you really believe nobody would notice the things you mention above.

If someone has an old TV and that's all maybe they'd get used to seeing everyone with sickly green or bright pink faces. Few people would tolerate chroma crawling if it's excessive and i don't think there is anyone out there who would not rather watch the same show as it was meant to seen on a better TV. It's just easier on the eyes. Someone may not realize it if they don't particularly care about TV/Film either.

If you've seen a thousand movies (like me) the things you mention that people don't notice are unbearable and can ruin the whole experience and I think that goes for any regular movie-goer (except maybe boompole shadows).

Content is the most imortant thing. How do you get content across to the audience? With proper presentation.

"With proper presentation?" Not so sure I agree with you on
this, that this is necessary. And Ian, you're not the average
viewer that I think Glen was referring to. For one, Joe Blow
wouldn't be on these forums discussing this subject.
And you say you've watched a thousand movies!
But I am glad I ran across Glen's list here because I'm
constantly wrestling with these issues myself in my own work that I put out to the public. To be honest, I wish I really knew *for sure* how the average viewer reacts to the various items on Glen's list. I'm affiliated with an organization of professionals
in the video industry where some of them will submit their
latest works for "critique" before they are released to the
public. I, myself, don't submit for peer review because
the work I'm producing is not made *for* my peers but rather is
for the general public. I just don't trust that the things
video professionals would notice are the same things
the general public would notice.
Anyone else have any opinions on the items in Glen's list --
and not from your technically savvy position -- but what or what
not would Joe Blow notice?

Here's another thought to ponder. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the quote "The medium is the message" -Marshall Mcluhan. The idea that Mcluhan wrote extensively about is that it's not so much WHAT is said (content) but HOW it's said (appearance) and through what medium (ie tv, radio, film).

From this angle one could argue that content is LESS important than production value. Summer blockbusters are a good example of this. How many movies have you seen that use explosions and sex in place of an actual plot? Hollywood is putting visuals above content. What about advertising? Where is the content in that? Why, if you are selling toothpaste, would you show a half-naked girl draped over an elephant? Because! It's not WHAT is said, it's HOW it's said.

I used to work as an editor for a TV station. I can't tell you how many times I had to take some content-less video and dress it up so it looked like something.

I'm not trying to say forget all about content. Enlightened individuals like ourselves know content when we see it. In fact most of us probably prefer content over style. But keep in mind that video/film is a visual medium. You aren't just communicating "toothpaste" by showing a tube of toothpaste on the TV screen. Every thing about that picture communicates too. The color, the composition, the music, the lighting YES EVEN THE FRAMERATE!!

Today's audiences have grown up with television and movies. I think they are a lot more savvy about production value then we give them credit for. If it looks slick, they'll think it's slick. Even if the content is full of holes. If it's chalked full of content but doesn't visually stimulate them, they'll turn it off.

Not saying this is a good thing. It's just the way it is. IMO

According to psychology, people can only notice so many things at once. A quick proof of this is to visit the following website and see if you can spot the real penny out of 16 drawings.

http://www.dcity.org/braingames/pennies/

You probably can't pick out the real one since you never paid attention to all the details on the penny.

In the same way, I'm guessing that normal viewers don't notice all aspects of an image. They probably aren't paying attention to the stairstepping on the buildings in the background, inaccuracies of their TV set (excessive contrast, excessive saturation, inaccurate color, white balance that's off), continuity errors, etc.

If the majority of your audience don't notice minor technical flaws/differences (i.e. 24p vs 30p) then I wouldn't bother with them.

From this angle one could argue that content is LESS important than production value. Summer blockbusters are a good example of this. How many movies have you seen that use explosions and sex in place of an actual plot? Hollywood is putting visuals above content. What about advertising? Where is the content in that? Why, if you are selling toothpaste, would you show a half-naked girl draped over an elephant? Because! It's not WHAT is said, it's HOW it's said.
I would consider sex appeal to fall under content.

As for explosions and special effects, usually those things do not make that significant a difference at the box office. Content plays a bigger factor than the production values of a movie. Movies like Gozilla and Final Fantasy may have good production values but their content was bad and those movies didn't do so well at the box office.

"According to psychology, people can only notice so many things at once. A quick proof of this is to visit the following website and see if you can spot the real penny out of 16 drawings."

Two points.

All the penny test proves is that most people don't commit the configuration of coin engravings to memory.

