Is 24p on its way out ?

Brian Boyko · April 25th, 2009, 04:15 AM

24p is not going away for one simple reason: People don't like how films look in other formats.

To put it another way: If you ever go down to buy an HDTV, you may want to take a look at 120hertz TVs. Most of them are designed to reduce judder in 24p films; but what ends up happening is that you end up with "Pirates of the Carribean" on Blu-Ray looking like it was shot with the same equipment as "Guiding Light."

So long as people associate 24p with high art, 30p with median art, and 60i with low art and "reality/news" programming, 24p won't go away.

Shaun Roemich · April 25th, 2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Boyko

So long as people associate 24p with high art, 30p with median art, and 60i with low art and "reality/news" programming, 24p won't go away.

It's great to be reassured that the majority of my work over the past 10 years is regarded as "low art". Perhaps I'll throw out my HDTV and buy 16mm and 35mm projectors for my my home theatre instead.

Kelly Goden · April 25th, 2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Catt

Nah. They'd just add nodes to the render farm and buy faster processors from Intel.

Martin

**lol

They would be doing that already if they could.

As long as films need manual fx enhancements on a frame by frame basis, higher frame rates wont be practical.

Computers make some tasks easier but they still end up being tedious in other ways.

Ron Little · June 9th, 2009, 07:05 AM

I just shot 30 spots for NBC all in 24p edited on a 29.97 timeline as per their requirements. Why not shoot 30p? That was my question. The answer, we like the look of 24p. At first I was second guessing the powers that be thinking that they were just jumping on board with the hype of 24p.

But now that I have been working with it I kind of like the look of 24p. I will probably use it more often.

Dead? I do not think so. For hobbyist? Maybe, if you call what NBC has going on a hobby.

Jeff Kellam · June 9th, 2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Little

I just shot 30 spots for NBC all in 24p edited on a 29.97 timeline as per their requirements. Why not shoot 30p? That was my question. The answer, we like the look of 24p. At first I was second guessing the powers that be thinking that they were just jumping on board with the hype of 24p.

But now that I have been working with it I kind of like the look of 24p. I will probably use it more often.

Dead? I do not think so. For hobbyist? Maybe, if you call what NBC has going on a hobby.

It's simple, the 24P 3:2 pulldown looks better when it is squashed/compressed to the tiny bandwidth available because there are 33% less frames to compress than 30P.

Chris Schuler · June 11th, 2009, 01:32 PM

IMHO i hate the look of 60 and 30fps whether it's progressive or interlaced, doesn't matter.

24fps will always be the pinnacle (and the standard) framerate for movies in the theater. 24p is ingrained in the human mind. when people see a movie in 24fps they instantly "know" it is a real movie and not a commercial or tv show, even though they might not know exactly why. it is part of the look that defines the whole cinema experience. 24p is here to stay.

Christopher Ruffell · June 12th, 2009, 07:15 PM

I've been shooting 24P since the HV20 came out, and it's fantastic.

I've been in a position to watch a few film-newbies grow up in the past years, and it's been interesting to watch them 'discover' 24P.. first, noticing what felt cinematic, and then incorporating that. Hearing someone put into words and discover what really makes film look and film like film certainly confirms to me that 24P is sticking around as more people adopt it as more cameras with the 24P function come out.

It is a choice now, and one that many people are willing making after using and sampling the alternatives.

Graham Hickling · June 13th, 2009, 09:24 PM

> 24p is ingrained in the human mind

This reminds me of the guy in another thread who claimed "We dream in 24P"

Ahhhh ..... I don't think so. To either comment.

Ben Syverson · June 17th, 2009, 08:17 PM

24p is the gold standard. Every other frame rate has had its chance in the marketplace over the past 100 years, yet here we are, still using and talking about 24 fps. Doesn't that itself say something?

With that said, Chris is onto something when he says the 5D Mk II seems filmic enough. I think in this particular case, the incredibly shallow depth of field and gorgeous images are making the addition of 25% more frames somewhat of a wash. I think the 5D's 30p falls within a fuzzy range of what most people would consider "filmic."

And these days, that range may be getting fuzzier and fuzzier. It's becoming easier and easier to shoot at different, odd frame rates, and internet video seems to be eroding peoples' ideas of what frame rate looks "right."

Personally, I shoot with the 5D as well, and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a feature on it at 30p. On the off-off chance that someone bought the film and wanted a theatrical release, they could have the fun challenge of retiming it to 24p. :)

However in the end, I don't think 24 fps is going anywhere anytime soon. It's not the only (or even the most important) component of the "film look," but it is something of a Goldilocks framerate. Besides, even if the association with Hollywood is only subconscious to the viewer, it's still probably a positive one. ;)

Martyn Hull · June 18th, 2009, 01:42 AM

My two pence we are 25p here,i hate it on my HV30 , if you want video to have a good film look be prepared to spend big or use celluloid.

