We're shooting a movie that we have a faint hope of transferring to film some day, but are realistically figuring that it will go video/DVD only in the end. Any reason to shoot one over the other? We've been doing tests of both to check looks, but anyone want to jump in as to why we would go with one or the other for the whole thing? What about alternating between both?

Thanks,

Arne

If you shoot 30p you can just forget about going theatrical. Transfer houses like dvfilm will tell you that 30p is a no no. Why not shoot at 60I or 50I? 24p video is not really good for fast moving hand held cameras, which is something that is very common to most documentaries.

I would go with 30p personally - even given the film out problems. It depends on where the documentary is going and/or who it is being made for.

The problem with 30p is that you can't distribute it in either a theatrical film format, or in PAL regions. 30p is horrible for wide distribution.

Yeah, I would go with 60i/50i on this one. Look, 24p and 30p are terrific and all, but the same look and frame rate can be achieved through software by 60i/50i frame rate conversions. Big movie successes aren't typically winners just because they've been done in 24p or 30p, but if either one of those is what you really want to go with then go with 24p because it is more film-out friendly and it looks terrific if done correctly. But the answer would be a lot simpler if you told us exactly what the movie is about.

Romantic Comedy with no panning scenes = 24p Goodness

Drama with no panning scenes = 24p Goodness

Action with combat and moving action scenes = 24p sloppiness

30p = VERY expensive and difficult to do right a'la "28 Days Later"

Thanks folks...we're shooting a verite documentary...so far the footage fromthe DVX has been beautiful. We've been slowly working out the complexity of it, but it's really shaping up. Though I realize it's more difficult, I don't know if we can ever go back to interlaced. We accidentally shot one scene in 60i, and it looked wierd to us, cheezy in a way.

Anyhoo, sounds like of the "p", 24p is the way to go. While film out is a distant possibility, we certainly wouldn't want to preclude it.

30p = VERY expensive and difficult to do right a'la "28 Days Later"
For clarification, that film was shot on PAL XL1 cameras in frame mode, so the motion signature would be that of 25p, not 30p.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : For clarification, that film was shot on PAL XL1 cameras in frame mode, so the motion signature would be that of 25p, not 30p. -->>>

Really Barry? I didn't know that. I thought the Frame Mode shot at 30p in the US and European models. Neat peice of trivia there, Barry, thanks!

Not to change subjects here, but wouldn't this mean that the XL1/S were the first cameras to have a 25p mode in Europe? Not the DVX100/A?

It's not actually 25p, it's "frame mode", which on the PAL camera simulates the look of 25p progressive scan, but at much lower resolution.

They chose the PAL XL1 specifically because of the filmlike motion of the 25p-simulation frame mode. The DVX wasn't out yet, so the only DV camera on the market with the ability to deliver filmlike motion was the PAL XL1.

Frame mode simulates 30p in the US, 25p in Europe.

The first 25p DV camera was probably the original Canon Elura or Optura; those ran at 30P in the USA so I'd assume they ran at 25p in Europe. I believe Canon discontinued the progressive CCD in their subsequent models, but the originals had legitimate progressive scan.

I'm about to start a documentary shoot. It will involve a lot of interviews. I have never shot 24P before, only standard NTSC stuff. I am considering switching cameras from FX1 to Canon A1 in large part for the 24P feature and then shooting the entire doc in 24P.

Does anyone have experience shooting interviews and a documentary in 24P? Is there a consensus on whether or not this is a good idea to shoot doc interviews in 24p?

Thanks for any feedback, I have to make my decision pretty quick here on whether this is going to be a 24P or a regular NTSC shoot.

Cheers,
Michael

What's your final delivery medium? Do you plan to transfer to film? Self distribute DVD'? Cable distribution?

Why does 24p appeal to YOU?

Mainly, I think the film look ads some quality and makes it look a little less 'video' like. I think it ads value in the viewers mind and ads a little more flair to the project, creates more of an artistic viewpoint.

That being said, it is going to have a lot of interviews and the message is the most important thing. So mainly, I'm wondering if docs with lots of interviews work out well in film or 24 fps or if the 29.97 gets a bit of a cleaner message across.

Like I said, I've never shot 24 fps, but I do like the look I'm getting from my fx1 on the 24cineform setting, just that it looks too digi for me. I haven't actually shot an interview at that setting yet either. So I'm wondering what format other interview and street action heavy docs are typically choosing here, 29.97 or 24 fps?

My output is dependent on the quality of my final product. The first place it's going to be shown, as an ongoing piece rather than a one time finished product, is online...

Also though, yes DVD, most likely self distribution, big screen (movie theatre) but most likely dv projector film festival styles.

