Why 24P is Important from RED Centre Podcast

[Rick Casillas]

Christian,

My guess is that it can be done the same way that Canon implemented the HV20 24p.

They used 3:2 pulldown when encoding, then apply "inverse telecine" to get the 24p footage. See explaination here:

Projector People : 3:2 Pulldown Explained

My guess of course.


Rick C.

[Tony Tibbetts]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

I don't know what the "Best" way is, but I do know there's no *good* way. You can try using After Effects.

What's wrong with using Compressor? It looks great. Look at the conversions over on Philip Blooms site. What's wrong with those?

Wait...

Nevermind... forget I said anything. I don't have a science lab to analyze every frame and every pixel in those frames. The conversion process is no good. Forget it.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

You can crunch numbers and measure everything you want, but film and video are ultimately sensual experiences. All the 0's and 1's in the universe will never get you over the finish line and tell you what makes a given piece of content compelling. Dismiss the eye, the ear and the heart at your peril my friend.

I'm curious, did you listen to the podcast?

Originally Posted by Christian Ionescu

How do they do it? How is Canon going to allow 24p in camera?

For this kind of work, it wouldn't surprise me if they are gonna "crunch numbers" and perhaps even use those heartless "0's and 1's in the universe" that Brian eluded to ;^)

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

My posts have always been about the craft and not the engineering side of things.

And yet, according to you, I'm "carping on about scientific process from a position of ignorance" and Jason & Mike (the podcast guys) aren't "scientific" since (according to you) they don't even "know the difference between 30p and 60i" and could possibly not know "what a 30p to 24p conversion will result in".

...and it also has nothing to do with audio engineering

Neither is this correct -- for example, the interpolation algorithms we use for audio are also used for video, (as you may know, interpolation is needed to go from 30p to 24p). There are numerous other examples where audio and video share its DSP.

Originally Posted by Erik Andersen

To take a cue from Peer and try to address the title of this thread... Isn't there simply an aesthetic reason why 24p is so different, and often "better," than 30p or 60i? I'm thinking of 24p as a low framerate, that looks removed from reality, while 30p seems closer to what the eye sees. [...] IMHO 24p is perfect to create a visual experience removed from everyday reality, that would not be mistaken for all that garbage taking place outside the movie theater!

So very true. And I think that's also the case of DOF -- it also removes us from "everyday reality". I believe this is one of those reasons why so many opt for the 5D -- it's a very affordable step into the "reality" of 35mm cinematography. Now, if the 5D also had 24p and SMPTE, this camera would be perfect for me.

And to finish off, as a bonus I'll give you an example of what can happen when engineering and artistry end up in bed together:

YouTube - Amazing Billiards in Super Slow Motion

Love, peace, and understanding,

-- peer

[Tony Tibbetts]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

And yet, according to you, I'm "carping on about scientific process from a position of ignorance" and Jason & Mike (the podcast guys) aren't "scientific" since (according to you) they don't even "know the difference between 30p and 60i" and could possibly not know "what a 30p to 24p conversion will result in".

Again, this is the arena you dragged the debate into. Not me.

Have you ever converted the footage from a 5D using the Compressor method? Have the guys in the podcast done so? From what I can tell the answer is no. Yet your dogged defense of the podcast implies you (and the guys from the podcast) know EXACTLY what the end result will be. It's guess work without testing, and if that's the case, you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

Neither is this correct -- for example, the interpolation algorithms we use for audio are also used for video, (as you may know, interpolation is needed to go from 30p to 24p). There are numerous other examples where audio and video share its DSP.

'Yawn...' You stated from the get go your problem with my comments was that something was "good enough" Then proceeded to tell me that I was wrong, because engineers like to use 24/96 audio which is an issue of fidelity, to put it simply, a matter of maximum information contained in a format. The implication was that it was superior to 16/48 audio because of this. Even if the common people can't tell the difference.

By this reasoning 60p and 30p both technically carry more information than video at 24p. You defend the "importance" of 24p acquisition, yet denounce any conversion to 24p.

