1/48th shutter and film look. Really?

Brandon Freeman · July 16th, 2009, 11:02 AM

Pretty sure The Office is shot on HD, and that's 24p. :)

Adam Gold · July 16th, 2009, 11:32 AM

Not according to this:

"The Office" (2005) - Technical specifications

...and note that this is a show that's *supposed* to look like tape, not film...

But if that page is accurate, to the extent the show looks like film, it just goes to show you can create a film-like look without 24p.

Brandon Freeman · July 16th, 2009, 11:52 AM

I think that's after the pulldown to 60i. I'm pretty sure the footage originates in 24p mode.

Also, I believe on RED's website they are boasting that the new Southland show (is it still on, lol) was/is shot on the RED camera. That's not tape, not film...but still, not film. :D

Adam Gold · July 16th, 2009, 12:08 PM

It's certainly possible. Perhaps someone directly involved in the production of those shows who knows for sure can chime in.

But in any event, this would represent just a small handful at most of the hundreds of shows being produced for broadcast.

Again, I'm not bashing 24p or saying it doesn't have its uses, only clarifying the erroneous assertion that "most" shows on TV are shot that way.

Cole McDonald · July 16th, 2009, 03:47 PM

I'm going to chime in here on this topic. I hear "Film Look" bandied around alot by folks looking for the "Magic Formula" that will instantly make the footage they shoot instantly Hollywood like. They are specifically ignoring the fact that the camera is the smallest piece of the puzzle involved in the "Hollywood" look.

I've seen tons of real film that is poorly exposed, composed and focussed... it looks nothing like the "Film Look".

I've also seen 60i video at 1/60 shutter that has so much production work done out side the camera and is exposed well, sharply focussed and composed with brilliant camera blocking, which they've spent tons of time in preproduction choosing colors, makeup, lighting, costume, location, set dressing, acting, blocking that is nearly indistinguishable from real film.

The "Film Look" happens outside the camera... period! Capturing at 24fps, 1/24 is the icing that finishes the effect.

I've recently spent a bunch of "think time" on the physics of motion capture of images. It seems to me that 1/48 shutter is actually more important than 24fps to recreate the actual look of the physical manifestation of light on real film. Specifically, the physical amount of motion captured in a single frame defines a specific amount of blurring. That seems more important to me than the number of still images projected per second. Technically, film in theater is projected at 72fps (each frame is projected 3 times, with just a hint of black as the shutter passes the lens and interrupts the beam of light - someone correct me here). Since output is part of the puzzle, the only way to get the actual effect of projected film is to output at 72fps with black intermediate space between frames. Some developer could probably provide this somehow... that'd be pretty neat.

I'd like to see a test to see if adding a 1/48 sec of black (48FPS) could perhaps better emulate the effect of a real projector.

I'd also like to see a more practical side by side test of 24fps vs. 30fps both at 1/30 and 1/24 shutters with the same shot happening in camera to see if the frame rate or shutter makes more difference all thing being equal.

Chris Schuler · July 20th, 2009, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver Smith

I've noticed a recent trend with a lot of videos shot 24p with 1/48th shutter. The trend being that they don't look very film-like at all! I am not sure whether I am mistaken about 1/48th shutter = film like in appearance, but it just seems a bit silly?

I mean, I can understand a bit of motion blur on film looks quite good, but in HD, at 1920x1080 it just looks tell-tale video like in both motion and appearance. It is manageable under most static circumstances, but the second there is a bit of motion in the frame it just seems a complete giveaway.

The people become distorted, movements take on a very video like smooth and blurry motion that eliminates the clarity that HD can offer, yet it offers none of the advantages of looking even remotely like film. It cannot be, that something like that is sought after as a desirable look, or can it?

this is the most ignorant post i've ever read about 24p, no offense.

ALL high end professional feature films use 24p with 1/48 giving it a 180 degree shutter angle (except for the rare cases where they change the shutter speed on purpose to give a SPECIFIC look, a la saving private ryan) whether the feature is in FILM or HD. it doesn't matter. they ALL use 24p with a 180 degree shutter angle.

the experts know what they are doing and they are doing it for a reason. you can either get with the big boys or stay in the shadows of the indie consumer HD camcorder forum world where every little kid complains about the importance of 24p and 1/48 because they simply don't understand it whatsoever. they think that having 24p and 1/48 will give them an instant film look. lol

there are MANY different aspects that give the film look. the framerate and shutter speed are just one aspect of the film look. if you really want the film look, you should start learning more about filmmaking. in fact i would suggest start off learning the basics of photography first. then move to cinematography.

