I realize this has been discussed before, but any definitive answers on 30p vs. 24p when content is intended solely for DVD distribution? Setting aside the possibility of 24p dvd players, etc., what is the real world solution? Is it really that much of a difference in "look"? Thanks to all.

I realize this has been discussed before, but any definitive answers on 30p vs. 24p when content is intended solely for DVD distribution? Setting aside the possibility of 24p dvd players, etc., what is the real world solution? Is it really that much of a difference in "look"? Thanks to all.
The ease in workflow of 30p outweighs everything when the sole distribution is DVD.

The ease in workflow of 30p outweighs everything when the sole distribution is DVD.
How about when both NTSC and PAL DVDs are needed, and the video is shot in NTSC?

How about when both NTSC and PAL DVDs are needed, and the video is shot in NTSC?
In that case then 24p is best, but if the DVD is purely NTSC then 30p.

It is a purely aesthetic choice, but if PAL DVDs are definitely needed, you should consider shooting 25P and then downconverting to PAL and NTSC. It would be the easiest conversion in both cases.

25->30 is an awkward ratio to convert, it doesn't pull down as well as 24->30. I would actually say shoot in 24 and temporally stretch to 25 for PAL, since the people in PAL world are pretty used to it.

Hayes, I don't see anyone asking what system you are using... PC or Mac?

If PC and Premiere Pro then 24P has more to offer (nicer look, smaller file sizes / less frames, better low light, reduced render times, etc.)

If Mac and FCP then 30P might be better for now.

This is assuming NTSC, as mentioned


Or are you using a different editor?

From what I have gathered (especially from Steve Mullen), unless you are outputting to Film (True 24 Frames), then 30P has more potential to "look like film" than 24P because of the flicker that 30P has. Each Frame Flashes twice a second (60) like film does (48). With 24P to any Video source, it plays back with a 3:2 Pulldown which is not accurate. He has posted threads at great length about this. It is very interesting.

If either workflow doesn't bother you, then I suggesting testing them out. The thing with 24P is that pans are much harder to pull off, as is motion altogether unless you have practiced.

Good luck.

I am using FCP- Very interesting and helpful; has anyone actually seen comparisons or tested this? Additionally, any word on when Apple is really going to deliver? Thanks again.

From what I have gathered (especially from Steve Mullen), unless you are outputting to Film (True 24 Frames), then 30P has more potential to "look like film" than 24P because of the flicker that 30P has. Each Frame Flashes twice a second (60) like film does (48). With 24P to any Video source, it plays back with a 3:2 Pulldown which is not accurate. He has posted threads at great length about this. It is very interesting.

If either workflow doesn't bother you, then I suggesting testing them out. The thing with 24P is that pans are much harder to pull off, as is motion altogether unless you have practiced.

Good luck.
Exactly and I have always agreed with Steve on this matter I believe 30p can in fact look very much like film and to tell you the truth I actually prefur 30p to 24p for everything I shoot. If I was going to shoot something that was going to be bumped to film which is not likely, that would be the only time I would use 24p

I still have a few questions regarding 30p:

How does 30p look when played back in a PAL player that converts NTSC? Most PAL players play back NTSC fine, but I am worried that 30p NTSC might stutter in a PAL NTSC converting player.


Should I flag the 30p as 30p with a 2-2 pulldown or just as 60i? I have noticed that at least half of the NTSC DVD players seem to be confused by a 30p 2-2 pulldown flag and try to do a 3-2 pulldown when they see it. This looks terrible. On the other hand, if I flag it as 60i, uprezzing algorythms might not work correctly. I know that my DVD authoring application: DVD Architect won`t even let me write a 2-2 pulldown DVD because of the potential playback problems.

The show "Friends" is shot in 30p. Does anyone know how that show is flagged when it is released on DVD?

I just did a google search and found that "Friends" is shot on film at 30p and released on DVD as 30p video that is flagged as 60i.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

"Several TV shows, including Friends, are shot on 30 fps cameras and transferred to video using 2-2 pulldown. Unfortunately, the Friends DVDs are not marked progressive, which just reinforces our point – you can’t trust the flags."