If 24p is the equivalent to 24/96 audio, not only is your analogy flawed, it doesn't make much sense.

Anyway, I said last time I was done debating this silly analogy, I've indulged you one last time. I'm bored with it. I'm happy to continue discussing conversion to 24p, but debating your analogy is boring, tedious and pointless. It serves no purpose on the topic at hand.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

Again, this is the arena you dragged the debate into. Not me.

Since the quotes were yours, I must assume it is you.

If 24p is the equivalent to 24/96 audio

This is silly. No one has claimed that 24p is equal to 24bit/96kHz audio.

But since you (deliberately or not) misunderstood my previous analogy (that it's not very scientific to rely on ones eyes to test if an interpolation works well), I'll give you one more:
When I'm modifying my motorcycle, I don't go out and ride it to figure out if it delivers more power, but instead I put it on a brake dyno which shows exactly how much power and torque it delivers at certain RPM. The same when I go look for speaker monitors (or headphones) I don't trust my ears -- instead I look at the spec. Also when it comes to video monitors. I want to work on a linear system -- and to find one, I can't trust my eyes or my ears. And I certainly won't trust your "if it looks good to the naked eye" method of testing either. Sorry.

But people are different, and I accept that.

Have you ever converted the footage from a 5D using the Compressor method? [...] you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

Since I'm so ignorant, can you please explain to me how the 5D's 30p differ from other 30p?

-- peer

[Bill Davis]

Gosh, such entrenched thinking an all sides.

On something that's so NOT important.

(I enjoy calling these "pimple behind Cindy Crawford's knee" problems. Yeah, that might exist. But for anyone thinking straight, it so TOTALLY ignores the overarching reality of the subject.

Here's the truth as I see it.

24p doesn't matter. 30p doesn't matter. Period. At all.

Why? Happy to explain.

The cold hard reality is that 99% of any and all movies being made right now - no, not just movies, any non-corporate or business specific moving picture content including doc's, music videos, whatever - DO NOT make their investment back. Yes, we have lovely 24p and 30p and 60i and 1024i tools. And yet nearly ALL the movies made TO ANY AND ALL THOSE STANDARDS will FAIL to make a dime for anyone.

The bottom line is that content is king. If you can create a really interesting script and shoot it really well on ANYTHING - it will only succeed at doing ONE thing. Enhance your reputation to the point where you get to do it AGAIN, - this time with fewer compromises as to format, hardware, software and every other stage of the production.

That's IT. Sorry to be so harsh, but without a reputation NOW - and I mean a current reputation having SOLD movies in the past - your ... and MY! chances of getting a piece of our content into a theater or broadcast ANYWHERE - where the frame rate or need to transcode to celluloid could possibly matter - statistically approach ZERO.

Face it, all non studio sponsored movies are at best, RESUME movies. And as such, the format doen't MATTER.

24p only MATTERS if there's a REALISTIC chance someone will ever give a rats behind about showing your content in a PAL country. And the reality of distribution is that making something 25 frame friendly is likely going to increase your chances of success from .0005 to .0006.

And statistically neither is really going to happen.

What CAN happen is what happens with the exceptions that make it.

A creator's first film is INTERESTING even if not releasable. Second film is MORE interesting if still not releasable. Third film (still NEVER to see celuloid) creates some serious buzz. And then BINGO. That filmmaker who now has DEMONSTRATED CONTENT DELIVERY TALENT is given a REAL budget and a REAL crew and no longer has to give a rats ass about any 24p vs 1080i crap.

I know I sound harsh. But I think a LOT of people would do themselves a world of good if instead of obsessing about the beginning of their career filmmaking chain - which is about crap like formats and frame rates and potential "pie in the sky what if someone wants to buy the European rights?????" crap. And just concentrated on making exceptionally GREAT content.

I know. That's actually WAY more difficult than spending hours debating whether the Canon 5d or the Red whatever is more "distribution friendly." The answer is NEITHER - unless you have something WORTH distributing - which is the whole REAL problem.

The problem that nobody in discussions like this really wants to address.

