I know we may have talked about this before but I forget. I just came back from a bridal show and for the first time I had a bride mention about a video that looks like film. The only way to do that is to shoot 24 fps (I think) I have been hesitant because of the studdering like dancing and for me table shots. does anyone shoot whole weddings in 24 fps? Do you deliver on bluray or just internet? I do notice the studdering isnt as bad on PC monitors.

There once was a time where everyone said that 24p was needed for a filmlook, then they said you need shallow dof, then they said you need a large dynamic range...

24p is just a very small part in a large chain to achieve a film look and as far as I am concerned the least important one.

"looks like film"... WHICH film?

Part of the problem here is that the novice watches MOVIES and knows they look "different", but doesn't know what goes into that "look", which is very likely different from movie to movie, or even within a movie to strike a "mood". And of course, they probably read "trends" and here about "cinematic", and think that the latest trendy thing is what they want...

Of course movies are shot with trained actors and crew, on set or location, with massive amounts of equipment, not what a couple of people can carrry in a couple trips and shoot candidly and unobtrusively with... on a "where is, as is" location with "where is, as is" lighting conditions... with few or no "retakes"

The cadence of 24p is a little different, but frankly that's the LAST or close to the last thing I notice - I pick up THE PLOT (or lack thereof), the overall "scenery"/content, the "talent" of the actors, the sound track, the color "correction" (more accurately the color "sweetening" to achive a "look"), the camera work (or lack thereof!), shot angles, cutting techniques, and MAYBE the DoF here and there, and probably poorly done compression once in a while <wink>.

There is SO MUCH to creating or re-creating a "film look", and you really have to find out WHAT film look, as various eras and film stocks have VASTLY different qualities (I recall reading about "The Aviator", and how they sought out period film stocks for each period!).

Then, perhaps you can try to shoot to match, and adjust in post to achieve a "look"...


You probably wouldn't want a "cold" film look... warm and popped color would be more "in character". Sometimes soft and dreamy (yeah after all that work to get really sharp images!) is desirable... and so on...

Randy,
I agree with the others that the film look is elusive and not easily acheivable. I shoot all weddings in 24p and take that to web, dvd, and bluray. If I shoot anything fir broadcast it's 30p. But. Do what you think is best... Don't go chasing a thing that you most likely won't acheive. I do it because I like the look.
Bill

I like the fact that the 24p files are smaller on disk <wink>... nice for fitting your final renders onto a DVD with more "time" to work with!

But I shoot 60p, since I can see the stutter in fast motion, and don't want to take that chance that it will ruin the original footage should anything in the frame decide to move quickly!

So 60p in capture, and edit, then render out to 24p (or 30p would be better for web, from my understanding).

It's probably heretical, but the "look" to my mind comes more from any color work, how well you composed your shots, how well you edit (hard to notice the cadence if you're sucked into the "story"), and how well the whole audio and visual mix keeps the viewer involved...

THAT to me is what divides the "documentary videographer" from the "cinematic"... put another way, the former is craft, the latter is "art", or perhaps even "magic". Art and magic are tougher to pull off!


Oddly enough, it's sort of like the difference between a "photojournalist" style still shooting (documentary), and the traditional "formal" style where things are more carefully posed and composed... You just have to figure out what your client is looking for, and see if it's a good "fit" with your shooting style!

I think dslr's in general have that kind of "filmlook" most clients are referring to.

The film look consists of, but is not limited to;

Framerate, dof, composition, lighting, colour grading, action, direction, story, pacing and a whole lot more.

In the UK our standard is 25fps which looks identical to 24fps. So for us the stuttering is just normal but its what you see in the movies so why is everyone so against it?

So for us the stuttering is just normal but its what you see in the movies so why is everyone so against it?

I think you might also ask that if you can prevent the stutter if you shoot in 50p, why would you not try to? I personally see the stutter as distracting and you need to adapt your shooting style to it, with 50p you don't have to.

I was just thinking that if you would apply all what Danny described that a "filmlook" should consist of and shoot a wedding with, let's say, a panasonic gh3 side by side with one recording at 25p and the other at 50p. Would a client say the 50p recording does not have a filmlook? Considering that the whole workflow would be exactly the same, only not the framerate.

Keep in mind that the "stutter' is the result of a frame rate chosen as a kludge nearly a century ago... why should that be held up as a standard?? We don't drive model T's because they are the epitome of automotive engineering... or fly around in DC3's because that's the state of aircraft engineering...

