I must be missing some basics

[Tony Roulston]

I have read with interest the ongoing discussions regarding 24p in what I undertsand to be a digital forum. I can only assume the 24p interest is due based on the desire/requirement to transfer to film stock?

When the current trend and demand for content is being driven by the digital distributors why would anyone shooting HDV ever desire to distribute on film.

Within the next two years all of our free to air in Aussie must be digital HD. Internet or DVD content is in demand and I can not think of any ggod reason to go back to chemistry. Film is dead or dying with Cinemas going digitial projection, broadcasters, online content providers and the humble local production of DVD, who really cares about 24p in this context.

BTW: My own reason to have an FX1 on order is for personal and club production of underwater events, technical scuba, surfing video etc.

I can only assume that there are lot of pro's in the forum that need cross media capability, in which case maybe these expectations are a bit high for a prosumer cam.

But as the post says, I may be missing something quite basic with my own inexperience.

Also, this is a great forum for kowledge and I am very appreciative to those that take the time to share their knowledge and experience with newbie amatures such as myself. Please keep it coming.

Regards, Tony

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas, Tony,

As for myself I don't quite get the attraction to 24P. Why not shoot 25P and have the same thing. You have to wonder how many people are *really* going to transfer to 35mm film. Not the many, I don't think. You can have a compelling, commercially successful production with broad, international distribution without ever going to 35mm film. So why not shoot 25P if you like that kind of look. Guess I share the same take on it as you.

Say hello to my mate Paul Hackett down there if you know him. He's in the business, in your town.

[Barry Green]

The attraction to 24P is that it looks like film. You don't have to ever have any plans to transfer it up to film. But shooting in 24P makes your footage look an awful lot more like film than like video.

And the reason you don't shoot 25P is because this camera doesn't offer 25P. CineFrame 25 might come close to looking like 25P, but it won't be "real" 25P.

[Chris Hurd]

<< CineFrame 25 might come close to looking like 25P, but it won't be "real" 25P. >>

Aha! -- and there lies the crux of the matter! Thanks Barry,

[Tony Roulston]

And that is supposed to be a good thing?

Is this not a bit like the LP through the tube amp is the only way to listen to music?

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the odd art-house 16mm film at festivals and the awe of opening day block busters, but give the versility of CD, DVD and content where I want it when I want it over the look of film.

BTW: I had a previous career as a pro stills photograher and do understand the tenchical supperority of film, but the longevity of digital without quaaity degradationn and online distribution does it for my simple needs.

Cheers, from the drought zone.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

There are many reasons why people would want 24 frames per second capability. Some reasons are technical, others are artistic and all of them are subjective to some degree.

In the price range of most DV equipment that does 24p like the Panasonic DVX100[A] and the Canon XL2, we see mostly independents doing all sorts of things like indie films, weddings, corporate video, even some doing limited broadcast work or TV commercials... (You probably know that, though). But the majority of these people tend to look at 24p as a way to get a more film-like appearance to their video. They can shoot the video as if they were shooting film. Due to the popular cinema still being based on 24fps film, the general audience has a subconsciously perceived notion that 24fps film is of higher quality. Often, a video piece that has the appearnce of being produced on film tends to give off a more professional or expensive look, when in reality the frame rate and amount of visual detail conveyed is inferior to 60i video. Those people in PAL countries (like you being an Aussie) are less enamored by 24p since you're used to seeing 25fps (50i) video.

There are other technical reasons why 24p is very attractive to some. Yes, even reasons beyond just transfering to film. For me, the filmic quality is an added bonus, but I am a computer animation guy. I have several systems always crunching away at animation frames and it is a whole lot easier and more efficeint for me to create animation in non-interlaced frames and with a target rate of 24 frames per second than it is to create those 60 interlaced fields per second. If I can shoot video to intermix with my graphics at the same 24 progressive frames per second, that is a huge step forward for my production workflow. Although, in regards to my workflow, 30p is every bit as good visually (and sometimes better dpending on the subject matter), but not as efficeint for my 3D animation render nodes. If I'm rendering out an animation that averages 10 minutes per frame on a 2GHz Pentium4 CPU and the animation is 2 minutes in length at 24 frames/per second, that would take a single CPU 40 days to compute that! If I have the equivalent of 10 CPUs dong that work, it drops the work load to 4 days. If I were to generate the same animation with a target of 30 frames per second, it will take those systems another whole day of calculations to complete the task. ...And I'm all for getting back to work so I can get paid rather than twiddling my thumbs for another 24 hours for the same results... 24p for 3D animation is a very good thing. :)

Progressive video in general is also a lot easier to work with in terms of compositing and effects work. Yes, there is some great software out there that handles interlaced video just fine for such tasks, but anyone who denies that progressive video is easier and cleaner to work with obviously has never tried it.