Is 24p dying?

Ron Mathews · July 5th, 2005, 11:49 AM

After 30 years plus in this business I can tell you that getting a film look with a video camera use to be near impossible. Now it's standard. When I first moved from film to video in the late 70's it was speed, not quality that counted and as of today, I'm still not sure where that argument is. I love the "Look" of film and did everything I could to beat my video cameras down including loading ND6 filters to force the lens open and create depth of field.
Today my starting point is 30P and I adjust from there. The look is very good and if i'm not going to film during the life of a project, 24P isn't necessary and IMHO, not worth the production considerations, ie. pan speed and image shutter. If I want reality TV I can go to 60i and bump the shutter speed.

Simon Wyndham · July 5th, 2005, 12:04 PM

Ash, 24p is the biggest part of film look. As has been said many times in different threads, an old 8mm or 16mm home cine movie doesn't look like video just because it hasn't got shallow DOF, or feature film style lighting etc.

What you are referring to is the 'high end' look, not the film look.

Patrick Jenkins · July 5th, 2005, 12:55 PM

Agreed.

Movie look is production quality... lights, audio, technique, writing, drama/action, color/grading, etc etc.

Film look is just progressive vs. interlaced (to get roughly 1/2 of the speed of the other). If you disagree with that, just deinterlace a 60i DV stream to 30p and marvel at the film-like chop. If you can't see it, your eyes aren't as good as they should be ;-)

Representation: Video = faster, Film = slower.

$.02

Evan Strobel · July 9th, 2005, 12:45 AM

I feel that frame rate isn't really that important. I think it's D.O.F.

Maybe it's just opinion. eh. I'm tired
forget it.

heh.

Charles Papert · July 9th, 2005, 10:57 AM

Number one most popular debate on DVInfo.net in the past two years: which is most important factor in creating a film look: frame rate or depth of field?

My vote has always been frame rate--I started using a frame store to create a 30 fps look in the late 80's and Filmlook (the original 24p process that all current cameras license) a few years later, and I've never looked back. To me, 24p with all the depth of focus in the world is much more film-like than 60i with shallow focus (which I think looks odd, frankly).

I am however open to the notion that over the next generation, a new aesthetic will become acceptable and preferred.

Richard Alvarez · July 9th, 2005, 11:27 AM

Charles comment "over the next generation, a new aesthetic will become accepted and preferred" is the key comment in all discussions about video/film aesthetics.

I've always argued that the aesthetics of documentary/ENG production have become increasingly absorbed into the aesthetics of narrative filmmaking. This started with smaller, lighter, 'faster', single system film cams that inspired cinema verite' - and continues with mini-dv docs and films.

So called 'reality' shows which emmulate documentary style with a narrative film structure, and the general widespread tolerance for 'shaky cam' images - to the point of acceptance - has certainly altered the aesthetic.

No question that the classic 'film look' will eventuallly be superceded by a generation that grew up watching and shooting video instead of film. And in my best guess... THAT generation is being born right about now.

So figure it's about thirty years away.

Charles Papert · July 9th, 2005, 11:36 AM

Indeedly--the last feature I operated was initially planned to be 90% handheld, although the setups themselves were classically composed and the script was standard romantic comedy. After it was discovered that while the director liked the activity around the frame while we were standing still (shouldering 45 lb Panaflexes with overhead suspension body mounts), she didn't care for the look when we had to take a couple of steps. Most of the setups became dolly-mounted with a simulation of handheld created on the head. Even during the most elegant of crane shots, when the camera came to a stop I would have to wiggle the wheels to keep a little bit of movement in the frame. I for one will be looking forward to the current "handheld is cool" trend to pass on to the next thing. Had a hard time watching "The Bourne Supremacy" in the theatre.

James Darren · July 9th, 2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Had a hard time watching "The Bourne Supremacy" in the theatre.

me too Charles.. found it difficult to watch, especially the beginning where hes being chased in the car.....

I too also agree that frame rate is the key to the so called "film look" on video (I also think shooting actual film produces a great film look too.. I know, sounds crazy doesn't it..)

Remembering that not every shot in a feature film is a close up with shallow DOF, wide shots are also used too...

