Is 24p on its way out ?

[Chris Barcellos]

So I know 24p has a more filmic feel to it. I have used it often. Of course that filmic feel is based on the movie goers' prior experiences. I am wondering though, that with the proliferation of digital cinema and the advent of computer film techigues and digital projection, if the idea we have to shoot in 24p for "film out" purposes is even an issue any more. Moreover, with the digital generation now becomming the primary film consumers, is that consumer even impressed by 24p. In fact, that generation seems to be more impressed with razor sharp images, and clean motion imaging.

This comes up because I am now shooting the Canon 5D Mark II, which is only 30p, but that can shoot otherwise filmic images using the benefits of full frame 35mm technology. There is a clamor with those owners to try to get Canon to update the cameras through firmware to include 24p, and I wonder if that is still the future of film....

[David C. Williams]

24P will probably stay around for a long time simply as an artistic choice. Once the vast majority of commercial cinemas worldwide convert to digital projection, the primary reason for 24P's existence in the first place, to save on film stock, will be gone. Then you will start to see a lot of experimentation in speeds, even within the same film depending on the scene.

[Tripp Woelfel]

Originally Posted by David C. Williams

Once the vast majority of commercial cinemas worldwide convert to digital projection, the primary reason for 24P's existence in the first place, to save on film stock, will be gone.

If you only consider certain delivery mechanisms, that makes sense. However my exceedingly fuzzy crystal ball sees Web delivery of content looming large in the future. Within that context, the age old reason for 24p still exists, but this time it's going to save bandwidth.

I'd say 24p will be around for quite a while. But don't listen to me. I'm just an old pillock.

[David C. Williams]

Some clear thinking for an old pillock :) It didn't occur to me in this context.

It's definitely a current consideration for most countries, but many like Japan and Scandinavia have far superior data infrastructure to private homes. They already have the capacity for cheap full HD on demand. The technology is there, it just needs to cheaper, and then that hurdle is gone too.

[David W. Jones]

90% of my work is TV commercials.
I use 60i / 30p / 24p depending on the content and look I am trying to achieve.
I don't see 24p going away any time soon, just like I don't see 480i, AKA standard Def going away any time soon.

[Tripp Woelfel]

Thanks David C.

The whole available bandwidth for media issue is both interesting and complex, at least to me. In the US, cable TV companies are instituting monthly caps on file downloads to battle torrent users who they insist are consuming more than their fair share of bandwidth. I see this eventually being at odds with the trend toward web based VOD via Hulu, Netflix and others. It'll be interesting to watch it resolve but 24p is one way to mitigate potential issues here.

From the hosting side, 24p requires less space and bandwidth to serve. Again, there's a cost element to it. I cannot quantify it but it's there.

All things considered, I'm of a mind that all existing formats will keep on keepin' on for the foreseeable future because in some place, in some way, it just works for somebody creating content.

[Tom Koveleskie]

Just saw a few threads where some folks seem to be bashing achieving a film look with video. The film look isn't going anywhere soon. I have seen productions where it was really hard to tell the difference which it was, film or video. And really, did I care? Of course film has a high dynamic range, no argument there. But how much resolution do you need to tell an acceptable and engaging story? There is a huge difference between the look of 24fps film and stark reality video. It's the motion that separates the two in the first place. That is why people are trying to achieve the film look. Video motion is boring, and reality video ala daytime soap operas is a prime example. There are many other factors involved such as sculpted lighting, good cinematography and composition to really have the complete package. I hate the stark video look and I for one don't think it will ever be accepted by the general public. As high resolution cinema cameras evolve, it may well replace film. But it will be also closer to emulating film and of course much cheaper.

[Bradley Groot]

I'm relatively young and getting into video production and I simply have no interest in ever working in 24p, I can not even conceive of a situation that it would any way benifit me to have a frame rate that is 24.

24p has always been dead as far as digital is concerned, I'd say well over 90% of the people shooting in 24p on a digital format do it out of pure ignorance. 24p will only stay around as long as confused hobbiests keep buying DV cameras.

there is simply no situation where if your content is being displayed on a televison or a computer monitor that it would benifit from 24p. Nothing you can buy at best buy displays in 24p, nothing. Why would I use or even work in a format that cannot be properly displayed by 99.999% of the video viewing population.