And, as for only being able to "notice so many things at once," I would argue that what people "notice" (i.e., consciously perceive) is not very much as significant as what they perceive subconsciously, and it hasn't been very well established whether frame rate is one of those things. Roger Ebert infamously posited at Cannes in 1999, on shaky scientific grounds, that the slower frame rate of film puts viewers of projected films into a different sort of trance than television and digital projection. While Ebert may not have had an evidential leg to stand on, the core of his argument might yet be elaborated by studies in progress: humans may indeed recognize and respond differently to different frame rates on some subconscious level.

Exactly Robert!

That's what I mean by presentation, the creation of subtle image clues that elicate a subconcious response. I also guess it depends on the audience you make your projects for. Since this discussion is about 24p then your audience is a film audience (again, this is the point for 24p existing). The human mind is constantly picking up subtle cues from the environment that get processed on many different subconcious levels and all these cues cause subtle responses. In turn movies can do much the same. If not then every movie should be made on a hundred dollar handycam and it wouldn't matter.

Reiterating I think the movie going audience is far more savy than anyone's giving them credit for. i go with friends that don't care about film art but they notice when there's a slip up in imagery, if something doesn't look real, if a mic drops into the frame, if the sound sucks... it's all part of the experience of watching movies.

People might not now why a movie made them feel good or disturbed them but content and image can't totally be seperated in fictional work. Imagine "Ghost World" shot like a noir, it wouldn't work, or "Fight Club" shot in comic book primaries. Actually that strangely might work for "Fight Club" but it would be a very different movie if it was shot scene for scene but with a bright happy color pallet.

I guess what I'm saying is if the same image in an A/B comparison can look more clear, better get across what you want to say and is more enjoyable to watch then it's not a waste of time. If it is then we, and anyone who ever picked up a camera, have wasted a whole crap-load of time.

Jesse--very good post but I think I am going to disagree on your statement that at one time the major 3rd sounded harsh to the Monks ears--In fact the major 3rd probably would probaby have sounded very nice to them--but remember their milleau and the purpose of chant. I vaguely remember reading recently that some scientist had done some study that showed why atonal music had never attracted a large audience---It had something to do with the way we are hard wired---Anyway, interesting discussion--only in DV Info Net.

"Enlightened individuals like ourselves know content when we see it. In fact most of us probably prefer content over style"

Jesse, I agree with most of what you said, but this leads to a slippery slope.

(excuse me if I derail the conversation for one second)

I think that it's exactly that mentality that has led us to the vapid
summer blockbusters you mention. This idea that "most of us"
prefer content over style, but it is the uneducated and
unelightened masses that demand the explosions and the
spectacle. This leads to two things, it makes directors lazy, and it
makes them feel superior to their audience. Neither is going to
lead to a good film.

I firmly believe that given the choice between spectacle and
genuine content, most audiences will flock to genuine content.
If that's what I prefer, I have to believe that is what the audience
will prefer... and the audience is always smarter than we are.
(at least I know they are smarter than me).

To say that we are simply giving people what they want is just
a way for directors to wash their hands of halfhearted films that
never should have been made. I know that isn't what you were
getting at in your post, and I"m not trying to put words in your
mouth at all. I just felt it was worth discussing a little bit seeing
as I agreed with most of what you wrote.... then realized where
it led me.

I know this was a bit of an off topic rambling...sorry about that.

For what it's worth, 24p makes a huge difference to me.
:)

-Luis

Anyone want to go see that big hit movie "Dodge Ball"?
I heard it's doing quite well at the theaters.
The advertising slogan, if I'm not mistaken, is: "If you
can throw a wrench, you can throw a ball".

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on it specifically,
but I'll just point out that no one said 'content' meant that a
movie had to be serious.

-Luis

PS.
actually the tag line is:

Grab Life by the Ball.

David-

Well, I couldn't find any info to back up my "major 3rd" argument on the Net, and I don't want to fish through old text books. So take that argument with a grain of salt :)

Yes, there is a scientific reason why we like the major third scale degree. It is a natural harmonic. If you play any low note on the piano and listen carefully, you can hear different "harmonics" which is the note vibrating 2x as fast/3x as fast/ etc. The major 3rd is one of these notes.

Along the same lines... I wonder if there is a scientific/natural reason why we might prefer one frame rate over another? I've heard that 60i is more like how our vision actually works. Perhaps this is why video has "real" feel to it. Anyone have any scientific/physiological info on this?