FWIW

(Rant mode off. And sorry, but I get frustrated with these endless discussions of stuff that hardly matters - to the exclusion of discussions about what DOES matter. I'll go away quietly now.)

[Jay Bloomfield]

Originally Posted by Bill Davis

24p doesn't matter. 30p doesn't matter. Period. At all.

I think that was my point in my first post in this thread, way back at the top. I'm going to repeat it:

I don't want to instigate another tiring 24p "rant" thread, but other than the clean conversion to film, what is real advantage of 24p? Film has a certain color look to it, but that has nothing to do with frame rate. DOF has nothing to do with 24p, as evidenced by the 5D2. The only thing you get from 24p that is "filmic" is motion blur, because you have less frames per second.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Jay Bloomfield

I think that was my point in my first post in this thread, way back at the top. I'm going to repeat it:

This thread has ricocheted all over the place, from HD audio, to Iraq, to Motorcycles. But I think the general thrust has been 24p vs 30p ease of conversion to other formats for different geographic regions.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Bill Davis

The problem that nobody in discussions like this really wants to address.

While I agree with your thesis, it's orthogonal to the discussion.

Many people have many goals. Not all of us expect to make money in this, or be discovered, or get distribution. Some just want to participate in film festivals. And we want our short films to look as "Hollywood" as possible. Maybe we want to make "films" (not just "home videos") of the kids and grandkids - and we want to burn film-like 24p Blu-ray Discs. Some want to publish on the web, and prefer the lower bit rate of 24p vs. 30p. People in Europe would like their content to look good without dropping frames on their 50Hz TVs. And nobody - nobody - wants to spend time processing their video to get it to do what they feel it should do in the first place.

Our wants don't have to be rational. (Ice cream, anyone?) The desire for 24/25p is broad and the feelings are deep. Asserting that it's not important won't change those feelings or rationales.

The only thing that will quench the thirst is a 24/25p firmware release. And, being humans, we will then set our sights on our next desire.

[Tony Tibbetts]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

...misunderstood my previous analogy (that it's not very scientific to rely on ones eyes to test if an interpolation works well), I'll give you one more:

When I'm modifying my motorcycle, I don't go out and ride it to figure out if it delivers more power, but instead I put it on a brake dyno which shows exactly how much power and torque it delivers at certain RPM. The same when I go look for speaker monitors (or headphones) I don't trust my ears -- instead I look at the spec. Also when it comes to video monitors. I want to work on a linear system -- and to find one, I can't trust my eyes or my ears. And I certainly won't trust your "if it looks good to the naked eye" method of testing either. Sorry.

I guess practical,hands-on, real world tests don't amount to anything when you can read books, spec sheets and use high tech tools in the the safety of a lab.

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

I'm so ignorant, can you please explain to me how the 5D's 30p differ from other 30p?

None that I know of, but it really isn't the point. Ya see, we keep coming back to the fact that neither you nor the podcast guys have done any tests regarding 30p to 24p conversion using a widely known method that works. 30p to 24p can be done with good results. Period. You haven't experimented with the the method I pointed out. So yes, if you are going to claim that it can't be done with good results, or back people claiming the same thing, that is the definition of ignorance.

Of course the results are certainly subjective, but most people don't obsess over the minutiae the way you do Peer.

Hey, you keep on fighting the good fight buddy!

Now... back on topic: "Why 24p is important?"

My thoughts? It isn't. While it's more of a convenience, I wouldn't say that it's important. Would I like it? Yes, but it's not available (yet) in the 5D, so I will work around it.

Adapt, improvise, and overcome.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Bill Davis

I enjoy calling these "pimple behind Cindy Crawford's knee" problems.

I think there was a scene in "The English Patient" where they talked about that particular part of the body, and that it actually has an anatomical name.

The cold hard reality is that 99% of any and all movies being made right now - no, not just movies, any non-corporate or business specific moving picture content including doc's, music videos, whatever - DO NOT make their investment back. Yes, we have lovely 24p and 30p and 60i and 1024i tools. And yet nearly ALL the movies made TO ANY AND ALL THOSE STANDARDS will FAIL to make a dime for anyone.

