An interesting thing on "TV" HDV/HD vs. film-like HDV/HD

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Mack Fisher

...lets say movies growing up were digital and 60i, and only commercial and news were 24p, then we might all be doctoring our footage to look like 60i.

I've suggested the same thing and 24p advocates don't buy it, so save your breath on that one. What I still don't get is if 24p is so great, why weren't TVs designed to display 24 images per second? What makes people want smooth high frame rate motion on their TVs but expect juddery 24 fps motion in movies?

[Mack Fisher]

I just think people go a little wild with 24p, and DOF. Im a big supporter of just keeping everything native, if your camera is 4:3 and 60i run with it make it work, instead of making it what its not.

[Ron Evans]

I think the 24p thing on video started by people who can't afford film but want to submit to film festivals and thus have to print video to film !!! Projectors are stuck in the past at 24fps in the main. However the film look is a lot more than 24fps. This limitation drives how the film is shot, limited or no panning, angled shots of action to limit movement all aimed at managing the inadequacy of the frame rate. Further action is taken by limiting depth of field, this focuses the attention on the object in question and masks the fact that movement in the backround will be stuttering badly. Lighting is chosen to enhance this effect too. This is what we all perceive as the film look. On the positive side film has high latitude and thus has the ability to show big dynamic range with glorious colours. My only complaint about the film look is the stuttering. We don't have to have this with modern technology and to deliberately use it on modern documentaries etc is stupid. I don't want the cameraman/directors view of the event I want the event as close as possible to how it was in reality, smooth motion, big dynamic range, large depth of field,lots of detail, just like I was there and could see with my own eyes ( even in my 60's don't stutter etc etc). For a theatrical film use anything at your disposal, if the audience likes it they will watch, if they don't they will walk out and they'll do that almost completely on the content NOT the film look.

Ron Evans

[Justine Haupt]

This is a VERY interesting thread for someone who spends most of there time in the "Alternative Imaging" board working on DOF converters...

Someone asked why TVs weren't designed to display 24fps if it's so great.......


It's important to point out that no one chose any of the frame rates used throughout the world (24p, 25p, 60i, 50i) because they looked good or had a preference.

NTSC TVs are 60i because the North American power grid runs at 60Hz. For the earliest tube cameras, it was unreasonable (and still is) to but an oscillator into every camera and display device just to change to some other frame rate. The frequency of the electricity coming right out of the wall works just fine.

In PAL countries, the wall power is always 50Hz, so cameras and TVs were designed to display at that rate....

...and I'm sure the origin of the frame rate used in cinema is equally as arbitrary.

My point is, we've all had these choices thrown at us... until everything is progressive, everything simply has to be a multiple of something, if you get my drift.

So I guess in the end it does come down two what the individual truly believes has greater aesthetic value. I would like to point out that if some lab created a 74i or 52p or whatever camera, there might be as many people who fall in love with those two formats as with 24p or 60i.

I personally prefer the feel of 24p for what I do and I do feel that this is an unbiased statement (having grown up with 24p in movies and 60i on the news)... but who knows?

In any event, I think the one thing we could probably all agree on is that we don't like interlaced! For all we know, displays 50 years from now will be 1000p, but at least it wont be interlaced!

[Mikko Lopponen]

It's way more difficult to make great action films in 60 fps than it is to make them in 24. 24 fps hides stuff. You don't need to stage elaborate scenes, you can use smaller stuff and use telephoto a lot. Then just shake the camera, use a high shutterspeed and suddenly you have an action scene. But these little tricks don't work anymore when you film in 60 fps.

It will make moviemaking A LOT harder.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

I've suggested the same thing and 24p advocates don't buy it, so save your breath on that one.

I haven't heard anyone not buy it. If the first images we ever saw were all constructed at 60i, that's probably what we'd value as "quality". But the fact of the matter is that we've got over a hundred years of cinema, big-budget high-dollar productions from the best in the world, and it's all 24fps. That's what's been programmed into our heads as what "quality" looks like. You don't see big-budget films being done at 60i; instead you see Uncle Elmer's home movies, or weddings, or the news, or soap operas, or live events. Whereas when someone has a budget (whether a film or a commercial) they shoot film or 24p. It's just the way things are.

What I still don't get is if 24p is so great, why weren't TVs designed to display 24 images per second?

Is this a serious question? When TVs were first manufactured they were tied to the electrical cycle, so 60Hz (i.e., 60i) in the US, 50Hz in Europe.

Today's TVs can display 24fps. 720/24p and 1080/24p are both accepted broadcast standards by the ATSC (even though as far as I know, nobody's broadcasting those signals) and so any ATSC-compatible TV has to be able to display 24fps. And 24fps encoding is supported on DVDs too.

What makes people want smooth high frame rate motion on their TVs but expect juddery 24 fps motion in movies?

I think you've got the cart before the horse on that one.

I mean, seriously -- look at what's happened in the production world since 24p was introduced. How many big-budget movies were shot on video prior to the introduction of 24p? None. How many now? Not many, but several, including SWII and III, Superman, etc. And the fact that the DVX mopped the floor with all interlaced-only competition, and that every major manufacturer except Sony is offering either legitimate or very-well-simulated 24p should answer that question for you: the market has spoken, and they want their filmlike footage.