30P or 60i - the players don't care. You can flag it progressive so that some players and TVs will click into P mode, but it really won't make a difference with 30P since the video file is still 60i.

The ease in workflow of 30p outweighs everything when the sole distribution is DVD.

That depends on what NLE you're using. Using Vegas, for example, the workflow between the two is identical. And a 24p DVD is true progressive, whereas 30p must be encoded as 60i.

Liquid, of course, is not 24p-friendly. But other NLEs are.

So, if you can edit on a 24p timeline and make a 24p DVD, it makes no sense not to do it, ESPECIALLY, if the aesthetics of 24p are what you're after, and are looking at 30p merely as a "compromise." Despite what Steve Mullen says, I've never seen any 30p looking more like film than 24p.

With 24P to any Video source, it plays back with a 3:2 Pulldown which is not accurate.

That is not true. A computer screen or a progressive display (like an HDTV) will display the true 24p frames, no pulldown.

As for standard TVs, 2:3 (or 3:2) pulldown isn't perfect, but it averages out to the right thing -- and every Hollywood movie you've ever watched on a standard TV has used it. I'd dare say they still look like fine, no?

The thing with 24P is that pans are much harder to pull off, as is motion altogether unless you have practiced.

It's harder, but that's part of the film look. Many of the camera movements that we've come to consider "cinematic" come as a direct result of decades of DPs learning how to work with the motion cadence of 24 fps in order to get the best out of it.

30p still has a video-ish feel to it. That doesn't make it bad, nor is 24p the appropriate frame rate for every use. But if the look of cinematic film is what you're after, shooting good 24p is what you want.

I don't know if all the fuss being made about 24p is well deserved. When I watch a film in a theater, I'm so in awe of the image quality that I put up with the stuttery motion. When I look at 24p video on a progressive setup, if it was originally shot on film, it has this wonderful image quality that makes me forgive the stuttery motion. If was shot on video at 24p, all I see is video image quality with stuttery motion: the worst of both words really: mediocre image with stuttery motion. I want to be a believer and I keep trying, but to me the magic of film isn't achieved by adding stuttery motion to video. To my eyes, hd, even 60i hd is a step in that direction. What I really want to see is film quality image with smoooth motion. 60p hd is probably going to be it in the long run. In the mean time I'll keep shopping around for the best compromise.

That is not true. A computer screen or a progressive display (like an HDTV) will display the true 24p frames, no pulldown.

As for standard TVs, 2:3 (or 3:2) pulldown isn't perfect, but it averages out to the right thing -- and every Hollywood movie you've ever watched on a standard TV has used it. I'd dare say they still look like fine, no?



It's harder, but that's part of the film look. Many of the camera movements that we've come to consider "cinematic" come as a direct result of decades of DPs learning how to work with the motion cadence of 24 fps in order to get the best out of it.

30p still has a video-ish feel to it. That doesn't make it bad, nor is 24p the appropriate frame rate for every use. But if the look of cinematic film is what you're after, shooting good 24p is what you want.


I dont completey agree with you, I think if you know what your doing you can make 30p look nothing like video or as you put it video-ish the frame rate is noticeabaly different than 60p and with the right camera work and settings and work in post you can achive some great looks that are nothing close to video, but more closely related to 24P in fact in some cases I think it looks better than 24p.

Doesn't shutter speed enter into this?

I dont completey agree with you, I think if you know what your doing you can make 30p look nothing like video or as you put it video-ish the frame rate is noticeabale different than 60p and with the right camera work and settings and work in post you can achive some great looks that are nothing close to video, but more closely related to 24P in fact in some cases I think it looks better than 24p.

I didn't say 30p can't be made to look great or that it looks "worse" than 24p; "better" is all about your specific artistic goals. Any frame rate has appropriate uses.

Doesn't shutter speed enter into this?

Shutter speed is another artistic decision.

That depends on what NLE you're using. Using Vegas, for example, the workflow between the two is identical. And a 24p DVD is true progressive, whereas 30p must be encoded as 60i.

Liquid, of course, is not 24p-friendly. But other NLEs are.