So would you accept it if your jeweler revealed that the diamond ring that you got for your wife was actually a CVD, and his explanation was that 99% of you suckers can't tell the difference anyway, and telling you that even a real diamond would never increase (or even retain) its invested value..? Alright -- so it's important that we "make their investment back"... (at least for some ;^)

24p doesn't matter. 30p doesn't matter. Period. At all. [...] Face it, all non studio sponsored movies are at best, RESUME movies. And as such, the format doen't MATTER.

As a kid my dad always had a screw loose when it came to cameras -- for instance, instead of getting the (then) very popular Super 8mm camera, he opted for a high-end 16mm. At the time I didn't think/know much about it, but now when looking back I'm amazed and very much indebted to him -- among the things I learned, this camera helped me making movies already as a snotty 8-year old, using everything from stop-motion and slow/fast motion, to silly dolly-zooms (that I at the time thought I had invented ;^) But since my dad also wanted the very best when it came to projectors, he never found a way to afford one, but instead rented a projector for Christmas each year -- and still to this day, those Christmases were the most fun I've ever had; to finally see what I've been shooting during that year. Even if it was all unedited and without sound, the quality of this footage is sufficient enough that I'll cherish it forever. And what do you think happened to the stuff that my buddy shot with his dad's Super-8..? Well, two years ago I met up with him in L.A., and we sat up until wee hours talking & laughing about how the kids on the block were teasing me as I was hauling around with dad's clunky monster camera while he had this elegant little Super-8. However, all his footage is now all long gone in the trash, while mine is still stored in a safe back home....

Although there's certainly no "moral" to this story, I still wanted to share it since I somehow got to think about it when reading Bill's post "24p only MATTERS if there's a REALISTIC chance..." etc. You see, my dad never had any aspirations to become a film-maker or even show his stuff outside his four walls -- yet, when he was running & gunning his camera, he was always in a world by himself -- a happy place. The same when he was researching/shopping around to find "the best". Whether it was cameras, motorcycles, or finding someone to marry, "better is better" was his motto. Btw, here's a piece about my crazy parents: Ruth & Torstein Landa -- My Parents

To tie this back to the subject at hand, I'd like to remind people that there is no right way to do 30p to 24p interpolation -- it's all a hack. Some are worse than others. But as time goes, we won't be discussing this anymore -- soon all cameras will have variable frame rates and our beloved 5D will become yet another Super-8. But until then, I think I'll rely on real data-specs and testing (and even guys like podcast Mike & Jason) rather than listening to people like "Mr. Looks Good Enough To Me".

-- peer

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

I can't trust my eyes or my ears. And I certainly won't trust your "if it looks good to the naked eye" method of testing either.

I'm very sorry to read this, because one of the fundamental tenets of this site, which I have worked very hard to cultivate over the years, is how utterly meaningless the numbers are relative to the ultimate testing method of eyes and ears. Just so you know, one of the principles of DV Info Net has always been to dispense with the specs and focus on real-world results. Our emphasis is indeed heavily focused on the eyes & ears methodology, and if for whatever reason you feel you can't trust those results, then you need to realize that you're on the wrong web site. Generally I do my best to discourage the specs-and-numbers mentality, as it's absolutely no substitute whatsoever for real-world testing. I'm very happy to say that we don't bother with the "test bench" nonsense on DV Info Net (if you're looking for tech-spec discussions, then please, please go elsewhere on the web). What matters here is what you get in the field under real conditions, and as long as I'm here, that's the way this site will stay. Hope that clarifies things,

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

The best of all worlds is to consider the human experience as well as the numbers. If you can correlate the two, you can make good decisions.

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but they can help keep us from going down a fruitless path.

Bingo. You've just described the maximum extent to which we'll use specs and numbers on DV Info Net. Ultimately the specs will always take a back seat to real-world experience (at least on DV Info Net they will). And we're at the conclusion of this thread, by the way (frankly, while 24p is important, 25p is *even more* important). Thanks all,