Broadcast tv, I think that's a little ambitious for this project.

it's your documentary and your formulation of an argument. You can do whatever you like because it's really your vision of what oyu want to get across :)


Many documentaries shoot 24p. on a technical stand point, make sure you won't run into troubles with editing softwares or output.

I'm about to start a documentary shoot. It will involve a lot of interviews. I have never shot 24P before, only standard NTSC stuff. I am considering switching cameras from FX1 to Canon A1 in large part for the 24P feature and then shooting the entire doc in 24P.

Does anyone have experience shooting interviews and a documentary in 24P? Is there a consensus on whether or not this is a good idea to shoot doc interviews in 24p?

Thanks for any feedback, I have to make my decision pretty quick here on whether this is going to be a 24P or a regular NTSC shoot.

Cheers,
Michael

Documentaries, prior to DV, and even prior to non-studio video, were only shot on film, which is 24P. There was even a point at which evening news segments, say on location from Vietnam, were shot on film. Personally, I find that when I see something that is 24P, it feels more "permanent", footage that will look as good 10-20 years from now as it does today. My feeling about 60i footage is the exact opposite, that it is "desposable", for immediate use only. By all means, use 24P.

It's certainly your decision to make. But the 'film look' is much more than just the frame rate. (Depth of field, lighting, grain, gamma response and lattitude all go into the mix)And the frame rate is rarely apparent in a static interview situation. A talking head is a talking head. Frame rate shows up much more in motion related aspects of the shot.

24p will give you a nominally smaller file on compression for web distribution, so that's a plus. And it will show up in camera movement and action sequences. It's also a no-brainer if you're planning a transfer to film at some point. (The primary reason I shot in 24p for the docs I was working on.)

My advice is to do a test shoot with the camera you have. Set up and LIGHT an interview situation similar to what you'll be shooting for the doc. Shoot some 24p and some 30p and some 60I footage. Same thing for some stuff 'on the street' then compare 'the looks'.

It's certainly your decision to make. But the 'film look' is much more than just the frame rate. (Depth of field, lighting, grain, gamma response and lattitude all go into the mix)And the frame rate is rarely apparent in a static interview situation. A talking head is a talking head. Frame rate shows up much more in motion related aspects of the shot.

24p will give you a nominally smaller file on compression for web distribution, so that's a plus. And it will show up in camera movement and action sequences. It's also a no-brainer if you're planning a transfer to film at some point. (The primary reason I shot in 24p for the docs I was working on.)

My advice is to do a test shoot with the camera you have. Set up and LIGHT an interview situation similar to what you'll be shooting for the doc. Shoot some 24p and some 30p and some 60I footage. Same thing for some stuff 'on the street' then compare 'the looks'.

While I do concur that other elements such as depth of field, lighting, grain, gamma, and latitude can add up to a specific type of film look, I do believe that it is the motion of 24P that is singularly most important in a "film" look. After all, in film you can find plenty of examples of deep focus, flat lighting, zero grain, on and on; and conversely if you shoot 60i with a shallow depth of field, on a well lit set, with grain added, whatnot, it's still just gonna be the evening news, a game show or reality show, or a soap opera.

It certainly does become slightly harder to differentiate without movement in the frame, but the difference is very much there, playing it's temporal trick on our eyes and brain. To me, 24P is simply more visually pleasing, and I'm not alone. If I remember there was at one point in time (thinking the 50's here), a guy who shot a film 60P, and then projected 60P as well, and people reacted strongly that they did not like it, felt it was "too real".

With how little modern science really knows about our brains, it's hard to say exactly why this phenomena exists, although I have my own theory - 60i or 60P is perhaps a little too close to our own mental image processors, at least much closer than 24P, thus we have less work to do in contructing the images in our head, therefore our level of actual mental fantasy is lessened, as we do not have to work nearly as hard to make images in our heads at 60i as say we would at 24P. This level of engagement at 24P makes us more susceptable to getting to the point of emotional response, reaching us at more of a viceral level.

This is why, to me at least, 24P is more than just a look, it's more like a "feeling", whereas 60i is just more immediate, colder, harsher.

The importance of the frame cadence is diminished by the lack of motion within the frame. Hence my comments about talking heads being talking heads. 24p is one element of the film look, but again, depending on how it's all assembled and what the setting is, it may or may not be the most important aspect for imparting that look.