Chris Schuler · July 20th, 2009, 05:18 AM

and to all the people complaining about 24p 1/48 looking "bad" on HD... you do realize that movie theaters have been showing movies at 24p 1/48 for almost 100 years at a much higher resolution than your 1080p television screens give. and no one has ever complained about those in the threatre before. in fact the best way to view a film is in a theater where it displayed in beautiful 2-4k. puts 1080p to shame.

Thomas Smet · July 20th, 2009, 09:41 AM

The question I would like to ask is exactly how many of these threads on this forum do we really need? It always starts out as a question and quickly turns into an argument. It then goes away after a few months and one of two things happen.

1. Some new person comments many months later in the old thread(if it has not been deleted) and the mud slinging starts again.

2. A whole new thread with the exact same question and the same exact arguments starts up.

The other question I have is why is it such a big deal to you anti 24p people? Am I hurting your feelings by using 24p or is 24p such an abomination that the simple act of using it should be considered some sort of sin? Why can't you just let professionals continue to use 24p and stop complaining about it already? If we are all dumb for using 24p then let us continue to be dumb fools and collect pay checks for being dumb.

This whole subject is really starting to become pure political and has very little basis in facts anymore.

Adam Gold · July 20th, 2009, 11:59 AM

Thomas, you're certainly right that this has been beaten to death, and it wouldn't surprise me if the moderators closed this thread at some point. I think the reason it comes up so often is that a lot of new users don't bother to read back or do a search and they may think they're the first person to ask about this.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not anti-24p and I don't see too many people here who are. It's a tool we use to tell our stories, and if it's in the best interest of the story, of course we should use this tool. Just as you can build a house with nails, screws or glue, you usually use all of those depending upon the application. If you're going out to film, or you like the look, of course 24p is a valid tool.

What many posters here are responding to, I think, are those who just wander around, chanting "24p.... 24p...," zombie-like, as if it's the panacea for everything in trying to make your video look like film, when you and I and everyone else have pointed out that, of course, it isn't. Yet many shooters continue to drink the 24p Kool-aid and make really foolish and just blatantly non-factual assertions (or at least implications) like those made by Chris, above.

Chris implies (although does not say explicitly) that 24p was chosen for some artistic reason 100 years ago and everyone agrees it's great and no one complains, and all of that is false. Just for the record, and one more time:

--Standardized frame rates did not exist until the late 20s and early 30s, when electric motors became widespread and sound was incorporated. Until then, films were hand-cranked at varying frame rates.
--Film stock, being made of silver, was very expensive. 24fps became the standard frame rate because it was the SLOWEST possible rate you could use (thus using the least amount of expensive stock) without getting a massive headache. Some stories say it was because this is the slowest rate you could record sound in the camera on single system sound devices and have it still sound okay. But no story attributes the selections of frame rate to an artistic reason of any kind.
--Films are called Flicks -- short for Flickers -- because of the horrible flickering they used to have. Today you do not, in fact, see films projected at 24 pictures per second, not really. Today's projectors use multi-bladed shutters to flash each picture two or three times, so you are in fact seeing 48p or even 72p.
--As Doug Trumbull demonstrated in the 70s, there are many, many other frame rates that make your films look "better." But his company, Showscan, could not overcome the inertia of zillions of projectors all over the world that only show 24fps. 24p hasn't survived because everyone loves it, only because it's too expensive to change to anything else.
--That being said, filmmakers have adapted and accepted 24p and used it to great artistic advantage, and this can be done if you are skilled enough. But there are strict rules involved -- detailed elsewhere -- that we don't have time to go into now.
--While yes, it is technically correct that nearly all movies and TV are shot at 24p, because they are shot on film and film is 24fps and is inherently p(rogressive), it's misleading to say everything is shot 24p because it implies, and most people will infer, that it means 24p video. So it's important to be specific.

If I'm off-base on any of this, then a very expensive film-school education went to waste many years ago.

As Thomas and others have pointed out, 24p is not the only way, or even the best way, to make your video look like film. As digital projection and content creation s-l-o-w-l-y become widespread, I think at some point in the future we will look at 24fps as horribly outdated and antiquated, and it would in fact likely be used only for artistic reasons in special circumstances, when trying to achieve an "old-fashioned" look, like B&W photography or Super 8mm film.

