24p looks fake

Ken Hodson · January 27th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman

The difference is that the 24 frames of film are each projected twice with a standard 3 blade shutter on projectors. This smooths the motion of film in contrast to the 24p projected material of video. Maybe we need 48p to actually see a more true film motion effect.

I don't believe this smooths out motion one bit. There is absolutely no change in the frame so how can the motion smooth? The point of the double frame is to reduce film flicker. Can you imagine how much strobing there would be at 24Hz? People would get sink. Personally I have a hard time with films 48Hz, it drives my eyes nuts and makes me realize just how archaic a system it is. Digital projection is just phenomenal in comparison.

Kurth Bousman · January 27th, 2007, 04:03 PM

Well Jason, the reason why people don't want to shoot film is obviously the cost involved. $500 for a 12 minute run becomes prohibitive for most self financed projects. Truth is , most people would shoot film if the costs were the same. Film has some aesthetic advantages which is why people like Graeme spend long hours trying to duplicate it .
Graeme , you obviously have spent much more energy on this problem than just about anyone else here on this and other forums. I stand humbled by your technical knowledge of the subject.And I've used and loved your film effects plugins . But this same aesthetic difference has led me personally to shoot 30p for most of my current work. If I was doing a filmout , I'd not have a problem using 24p as a frame for frame transfer. And the 24p digitally originated films released as films I've seen have not exhibited the same "judder" as the projects that have stayed in the digital realm. .The only difference I see is the exhibition medium. I'm certain the math and physics are solid but I'd love to know why it's not the same visually. Thanks for your efforts .

Jonathan Nelson · January 27th, 2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman

But this same aesthetic difference has led me personally to shoot 30p for most of my current work. If I was doing a filmout , I'd not have a problem using 24p as a frame for frame transfer. And the 24p digitally originated films released as films I've seen have not exhibited the same "judder" as the projects that have stayed in the digital realm. .The only difference I see is the exhibition medium. I'm certain the math and physics are solid but I'd love to know why it's not the same visually. Thanks for your efforts .

That is kind of what I have been wondering myself.

30p vs. 24p for dvd out only. Which one would you choose to achieve the closest look to film?

I am actually considering shooting 30p for my next projects and see how they turn out. I normally shoot 24p just to eliminate that cheap realistic look. I think people have been bread to see that stuff as being cheap or amateurish like home videos. Obviously, the news and sports reality look is perceived differently.

Even if 30p doesn't look filmic, I think it could be a good compromise if your footage is only going out to dvd. Maybe a medium between 24p and 60i. I will have to do some tests of my own and see for myself.

Jason McMurtrey · January 27th, 2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman

Well Jason, the reason why people don't want to shoot film is obviously the cost involved. $500 for a 12 minute run becomes prohibitive for most self financed projects. Truth is , most people would shoot film if the costs were the same. Film has some aesthetic advantages which is why people like Graeme spend long hours trying to duplicate it .

I see your point completely, but you have to figure the cost of digital equipment as well. Im new to this and figured it would be the best overall solution for me personally. I have already spent over 11,000 on most of my equipment and what I need to do and what I want to do and I'll be spending a lot more soon, possibly double. So in terms of cost effectiveness you must mean on an ongoing level, DV equipment has the advantage because once it's bought, it's bought and you can use it continually. But renting film equipment is close in cost as well on some levels depending on how your shooting and what your shooting really, I just can't help but feel it really boils down to preference. Not to mention with the RED ONE coming soon at the price of $17,500 im sure this will force the market eventually to rethink the prices on rental equipment, Both analog and digital including the Panavisions Genesis or Arri D-20, I mean why pay in excess over $300,000 for 35mm film when you can achieve the same result with newer technology, right? I mean it's close enough now that it really boils down to how you want to do things. Maybe im wrong, and if so I apologize, im pretty new to this stuff and don't have enough experience to make a true discersion. Just seems to me the market is changing.

Graeme Nattress · January 27th, 2007, 07:50 PM

I see 30p as a compensation for video to make it look progressive, like film, but with similarly "smooth" judder, because fps for fps, video tends to look more juddery. That's because of the edge sharpness and deep DOF of video. Fix both of those and there's no reason why 24p video won't look as smooth as 24fps film.

Graeme

Steven White · January 28th, 2007, 12:18 PM

Graeme, I think your comment about DOF is probably really important to the apparent judder.

In 35 mm film very often backgrounds will be blurred by the shallow DOF, whereas in video it is not. As the camera moves the background will stay in relative focus in the video, and hence the edges and detail will be visible, and seen to jump around. For the 35 mm stuff, there are no edges to track, and hence the background strobing is not obvious.

The only solution is to control pan speeds and camera motion to minimize this kind of judder. Hence my initial comment about "badly" shot. 24p video on 1/3" cameras cannot be shot as if it is 35 mm film - so even perfect 35 mm technique will fail to make "filmic" video.

-Steve

Graeme Nattress · January 28th, 2007, 12:24 PM

Steven, what you say makes total sense to me, and fits in with the science in Alan Robert's paper I posted a link to at the BBC.

Graeme

Todd Giglio · January 28th, 2007, 03:48 PM

Steven,

I definitely agree with your statement. I am using a 35mm adapter (M2) with my V1U and when I have a shallow DOF the judder is barely noticable. If I use a wide angle lens (hence larger DOF) and the background is more in-focus, the judder is more prominent.

24p is a great tool (by the way, thanks Graeme for all of your plugs!) and when used with a tool that allows DOF the advantages outway the apparent judder (and, to a point, can also be controlled).