In fact there have been MANY "limitations" imposed in professional movie production to accomodate the "standard" frame rate (mostly an economic consideration!) - pan speeds, overall motion in scenes, etc. etc...

If what you're suggesting is that we should expect normal people going about their natural activities to adhere to these sorts of limitations in order to get good captures... I don't see that working!! People want to behave naturally, not be told to move slowly or whatever... they aren't going to understand why they can't "do whatever".


To say "shoot around the limitations" is a two edged sword - sometimes we when wearing the "camera operator hat" must be aware that a camera can't handle certain things well, and either grab a different tool or make the best of it... if your equipment can overcome the "limitations", I'd argue for using what the gear can do!


The frame rate/cadence portion of "film look" is only ONE element, and may or may not really be all that critical if many of the other things like artistic color work and good camera work, sound and editing are in place. Too often a single ingredient in "the mix" is overdone, and ruins the whole recipe!

It's funny. I go to the movies since about 40 years now.
At least 35 years, I never heard one soul complaining about stutter of 24 FPS. Nobody ever said it's on his nerves, unwatchable, distracting andwhatnot.

Only in the last few years this issue comes up, and suddenly everybody and his kid brother are super sensitive to it.

How comes?

When I remember that right, a film, shot on film and projected on film doesn't stutter in a way digital shot and projected material does sometimes.

Also we never saw any stuttering on CRT TVs (even when they show a film and not the news).
Only since they came up with those flat TVs, it's there.

Shooting higher frame rates (or use some 100 HZ voodoo in the TV) and make it look like a soap is not an option.

Looks like we are screwed for now.

.

I don't think it has anything to do with being supersensitive about it, there are just more options, like 50p, available today, the questions remains is if I or my clients can't see the difference between 25p and 50p on the same camera, why should I have to worry about panning speeds in 25p when I don't have to in 50p? For the sake of a so called 'cinematic' framerate?

Thanks for the responses I was thinking of getting the new Sony NEX camera which is pretty much a shoulder mount DSLR. I just dont know if I will get that look but shooting 1080P 59.94 or if I have to shoot in 24FPS. I personally like the look but im not hung up on it the only reason I am thinking about it is because I Actually had a bride ask.

I began shooting in 24p last year and I love the look. It is a much dreamier look. I resisted doing it, but was forced into it because it was the one progressive frame rate that all four of my cameras had in common. From the first wedding I fell in love with the results. It is different to be sure.

It is not necessary to be especially aware of DOF, etc or to do anything else to achieve the softer, filmic look. You do want to take care because the frame rate requires special panning techniques, etc. Otherwise, it is very nice and I'm very happy with it.

I personally like the look but im not hung up on it the only reason I am thinking about it is because I Actually had a bride ask.

You can be sure she was not refering to 24p, like being said here frame rate is just a very small part in achieving a film look, f.i. my sony cx730's can do 25p as well but changing from 50p to 25p doesn't give the handycam an instant hollywood filmlook, it will still look like video.

I disagree Noa. It might be the differences on how 24p looks will vary from camera to camera. I know my particular cameras produce images that do look film-like. Keep in mind I did not start out using 24p to achieve a film look, so "film like" was not my goal.

But I can say with certainty I shot probably 50 wedding or so in various frame rates in HD, and I noticed an immediate and distinct difference when I shot in 24p.

I had customers over last night and they just loved my videos, and they do look gorgeous, they have an indefinable and subtle difference from 1080i or 720 60p.

I guess to sum up the difference, my 24p video video looks more like photographic images than it ever did before. I only watch my videos on Bluray, and that may be why I see so much difference. I refuse to watch my own work on DVD an more, DVDs look like hell any more to me.

24p, when shot by someone like me, will NEVER look like a Hollywood movie. But frame rates DO affect the look of my videos, and I do like the look of it.

Keep in mind also I shoot most everything from a tripod, and I do very little panning other than necessary to follow a subject, and this allows the viewer to appreciate the subtle differences in looks.

If I was going around handheld and if my footage was shaky, it would look rough in 24p, but with my shooting style, it works out great.

Now I do have experience in shooting in 25p as this was my main format with my xh-a1 and that's what I use on my dslr's all the time but sometimes I"d shoot in 50i as well on the xh-a1 and I had a hard time telling the difference, you did notice ofcourse that the movement was more smooth but when there was not much movement going on, I couldn't see if it was shot in 25p or 50i.