Jacques E. Bouchard · July 26th, 2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

As Thomas and others have pointed out, 24p is not the only way, or even the best way, to make your video look like film. As digital projection and content creation s-l-o-w-l-y become widespread, I think at some point in the future we will look at 24fps as horribly outdated and antiquated, and it would in fact likely be used only for artistic reasons in special circumstances, when trying to achieve an "old-fashioned" look, like B&W photography or Super 8mm film.

Thanks Adam. I agree about 24p being on its way out, but for now the snobbery still exists - especially in film festivals, where I intend for my next short film to show. I'd rather pick 30p - which is a nice compromise between the blur of 24p and the jarring sharpness of 60i - but anything looking like video is still frowned upon by the film school flunkies judging those fests.

J.

Brian Drysdale · July 27th, 2009, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacques E. Bouchard

Thanks Adam. I agree about 24p being on its way out, but for now the snobbery still exists - especially in film festivals, where I intend for my next short film to show. I'd rather pick 30p - which is a nice compromise between the blur of 24p and the jarring sharpness of 60i - but anything looking like video is still frowned upon by the film school flunkies judging those fests.

J.

There was a period when US Cinematographers were trying to shoot their film TV productions at 30 fps, but the pressure was always to save costs.

Film festivals tend to be centred towards productions for theatrical screening where the standard is 24fps. There are successful productions in festivals that have been shot at 60i, however, doing a film out is a bit more complex than one shot at 50i.

On HD, 24p is commonly favoured because it allows easier distribution in both the PAL and NTSC regions. OF course, PAL regions just shoot at 25p and you don't have that interesting little artefact that can happen during pans when 24p being transmitted in the NTSC regions.

At festivals having a good story and great acting usually has more impact than if it's shot progressive or interlace. It's easy to get obsessed with the latter, when it's the former you should really be worrying about.

Bill Thesken · August 7th, 2009, 03:23 PM

I know that the surf movie 'Free Ride' used a high speed film camera for the slow motion tube rides, somewhere around 200fps. I'll bet MacGillivray Freeman also used that type of film camera for 'Five Summer Stories'. I'll also bet that their 70mm adventure films were overcranked a bit. Billabong films @ 60p with a Panasonic for action, they also use the timelapse mode to speed through a day. Alby Falzon used an optical printer to repeat frames as many as five times for slow motion in 'Morning of the Earth', which Australia declared a national treasure. He probably would have used a high speed camera if he had it, but found a way around it.
I'm talking a different type of movie than most people on this forum are thinking. However, the 3 movies mentioned above are highly successful cinematic and commercial ventures that are still making big bucks and reviews, and some of the highlight footage is being recycled into new documentary films. The beauty of making movies is having imagination, and a format that you can stretch and pull and mold TO your will, not being stuck IN a mold...
That said I do like the look of 24F on my XHA1, but I also crank it up as needed.

Alex Humphrey · December 5th, 2009, 10:05 PM

24p isn't going away anytime soon... Not until you can get a bluray player at Kmart for $40 and you haven't even seen a DVD movie or a DVD player in 20 years. At that time maybe. Oh wait... BluRay doesn't support 30p or 60p. So I guess that means this thread is nearly pointless.

Denny Lajeunesse · December 6th, 2009, 12:57 AM

I know most commercials are shot at 24 frames. At least years back when I worked in commercials they were all shot in film at 24 frames.

Film may have been originally shot at 24 frames due to economic reason, but the general public has gotten used to that look. Otherwise we'd all be shooting in another progressive frame rate all together.

Jacques E. Bouchard · December 6th, 2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

The other question I have is why is it such a big deal to you anti 24p people? Am I hurting your feelings by using 24p or is 24p such an abomination that the simple act of using it should be considered some sort of sin?

I just don't get people replying "You don't know what you're talking about" without actually offering any clarification or helpful advice. They're like the ten-year-old acting with condescension with the other kids because he's flipped through his dad's Playboy but still couldn't tell you where babies come from. ;-)

Personally, while I strive for a great picture, I put more importance on story (I see WAY too many short films with elaborate cinematography that seemed to have been written during coffee break on a napkin). I'll shoot 24p for festivals where judges seem to use a checklist of what is "art", but I like 30p because it offers the best of both worlds. Whatever, to me it's all just a vessel for the message.

J.