To me 24p is an artistic effect. If you want it to be real then don't use 24p!!! Making a feature where mood is to be protrayed involves the image style and sound too. If the attempt is to re-create the feeling of being there, looking through a window, then the motion artifacts of 24p and lack of depth of field ( needed to cover up the motion artifacts)will destroy this image, its not what we see in real life.
I have to admit I dislike the film image and find the increasing use of 24p on TV very annoying, especially in documentaries where I would like to view the output as if I was there, high definition, high frame rate, large depth of field and latitude. Almost the exact opposite of the 24p look!!!!!!
For fiction.. that's different use ANYTHING that will create the emotion intended.

Ron Evans

The importance of the frame cadence is diminished by the lack of motion within the frame. Hence my comments about talking heads being talking heads. 24p is one element of the film look, but again, depending on how it's all assembled and what the setting is, it may or may not be the most important aspect for imparting that look.

You say tomato, I say tomato paste.

After seeing 100s of posts on and around the 24p issue I have to say this - TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT! 24p is not the holy grail of production, you could have a documentary shot on a $100 Sharp 8mm in full auto and as long as the subject, story, point, characters, editing, etc are good you will succeed. I've seen some pretty good docs shot by people who know next to nothing about cinematography but can ask good questions and edit half-way decent. The footage looked like home video BUT the story and emotion you got from it made you forget about that.

The current project we are doing is heavily influenced by NOT doing all the stuff most production groups do. We are using crazy angles, weird shutter speeds, odd exposure levels, and making certain footage that will NOT match between cameras. It's hard to explain but our vision is based more on reality and what is actually experienced than the "norm". It will be a challenge to edit, but rewarding once finished.

Back to the original question:

"Does anyone have experience shooting interviews and a documentary in 24P? Is there a consensus on whether or not this is a good idea to shoot doc interviews in 24p? "

You've heard from some of us who've shot in 24p, and why we chose it.

As to a concensus...

The answer would be "NO".

There is no concensus.

Back to my original inquiry, "Why 24p?" for YOU. Each has his own needs. Understanding what the frame rate does to the image visually AND subliminally is important to making your decision. Understanding that 'the film look' is more than just a change in frame rate - Also, understanding the technical limitations for various NLE's, and whether or not a film out is planned, etc. etc. etc.

Documentaries, prior to DV, and even prior to non-studio video, were only shot on film, which is 24P. There was even a point at which evening news segments, say on location from Vietnam, were shot on film. Personally, I find that when I see something that is 24P, it feels more "permanent", footage that will look as good 10-20 years from now as it does today. My feeling about 60i footage is the exact opposite, that it is "desposable", for immediate use only. By all means, use 24P.

Film speeds can be at any frame rate you set the camera to. The reason why the film standard is run at 24fps was to save money in film stock, not to achive a certain look. If you like this look, then use it. Me, I liked shooting 30p on the dvx100 more than 24p because of smoother motion, much in the same, I like shooting at half shutter speed rather than shooting frame mode on the canon xl1 and gl2. One thing the xh-a1 will give you is more image control parameters, which is probably more valuable to the look of your doc than 24p.

One consideration, the A1 does not do 24p. That could be the deciding factor for you...

One consideration, the A1 does not do 24p. That could be the deciding factor for you...Canon's 24F seems by all accounts to achieve the same result as 24P does.

One issue will be if your NLE handles 24F. I've been researching this myself. Avid doesn't. Canopus does. Sony Vegas seems to be the consensus favorite for 24F on the PC. As for Macs, I believe Final Cut does handle 24F.

My Canon XL1s' 24F feature was not all that great for a PPRO final 24p workflow. I'd suggest two tests...

1. Shoot a 24f clip and see what a final 24f/p output will look like.

Then

2. Shoot a clip in 60i, then convert to 24p, see what that looks like.

Well I'm stuck on Premiere Pro (although I've been wondering about my decision after various system crashes and export bugs). So it is sounding like 24F is not ideal for this editing system. Anyone disagree with that?

Great comments from all! Thanks for the feedback. The best plan does sound like the "test both types out" plan, absolutely. Only problem is I don't have access to the A1 at this point, so I can't really test it out!... The 'real' look thing is a consideration. I like a lot of artistic license, but my doc is about truth being stranger than fiction, so I want people to be able to identify with it as being the real deal and not fiction. That being said, a cool look is where it's at for me. The A1 does have a lot of great features, very impressive camera... but point taken above as well, the FX1 is also a very good camera and at some point you have to completely stop on the equipment stuff and focus on the important stuff... the story!

Cheers,
Michael

My Canon XL1s' 24F feature was not all that great for a PPRO final 24p workflow. I'd suggest two tests...

1. Shoot a 24f clip and see what a final 24f/p output will look like.

Then

2. Shoot a clip in 60i, then convert to 24p, see what that looks like.Marco, are you saying this problem is with PPro or with 24F?