The same applies for my sony cx730's, they do have that a distinct videolook, no matter if I choose 25p or 50p where again I see that 50p is more fluid in motions but beside that I can't tell the difference.

My dslr's however do have more of a filmlook at 25p so if framerate made the difference I would notice that on the cx730 as well in 25p but I don't.

If I have to explain why the dslr looks more like "film" I would say the color it produces which is something I cannot reproduce with a small sensor camera, it's difficult to explain and to pinpoint exactly what is causing this change but for me it's not the framerate.

You could f.i. take one frame out of a cinema movie shot in 24 or 25p and immediately have that feeling it was shot on a cinemacamera, take the exact same frame out of a consumercamera shot in 24p or 25p and you will know it was shot on a videocamera, since that is just one frame you are looking at, framerate should not matter either. There is much more going on that makes a client say "this is a filmlook".

My Canon XA10 produces almost identical images to my GH2 in 24p, they are a near perfect match (particularly in good lighting) and they both have the film look you refer to with your DSLR.

I do think the camera choice makes a huge difference in the look.

Ok, here is a test, below video is one of my personal projects, you might have read about it in the thread I opened in this forum but assuming you didn't follow it: was this video shot in 24p, 25p, 50i or 50p and does it have a film or video look? I know there is hardly any motion going on which should make it much harder to guess.

Coalmine on Vimeo

Noa, you are a very talented videographer, I have seen your work. You also know a lot about video. However, regarding this disagreement we are having, I only know what I see with my own videos. I know my cameras, and I know what my videos looked like before shooting 24p. And they are different.

Are you saying your video was shot at many different frame rates and the shots from scene to scene are different? If that is the case, Vimeo recompressed your video to one uniform frame rate, so we are not viewing your video at the same frame rate it was shot anyway.

You do not have to prove to me it all looks the same, or different. I know 720 60p has a different look from 24p for example, because I can see it on my TV.

My online videos look nothing like they do on Bluray. However, some online videos do let the 24p quality show through very nicely. Here is an example of a children's thing shot in 24p. Is there any doubt this was shot in 24p? I don't think there is. Whether someone likes the way it looks is not important, but from what I see here there is a definite soft, nostalgic feeling in the image. Don't you agree? Please forgive the overexposure. It's not a great looking video, was learning to use my camera at the time of this shooting, over a year ago.

Kinder Garden - West Chester Children Perform on Vimeo

from I see in Jeffs video is yes it looks great and filmy but you can see a blur when the kids mover their arms which in that kind of video is fine. Its a little different when you have a full dance floor of party people. I think later this year I will find a wedding I can experiment on.

But does the video I posted have a film like look or a video look to you or anyone else that has seen it? Just to know how it is perceived no matter what framerate is used. I find this a very interesting discussion, not to prove I"m right or wrong but just to know how people perceive a video or film look and why that is the case.

Keep in mind these videos are compressed. The blurriness you see is as much from compression as much as the limitations of 24p, it's exaggerated after compression, but it is still 24p, at least that's what Vimeo tells me.

It's not a "great" looking video, of course. It's over exposed, and it's shot from quite a distance but the fact that it looks filmic is the only point I'm making. It was also color corrected poorly but it is what it is.

Even so, not everyone would like it. On the other hand, party footage looks very nice. I edit wedding videos all day every day shot in 24p and they look great to me.

My point is not that these videos look "better", simply that they look different. Because of my camera's limitations, I must either shoot in 60i or 24p, and I prefer 24p after trying it out.

720 60p and 1080i also look very nice, much sharper, but what the heck, it's HD and looks amazing no matter which frame rate I choose.

People watch online videos and tend to make snap judgements on cameras to buy and all manner of things based on web samples, but the fact is that the web is not nearly ideal for comparison sometimes.

If your final product is on Bluray, as mine is, then you need to shoot a wedding in 24p and try it before judging. That is, in my opinion, the single best way to determine what works for you.

Noa: I have a Canon XHA1 and a Canon DSLR (t4i). In my opinion there is a huge difference between 60i and 24p on the XHA1. 60i gives that crisp "video" look as oposed to the softer 24p and 30p image. The difference isnt as noticeable when viewing on line but when watching from a DVD player its very noticable. As far as the blur with 24p that everyone speaks of, I havent seen it. Sure the motion may be slightly different but i would hardly refer to it as "blur".

So does the softer image in 25p give you the impression it's more film like?