July 16th, 2009, 11:02 AM	#16
Brandon Freeman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 226	Pretty sure The Office is shot on HD, and that's 24p. :) __________________ Canon EOS 7D, Final Cut Studio 2

July 16th, 2009, 11:52 AM	#18
Brandon Freeman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 226	I think that's after the pulldown to 60i. I'm pretty sure the footage originates in 24p mode. Also, I believe on RED's website they are boasting that the new Southland show (is it still on, lol) was/is shot on the RED camera. That's not tape, not film...but still, not film. :D __________________ Canon EOS 7D, Final Cut Studio 2

July 16th, 2009, 03:47 PM	#20
Cole McDonald Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA Posts: 1,675	I'm going to chime in here on this topic. I hear "Film Look" bandied around alot by folks looking for the "Magic Formula" that will instantly make the footage they shoot instantly Hollywood like. They are specifically ignoring the fact that the camera is the smallest piece of the puzzle involved in the "Hollywood" look. I've seen tons of real film that is poorly exposed, composed and focussed... it looks nothing like the "Film Look". I've also seen 60i video at 1/60 shutter that has so much production work done out side the camera and is exposed well, sharply focussed and composed with brilliant camera blocking, which they've spent tons of time in preproduction choosing colors, makeup, lighting, costume, location, set dressing, acting, blocking that is nearly indistinguishable from real film. The "Film Look" happens outside the camera... period! Capturing at 24fps, 1/24 is the icing that finishes the effect. I've recently spent a bunch of "think time" on the physics of motion capture of images. It seems to me that 1/48 shutter is actually more important than 24fps to recreate the actual look of the physical manifestation of light on real film. Specifically, the physical amount of motion captured in a single frame defines a specific amount of blurring. That seems more important to me than the number of still images projected per second. Technically, film in theater is projected at 72fps (each frame is projected 3 times, with just a hint of black as the shutter passes the lens and interrupts the beam of light - someone correct me here). Since output is part of the puzzle, the only way to get the actual effect of projected film is to output at 72fps with black intermediate space between frames. Some developer could probably provide this somehow... that'd be pretty neat. I'd like to see a test to see if adding a 1/48 sec of black (48FPS) could perhaps better emulate the effect of a real projector. I'd also like to see a more practical side by side test of 24fps vs. 30fps both at 1/30 and 1/24 shutters with the same shot happening in camera to see if the frame rate or shutter makes more difference all thing being equal. __________________ Web Youtube Facebook

July 20th, 2009, 11:59 AM	#24
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	Thomas, you're certainly right that this has been beaten to death, and it wouldn't surprise me if the moderators closed this thread at some point. I think the reason it comes up so often is that a lot of new users don't bother to read back or do a search and they may think they're the first person to ask about this. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not anti-24p and I don't see too many people here who are. It's a tool we use to tell our stories, and if it's in the best interest of the story, of course we should use this tool. Just as you can build a house with nails, screws or glue, you usually use all of those depending upon the application. If you're going out to film, or you like the look, of course 24p is a valid tool. What many posters here are responding to, I think, are those who just wander around, chanting "24p.... 24p...," zombie-like, as if it's the panacea for everything in trying to make your video look like film, when you and I and everyone else have pointed out that, of course, it isn't. Yet many shooters continue to drink the 24p Kool-aid and make really foolish and just blatantly non-factual assertions (or at least implications) like those made by Chris, above. Chris implies (although does not say explicitly) that 24p was chosen for some artistic reason 100 years ago and everyone agrees it's great and no one complains, and all of that is false. Just for the record, and one more time: --Standardized frame rates did not exist until the late 20s and early 30s, when electric motors became widespread and sound was incorporated. Until then, films were hand-cranked at varying frame rates. --Film stock, being made of silver, was very expensive. 24fps became the standard frame rate because it was the SLOWEST possible rate you could use (thus using the least amount of expensive stock) without getting a massive headache. Some stories say it was because this is the slowest rate you could record sound in the camera on single system sound devices and have it still sound okay. But no story attributes the selections of frame rate to an artistic reason of any kind. --Films are called Flicks -- short for Flickers -- because of the horrible flickering they used to have. Today you do not, in fact, see films projected at 24 pictures per second, not really. Today's projectors use multi-bladed shutters to flash each picture two or three times, so you are in fact seeing 48p or even 72p. --As Doug Trumbull demonstrated in the 70s, there are many, many other frame rates that make your films look "better." But his company, Showscan, could not overcome the inertia of zillions of projectors all over the world that only show 24fps. 24p hasn't survived because everyone loves it, only because it's too expensive to change to anything else. --That being said, filmmakers have adapted and accepted 24p and used it to great artistic advantage, and this can be done if you are skilled enough. But there are strict rules involved -- detailed elsewhere -- that we don't have time to go into now. --While yes, it is technically correct that nearly all movies and TV are shot at 24p, because they are shot on film and film is 24fps and is inherently p(rogressive), it's misleading to say everything is shot 24p because it implies, and most people will infer, that it means 24p video. So it's important to be specific. If I'm off-base on any of this, then a very expensive film-school education went to waste many years ago. As Thomas and others have pointed out, 24p is not the only way, or even the best way, to make your video look like film. As digital projection and content creation s-l-o-w-l-y become widespread, I think at some point in the future we will look at 24fps as horribly outdated and antiquated, and it would in fact likely be used only for artistic reasons in special circumstances, when trying to achieve an "old-fashioned" look, like B&W photography or Super 8mm film. Last edited by Adam Gold; July 20th, 2009 at 02:23 PM.