To all: I'm not dogmatic at all about this subject. Just trying to stimulate different thoughts and perspectives.

- jes

Here's a quote I found:

"'Between 6:30 and 7 p.m. on December 16, 1997, as if struck down by a biblical plague, at least 600 Japanese children
simultaneously became ill. Some vomited, others had seizures; a
few stopped breathing for a while. All had been watching an
episode of the animated series Pokémon, and all had seen a bomb
explode on the screen, followed by a succession of colors that
pulsed on and off at about 12 flashes a second. '

the above is a partial quote from the current issue of Discover
magazine, book reviews section, available on the web at
http://discover.com/search/index.html.

The article also describes that 12fps is identical to the brain's
alpha-wave frequency.

It's interesting that 6fps, which has enjoyed a vogue for
presentation of several years, is a subharmonic of the alpha
frequency. And that 24fps is a first harmonic"

Unfortunately the links outdated but obviously the article exists somwhere.

"To all: I'm not dogmatic at all about this subject. Just trying to stimulate different thoughts and perspectives."

Same goes for me.
:)


Ian, that's a fascinating connection.
Although, I'm not exactly sure how fascinating it is seeing as I don't really know what the brain's "alpha waves" are.

Could someone explain 'alpha waves'?

Right now it sounds like some sort of pseudo science buzzword
they would have tossed around on Star Trek.

:)

-Luis


ps.
no offense to any Star Trek fans out there.

Here's an explanation from crossroads institute:

"Alpha (8-12 Hz)

Alpha waves are those between 7.5 and 13(Hz). Alpha waves will peak around 10Hz. Good healthy alpha production promotes mental resourcefulness, aids in the ability to mentally coordinate, enhances overall sense of relaxation and fatigue. In this state you can move quickly and efficiently to accomplish whatever task is at hand. When Alpha predominates most people feel at ease and calm. Alpha appears to bridge the conscious to the subconscious.

It is the major rhythm seen in normal relaxed adults - it is present during most of life especially beyond the thirteenth year when it dominates the resting tracing.

Alpha rhythms are reported to be derived from the white matter of the brain. The white matter can be considered the part of the brain that connects all parts with each other.

Alpha is a common state for the brain and occurs whenever a person is alert (it is a marker for alertness and sleep), but not actively processing information. They are strongest over the occipital (back of the head) cortex and also over frontal cortex.

Alpha has been linked to extroversion (introverts show less), creativity (creative subjects show alpha when listening and coming to a solution for creative problems), and mental work.

When your alpha is with in normal ranges we tend to also experience good moods, see the world truthfully, and have a sense of calmness. Alpha is one of the brain's most important frequency to learn and use information taught in the classroom and on the job.

You can increase alpha by closing your eyes or deep breathing or decrease alpha by thinking or calculating.

Alpha-Theta training can create an increase in sensation, abstract thinking and self-control."

Also another from EMedicine.com:

"Most waves range from 0.5-500 Hz, but most clinical EEGs are performed on paper-writing machines with upper ranges of 20-40 Hz.


Alpha waves - 8-13 Hz

Beta waves - Greater than 13 Hz

Theta waves - 3.5-7.5 Hz

Delta waves - 3 Hz or less
Alpha waves (see Picture 1)


Alpha waves generally are seen in all age groups but are most common in adults.

They occur rhythmically on both sides of the head but are often slightly higher in amplitude on the nondominant side, especially in right-handed individuals.

They tend to be present posteriorly more than anteriorly and are especially prominent with closed eyes and with relaxation.

Alpha activity disappears normally with attention (eg, mental arithmetic, stress, opening eyes). In most instances, it is regarded as a normal waveform.

An abnormal exception is alpha coma, most often caused by hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy of destructive processes in the pons (eg, intracerebral hemorrhage). In alpha coma, alpha waves are distributed uniformly both anteriorly and posteriorly in these patients, who are unresponsive to stimuli."

Hope that helps. Seeing as I'm at work I can't research it to much more at the moment.

"Alpha appears to bridge the conscious to the subconscious."

Well, that's an interesting angle from which to see the rhythm of 24 frames per second.

Of course, we may be reading too much into this seeing as as far as I understood it, 24fps was arrived at by virtue of being the slowest frame rate that can still effectively be used for sync sound.

Interesting none the less.

Thanks for the insights Ian.

