Ok, folks - 24P question here

[Jack Walker]

Not to worry. There are often these situations with 24P. Sometimes it's the shooting style. Sometimes there are capture, pulldown or display issues. Other times it just expectations.

The next time you go to a movie (or even watch a filmed TV show) here are some things to watch for:
1. How very little the camera really moves.
2. How very, very, very little the camera moves in relation to the subject.
3. How much strobing there is in the background out of focus is you watch for it and don't focus on the subject of the shot.
4. How much strobing there is in pans, crane shots and the like when the camera is moving that we just ignore because the shot is a leadin to something we are waiting to see.

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

http://www.vimeo.com/1023412

Check it out here. The upload is available for download as well. The content isn't great but I think you'll get the idea on the pan, zooms and motion.

I have reviewed the footage a few times, and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong. The jutter is correct for the movement in the shots. The pan you did is too fast for the subject you are shooting (wide shot of lawn). When a pan that fast is done, there should be a subject in it that you are following... Since there is nothing for the eye to watch and follow through the pan, you just see the "jutter" that you are talking about.

You actually did a pan that is in between the slow speed and fast speeds that are allowed at that focal length. That pan is just too fast for a no subject shot, but not fast enough to mask it. If you shot that hand held and you did the same pan it actually wouldn't be as bad.

This all comes down to shooting a ton of stuff with subjects such as people and animals... That is the only way to learn. The myth that panning speeds in film are slow is BS. Watch action films, they are breaking every "rule" about pan speeds for every focal length they use... If your subject allows for the movement thats all that matters, its not strict science, its just subject.

There is much more art involved than science for the 24p questions, learn how to frame moving subjects, take your tripod and put the pan and tilt drag to zero, and try to shoot someone who walks around when they talk on the phone. You will learn how to frame and keep in frame the subject while being able to move the camera at any speed you want. You will also learn how to predict where your subject will go, and thus learn how to keep frame while moving at faster speeds in 24p.

just keep shooting, thats all you have to do...

[Hunter Richards]

Looks fine to me. Maybe your used to 60i?

[Shaun Roemich]

Thanks for the input folks. I feel I should point out that I am a 10 year broadcast pro, having worked for CBC-Radio Canada in Canada as well as internationally as a documentary filmmaker. The issues I'm having are specific to 24P, hence the growing pains and my frustration.

And yes, I've shot a TON of HD in 1080i. I'm new to the Progressive universe and I love 60P and based on the input here, given the "real world-ness" of my subjects (training, promotion and documentaries), I think I'll stick with 60P. If I do a cinematic drama, I'll revisit 24P but if what I'm hearing is correct, there's nothing wrong (other than my technique) with the footage, I'm not sold on 24P. No offense intended to all of you that shoot in it and do a wonderful job but I've developed my techniques as a pro over 10 years and as an amateur for 18 years before that. I guess I need a format that works with the way I shoot.

Thanks again for all the input folks and for taking the time to respond.

[Jack Walker]

Here's a thread on the exact issues you have brought up with some excellent posts by several professionals. This thread (also specifically about the JVC ProHD cameras) gives specific details and commentary that will further clarify the situation:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-51185.html

Be sure to read the posts by:
Tim Dashwood
Nate Weaver
Barry Green

[Shaun Roemich]

Thanks, Jack. I thought for sure someone had to have discussed this before me.

One recurring point of discussion that I do find somewhat bothersome though is the statement regarding "conditioned to 60i". For all it's MANY faults, 60i more accurately reproduces the way the human eye sees things than 24 or 30P, at least in motion. Does that mean I want to go back to shooting 60i? No. The things I want to be able to do in post are going to be much easier with a Progressive image, but I do think that there is some "elitism" among some 24P shooters who think that those of us who question the motion "artifacts" are unenlightened.

I saw reference to exactly what I'm talking about in the archive post and I would like to state my position for the record is that Progressive and Interlaced are certainly different, and each has its place but PLEASE don't begin to tell the individual which is "better". Better suited for a given purpose? Sure.

Again, thanks for pointing me in the right direction, which in my case happens to be "what serves my subject matter best". Highest regards to all of you!

[Alex Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

Thanks, Jack. I thought for sure someone had to have discussed this before me.

One recurring point of discussion that I do find somewhat bothersome though is the statement regarding "conditioned to 60i". For all it's MANY faults, 60i more accurately reproduces the way the human eye sees things than 24 or 30P, at least in motion. Does that mean I want to go back to shooting 60i? No. The things I want to be able to do in post are going to be much easier with a Progressive image, but I do think that there is some "elitism" among some 24P shooters who think that those of us who question the motion "artifacts" are unenlightened.

I saw reference to exactly what I'm talking about in the archive post and I would like to state my position for the record is that Progressive and Interlaced are certainly different, and each has its place but PLEASE don't begin to tell the individual which is "better". Better suited for a given purpose? Sure.

