1/48th shutter and film look. Really?

[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?

[Aric Mannion]

Is the footage in low light?

[Jack Zhang]

1/60 shutter and capturing 24p is the real "Film-look" combination. 1/48 adds too much blur.

[Charles Papert]

That's news to me. Film cameras capture 1/48th a second (24 fps with a 180 degree shutter).

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Oliver Smith

[24p + 1/48] just looks tell-tale video like in both motion and appearance.

I haven't seen that. I don't know how I could even begin to critique subtle differences in motion (if any) when there are dozens of other much more important differences, though:

• Oversharpening.
• Colors.
• Aliasing and other artifacts.
• Low resolution.
• Depth of field.
• Noise / grain.
• Dynamic range, contrast.

[Luke Tingle]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I haven't seen that. I don't know how I could even begin to critique subtle differences in motion (if any) when there are dozens of other much more important differences, though:

• Oversharpening.
• Colors.
• Aliasing and other artifacts.
• Low resolution.
• Depth of field.
• Noise / grain.
• Dynamic range, contrast.

Oversharpening, Noise etc. aren't a trend though, the 48fps "film look" is. A crapy one at that.

The whole "film look" thing is such a joke. What is the "film look"?
shallow depth of field and motion blur?

The real advantage actual film has is its high dynamic range, something video doesn't have, no matter what settings you use in your video camera.

Unless you have a 35mm film camera and a steep budget, I'd say shoot the best video you can and make it look the way you want it to, but just intentionally adding motion blur and a DOF adapter doesn't qualify as a "film look" in my book.

BTW, I've worked at a telecine house for the past 3 years, the end of film is coming soon. Eventually the end of the desire to copy the look of movies shot on film will end too.. then what look will everyone want to copy? Why not create your own look?

[Chris Light]

wow. seems to me if the content of a particular presentation is worth noting, the frame rate, over-sharpening, motion blur, DOF, or its straight-up video look, would be universally irrelevant.

[Kurt Zhuang]

maybe the OP didnt pulldown?

but i agree, 24P+1/60th is golden. generally. adjust to the conditions mate

[Cris Hendrix]

Originally Posted by Luke Tingle

BTW, I've worked at a telecine house for the past 3 years, the end of film is coming soon. Eventually the end of the desire to copy the look of movies shot on film will end too.. then what look will everyone want to copy? Why not create your own look?

Ironically I think that's exactly what people are doing, creating a new look. It may not be a look that YOU like, but in their attempt to emulate they are of course choosing qualities they personally find desirable.. even if these qualities share nothing with film they are obviously finding them to their liking, so this is the new look they have created

Personally I love playing with the DOF adapters and shutter speeds to get different looks and effects.. I actually like the slower speeds - 24 and down, sub-24 ones are mostly only good for a drugged out type scene obviously, but 24 can also look cool for some more regular scenes, though I wouldn't shoot an entire project locked at these speeds

[Brandon Freeman]

I think you're confusing 1/48th with 1/24th. 1/48th emulates the standard film shutter speed. 1/24th, however, is an ungodly pile of crap. ... ... Can you tell I feel strongly about that? LOL

[Kevin Duffey]

So help me understand guys (and gals).. why is the film-look so important first of all.. and second, can't I add something like Film Magic Pro AE effects to my film and get the same "coloring" of film? Is it the colors, the slower framerate that gives a different appearance, or what?

[Cris Hendrix]

If you don't crave the "film look" don't worry about it, it's just a semi-obsession some people have to emulate the look of film while shooting with the much cheaper format of video

Some of it leads to a healthy learning experience though as a lot of what people perceive as "film look" is simply proper lighting, composition and photography techniques

Shutter speeds are simply fun to play with for the different effects they achieve, anything below 1/24 might be good for a drugged out or strange horror type scene, very stuttery and blurry, 1/24 might be good for a dream sequence, 1/48 or 1/60 for "film like" video, and anything above that good for sports or faster action

You can use effects in post but personally unless it's a drastic effect I like to achieve as much in camera as possible

[Thomas Smet]

The only people who knock 24p are those who don't understand it.

24p is not some fad or trend. Wake up and look at what most high end productions have been using for a very long time. Most of the TV drama and comedy you watch is shot at 24p. It isn't a trend but the norm in the high end production world. It is the 60i crowd with their cheap cameras that has broken this norm and made people think 60i is the norm. Just because it is more common for common folk to use doesn't mean it is the best. It's more like the Apple vs. PC debate. 90% of the world thinks PC is better and will tell you to your face you are dumb for wasting money on a Mac. 10% of the world will laugh and say you are not a true artist. Both groups are fools and should just worry about getting their work done and use what works for them. The same is true of 24p vs 60i. Both are very valid professional formats that are broadcast standards. To say one is inferior just shows your lack of understanding of the production world and how to cover all aspects of it. In this business you have to be able to work with all flavors of video.

There are two kinds of people who use 24p.
1. Those who do not understand it and think it is some sort of magical filter like mosaic or sepia on their camera.
2. Those who are used to shooting 24p in the high end world be it in HD or film.


A lot of time goes into high end productions to get them to look right. A cinematographer doesn't just grab a camera and point and shoot. A lot of care and planning goes into each shot which makes it look the way it does. Take a few classes or read a few books on the subject of cinematography to learn how to really make use of 24p. It isn't designed to be easy. That's what 60i shooting is for, the easy video solution.

Please do a search here and anywhere else on this subject. It has been debated for years and you could compile together a book on all the posts dealing with 24p.

Just remember there is no right answer. Some people prefer 24p and some prefer 60i. Just like how some painters prefer water colors over oils. Oil painters are not superior to water color painters just because they decide to use a different medium to paint with. It is all about telling a story with a picture.

[Brandon Freeman]

The only time I really obsess about film look is with my short...well...films. Other than that, the film look is just another tool in the belt. It definitely does not work for everything.

I produce media primarily for a church (aside from my aforementioned short films). Generally, for documented stuff, like interviews that are going to be archived, or dramatic heart wrenching testimonies (you know, serious stuff), I shoot 24p with film gamma.

For fun skits involving giving our pastors a hard time or a quick Youtube video telling folks about an upcoming event, I'll usually do 60i (for live playback) or 30p (for web).

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Most of the TV drama and comedy you watch is shot at 24p.

Well, no, most Network drama is shot on *film*, which happens to be 24fps, but that isn't for any aesthetic reason (as has been well-established here and elsewhere, it was and is purely economic), and the 24fps isn't the only reason, or even the most important reason, that film looks like film. Most of the "film look" is due to the different physical properties of film stock itself, as well as the lighting, lenses and camera moves that film shooters use.

Studio comedies are in fact shot at 60i on tape. One-camera comedies are shot like dramas, on film.

Virtually no network shows are shot on tape at 24p.

I'm not knocking 24p; if you like that look, good for you. Just be careful you don't fool yourself into thinking that's all you need to do to make your video look like film.