-Luis

It's my understanding that 24fps also came from the fact that it takes 50 images a second so as to not notice a flicker from a shutter. Silents used 16fps with a three-bladed shutter achieving in effect 48 images flashed at the eye per second. Later 24fps with a two-blade shutter was decided upon to achieve the same 48 flashes. I don't know for sure, just read that somewhere. The same article concludes that persistence of vision (coined by a movie guy) doesn't exist as is normally described and isn't the mechanism behind why we see continuity in film. I'll try to find that article.

Along the same lines... I wonder if there is a scientific/natural reason why we might prefer one frame rate over another? I've heard that 60i is more like how our vision actually works. Perhaps this is why video has "real" feel to it. Anyone have any scientific/physiological info on this?

One thing you should watch out for is what you are watching the images on. On a TV or a computer monitor (CRT), motion looks different. For example, when you watch a thin 1-pixe/scanline horizontal line on a TV set, you will see it flicker. On the large screen you don't see that happen. This might be because the image is flashed 48 times a second versus 29.97.

On CRTs, you also perceive things differently because the electron beam that is hitting the monitor is moving really quickly. Your eye is more sensitive to flicker when the light source is moving. You can test this out on a computer CRT by setting the refresh rate to 60hz and then 72hz. You should be able to tell the difference (60hz likely causes eye strain). What's interesting is that a computer screen flashes an image 60 times a second and you can see that it looks bad, but film flashes an image 48 times a second and it looks fine.

"According to psychology, people can only notice so many things at once. A quick proof of this is to visit the following website and see if you can spot the real penny out of 16 drawings."

[...]
All the penny test proves is that most people don't commit the configuration of coin engravings to memory.

It's evidence that people can only notice so many things at once (assuming that to remember something, you have to pay attention to it). Suppose the opposite was true: People notice many/inifinite things at once. If that were true, you'd be able to spot the real penny drawing.

And, as for only being able to "notice so many things at once," I would argue that what people "notice" (i.e., consciously perceive) is not very much as significant as what they perceive subconsciously
You know... it shouldn't be hard to do an experiment comparing 24p versus 30p/60i. You could measure the effect of frame rate on viewer's interpretations of the footage (i.e. how good the movie is, does it look like film or video, does it look surreal/dreamy or realistic, etc.).

I've haven't tried that myself. A double blind A/B comparison would be a reasonable test/experiment.

"You know... it shouldn't be hard to do an experiment comparing 24p versus 30p/60i. You could measure the effect of frame rate on viewer's interpretations of the footage (i.e. how good the movie is, does it look like film or video, does it look surreal/dreamy or realistic, etc.)."

IMO the experiment would have to be framed differently, since the questions you propose polling demand superliminal conscious notice and evaluation. A more fruitful test would be to record and analyze the EEGs of a variety of test subjects over different periods of watching projected movies in theaters, watching CRT televisions, LCD displays, etc. for a broad range of content.

I'm sure there's a paper or two out there in the literature, but Google doesn't find it easily.

Your argument seems not to be willing to acknowledge that that our sensory input can affect us without us noticing; that most of our processing is done extraconsciously, most especially, that part which constitutes our emotional core and which psychologists sometimes refer to as "blind affectivity."

I do agree that our senses can affect us without "noticing" (noticing as in being consciously aware of it). However, we should only be concerned with relevant, real world things. The experiment you propose may be of interest to academics, but to filmmakers it is not very useful. It would be useful to see if frame rate affects the audience's interpretation/perception of the movie for things like surrealness/dreaminess vs real looking, how good the movie is, etc. These things can be relevant to filmmakers.

It might be that watching movies in 24p vs 60i puts you in a different state of mind/consciousness that watching a movie on a TV set does (in the kind of way that drugs, hypnosis, etc. put you in a different state of mind/consciousness). But even in that case, we should be trying to find useful information out of that. i.e. what effect alcohol, caffeine, and/or LSD have on your enjoyment of a movie.

There are also others things that can affect you without you being consciously aware of it. i.e. You may see going to a cinema to see a film to be an activity where you can get away from life. Or if the film is a comedy, you may like it more when everyone around you is laughing (this is the argument for laugh tracks for sitcoms).

2- Going back to the original topic (24p is overrated), perhaps we should ask ourselves why we want to shoot 24p before going ahead and doing it.