You can have the smooth-motion 60i look if you want, that's always been available and continues to be available. But that's not the look that has been associated with big-budget films from the beginning, it has certain connotations to it. It is, quite frankly, less desirable. Show a 60i "movie" to any distributor and see if they give you more than a couple of minutes of their time... 60i in dramatic production is just not a viable option for most purposes (outside of made-for-TV movies in Japan, where apparently 60i is preferred).

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

I think the 24p thing on video started by people who can't afford film but want to submit to film festivals and thus have to print video to film !!!

Um, no... the 24p thing started because George Lucas wanted to shoot Episode II of Star Wars on high-def video, since every frame he shot on Episode I ended up being transferred to video anyway. So he talked Sony into developing a 24p system (the F900 CineAlta).

Sure, 24p was adopted by low-budget shooters who wanted the "look" of film without the expense of it. But that's not how it started.

I don't want the cameraman/directors view of the event I want the event as close as possible to how it was in reality, smooth motion, big dynamic range, large depth of field,lots of detail, just like I was there and could see with my own eyes ( even in my 60's don't stutter etc etc).

Well, fortunately, you have a choice. For those of us who prefer the look of film we have 24p available, but for those like you who don't want that look, there's 60p and 60i to choose from.

[Mack Fisher]

Originally Posted by Mikko Lopponen

It's way more difficult to make great action films in 60 fps than it is to make them in 24. 24 fps hides stuff. You don't need to stage elaborate scenes, you can use smaller stuff and use telephoto a lot. Then just shake the camera, use a high shutterspeed and suddenly you have an action scene. But these little tricks don't work anymore when you film in 60 fps.

It will make moviemaking A LOT harder.

You mean meaningful, insetead of visually stimulating someone with a shakey telephoto shot you actually have to put material in front of the viewers face.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Is this a serious question? When TVs were first manufactured they were tied to the electrical cycle, so 60Hz (i.e., 60i) in the US, 50Hz in Europe.

Sorry, I did know that but was just thinking out loud about how we got to the situation we're in today. It will be interesting to see where we go from here if the option for 24p broadcasting becomes a reality.

[Ron Evans]

Barry
The first images I saw ( was born in 1942 ) were film, and that for many years, first saw a TV in 1952 for the Queens Coronation when they were starting to appear in greater numbers!!!!. So I grew up on film, started my hobby on film and am well aware of the benefits ( image masking etc ) that the medium offers. I am also aware of George Lucas contribution to introducing video and computer generated clips. However IF the commercial cinemas had at that time projectors running at 50, 0r 60 or 72 fps THAT is what he would have used. He was driven by the means of delivery to the public, thousands of projectors in commercial cinemas. He was sort of stuck. So I have a different view of quality, those first images are not my view of quality, quite the opposite, they are memories of poor lighting, questionable sound, shaky images and set in me the desire for something a lot better. I agree that if someone is 16 years old and has seen modern blockbuster movies they might have a different perspective. Going to the movies is an experience, the environment, the people around etc. When the cinemas go digital in the next few years I expect we will see a shift from 24p as appropriate for the feature itself. Documentaries will be video versions of IMAX, sports will have high frame rates and dark dramas will have the traditional 24p look. The projectors will not care and won't limit the producer to a fixed output format. This is likely possible much sooner in the home though.

Ron Evans

[Mack Fisher]

Would it be possible to make a projector that you can overcrank for 60fps? The only problem I see with not digitally projecting 60fps is that your gonna buy 60% more film to print on.

[Glenn Chan]

The Showscan system I believe used film projected at 60fps. However, the big problem with that format is that your prints cost a lot more... 60fps uses 250% the film that 24fps does (150% more).

Part of the reason why the movie distribution companies are pushing digital projection is that a $100k projector will be cheaper than film prints in the long run.

2- In my opinion, the difference between 60i and 24p are subtle but 60i motion looks kind of weird.

[Ron Evans]

24 fps was a compromise of technology and economics of the world almost 100years ago and has been maintained by the need for compatibility with the commercial movie houses. Initially new projectors were expected to play the old films so they too were 24 fps etc etc just continued to propagate the old standard. Moving to higher frame rates will of course use more film ie more cost and either bigger camera film magazines or short shot times, larger film distribution and storage etc etc. However none of this applies to a digital medium. I look at my PC and the 40 G boot drive is the same size as the 200G video storage drives!!!!! and is in fact the same size as a 500G drive ( just don't have one of those yet). The technology and economics that drove the film industry over the last 100 years no longer apply, life has changed. Home viewing of HD will in the end drive the commercial industry. When people see 720 60P or 1080i with 7.1 sound they will start to see the commercial cinema as somewhat deficiant and will want more. With digital projectors we will then see a change to higher frame rates or effective variable frame rates at will, not hindered by the fixed frame rates of the past.
I still think it is sort of funny that me , a 64 year old is saying "get with the future"

Ron Evans

[Ken Hodson]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

24 fps was a compromise of technology and economics of the world almost 100years ago and has been maintained by the need for compatibility with the commercial movie houses.

The very same thing can be said about interlaced TV. It was a compromise of technology and economics 60 years ago. The most basic and primative form of all compression.

It is amazing how long these media standards have survived.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Glenn Chan

...the difference between 60i and 24p are subtle but 60i motion looks kind of weird.

That's funny, I'd say the opposite. In any case, one of the best points raised here is that digital projectors will hopefully be able to support a variety of frame rates, so producers can use whatever suits them for a particular project. Based on all the comments on this subject lately it sounds like 24p will continue to be popular in the future for a variety of reasons, but maybe we'll start to see more acceptance for higher frame rates.