Noa, your video is not, in my opinion, a good sample to "guess" from, it does appear to be a small chip camera, some shots appear to be shot with a 1/4" camera, but I could be wrong. The opening shots especially appear to have been shot using a smaller chip camera, it looks like a Panny, but I'm shooting in the dark, I have no idea.

Static shots outdoors of the subject matter you chose can look filmic despite being shot in 60i or whatever.

Without motion it is nearly impossible to determine what frame rate it's shot with. There is a softness to most shots that give the video a nice filmic look, but in the right light this can be achieved regardless of the frame rate.

The film look is about a feeling one gets from watching a movie. When you shoot things in the right light, they can have a dreamy, nice appearance and it doesn't matter what frame rate you choose.

I have shot 60i video that looked very filmic, and it had nothing to do with frame rate, but instead was the result of the lighting and subject matter.

It is a nice video, by the way.

So does the softer image in 25p give you the impression it's more film like?

Not really, however, it does look more like what im use to seeing on TV.

Interesting, the video was shot with in 50p on a APS-C sensor camera (the nex ea50) with the slower stocklens, now we can discuss why you thought it was 1/4" inch camera :) but I guess it must have been the lack of shallow dof.

But to come back to the question of the TS, I"m guessing that the bride's reference to a filmlook must have come from shallow dof as that is something very obvious since the dslr rage started, shallow dof is something found back in almost every cimema film, not in every scene but used a lot and that is a recognizable part when people with no video experience make a reference to film. I think even by adding black bars to mimic the cinema aspect ratio instantly enhances that film like feeling.

I did have a client a few weeks back when I showed some demo's and there where some steadycam shots in there and he said; "that's just like a movie" only referring to the steadicam shots.

I think when a client asks you to make their video look like film and if you ask what they mean by that, that no-one can answer you.

In regards to the whole "Film Look" debate, it seems that people are starting to destroy beautifully shot footage by manipulating it in a fashion that they feel is artistic and more film like. I started to notice this about two years ago. People started to color grade their footage in odd ways in an attempt to make it feel more cineamatic. Good composition, good sound, and good looking footage helps to give a production a more cineamatic feel.

I agree Kevin. I've shown customers DVDs shot at 60i that appeared very film like without any intention of mine to go for a film look. I just wanted a classic well shot looking video and by shooting steady shots and using classic, conservative technique it looked film like.

Noa, it appeared to me to be a small sensor camera because of a lack of detail in the opening shots. This was likely a result of recompression of your 50p video.

So you want us to watch a video shot in 50p, converted to 25p, recompressed a total of twice, and to figure out what it was shot in? Impossible.

Think about it, if you uploaded a 50p video that has been converted properly, it's converted to 25p which is not a far cry from 24p anyway. Agreed? Vimeo only does 24p, 25p, and 30p.

It would make more sense to show something constructive like a video shot in 24p that shows the benefit or difference using 24p, rather than to try and prove to others that 24p looks the same as everything else, or that 50p looks the same. or whatever. When we watch your video we are no longer watching a 50p, video, but instead we are watching a 50p video converted to 25p.

I can tell you all day long I can see a difference in my own videos, and I watch them on Bluray routinely, but you still want me to look at a video shot in 50p and to guess what it was shot in to prove a point of some kind, but I just don't get it.

You are one of my favorite people in this forum, so I guess I'll just say I don't quite get this and give you the benefit of the doubt. I know you're trying to make a point, I just don't get it.

My whole point was that 24p or 25p does not automatically give you a filmlook while many, including you, believe it does, if I look at my video in the raw format on a big screen it's ofcourse a lot sharper then the vimeo compressed image but if I would have used 25p instead of 50p for that particular video you would not have noticed for sure and it would not have made my film more filmlike

The film you have posted does look nice but I"m sorry to say that I don't associate it with a filmlook, not saying it was bad shot or whatever, I just don't see a filmlook in it.

24 or 25p does contribute a little bit in creating a filmlook because of the motion blur it causes which you see in some motion pictures but the frame rate alone doesn't contribute to a filmlook at all, if it would my cx730 would be able to produce "filmlike" images but it doesn't.

it appeared to me to be a small sensor camera because of a lack of detail in the opening shots.
Not that it is that important but large sensor camera's can have much less detail then small sensor camera's, the small sensor panasonic ag-ac90 has one of the sharpest images around while the large sensor 5DII has less resolution then my small sensor cx730. Just saying sensor size alone doesn't say much about sharpness or resolution.
Now the interesting part is that I saw the latest bond film some time ago and it was quite soft on the big screen lacking detail in areal shots of the cities but the footage was very filmlike, so from my perspective sharpness and very high detail is not something I would associate with film either.