Suppose the goal is to make a movie more "cinematic", dream-like, or immersive. Things you may want to consider are:
A- Does shooting 24p help you reach your goal. Some people may find that the motion is disturbing when the camera is panning and the footage viewed on a TV set. This may draw you out of the movie. For most shots, most people may have a hard time telling the difference between 24p and 30p and 60i. I personally find I have a difficult time telling the difference unless I'm specifically looking for telltale signs and the shot has lots of motion in it. If people cannot perceive the different then this probably isn't very effective. With research it shouldn't be that hard to answer this.
B- If you are limited by budget, perhaps there are more effective ways to reach your goal.
Better lighting
Soft focus
Shooting with slow shutters. With certain motion blur plug-ins, you can create unnaturally high amounts of motion blur- which might work well.
Turning down excessive edge sharpening and dealing with video artifacts.
shallow depth of field
shooting 16:9 (also overrated IMO)
controlling colours (i.e. The movie Amelie is a great example of this, although the effect may be expensive to achieve. I believe the actors had their faces painted white so it would be easier to color correct to get the right look. Also, a lot of graffiti was digitally removed.)

Obviously, all this interesting conversation has forgot a couple of few points about 24p:

Better quality DVD's (less frames to compress, better bit-rates).

Better compatability with progressive scan DVD players and TV's (which expect 24fps with pulldown).

Faster CGI, mattes, composites and 3D elements (less frames, big deal for 3D renders and post work)

Better motion blur (1/24 and 1/48th shutters are natural, not electonic slow shutter.

I am a newbie. I am just beginning to learn about all of the various film techniques and styles. Is there a good online glossary? I just ordered an Optura 300 since it got good reviews for an amatuer camera. I know that it is not a 24P camera but I should have fun with the kids, the camera and some good editing programs. I have Adobe Premiere and am dying to learn how to use it.

I really don't understand the hype around 24p.

Everytime when I sit in a cinema and watch a movie it's so terrible to see a fast panning scene or huge objects passing by. All this stumbling, no smooth motion...
Then I just wish that movie makers and cinemas would go with time and not stand still at techniques used decades ago! IMAX 48fps is a good step forward!

I hope at least the upcoming generation of HDTV equipment will change the "24p-thinking". A 30p/60p/60i movie would solve many problems, anyway, perhaps create new ones too.

I just say be happy with your smooth 50 or 60Hz interlaced footage, as probably more than 95% of DV video material will be shown on ordinary TV sets only! And they are PAL or NTSC... 50i/60i.

Andreas:

While they day may come that people think 50i/60i is narrative film language, we are a long way from that.

Plus, interlaced is just plain ugly and resolution eater and pain to deal with in post.

A better world might be 30p or 50p or 60p - but right now audiences dont' respond to 60p like they do 24p. Showscan experiments by Douglas Trumball revealed this.

Of course things change, but this one will be gradual. And 24fps is the standard of all film distribution in the world right now. That will take a very long time to change. PAL/NTSC will have to go away to make that change happen.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren :

Plus, interlaced is just plain ugly and resolution eater and pain to deal with in post.

A better world might be 30p or 50p or 60p - but right now audiences dont' respond to 60p like they do 24p. Showscan experiments by Douglas Trumball revealed this. -->>>

Oh, how much I'd like to take part in such experiments!! ;)
It must be great to experience 60p on big screen.

I disagree that interlaced footage is "plain ugly" and "resolution eater". I like the smoother picture flow for now, as there in no alternative. Of course 50p/60p would be.
OK, agreed, some issues in post are really pain.

Let's HDTV take over this world quickly and PAL/NTSC "go away"!

Let me clarify 60i vs 60p - 60i is just plain ugly compared to true progressive scan. I don't of anyone who would chose 60i over 60p unless the needed the look of 60i for some purpose.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : Let me clarify 60i vs 60p - 60i is just plain ugly compared to true progressive scan. I don't of anyone who would chose 60i over 60p unless the needed the look of 60i for some purpose. -->>>

Yes, of course 60p is much better than 60i if you could choose between these!
But can you? Which "normal priced" equipment does 60p these days?? Not even real progressive 30fps is easy to find!
So that's why I say I still prefer 50/60i over 25/30p.

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Sinclair : I am a newbie. I am just beginning to learn about all of the various film techniques and styles. Is there a good online glossary? -->>>

http://www.imdb.com/Glossary/

Good luck.

Dennis Vogel