30p vs. 24p

[Laurence Kingston]

I don't know if all the fuss being made about 24p is well deserved. When I watch a film in a theater, I'm so in awe of the image quality that I put up with the stuttery motion. When I look at 24p video on a progressive setup, if it was originally shot on film, it has this wonderful image quality that makes me forgive the stuttery motion. If was shot on video at 24p, all I see is video image quality with stuttery motion: the worst of both words really: mediocre image with stuttery motion. I want to be a believer and I keep trying, but to me the magic of film isn't achieved by adding stuttery motion to video. To my eyes, hd, even 60i hd is a step in that direction. What I really want to see is film quality image with smoooth motion. 60p hd is probably going to be it in the long run. In the mean time I'll keep shopping around for the best compromise.

[Gary Williams]

Originally Posted by David Jimerson

That is not true. A computer screen or a progressive display (like an HDTV) will display the true 24p frames, no pulldown.

As for standard TVs, 2:3 (or 3:2) pulldown isn't perfect, but it averages out to the right thing -- and every Hollywood movie you've ever watched on a standard TV has used it. I'd dare say they still look like fine, no?



It's harder, but that's part of the film look. Many of the camera movements that we've come to consider "cinematic" come as a direct result of decades of DPs learning how to work with the motion cadence of 24 fps in order to get the best out of it.

30p still has a video-ish feel to it. That doesn't make it bad, nor is 24p the appropriate frame rate for every use. But if the look of cinematic film is what you're after, shooting good 24p is what you want.

I dont completey agree with you, I think if you know what your doing you can make 30p look nothing like video or as you put it video-ish the frame rate is noticeabaly different than 60p and with the right camera work and settings and work in post you can achive some great looks that are nothing close to video, but more closely related to 24P in fact in some cases I think it looks better than 24p.

[David Ziegelheim]

Doesn't shutter speed enter into this?

[David Jimerson]

Originally Posted by Gary Williams

I dont completey agree with you, I think if you know what your doing you can make 30p look nothing like video or as you put it video-ish the frame rate is noticeabale different than 60p and with the right camera work and settings and work in post you can achive some great looks that are nothing close to video, but more closely related to 24P in fact in some cases I think it looks better than 24p.

I didn't say 30p can't be made to look great or that it looks "worse" than 24p; "better" is all about your specific artistic goals. Any frame rate has appropriate uses.

[David Jimerson]

Originally Posted by David Ziegelheim

Doesn't shutter speed enter into this?

Shutter speed is another artistic decision.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by David Jimerson

That depends on what NLE you're using. Using Vegas, for example, the workflow between the two is identical. And a 24p DVD is true progressive, whereas 30p must be encoded as 60i.

Liquid, of course, is not 24p-friendly. But other NLEs are.

So, if you can edit on a 24p timeline and make a 24p DVD, it makes no sense not to do it, ESPECIALLY, if the aesthetics of 24p are what you're after, and are looking at 30p merely as a "compromise." Despite what Steve Mullen says, I've never seen any 30p looking more like film than 24p.

Have a look at this: Right Click and save as MOV (without the X)

Also, any plans around November 1-4th? Since your already in N.C. how about joining me in Charlotte?

[David Jimerson]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Have a look at this: Right Click and save as MOV (without the X)

Well, good to see Liquid has made some improvements in the 24p area; I keep hearing rumors that L8 will have full integration.

Can you also then export a 23.98 progressive MPEG for making a 24p DVD?

If so, then I'm not sure what the "hassle" is vs. 30p.

Also, any plans around November 1-4th? Since your already in N.C. how about joining me in Charlotte?

Actually, I already have that penciled in; I'm a founding member of the Charlotte group and Andy Browne is a good friend.

In fact, it was in his copy of L7 that he and I put Liquid's 24p timeline through a series of tests. I found that it will not remove pulldown (and when Joe Figura spoke to the group, he was quite pointed in that Liquid wasn't going there -- but that was pre-Avid, so maybe things have changed). We found also that Liquid can't preview a 24p timeline through firewire and that there's no option for burning a 24p DVD from the timeline.

I guess I'm a little curious as to whether in the video you posted, is it REALLY removing pulldown, or is the audio synch discarding frames in a different pattern? Improvements happen all the time, and if Liquid is stepping up in the 24p department, then it's a welcome change.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by David Jimerson

Actually, I already have that penciled in; I'm a founding member of the Charlotte group and Andy Browne is a good friend.

Good to hear, hope you can put a pen to it.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by David Jimerson

30p still has a video-ish feel to it. That doesn't make it bad, nor is 24p the appropriate frame rate for every use. But if the look of cinematic film is what you're after, shooting good 24p is what you want.

I don't get all the fuss about 24p frame rate: the only time I ever notice frame rate is when it's used improperly and produces stuttery-looking motion. To me it's lighting, depth of field and *content* which make a movie a movie, and frame rate is an artistic red herring which we could live without.

[David Jimerson]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

I don't get all the fuss about 24p frame rate: the only time I ever notice frame rate is when it's used improperly and produces stuttery-looking motion. To me it's lighting, depth of field and *content* which make a movie a movie, and frame rate is an artistic red herring which we could live without.

Do you have a camera which can shoot both 24 fps and 60 fps?

Pick something (a scene) with a fair amount of motion and light it well. Compose it well. Shoot it well. Shoot it in both frame rates, changning nothing except the frame rate, and see if you don't see a marked difference.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by David Jimerson

Do you have a camera which can shoot both 24 fps and 60 fps?

No, but I keep watching all different kinds of content and can't think of an example where low frame rate was anything but a distraction. Even 30p looks odd to me in many situations, with only 60i/p content looking "right." I guess I'm just a product of a TV generation...

[David Jimerson]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Good to hear, hope you can put a pen to it.

The next several months are going to be insane, but I'll do what I can.

Any insights on the other things I posted? It's kind of off-topic, so PM me if you like.

[Gary Williams]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

No, but I keep watching all different kinds of content and can't think of an example where low frame rate was anything but a distraction. Even 30p looks odd to me in many situations, with only 60i/p content looking "right." I guess I'm just a product of a TV generation...

Do the movies you go to see at the theater look odd, to me 60p looks odd. Watch a soap show some time and tell me that dosent look odd it's shot in 60p video. all your reality shows to are shot in video to at 60p. Just saw Pirates of the Caribean, it was not shot in 60p but it looked great.

[Kevin Shaw]

Like I said, the only time I notice frame rate is when it's used improperly and results in stuttery-looking motion. To me motion either looks smooth and natural or it doesn't, and it's inherently smoother at 60 increments per second than at lower rates. I just happen to have a soap opera on at the moment (because the news ended) and it looks fine to me.

Isn't it a basic principle of movie-making at 24 fps that you have to be careful how you shoot so you don't run into trouble with motion issues? That doesn't sound like a good thing to me.

[David Jimerson]

Can you imagine "Ben-Hur" or "Doctor Zhivago" or "Lawrence of Arabia" looking/moving like a soap opera? I don't wanna.