Chris Schuler · June 20th, 2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Hickling

> 24p is ingrained in the human mind

This reminds me of the guy in another thread who claimed "We dream in 24P"

Ahhhh ..... I don't think so. To either comment.

Ahhhhh.... yes it is. it's hard for me to believe you know anything about cinema when you say 24p is not ingrained in the human mind.

everyone can tell if (for instance) a movie in the theater was playing back at 30P as opposed to 24p. they can automatically tell it doesn't look "right" like other movies do. it looks too smooth... it would look like it was shot with the same equipment as Guiding Light or As The World Turns. name one movie that has been released in the theater that was playing back at 30p. you can't. that's because no real director (by saying "real director", i mean "not kids on the internet with 30p digicams who upload to vimeo") is going to shoot in anything other than 24p. 24 is indeed grained in the human mind when it comes to cinema. 30p is ingrained in the human mind as cheesy tv sitcoms and news stations.

i think some people really don't understand the importance of 24p when it comes to how much it contributes to the whole cinema experience. of course it is not the only contributing factor to the cinema look, but without it, you will never achieve that look in the first place.

Cris Hendrix · July 5th, 2009, 08:47 AM

Personally I prefer 24p but hey if I had a 30p camera I'd shoot 30p.. in the future I don't see a need for a "standard" as we have had to cling to in the past. I see the future lying in what springs up from the internet, where frame rates, resolutions and aspect ratios are all interchangeable

Personally I don't think most people will notice the difference between 24p and 30p.. sure maybe somewhat subconciously but not enough for them not to enjoy what they're watching if the story is engaging them.. I'd be more concerned about shooting in a progressive format and getting the best picture possible out of what I have access to

That said I really don't like the look of 60fps myself, but hey maybe for a sports movie or something like that it'd work great.. the key thing about the future I think is to keep an open mind as limitations become less and less and we get to experience all different types of artistic expression

Kubrick composed most of his movies in 4:3 while everybody else was at 1.85 or going 2.35 to make their movie "big", or when everybody would say you need an aspect ratio like that to seem like "film".. so I'm sure you can get by shooting at 30fps, if you have the talent of a Kubrick that is ;) (jk)

Shaun Roemich · July 6th, 2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cris Hendrix

Kubrick composed most of his movies in 4:3 while everybody else was at 1.85 or going 2.35 to make their movie "big", or when everybody would say you need an aspect ratio like that to seem like "film"..

Interesting. I remember when I bought my DVD copy of Eyes Wide Shut and got it home and was ANGRY that I had bought the "pan and scan" version... GRRRR!

Then I read the back and it said something along the lines of "presented in the 4:3 aspect of the original camera negative, as Kubrick intended" and went "WHOA! <something like Keanu in The Matrix>

Made me rethink a LOT of things about cinema.

I look forward to the day when Digital Projection is absolutely gorgeous and without compromise and we get to see EXACTLY what the director intended, whether 4:3, Scope, 24, 30, 60, 120 fps. THEN and ONLY then will all the "barriers" to self expression be leveled.

Jim Snow · July 9th, 2009, 11:09 AM

I find it interesting that "in the day" of film, producers did everything they could to reduce the 24 frame/sec. flicker in films. A lot of effort was put into projector technology to reduce the flicker. But now, some do everything they can to put the "look" back in.

I can't argue with the "artistic" aspect of 24P. To each their own. There are other techniques such as black and white that are also used to achieve a look/mood.

I prefer 60i but I'm not a 60i missionary. I enjoy seeing really good work regardless of the frame rate used by the creator.

Kevin Duffey · July 9th, 2009, 10:42 PM

Possibly a stupid question..but you can convert 30p to 24p by simply removing 1 frame every 6 can't you? I ask because.. if that effectively converts 30p to 24p, then I don't see why 24p would go away anytime soon.

That said, I thought the main reason for recording in 24p these days was to get a sort of movie-like look to the recording... but you can do that in post production anyway whether 24p or 30p was recorded.

April 25th, 2009, 04:15 AM	#31
Brian Boyko Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 773	24p is not going away for one simple reason: People don't like how films look in other formats. To put it another way: If you ever go down to buy an HDTV, you may want to take a look at 120hertz TVs. Most of them are designed to reduce judder in 24p films; but what ends up happening is that you end up with "Pirates of the Carribean" on Blu-Ray looking like it was shot with the same equipment as "Guiding Light." So long as people associate 24p with high art, 30p with median art, and 60i with low art and "reality/news" programming, 24p won't go away. __________________ Equip: Panny GH1, Canon HG20, Juicedlink, AT897, Sennh. EW/GW100, Zoom H2, Vegas 8.1

June 12th, 2009, 07:15 PM	#37
Christopher Ruffell Major Player Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Victoria, BC Posts: 202	24P gains traction I've been shooting 24P since the HV20 came out, and it's fantastic. I've been in a position to watch a few film-newbies grow up in the past years, and it's been interesting to watch them 'discover' 24P.. first, noticing what felt cinematic, and then incorporating that. Hearing someone put into words and discover what really makes film look and film like film certainly confirms to me that 24P is sticking around as more people adopt it as more cameras with the 24P function come out. It is a choice now, and one that many people are willing making after using and sampling the alternatives.