So, if you can edit on a 24p timeline and make a 24p DVD, it makes no sense not to do it, ESPECIALLY, if the aesthetics of 24p are what you're after, and are looking at 30p merely as a "compromise." Despite what Steve Mullen says, I've never seen any 30p looking more like film than 24p.
Have a look at this: Right Click and save as MOV (without the X) (http://media.dvinfo.net/avid/Filmout_Liquid7-H264.movx)

Also, any plans around November 1-4th? Since your already in N.C. how about joining me in Charlotte (http://www.liquidimmersion.org/)?

Have a look at this: Right Click and save as MOV (without the X) (http://media.dvinfo.net/avid/Filmout_Liquid7-H264.movx)

Well, good to see Liquid has made some improvements in the 24p area; I keep hearing rumors that L8 will have full integration.

Can you also then export a 23.98 progressive MPEG for making a 24p DVD?

If so, then I'm not sure what the "hassle" is vs. 30p.

Also, any plans around November 1-4th? Since your already in N.C. how about joining me in Charlotte (http://www.liquidimmersion.org/)?

Actually, I already have that penciled in; I'm a founding member of the Charlotte group and Andy Browne is a good friend.

In fact, it was in his copy of L7 that he and I put Liquid's 24p timeline through a series of tests. I found that it will not remove pulldown (and when Joe Figura spoke to the group, he was quite pointed in that Liquid wasn't going there -- but that was pre-Avid, so maybe things have changed). We found also that Liquid can't preview a 24p timeline through firewire and that there's no option for burning a 24p DVD from the timeline.

I guess I'm a little curious as to whether in the video you posted, is it REALLY removing pulldown, or is the audio synch discarding frames in a different pattern? Improvements happen all the time, and if Liquid is stepping up in the 24p department, then it's a welcome change.

Actually, I already have that penciled in; I'm a founding member of the Charlotte group and Andy Browne is a good friend.
Good to hear, hope you can put a pen to it.

30p still has a video-ish feel to it. That doesn't make it bad, nor is 24p the appropriate frame rate for every use. But if the look of cinematic film is what you're after, shooting good 24p is what you want.

I don't get all the fuss about 24p frame rate: the only time I ever notice frame rate is when it's used improperly and produces stuttery-looking motion. To me it's lighting, depth of field and *content* which make a movie a movie, and frame rate is an artistic red herring which we could live without.

I don't get all the fuss about 24p frame rate: the only time I ever notice frame rate is when it's used improperly and produces stuttery-looking motion. To me it's lighting, depth of field and *content* which make a movie a movie, and frame rate is an artistic red herring which we could live without.

Do you have a camera which can shoot both 24 fps and 60 fps?

Pick something (a scene) with a fair amount of motion and light it well. Compose it well. Shoot it well. Shoot it in both frame rates, changning nothing except the frame rate, and see if you don't see a marked difference.

Do you have a camera which can shoot both 24 fps and 60 fps?

No, but I keep watching all different kinds of content and can't think of an example where low frame rate was anything but a distraction. Even 30p looks odd to me in many situations, with only 60i/p content looking "right." I guess I'm just a product of a TV generation...

Good to hear, hope you can put a pen to it.

The next several months are going to be insane, but I'll do what I can.

Any insights on the other things I posted? It's kind of off-topic, so PM me if you like.

No, but I keep watching all different kinds of content and can't think of an example where low frame rate was anything but a distraction. Even 30p looks odd to me in many situations, with only 60i/p content looking "right." I guess I'm just a product of a TV generation...

Do the movies you go to see at the theater look odd, to me 60p looks odd. Watch a soap show some time and tell me that dosent look odd it's shot in 60p video. all your reality shows to are shot in video to at 60p. Just saw Pirates of the Caribean, it was not shot in 60p but it looked great.

Like I said, the only time I notice frame rate is when it's used improperly and results in stuttery-looking motion. To me motion either looks smooth and natural or it doesn't, and it's inherently smoother at 60 increments per second than at lower rates. I just happen to have a soap opera on at the moment (because the news ended) and it looks fine to me.

Isn't it a basic principle of movie-making at 24 fps that you have to be careful how you shoot so you don't run into trouble with motion issues? That doesn't sound like a good thing to me.

