30p vs. 24p
 

I realize this has been discussed before, but any definitive answers on 30p vs. 24p when content is intended solely for DVD distribution? Setting aside the possibility of 24p dvd players, etc., what is the real world solution? Is it really that much of a difference in "look"? Thanks to all.

The ease in workflow of 30p outweighs everything when the sole distribution is DVD.

How about when both NTSC and PAL DVDs are needed, and the video is shot in NTSC?

In that case then 24p is best, but if the DVD is purely NTSC then 30p.

It is a purely aesthetic choice, but if PAL DVDs are definitely needed, you should consider shooting 25P and then downconverting to PAL and NTSC. It would be the easiest conversion in both cases.

25->30 is an awkward ratio to convert, it doesn't pull down as well as 24->30. I would actually say shoot in 24 and temporally stretch to 25 for PAL, since the people in PAL world are pretty used to it.

Hayes, I don't see anyone asking what system you are using... PC or Mac?

If PC and Premiere Pro then 24P has more to offer (nicer look, smaller file sizes / less frames, better low light, reduced render times, etc.)

If Mac and FCP then 30P might be better for now.

This is assuming NTSC, as mentioned


Or are you using a different editor?

From what I have gathered (especially from Steve Mullen), unless you are outputting to Film (True 24 Frames), then 30P has more potential to "look like film" than 24P because of the flicker that 30P has. Each Frame Flashes twice a second (60) like film does (48). With 24P to any Video source, it plays back with a 3:2 Pulldown which is not accurate. He has posted threads at great length about this. It is very interesting.

If either workflow doesn't bother you, then I suggesting testing them out. The thing with 24P is that pans are much harder to pull off, as is motion altogether unless you have practiced.

Good luck.

I am using FCP- Very interesting and helpful; has anyone actually seen comparisons or tested this? Additionally, any word on when Apple is really going to deliver? Thanks again.

Exactly and I have always agreed with Steve on this matter I believe 30p can in fact look very much like film and to tell you the truth I actually prefur 30p to 24p for everything I shoot. If I was going to shoot something that was going to be bumped to film which is not likely, that would be the only time I would use 24p

I still have a few questions regarding 30p:

How does 30p look when played back in a PAL player that converts NTSC? Most PAL players play back NTSC fine, but I am worried that 30p NTSC might stutter in a PAL NTSC converting player.


Should I flag the 30p as 30p with a 2-2 pulldown or just as 60i? I have noticed that at least half of the NTSC DVD players seem to be confused by a 30p 2-2 pulldown flag and try to do a 3-2 pulldown when they see it. This looks terrible. On the other hand, if I flag it as 60i, uprezzing algorythms might not work correctly. I know that my DVD authoring application: DVD Architect won`t even let me write a 2-2 pulldown DVD because of the potential playback problems.

The show "Friends" is shot in 30p. Does anyone know how that show is flagged when it is released on DVD?

I just did a google search and found that "Friends" is shot on film at 30p and released on DVD as 30p video that is flagged as 60i.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...e-10-2000.html

"Several TV shows, including Friends, are shot on 30 fps cameras and transferred to video using 2-2 pulldown. Unfortunately, the Friends DVDs are not marked progressive, which just reinforces our point – you can’t trust the flags."

30P or 60i - the players don't care. You can flag it progressive so that some players and TVs will click into P mode, but it really won't make a difference with 30P since the video file is still 60i.

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.

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 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.

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.

Doesn't shutter speed enter into this?

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.

Shutter speed is another artistic decision.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

Sure, why not? Actually, I can picture how Ben-Hur might look different during the chariot scenes, but not in a way which would matter to the story line. To me frame rate doesn't matter unless it's distractingly jerky, which happens fairly often at lower rates but not at higher ones. I just don't see this being a critical component of great movie-making, and I'd guess that if 60p had been the standard for the past 50 years we'd be saying how wonderful that looked.

Exactly, when you watch something shot correctly on a lower fram rate its like your watching a story and being carried along. When your watching a soap opera, not that I do but its like live viewing. I think the reason film or 24p shooting is so attractive to the consumer is because its different then what we are seeing every day 60p is more like what you see when you go out into the world every day nothing new! 24p or 30p ect.. is different than what we normaly see and thats probabley the attraction of it,its like looking at something different and more comforting to watch assuming its put together correctly.

Well its a good thing Hollywood and most of the TV community dosent agree with you but hey its America and everyone has the right to their own opinion, as for me I will continue to shoot most of my material at 30p. Thanks and goodnight.

Exactly. 60i/p is great for reality, news, sports, game shows, soap operas . . . but for DRAMA, you want to be taken away.

Not to carry this topic much further but how many movies do you know that were shot at 60p

All stuff where they want you to see what you see every day, live and in your face. its not a dramatic story its live TV its the world. Like was stated earlier in this post every fram rate has its place.

I may be wrong, but I believe George Lucas did some tests at UCLA, a number of years ago, projecting film at 60p. If I remember correctly, one of the side effects of the 60p motion was that it made some people crazy. It was a really dangerous frame rate. After those tests, if I'm not mistaken, George Lucas made his next movie in 24p. I don't know if it was for insurance reasons (the high premium on insurance rates for a 60p film because of the inherent danger of possibly making people crazy), but it may have been.

Ever since those tests most films have been shot in 24p. (It was speculated that even 30p might make some people half crazy.)

There are currently some Korean soap operas on American television that appear to be shot in high quality 60p. If you watch these soap operas for 7 or 8 hours straight, the high frame rate causes, it seems, some people the need to go to a movie theatre for soothing 24p experience. The motion in the video is smooth, but the person inside becomes really jittery and excited.

It is my understanding that Europe adopted PAL and 25 framerate so that soccer fans would not get over excited during the world cup as would happen if they watched the soccer at the high frame rates that are recklessly allowed in America and Japan.

It seems the implication of some of the posts here is that 24 fps is what makes movies look like movies--to the exclusion of other probably more pertinent elements likes first class lighting and set designs, aesthetic elements unique to the film medium etc. I don't know how much 24fps contributes to what makes movies "look like movies" but I really don't think if "Gone with the Wind" was shot in 30fps it would look like "Days of Our Lives".

No one's saying 24 fps *alone* "makes movies look like movies." What we're saying is that it makes movies MOVE like movies.

If GWTW had been shot at 60 fps, it would move like a soap opera.

Did you happen to see the live episodes of "Will & Grace"? They were shot at 60p. Everything else about the show -- lighting, sets, acting, etc. -- was the same. But because they were shot at 60p, they looked like they were a stage play, just like soap operas do.

I do not want to get into the 50 year old debate on if 60 hz is better than 24 fps but I will list some of the reasons why I prefer 24p.

1. Universal. Can easily be adapted to any world market.
2. Less frames to rotoscope.
3. Higher quality on DVD.
4. Faster to encode than 60i/p
5. Uncompressed takes up much less space and bandwidth.
6. A true progressive image on DVD for digital display devices.
7. Faster to render.
8. Easier to scale/rotate/warp than interlaced video.
9. Animation at 60i takes longer to render.
10. Animation at 60p really takes a lot longer to render.

The only thing 60i/p gains you is smoother motion. There is no other advantage to 60i/p. I for one hope Hollywood never moves to 60p. Visual Effects would end up costing 2.5x more and take 2.5x longer to create. Rotoscoping would become a nightmare.