Hi Noa

I have a Canadian friend who shoots everything in 24P (I don't think he knows why) and he mainly does video of choral groups.... it has absolutely no "filmic" or "cinema" style look to it at all and looks just like normal run-of-the-mill footage.

Guys, Noa is correct and it's a combination of many processes to get the "look" (and skills too which Noa HAS got) so it's far from the simple process of switching to 24P and saying I now have the film look

Chris

When the panasonic dvx100 came out (I used to have one to) the filmmaker community was very excited because it could do 24/25P but the actual strength of this camera, and what enabled it to have a very filmlike look, was the fact it had scene settings which you could fine tune by changing the gamma, matrix, chroma values etc and that made a big difference.

It was easy to get a videolook, also in 25p, depending on the scene setting you choose but once you dove into the scene settings you could give the camera a very different look. It was also possible to get a very weird look if you got it wrong :)

and skills too which Noa HAS got

My skill is very limited to the fact I know how to use the rule of thirds a bit and I can do pretty controlled moves with my camera :) but my knowledge in how to set up and light a real film scene or how to tell a story right is very limited, that's why I look at a lot of video's on vimeo from the guys who know how to do it right and I always think "I want to be able to do that too!"

It always looks so simple but it isn"t, I guess I know how when I"m 80.

Weddings in particular and events in general are interesting for the "one man band". You are the camera op, audio technician, lighting "director" to a limited degree, and the "director" to an even more limited degree... later you are the editor, producer, color timer, etc. etc. etc....

Think about how many names roll by on the credits of ANY movie... now think about all the diverse talents and contributions to the finished product that all those names brought to the process...

If you've watched the "bonus" content on many DVD's, you'll sometimes see "raw" footage or partially finished footage that didn't make the final cut, and isn't fully color corrected and "finished" - it often looks pretty "bad", yet when it was shot it was intended to go into the finished product, but it never got all the "polish"...

There are a lot of elements that go into making a "film" (even a digital one!), but sometimes it seems like the expectation is that "if I just do this" or "if I set this magic setting this way", suddenly a "cinematic masterpiece" will pop out of the camera and onto DVD/BR...

Noa it appears is on much the same "path" as I find myself... framing, composition, general camera placement moves and settings, I've got a handle on those... lighting, getting there... getting the "look" I want in post, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by "accident"!

SO MUCH to learn if one decides to go the "one man, many hats" route, and it's sadly not a "one setting" proposition...

To add to this discussion. Often the argument for 24p is that it portrays a less than real experience. Added to this films are framed, exposure is chosen and colouring applied to enhance the NOT REAL experience. The intent being to suggest that what is being shown is not real but is fiction/artistic. Which is perfect for a fictional story. Some work in the past suggested that frame rates less than about 48fps were considered NOT REAL by viewers and frame rates faster than this were considered a representation of a real event. So by default the economic choice to distribute films at 24fps fell nicely into this mold. Consequently film cameras and projectors were then manufactured in this format. All made economic sense that just doesn't apply today. So my take is more based on the psychological effects of frame rate. If its real shoot and display at a high frame rate if its fiction shoot or at least render to less than 48fps. Framing, camera movement, colorizing is totally independent of frame rate. Personally if its an event or documentary I want to see it as if I was there live, looking through a window. An old documentary shot on film is acceptable but today shot at 24p is suggesting to me that it may not be real !!!! If its a fictional film anything goes and I will pass judgement if I like it or not.

Ron Evans

You guys are so funny. This is such a silly discussion. Just go out and shoot. Do what you like.
Bill

There're more than just frame rate to determine the "film look". So blindly following that to shoot at 24 fps doesn't do you any good.

Best way is to try out to see which one you like best. I tried both and I decided to stick with 30fps. It's just give me a little bit better slow motion footage, and less stuttering during panning.

You won't get more storage on disc recording at 24fps. File size is determined by how many megabits per second. File size will be the same shooting 24p or 30p or 60p with the same data rate.

Taky! Good to meet you this week.
Bill

hey hey Bill... the name is familiar just not sure if that's the same person. Hey nice to meet you too. The whole InFocus video event is education and fun. Good to network with all the cinematographers too :)