Can you imagine "Ben-Hur" or "Doctor Zhivago" or "Lawrence of Arabia" looking/moving like a soap opera? I don't wanna.

Can you imagine "Ben-Hur" or "Doctor Zhivago" or "Lawrence of Arabia" looking/moving like a soap opera? I don't wanna.

Sure, why not? Actually, I can picture how Ben-Hur might look different during the chariot scenes, but not in a way which would matter to the story line. To me frame rate doesn't matter unless it's distractingly jerky, which happens fairly often at lower rates but not at higher ones. I just don't see this being a critical component of great movie-making, and I'd guess that if 60p had been the standard for the past 50 years we'd be saying how wonderful that looked.

Can you imagine "Ben-Hur" or "Doctor Zhivago" or "Lawrence of Arabia" looking/moving like a soap opera? I don't wanna.

Exactly, when you watch something shot correctly on a lower fram rate its like your watching a story and being carried along. When your watching a soap opera, not that I do but its like live viewing. I think the reason film or 24p shooting is so attractive to the consumer is because its different then what we are seeing every day 60p is more like what you see when you go out into the world every day nothing new! 24p or 30p ect.. is different than what we normaly see and thats probabley the attraction of it,its like looking at something different and more comforting to watch assuming its put together correctly.

Sure, why not? Actually, I can picture how Ben-Hur might look different during the chariot scenes, but not in a way which would matter to the story line. To me frame rate doesn't matter unless it's distractingly jerky, which happens fairly often at lower rates but not at higher ones. I just don't see this being a critical component of great movie-making, and I'd guess that if 60p had been the standard for the past 50 years we'd be saying how wonderful that looked.

Well its a good thing Hollywood and most of the TV community dosent agree with you but hey its America and everyone has the right to their own opinion, as for me I will continue to shoot most of my material at 30p. Thanks and goodnight.

Exactly. 60i/p is great for reality, news, sports, game shows, soap operas . . . but for DRAMA, you want to be taken away.

I don't get all the fuss about 24p frame rate: the only time I ever notice frame rate is when it's used improperly and produces stuttery-looking motion. To me it's lighting, depth of field and *content* which make a movie a movie, and frame rate is an artistic red herring which we could live without.

Not to carry this topic much further but how many movies do you know that were shot at 60p

Exactly. 60i/p is great for reality, news, sports, game shows, soap operas . . . but for DRAMA, you want to be taken away.

All stuff where they want you to see what you see every day, live and in your face. its not a dramatic story its live TV its the world. Like was stated earlier in this post every fram rate has its place.

I may be wrong, but I believe George Lucas did some tests at UCLA, a number of years ago, projecting film at 60p. If I remember correctly, one of the side effects of the 60p motion was that it made some people crazy. It was a really dangerous frame rate. After those tests, if I'm not mistaken, George Lucas made his next movie in 24p. I don't know if it was for insurance reasons (the high premium on insurance rates for a 60p film because of the inherent danger of possibly making people crazy), but it may have been.

Ever since those tests most films have been shot in 24p. (It was speculated that even 30p might make some people half crazy.)

There are currently some Korean soap operas on American television that appear to be shot in high quality 60p. If you watch these soap operas for 7 or 8 hours straight, the high frame rate causes, it seems, some people the need to go to a movie theatre for soothing 24p experience. The motion in the video is smooth, but the person inside becomes really jittery and excited.

It is my understanding that Europe adopted PAL and 25 framerate so that soccer fans would not get over excited during the world cup as would happen if they watched the soccer at the high frame rates that are recklessly allowed in America and Japan.

It seems the implication of some of the posts here is that 24 fps is what makes movies look like movies--to the exclusion of other probably more pertinent elements likes first class lighting and set designs, aesthetic elements unique to the film medium etc. I don't know how much 24fps contributes to what makes movies "look like movies" but I really don't think if "Gone with the Wind" was shot in 30fps it would look like "Days of Our Lives".

No one's saying 24 fps *alone* "makes movies look like movies." What we're saying is that it makes movies MOVE like movies.