June 9th, 2009, 07:05 AM	#34
Ron Little Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pensacola Fl. Posts: 627	I just shot 30 spots for NBC all in 24p edited on a 29.97 timeline as per their requirements. Why not shoot 30p? That was my question. The answer, we like the look of 24p. At first I was second guessing the powers that be thinking that they were just jumping on board with the hype of 24p. But now that I have been working with it I kind of like the look of 24p. I will probably use it more often. Dead? I do not think so. For hobbyist? Maybe, if you call what NBC has going on a hobby.

June 11th, 2009, 01:32 PM	#36
Chris Schuler New Boot Join Date: May 2009 Location: texas Posts: 8	IMHO i hate the look of 60 and 30fps whether it's progressive or interlaced, doesn't matter. 24fps will always be the pinnacle (and the standard) framerate for movies in the theater. 24p is ingrained in the human mind. when people see a movie in 24fps they instantly "know" it is a real movie and not a commercial or tv show, even though they might not know exactly why. it is part of the look that defines the whole cinema experience. 24p is here to stay.

June 13th, 2009, 09:24 PM	#38
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	> 24p is ingrained in the human mind This reminds me of the guy in another thread who claimed "We dream in 24P" Ahhhh ..... I don't think so. To either comment.

June 17th, 2009, 08:17 PM	#39
Ben Syverson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: chicago Posts: 434	24p is the gold standard. Every other frame rate has had its chance in the marketplace over the past 100 years, yet here we are, still using and talking about 24 fps. Doesn't that itself say something? With that said, Chris is onto something when he says the 5D Mk II seems filmic enough. I think in this particular case, the incredibly shallow depth of field and gorgeous images are making the addition of 25% more frames somewhat of a wash. I think the 5D's 30p falls within a fuzzy range of what most people would consider "filmic." And these days, that range may be getting fuzzier and fuzzier. It's becoming easier and easier to shoot at different, odd frame rates, and internet video seems to be eroding peoples' ideas of what frame rate looks "right." Personally, I shoot with the 5D as well, and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a feature on it at 30p. On the off-off chance that someone bought the film and wanted a theatrical release, they could have the fun challenge of retiming it to 24p. :) However in the end, I don't think 24 fps is going anywhere anytime soon. It's not the only (or even the most important) component of the "film look," but it is something of a Goldilocks framerate. Besides, even if the association with Hollywood is only subconscious to the viewer, it's still probably a positive one. ;)

June 18th, 2009, 01:42 AM	#40
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	My two pence we are 25p here,i hate it on my HV30 , if you want video to have a good film look be prepared to spend big or use celluloid.

July 5th, 2009, 08:47 AM	#42
Cris Hendrix Regular Crew Join Date: May 2009 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 66	Personally I prefer 24p but hey if I had a 30p camera I'd shoot 30p.. in the future I don't see a need for a "standard" as we have had to cling to in the past. I see the future lying in what springs up from the internet, where frame rates, resolutions and aspect ratios are all interchangeable Personally I don't think most people will notice the difference between 24p and 30p.. sure maybe somewhat subconciously but not enough for them not to enjoy what they're watching if the story is engaging them.. I'd be more concerned about shooting in a progressive format and getting the best picture possible out of what I have access to That said I really don't like the look of 60fps myself, but hey maybe for a sports movie or something like that it'd work great.. the key thing about the future I think is to keep an open mind as limitations become less and less and we get to experience all different types of artistic expression Kubrick composed most of his movies in 4:3 while everybody else was at 1.85 or going 2.35 to make their movie "big", or when everybody would say you need an aspect ratio like that to seem like "film".. so I'm sure you can get by shooting at 30fps, if you have the talent of a Kubrick that is ;) (jk)

July 9th, 2009, 11:09 AM	#44
Jim Snow Trustee Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Santa Clara, CA Posts: 1,104	I find it interesting that "in the day" of film, producers did everything they could to reduce the 24 frame/sec. flicker in films. A lot of effort was put into projector technology to reduce the flicker. But now, some do everything they can to put the "look" back in. I can't argue with the "artistic" aspect of 24P. To each their own. There are other techniques such as black and white that are also used to achieve a look/mood. I prefer 60i but I'm not a 60i missionary. I enjoy seeing really good work regardless of the frame rate used by the creator.

July 9th, 2009, 10:42 PM	#45
Kevin Duffey Major Player Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: California Posts: 206	Possibly a stupid question..but you can convert 30p to 24p by simply removing 1 frame every 6 can't you? I ask because.. if that effectively converts 30p to 24p, then I don't see why 24p would go away anytime soon. That said, I thought the main reason for recording in 24p these days was to get a sort of movie-like look to the recording... but you can do that in post production anyway whether 24p or 30p was recorded.