I've read that 24F and 24P create essentially the same effect. I've also seen side by side clips of an XH-A1 and an HVX200 shot at 24F and 24P respectively. The differences seemed minimal, with neither being "better" than the other, IMHO.

So I'm very curious, do you believe the lesser quality you encountered was due to 24F or due to Premier? Thanks a lot!

I'm basing my opinion off of dozens of discussions in this forum on that very topic first off. My own experience with it has come out fairly decent but not as good as a true 24p camera or 24F with the cineframe software. There is a whole website dedicated to the "F" function, it is somewhere on this site. I'm with you though, it looks pretty close to 24p. BUT the workflow may be much more to deal with. If Canon has updated their 24F processing since the XL1s, then who knows, it may work just fine...

Here are a couple related-
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=82024
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=570109

Raw 24F search http://dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?searchid=999250

So... I am shooting this documentary about independant bands etc. Well the question I have is more technical. Umm, my main cam is the canon xl2. I really want to shoot this thing in 24p mode. But for run and gun situations I am shooting with "regular" camcorders that only shoot interlaced footage. Like the Canon ZR90. Now, when editing, if I want to keep this at 24p, would it be ok to convert the footage from the ZR90 to 24p. Picture quality isn't that important. Not when shooting with that camera. I know that there'll be a huge difference in picture quality, but it's kind of the point.

So basically, can I still edit everything on a 24 fps timeline?

thanks

Yes, but everything shot with the other camera will have to be rendered when added to the timeline.

ok, thanks a lot for the response!!!!

I've been running around with a Canon ZR85 for three years and it never did me wrong. I just upgraded to the A1 and I love it. But the ZR85 is still the backup and "secong angle" cam.

Good luck!

Hi all,

I supose this is the best area to post this question. Anyway if moderators don't mind, I'll start the same thread in another section because the more help I can get, the better.

I just started a new project. I need to shoot a 10-15 min documentary short film with real life situations as well as some interviews inside 4 different hospitals, but the people behind it are looking for an image and motion feeling very close to 35mm film. There will be both handheld and static shots. We have very little time to shoot and the camera setup cannot be a problem. It has to be easy to handle and give very good results.

I have to decide if I want to rent something big (RED One), something a little smaller (Sony EX1) or buy a good HD cam and a 35mm adapter, which is the option I like the most, because after this I can still use it for other projects.

If I choose the last option, what would make a good 24p setup? HV20 + Adapter? Post work would include pulldown removal, CC (Magic Bullet Looks) and editing... First I considered capturing uncompressed via laptop+intensity card, but some shots can be difficult using that setup. Anyway I'm not discarding anything yet.

I know some may even laugh at me but I've seen some shots with a Canon HF100 (AVCHD cam) and it's quite close to the HV20 in terms of image quality. It also gives 17mbps using H264 which I read is more efficient than HDV compression. I know I'm talking about consumer cams, but that's what I can afford now and I've seen some impressive things shot with an HV20 and an adapter... and that camera's just like $1,000.

Anyway I'm open to all possible suggestions.

What do you think?

Thanks.

Im no expert but the HV20 / 30 is a good bet. HDV appears to be better at present than AVCHD and its easier on the computer to edit and view too.

A 35mm adapter would work, I have one myself, but the cheaper ones tend to look VERY 35mm adapter. In most of the footage Ive seen owners seem to want to draw attention to the fact that they have a shiny new adapter and blow everything out with it.

Dont forget audio as it makes up 50% of your production and some lighting too.

Going straight through HDMI is a waste of time as A) the 35mm adapter is going to kill your resolution and B) its probably going to be watched on a DVD or the web so 1920x1080 is overkill.

R.

Jose,

AVCHD is more efficient than HDV but not necessarily better. It's more efficient because it throws away more image information in the compression process.

That might not matter for people shooting home video, but if you want to grade, or apply Magic Bullet looks, it's likely you'll need that picture info back and see problems if you find it's not there.

Yes, I know... I supose I was just trying to get rid of the tape.

I'm placing an order for a Brevis35 plus HV20 with rods and mattebox.

Yes, I know... I supose I was just trying to get rid of the tape.

I'm placing an order for a Brevis35 plus HV20 with rods and mattebox.

Better get some lenses too:)

I've got three canon FD lenses. A 28mm F2.8, a 50mm F1.8 and a 100mm F2.8.

I've got three canon FD lenses. A 28mm F2.8, a 50mm F1.8 and a 100mm F2.8.

You can get by with that - I shot a 45 min doco last year with three 40 year-olds Nikkors, still check ebay and see if you can pick up a cheap 85mm or 35mm.

Good luck.