If GWTW had been shot at 60 fps, it would move like a soap opera.

Did you happen to see the live episodes of "Will & Grace"? They were shot at 60p. Everything else about the show -- lighting, sets, acting, etc. -- was the same. But because they were shot at 60p, they looked like they were a stage play, just like soap operas do.

I do not want to get into the 50 year old debate on if 60 hz is better than 24 fps but I will list some of the reasons why I prefer 24p.

1. Universal. Can easily be adapted to any world market.
2. Less frames to rotoscope.
3. Higher quality on DVD.
4. Faster to encode than 60i/p
5. Uncompressed takes up much less space and bandwidth.
6. A true progressive image on DVD for digital display devices.
7. Faster to render.
8. Easier to scale/rotate/warp than interlaced video.
9. Animation at 60i takes longer to render.
10. Animation at 60p really takes a lot longer to render.

The only thing 60i/p gains you is smoother motion. There is no other advantage to 60i/p. I for one hope Hollywood never moves to 60p. Visual Effects would end up costing 2.5x more and take 2.5x longer to create. Rotoscoping would become a nightmare.

I may be wrong, but I believe George Lucas did some tests at UCLA, a number of years ago, projecting film at 60p. If I remember correctly, one of the side effects of the 60p motion was that it made some people crazy.

Sounds like an urban myth to me, but if someone can provide a reliable reference about that it might make interesting reading.

As for the question about how many movies I've seen shot in 60p, ask me again about 10 years from now. Like I said before, our fondness for 24p is partly a consequence of having it be a standard for several decades, which is arguably just a compromise due to the cost of shooting film. Now that film is about to go away for most purposes we'll see whether 24p really holds up as a desirable frame rate in the digital era.

You really think great film-makers wouldn't have done great work shooting at a different frame rate? To me that's assigning far too much credit to a minor technical detail.

It's been long decades past since the time when any framerate was practical, but they've stayed with 24p as the standard, even after experimenting with different rates.

Why? Because it works; it gives an artistic feel that faster framerates don't. Why do most painters still use brushes and canvas? Why are there portrait painters at all when photography is much more "real life"?

I think you're seriously underestimating the importance of the "canvas" to the artistic output.

But hey, if you personally prefer 60 fps, that's your business.

I think you're seriously underestimating the importance of the "canvas" to the artistic output.

Perhaps, but as I said we'll see what happens when most movies are recorded and distributed digitally. Not many years ago I had professional photographers telling me they'd never shoot digital because it just didn't look right to them; today I don't know many photographers who don't do digital work. Not quite the same issue there, but the point being that times do change and sometimes perception changes too.

So maybe there really is something magical about a 24p frame rate for video, but I don't see it. I like motion images to look smooth and realistic, and that simply works better at higher frame rates than lower ones. And note that even in this modern era of digital processing, many of the arguments in favor of 24p still boil down to a matter of cost-effectiveness. If that's what works so be it, but I'm still puzzled there isn't more push to go to 60p.

Exactly David and by the way Kevin several years ago digital cameras were not 12 mega pixes and climming with improved technology either. I am currious about one thing you keep bringing up the fact of motion not being smooth in 24p Star Wars, Pirates of the Carribean, Lord of the Rings ect ect ect which one of these movies dose not have smooth motion they all look smooth to me because they are shot with the experiance of working in the 24p frame rate and getting the most out of it, yet still offer the look and feel of a movie you just cant get with 60p. If 24p was as full of judder and stutter as you claim I dont think the movie industry would be plunking down millions upon millions of dallars for films using this fram rate. I think the industry has decided already what works best and as far as the future goes digital film shot at 24p I believe or for example the most recent Star Wars which was a breathtaking movie experiance as far as film quality gose is where the future is most likely going.

...which one of these movies dose not have smooth motion they all look smooth to me because they are shot with the experiance of working in the 24p frame rate and getting the most out of it, yet still offer the look and feel of a movie you just cant get with 60p.