Also 24p will never be used to conserve bandwidth, everything is 30 or 60fps that's not going to change. Data infastructure is only getting better and if they haven't had a need for 24p yet then they never will. if you need to conserve bandwidth you simply lower the resolution or increase compression. 24p only makes sense when you are dealing with large quanities of phsycial exposable film.

[Tripp Woelfel]

Interesting...

Originally Posted by Bradley Groot

Also 24p will never be used to conserve bandwidth...

It was and is. Vimeo originally only supported 24p. Bandwidth conservation has always been a consideration in delivering content over the internet. From the first graphical pages posted on the Web to video on demand, producers have and do consider the connection speeds and the ones wanting to reach the widest audiences design with the low speed connections in mind. I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Bradley Groot

I'm relatively young and getting into video production and I simply have no interest in ever working in 24p, I can not even conceive of a situation that it would any way benifit me to have a frame rate that is 24.

How about for theatrical distribution of your film and the necessity of flimout.

24p has always been dead as far as digital is concerned, I'd say well over 90% of the people shooting in 24p on a digital format do it out of pure ignorance. 24p will only stay around as long as confused hobbiests keep buying DV cameras.

Are you saying films like Slumdog Millionaire and gear like Red Cameras are bought by ignorant hobbiest. 24p is the the current reality of theatrical release, my post here is to determine if things are going to change.

there is simply no situation where if your content is being displayed on a televison or a computer monitor that it would benifit from 24p. Nothing you can buy at best buy displays in 24p, nothing. Why would I use or even work in a format that cannot be properly displayed by 99.999% of the video viewing population.

I assume you are arguing that adding pulldown to 24p strips the 24p film of the filmic quality many associate with 24p. I would disagree.

Also 24p will never be used to conserve bandwidth, everything is 30 or 60fps that's not going to change. Data infastructure is only getting better and if they haven't had a need for 24p yet then they never will. if you need to conserve bandwidth you simply lower the resolution or increase compression. 24p only makes sense when you are dealing with large quanities of phsycial exposable film.

In early days, 15 fps was the norm....

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by Tripp Woelfel

It was and is. Vimeo originally only supported 24p. Bandwidth conservation has always been a consideration in delivering content over the internet.

I just noticed this message. Wow, that's a great change. I was having a rough time converting my 720p60 to 720p24. The jitter was driving me nuts.

[Jeff Kellam]

Chris:

I think the poster who said that future movies will feature a multitude of frame rates was dead on.

I think future films may go to a faster cadence like 30P or faster, but the frame rates could vary depending on whats going on. We already see this in lots of shows. If you don't have the faster cadence, I don't see how shots in 60P for instance would work.

The Panasonic cameras with widely variable frame rates (2 to 40 FPS) have really opened the door to effects shots. You can easily spot the really slow frame rates on television shows and know it's a Panasonic camera.

We experimented with 18FPS in a 30P wrapper to give a 8mm film look, but it did not look good IMO.

[Kelly Goden]

Its very unlikely it will change for animation. You dont want to be animating at 30 or 40 or 50 frames per second in 2d or stop motion.
Even for cg training, its much more convenient to teach someone how to do a walk cycle off a 24 fps cycle.

I dont think FX artists would want to do frame by frame rotoscoping on a 60 fps film.

[George Butterfield]

for true artists 24p is lame .... for the sheep it is a crutch.
24p's days are numbered.

Use the new tools. Be creative!

[Jeff Kellam]

Originally Posted by Kelly Goden

Its very unlikely it will change for animation. You dont want to be animating at 30 or 40 or 50 frames per second in 2d or stop motion.
Even for cg training, its much more convenient to teach someone how to do a walk cycle off a 24 fps cycle.

I dont think FX artists would want to do frame by frame rotoscoping on a 60 fps film.

Yep, I can understand that.

However, I think the package cadence could increase, just the frame rate in that case would still be 24 FPS.