December 5th, 2009, 10:05 PM	#28
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	24p isn't going away anytime soon... Not until you can get a bluray player at Kmart for $40 and you haven't even seen a DVD movie or a DVD player in 20 years. At that time maybe. Oh wait... BluRay doesn't support 30p or 60p. So I guess that means this thread is nearly pointless. Last edited by Alex Humphrey; December 5th, 2009 at 10:47 PM.

July 16th, 2009, 11:32 AM	#17
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	Not according to this: "The Office" (2005) - Technical specifications ...and note that this is a show that's supposed to look like tape, not film... But if that page is accurate, to the extent the show looks like film, it just goes to show you can create a film-like look without 24p.

July 16th, 2009, 12:08 PM	#19
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	It's certainly possible. Perhaps someone directly involved in the production of those shows who knows for sure can chime in. But in any event, this would represent just a small handful at most of the hundreds of shows being produced for broadcast. Again, I'm not bashing 24p or saying it doesn't have its uses, only clarifying the erroneous assertion that "most" shows on TV are shot that way.

July 20th, 2009, 05:18 AM	#22
Chris Schuler New Boot Join Date: May 2009 Location: texas Posts: 8	and to all the people complaining about 24p 1/48 looking "bad" on HD... you do realize that movie theaters have been showing movies at 24p 1/48 for almost 100 years at a much higher resolution than your 1080p television screens give. and no one has ever complained about those in the threatre before. in fact the best way to view a film is in a theater where it displayed in beautiful 2-4k. puts 1080p to shame.

July 20th, 2009, 09:41 AM	#23
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	The question I would like to ask is exactly how many of these threads on this forum do we really need? It always starts out as a question and quickly turns into an argument. It then goes away after a few months and one of two things happen. 1. Some new person comments many months later in the old thread(if it has not been deleted) and the mud slinging starts again. 2. A whole new thread with the exact same question and the same exact arguments starts up. The other question I have is why is it such a big deal to you anti 24p people? Am I hurting your feelings by using 24p or is 24p such an abomination that the simple act of using it should be considered some sort of sin? Why can't you just let professionals continue to use 24p and stop complaining about it already? If we are all dumb for using 24p then let us continue to be dumb fools and collect pay checks for being dumb. This whole subject is really starting to become pure political and has very little basis in facts anymore.

August 7th, 2009, 03:23 PM	#27
Bill Thesken Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: HI, USA Posts: 622	I know that the surf movie 'Free Ride' used a high speed film camera for the slow motion tube rides, somewhere around 200fps. I'll bet MacGillivray Freeman also used that type of film camera for 'Five Summer Stories'. I'll also bet that their 70mm adventure films were overcranked a bit. Billabong films @ 60p with a Panasonic for action, they also use the timelapse mode to speed through a day. Alby Falzon used an optical printer to repeat frames as many as five times for slow motion in 'Morning of the Earth', which Australia declared a national treasure. He probably would have used a high speed camera if he had it, but found a way around it. I'm talking a different type of movie than most people on this forum are thinking. However, the 3 movies mentioned above are highly successful cinematic and commercial ventures that are still making big bucks and reviews, and some of the highlight footage is being recycled into new documentary films. The beauty of making movies is having imagination, and a format that you can stretch and pull and mold TO your will, not being stuck IN a mold... That said I do like the look of 24F on my XHA1, but I also crank it up as needed.

December 6th, 2009, 12:57 AM	#29
Denny Lajeunesse Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Kelowna, BC [Canada, Eh!] Posts: 257	I know most commercials are shot at 24 frames. At least years back when I worked in commercials they were all shot in film at 24 frames. Film may have been originally shot at 24 frames due to economic reason, but the general public has gotten used to that look. Otherwise we'd all be shooting in another progressive frame rate all together.