I guess the best thing I can say here is that I certainly hope people shooting 24p are doing that carefully, because even 30p can look funny if not done right. I don't notice the artistic characteristics of low frame rates as much as I notice motion judder when low frame rates are used incorrectly, and while that may not happen much in major motion pictures it is a risk of shooting that way. Maybe if I ever made a feature film I'd feel differently about this, but for my work I just want smooth motion.

As far as digital still cameras are concerned, it's not just a question of megapixels and other enhancements - some photographers swore (and a few still swear) that they don't like the digital look. But it's all subjective in the end: if we'd been shooting digital pictures for 50 years and someone brought us film cameras we'd probably think the film pictures looked funny. Same for 24p: it's what we're used to.

I guess the best thing I can say here is that I certainly hope people shooting 24p are doing that carefully, because even 30p can look funny if not done right. I don't notice the artistic characteristics of low frame rates as much as I notice motion judder when low frame rates are used incorrectly....
People keep saying that 24p has to be shot right. Can someone post a link to the "rules" for shooting 24p correctly?

The only rule that it seems people keep accenting is "Don't do fast pans.? However, on the one hand, fast pans generally are nausea making no matter what the frame rate and on the other hand whip pans are standard in film.

What is a list of the specific rules/techniques for shooting 24p that sets it apart from shooting other frame rates of video?

Each has a purpose. Wouldn't you agree?


I have reasons for shooting/editing/delivering 30fps.
Likewise I have reasons to shoot/edit/deliver 24fps.

I don't think shooting 24fps is "necessary" in order to get any look. Pull down video does not look the same as 24 fps film. Not by a stretch. So the film look on DVD conversation I think is irrelevant (IMO). All DVD's are 29.97 or 25 fps depending on the region.

The one thing that I think 24fps brings to the table is a slower approach to everything and much more careful camera moves.

no matter what, have fun shooting..

What is a list of the specific rules/techniques for shooting 24p that sets it apart from shooting other frame rates of video?
Start here (http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/getResource2/c1_judder_and_smear.pdf?id=6118) and then study the relationships on this chart (http://www.gecko-cam.com/html/Deutsch/Know-How-D/Panning-Speed-D.htm).

It is a start to realizing the care that must be taken when shooting true progressive with the ProHD products.

I guess the best thing I can say here is that I certainly hope people shooting 24p are doing that carefully, because even 30p can look funny if not done right. I don't notice the artistic characteristics of low frame rates as much as I notice motion judder when low frame rates are used incorrectly, and while that may not happen much in major motion pictures it is a risk of shooting that way. Maybe if I ever made a feature film I'd feel differently about this, but for my work I just want smooth motion.

As far as digital still cameras are concerned, it's not just a question of megapixels and other enhancements - some photographers swore (and a few still swear) that they don't like the digital look. But it's all subjective in the end: if we'd been shooting digital pictures for 50 years and someone brought us film cameras we'd probably think the film pictures looked funny. Same for 24p: it's what we're used to.

Kevin I must say I do not shoot nor have the ability to edit anything in 24p and will likely never for that matter I am not doing anything I would bump up to film. I do how ever shoot most of my projects in 30p and do so with great success, I primarily make nature videos for state parks and an occassional wedding. Shooting in 30p with the settings in my camera give me a very film like end product that many people have enjoyed. I use to shoot with HI8 as a starting source in 60p my projects now look much better in HDV an allot more film like. No one has ever said my projects look like video, they use to when I shot in HI8 60p but not anymore and it did not take me very long to adapt to the 30p shooting I do now I did not find it that difficult to adapt to 30p, sure there are some adjustments you need to make in certain situations but for the most part its really not as difficult as you make it seem. Everything I have put together moving subject and all have come out with great color smoothness and film like appearance in fact I actually prefur it over 24p these results and more are just a few of the reasons I bought the HD100 in the first place I only wish I had this camera years ago to use on project I have already finished in the past my new projects have so much more appeal with less effort than anything I ever shot in HI8 60p and when you see the look on someones face when they see some of the things I have shot with this camera its really something, something I never saw in there faces when viewing my HI8 footage.

Each has a purpose. Wouldn't you agree?

That sounds like something most of us can probably agree with. If you and your viewers like 24p then shoot 24p; those of us who like other options can use those. Maybe I need to watch more movies...