Thomas Smet · January 28th, 2007, 07:41 PM

I also agree 100% about the DOF. I have not done this with a camera but I have done lots of test with footage from 3D Studio Max in regards to shutter speeds and DOF with 24p material. By adding the DOF in 3D Studio Max the 24p becomes much much easier to watch. It really does make sense because if you are trying to focus on a subject in the foreground and the background is not only in focus but juttery it becomes a huge distraction. DOF is not just a cool look but a key component to creating the scene with as little distraction as you can get.

Kurth Bousman · January 29th, 2007, 09:55 AM

It's said Orson Welles in Citizen Kane tried to have as much dof as possible. Shallow dof is only a tool fashionable in todays aesthetic. I don't see any frame "judder" in Citizen Kane . It might ( increased brokeh) help to not notice it , but that's not the complete picture. Now edge sharpness might seem to have more effect but I still can't see how that affects the complete image jumping from frame to frame. This weekend I setup my elmo gs1200 and projected some old 24fps s8 . It had slight judder but not nearly as pronounced as 24p. Some film shooters , I hear , are opting for shooting 30fps also . They say it not only smooths motion artifacting but also appears to increase resolution. 30p might have originally been seen as a bad solution for film out projects but since digital projection is becoming the norm , I personally see it as the best solution.

Graeme Nattress · January 29th, 2007, 10:05 AM

Kurth, I'll have to take out my Citizen Kane and have another look, with special attention to motion judder.

In the UK, shooting film at 25fps has long been practiced. However, shooting 30fps would cause immense problems for international distrubution.

Graeme

Kurth Bousman · January 29th, 2007, 12:47 PM

distribution - whoa Graeme , now you've really opened up a can of worms !

January 27th, 2007, 07:50 PM	#35
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	I see 30p as a compensation for video to make it look progressive, like film, but with similarly "smooth" judder, because fps for fps, video tends to look more juddery. That's because of the edge sharpness and deep DOF of video. Fix both of those and there's no reason why 24p video won't look as smooth as 24fps film. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

January 28th, 2007, 12:24 PM	#37
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Steven, what you say makes total sense to me, and fits in with the science in Alan Robert's paper I posted a link to at the BBC. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

January 29th, 2007, 10:05 AM	#41
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Kurth, I'll have to take out my Citizen Kane and have another look, with special attention to motion judder. In the UK, shooting film at 25fps has long been practiced. However, shooting 30fps would cause immense problems for international distrubution. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

January 27th, 2007, 04:03 PM	#32
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	Well Jason, the reason why people don't want to shoot film is obviously the cost involved. $500 for a 12 minute run becomes prohibitive for most self financed projects. Truth is , most people would shoot film if the costs were the same. Film has some aesthetic advantages which is why people like Graeme spend long hours trying to duplicate it . Graeme , you obviously have spent much more energy on this problem than just about anyone else here on this and other forums. I stand humbled by your technical knowledge of the subject.And I've used and loved your film effects plugins . But this same aesthetic difference has led me personally to shoot 30p for most of my current work. If I was doing a filmout , I'd not have a problem using 24p as a frame for frame transfer. And the 24p digitally originated films released as films I've seen have not exhibited the same "judder" as the projects that have stayed in the digital realm. .The only difference I see is the exhibition medium. I'm certain the math and physics are solid but I'd love to know why it's not the same visually. Thanks for your efforts .

January 28th, 2007, 12:18 PM	#36
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	Graeme, I think your comment about DOF is probably really important to the apparent judder. In 35 mm film very often backgrounds will be blurred by the shallow DOF, whereas in video it is not. As the camera moves the background will stay in relative focus in the video, and hence the edges and detail will be visible, and seen to jump around. For the 35 mm stuff, there are no edges to track, and hence the background strobing is not obvious. The only solution is to control pan speeds and camera motion to minimize this kind of judder. Hence my initial comment about "badly" shot. 24p video on 1/3" cameras cannot be shot as if it is 35 mm film - so even perfect 35 mm technique will fail to make "filmic" video. -Steve

January 28th, 2007, 03:48 PM	#38
Todd Giglio Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 265	Steven, I definitely agree with your statement. I am using a 35mm adapter (M2) with my V1U and when I have a shallow DOF the judder is barely noticable. If I use a wide angle lens (hence larger DOF) and the background is more in-focus, the judder is more prominent. 24p is a great tool (by the way, thanks Graeme for all of your plugs!) and when used with a tool that allows DOF the advantages outway the apparent judder (and, to a point, can also be controlled).

January 28th, 2007, 07:41 PM	#39
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I also agree 100% about the DOF. I have not done this with a camera but I have done lots of test with footage from 3D Studio Max in regards to shutter speeds and DOF with 24p material. By adding the DOF in 3D Studio Max the 24p becomes much much easier to watch. It really does make sense because if you are trying to focus on a subject in the foreground and the background is not only in focus but juttery it becomes a huge distraction. DOF is not just a cool look but a key component to creating the scene with as little distraction as you can get.

January 29th, 2007, 09:55 AM	#40
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	It's said Orson Welles in Citizen Kane tried to have as much dof as possible. Shallow dof is only a tool fashionable in todays aesthetic. I don't see any frame "judder" in Citizen Kane . It might ( increased brokeh) help to not notice it , but that's not the complete picture. Now edge sharpness might seem to have more effect but I still can't see how that affects the complete image jumping from frame to frame. This weekend I setup my elmo gs1200 and projected some old 24fps s8 . It had slight judder but not nearly as pronounced as 24p. Some film shooters , I hear , are opting for shooting 30fps also . They say it not only smooths motion artifacting but also appears to increase resolution. 30p might have originally been seen as a bad solution for film out projects but since digital projection is becoming the norm , I personally see it as the best solution.

January 29th, 2007, 12:47 PM	#42
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	distribution - whoa Graeme , now you've really opened up a can of worms !