24f(p) or 60i for Documentary?

[Ron Evans]

Steve Mullen has a post on this topic in the AVCHD section.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=124261 There have been long discussions in this section too.

Ron Evans

[Evan Donn]

Ron, I'm familiar with what judder is and I can see it in films all the time, more so on the big screen but on the tv as well - it's just that I don't find it particularly distracting or bothersome and in general I prefer the look for dramatic work. I was just curious if you see it all the time in 24fps footage or only in conjunction with particular 24p cameras - which are two different issues I've seen discussed on the forums here.

24fps originally was a compromise between cost and audience perception - it was determined to be the threshold at which most of the audience would still see relatively smooth, continuous motion. That means, however, that there is always going to be a small part of the audience for whom the threshold is too low - and you're clearly in that portion of the audience. Knowing this makes shooting 60i or 60p a clear choice for you, but that doesn't make it the best choice for everyone else - and saying choosing 24p will result in a 'juddering mess' simply isn't true for most of the audience.

For most people the choice really comes down to the nature of your subject - and getting back to the original question it's not the case that you have to choose one or the other exclusively. For something like a sports doc it would probably work well to shoot the action footage 60i (or 60p if your camera supports it) and interviews 24p and edit everything in a 60i timeline - I'd just say that if you're going to do this you should be consistent in which format is used in which situation.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

24fps originally was a compromise between cost and audience perception - it was determined to be the threshold at which most of the audience would still see relatively smooth, continuous motion.

It is my understanding that 24fps was a compromise for acceptable sound reproduction and cost of film stock needed for distribution. Prior to sound, film was shot at a number frame rates some quite low and all experienced judder whether the audience saw it or not. Most people see judder when it is explained and pointed out to them. As you say it is in all films. Any pan will surely show judder however slow. 24fps just isn't fast enough. I accept that some people say they like it for artistic effect. I am sure the real reason is to make a film at film speed even if it is never transfered to film and unfortunately is shot as if it is video with bad judder. This also applies to bad TV productions shot at 24p. The skill level needed to shoot 24p is high and unfortunately not achieved by a large number of users including producers for network television. In my mind if the background judders it has been shot badly, that happens a lot on network TV. It means the camera angle was wrong, the depth of field too large etc etc. generally the cameraperson didn't really understand what they were doing in 24p. I like the film camera approach used to mitigate the slow frame rate. Closeups, shallow depth of field, etc etc it is just that I feel the need for a slow frame rate with judder is just not needed with todays technology and economics. Remember it was economics that created the speed not artistic needs or technology. It remained also because of economics( all those theatres with projectors ). In fact it is still those theatres that trap film to this speed, unnecessary either by general economics or current technology. One doesn't have to give up all the other film shooting characteristics that generate the film mood to shoot at a high frame rate. It just means the judder will go. Even film festivals are starting to project with video projectors so even that is starting to make 24p likely unnecessary. High definition places extra demands on focus and motion because they stand out more. Badly shot high definition is really bad!!!!
As to the original question documentaries to me are a means of placing the audience in a position to gain knowledge of the topic. The closest to the actual image one can achieve is the correct choice for documentaries in my mind. That would be 60i or 60 p with todays technology. For a drama the producer of the story has their choice and if they like the film look with or without judder is their choice

Ron Evans

[Patrick Williams]

This thread is a month old, so any info probably won't help the OP. However, I work with people in the television and film industry every day, and we often have discussions on what frame rates people prefer to see. The general agreement is that video or film at 24 frames per second is perceived as a more expensive look than video at 60 frames or 60 fields per second. The reason is that watching a motion picture at 24 frames per second is like looking at a series of photographs at 24 frames per second. Photographs look as though they could be from another time and another place, even when they are taken recently. There is a separation between the person viewing the photo and what's on the photo. Projecting a sequence of 24 photos per second still gives the audience the feeling that what they are watching could have happened at another time and another place, and it doesn't have a "live" feel to it, so the audience feels more separated from what is happening on the screen. Video at 60 fields per second on the other hand does look "live," and the audience feels like it's "live" even if it's on tape. The Tonight Show for example looks "live" even though it's taped in the afternoon. Even film projected at 60 frames per second, such as the Showscan format, starts to have more of a live feel as it takes on more of a "video" look. A good example of film vs video frame rates, is that when you see a film of John F. Kennedy making a speech, it looks like it happened a long time ago, but when you see a video tape recording of the same speech, it looks like it could be happening right now. Our newscasts and live sports have always had a live video look, and that look is perceived as being a "cheaper" look than motion pictures. Also, it is the 24 frame per second cadence that creates the "film look" far more than any other factors. Some will argue that it is the lighting or the color correction, but actually it is just the cadence that makes the difference. A good example is that even if you watch an old film on an old TV with horrible color and noise, you still know right away that it is a film, and not live video, and of course watching a HD movie today is even more similar to seeing it in a theater. So for a more expensive look, shoot 24p.