Again, thanks for pointing me in the right direction, which in my case happens to be "what serves my subject matter best". Highest regards to all of you!

Well, you can always shoot 60p (1/60th shutter) then decide later if you want a 23.97 or a 59.98 (60i) DVD. Since those are the only two current DVD option (30p isn't decoded properly in DVD players) I vote for 24p since I hate interlaced lines on my 42" plasma or LCD. I also turn my sharpening down to min or even off. Now when Blu-Ray burners drop to $300 and players drop to $100 at Walmart, then I'll shoot 60p for most everything.. but that might be a year away.

Question: Are you distributing your content on DVD, Blu-Ray, HDTV broadcast 1080i/720p, internet download or broadcast NTSC? I think the destination would be a big factor.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Alex Humphrey

Question: Are you distributing your content on DVD, Blu-Ray, HDTV broadcast 1080i/720p, internet download or broadcast NTSC? I think the destination would be a big factor.

Right now I'll be delivering the content I'm working on currently on SD DVD and Web content, with an eye to archiving for HD delivery in the future; as you mentioned: when Blu-Ray authoring is more common place and affordable. This piece in particular isn't for broadcast but I'm eyeballing a doc to begin shooting next winter that may air in HD. Due to the nature of the doc, I'm sure some HDV content will be allowed, although I will need to confirm with the broadcaster what limitations there are.

I will be posting in HD (ProRES in FCP) so the final product (without font) will be archived in HD, and then downconverted and font added for SD delivery.

[Hunter Richards]

Its 24p or throw the camera off a bridge... But seriously, shooting at 24p takes some getting used to for the "older and wiser" generation. It does look noticeably different, especially when you have been accustomed to viewing 60i. It might just take some growing into, but hey if you don't need 24p, don't shoot 24p.

[Stuart Campbell]

Shaun,

I understand your frustration but don't give up. I too am I broadcast TV cameraman of many years. Recently I decided to branch out with a colleague and make high end corporate film and video off of our own back as a sideline. I looked into HDV and it seemed like a good medium for corporate stuff. Then we started thinking that a 'film' look would appeal to clients more (which it does) and henceforth began a journey into 24fps (and 25fps).

There really does not seem to be anything wrong with your sample footage. Like most guys correctly suggest, the subject matter and movement you use highlight factors that appear as 'faults'. Shooting 24fps on HDV is a completely different kettle of fish.

The reason Tims film looks so different is mainly because of lighting. Lighting is KEY! There are so many other elements which go with 24p to give it that film look you are looking for. Lighting, depth of field, colour, composition, movement, subject matter. 24fps alone will not make up all of the above.

Then there is the small matter of training to use the camera again. All those tricks, tips and techniques we use in our day jobs can sometimes be pretty much obsolete. I had to start from scratch trying to shoot 'filmic'. There is a reason why TV cameraman don't often become film cameramen!

Have a read of this excellent article by UK cameraman Mike Brennan (he's very highly respected here (well, when I'm back at home in London that is))

http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/getResource2...ar.pdf?id=6118

This will hopefully help Shaun.

Frustrating though it is, (when we think we should be able to just do it cos we've been doing it for so long) it really is a new skill, and it's one worth learning.

All the best and stick with it!!!
Stu

[Stuart Campbell]

Shaun,

This may be useful (I found it fascinating)

http://www.gecko-cam.com/HTML/KNOW-H...ning-speed.htm

[Claude Mangold]

Originally Posted by Stuart Campbell

Shaun,

This may be useful (I found it fascinating)

http://www.gecko-cam.com/HTML/KNOW-H...ning-speed.htm

Stuart, good tip, my crew uses this very chart. I also refer to it when preparing certain takes.
Most of my work is done with adapters.

Has anyone tested the chart's relevance with the standard lens ?

[Shaun Roemich]

Brilliant, gents! Thank you so much. It never even DAWNED on me that DOF would be a factor.

[Tim Dashwood]

I've just caught wind of this thread (I just wrapped 3 short films in 5 shooting days) and have glanced over it quickly. Could you please repost the link to your footage Shaun so I can see what you are seeing?

Thanks

[Alex Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

I've just caught wind of this thread (I just wrapped 3 short films in 5 shooting days) and have glanced over it quickly. Could you please repost the link to your footage Shaun so I can see what you are seeing?

Thanks

Tim! Wow! 3 films in 5 days?!! I'm impressed! We shot 12 days at 18 hour a day day for just 4 minute for the dining room scene of Titanic with Jack and Rose. I haven't looked at silverware the same way since... Must be nice!

but seriously:

the link above to the JVC pro UK site is good info. The narrow depth of field is an important item. I try to shoot at f 4 at around 45mm to help throw out the background. Even at 1/60th for sports it doesn't look juddery.

Someday a dozen or so of us should make a punch list of what is important to retrain 60i users and 24p film users to use JVC's Pro-HD formats more effectively. I know I had a bit of a long learning curve on some basic ideas.