[Patrick Williams]

Duplicate post deleted

[Ron Evans]

I can see that if the industry feel 24p gives an expensive "look" it will be used!!! I agree with the comments on 24fps film looking as if it occurred at another time or old. Gives the image an unreal effect and perfect for fiction. Film viewed in a cinema with good projector will give this impression. Unfortunately the same film translated badly for television and viewed on a low cost LCD panel will not be very good and certainly will look more "old" than "expensive" !!! This is the issue that is important to me. Film was designed as a system 60i was designed as a system unfortunately parts of the system are now being translated with newer technology that doesn't quite match the original system specs. Steve has a few good posts in the AVCHD section. To view 24fps on a flat panel display it should really emulate the film projector and as such should refresh at 72hz with no interpolation (3:3) with a source that is true 24fps under these circumstances it should produce a good image close to the cinema experience. This is not the normal viewers display chain and performance will vary wildly depending on source and display type. Unfortunaley only outcome for the normal viewer is judder from various causes ( see Steve's post). So the expensive looking film in the cinema has now been compromised by the reality of the consumers display chain technology. Flat panel displays have a particular problem so the manufacturers are thus trying to solve this perceived problem with their displays and as such are introducing interpolation and higher frame rates to "smooth out " the problems!! Net result the expensive film look turns into video for those fortunate enough to buy a new high tech display!!!
Interlaced sources are not immune either as a lot of displays turn a 60i source into 30p also inducing judder from what was viewed on a CRT as nice smooth motion!!! This is a case where interpolation is needed to emulate the picture the viewer was used to on a CRT. NTSC is 60 fields a second NOT 30fps. The cameras shoot at 60 fps it is just that only half the vertical resolution is shown at a time( again like film at 24fps an economic decision lowering the transmission costs) . The system design included a display with phosphors that decayed in a way that our eyes and brain filled in the missing lines( if we were far enough away from the screen to not actually SEE the lines).
Consumers wanted a bigger display with less bulk hence flat panel displays that by their nature were progressive. Unfortunately these were not designed as a system. One could say they were designed with little regard for either film or 60i video, the only sources available to them!!! They corrupt the picture from both sources!! A display with source sensing, 72hz refresh for film and 60i interpolated to 60p for interlace video would solve the problem but I don't expect we will get this!!

Ron Evans

[Patrick Williams]

I certainly agree that 60 Frames per second is "better" technology, but the 24 frame film cadence is still a classier look. The closer something looks to live, the cheaper the feel. That's why even a low budget film with a bad transfer still feels more expensive than a soap opera shot with 60i video cameras. The Young and the Restless is 1080i, and it looks and feels totally different than CSI or Two and a Half Men which are 24p. And most film purests hate the new technology in displays that adds extra frames, because it cheapens the look of the film.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Patrick Williams

I certainly agree that 60 Frames per second is "better" technology, but the 24 frame film cadence is still a classier look. The closer something looks to live, the cheaper the feel. That's why even a low budget film with a bad transfer still feels more expensive than a soap opera shot with 60i video cameras. .

Thats a matter of opinion and depends on the subject matter. If the video is of a live production in a theatre then I would like it to feel as close as possible to sitting in the audience or looking through a window on the stage. High frame rate, high resolution and immersive surround sound. I have no problem with using 24p cadence where the subject is fiction and the whole point is illusion. The issue I have is the "one size fits all" mantra of the 24p supporters. Using 24p for a training film or documentary where detail and high frame rate would be important to view things as they are in real life for instance. Using 24p cadence in these instances has the opposite effect than desired--infers that the subject matter is NOT real. Raising doubts as to the credibility of the program. So the use of "cheap" or "expensive" really relates to what one is trying to achieve.
The other point I was trying to make was that the current flat panel displays are not very kind to either 24p or 60i leading to the possibility that neither is actually displayed as intended. The near future may make this even worse not better.

Ron Evans

[Patrick Williams]

I like the "live" look for certain situations. News and sports should look as live as possible. The NFL looks great live with 60i or 60p frame rates, and the upcoming 3D technology will allow two separate alternating 60p pictures in a 120 frames per second display--which makes for some very good flicker free 3D. Sony had a good demo at this years NAB. I also enjoy watching NFL Films versions of games after the fact, which again has a totally different look and feel than the live cameras.