Richard Alvarez · July 9th, 2005, 12:45 PM

Charles,

Maybe it's a generational thing, maybe it's because I started as a studio cameraman in television a gazillion years ago...

But when I see shaky cam footage, I always think that I am "watching the scene through a viewfinder" which translates to news footage or home movie footage in my sub-concious. It tends to remove me from a narrative storytelling environement.

I'm not an advocate of static shots by any means. Like I said, it's probably a remnant of my former job mentality, but SMOOTH, FLUID moves on a dolly, crane or steady cam, help to emphasize story, action or even dialogue. Shaky cam moves, to me, make me think I am hand-holding a camera.

I used to think that it was a thought that occured to only those of us who spent hours looking through a viewfinder. But with home video so widespread by now, I sometimes wonder if the 'general public' doesn't find that trend more 'natural'? Simply because that's the way 'reality' looks to them through a viefinder???

Ash Greyson · July 9th, 2005, 04:40 PM

My comment is not directed at the Charles Papert's of the world but rather the majority of people on these forums who are still learning the craft. I would say 90% of the 24P stuff I see has terrible production values. I guess the argument comes down to "film look" versus "looks like a film" two very very different things IMHO.

I think something will look more like A film if it is properly framed, shot, lit, exposed, CCed, controlled DOF, etc. etc. etc. To me 24P is the LAST step, not the FIRST as it has become for most.

I use 24P in many cases but it is always for a purpose, just like a shutter, etc. If you want something to be more cinematic and it is to be shot with smoother motions, cranes, dolly shots, steadicam and/or with a shallow DOF, this accentuates the 24P look.

I just dont think you can take anything you are shooting, turn the dial to 24P and suddenly it looks like film... As noted above, I think most the 24P I see gives me the feeling that "this was shot on a DVX/XL2 in 24P mode" not a feeling like "this was shot on film."

ash =o)

Ash Greyson · July 9th, 2005, 04:43 PM

One more thing... I will not argue for a second that 24P is the ONE element of looking like film that cannot be overcome with great production values however... I would say that 60i with good production value will outshine 24P with average production value...

ash =o)

Kyle Edwards · July 9th, 2005, 05:11 PM

I do not see how you think 24p is dying because you saw one program and you thought it one scene looked blurred. Maybe they did it on purpose to show motion better, maybe there was a problem with the scene, maybe the camera they used didn't have the right setting when they were filming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Coughlin

60 fps would be a horrible frame rate; the human eye can only see about 30 fps and the rest is just blurred.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Gurvich

60 frames a second has been done in the 70s by some guy and it didnt work.
because allegedly the motion looked too much like video.

Do you remember which person this was and what he was trying to do? Was it for movie theaters? I'd like to look into it.

Dave Largent · July 9th, 2005, 05:53 PM

Which DV cameras do true 30P? I think the DVX100
does, and one of the 1CCCD cams does.

Ash Greyson · July 9th, 2005, 09:38 PM

The XL2 does great looking 30P... the issue with that frame rate right now is that it doesnt transfer well.... if you ever wanted to go to PAL or film 30P is problematic...

ash =o)

Evan Strobel · July 9th, 2005, 11:13 PM

what exactly does all that mean? Why can't you print 30 frames to film? or "transfer" I should say.

(Look at me, the poor little n00b.)

July 5th, 2005, 11:49 AM	#16
Ron Mathews Tourist Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1	Be happy with the options After 30 years plus in this business I can tell you that getting a film look with a video camera use to be near impossible. Now it's standard. When I first moved from film to video in the late 70's it was speed, not quality that counted and as of today, I'm still not sure where that argument is. I love the "Look" of film and did everything I could to beat my video cameras down including loading ND6 filters to force the lens open and create depth of field. Today my starting point is 30P and I adjust from there. The look is very good and if i'm not going to film during the life of a project, 24P isn't necessary and IMHO, not worth the production considerations, ie. pan speed and image shutter. If I want reality TV I can go to 60i and bump the shutter speed.

July 5th, 2005, 12:55 PM	#18
Patrick Jenkins Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 382	Agreed. Movie look is production quality... lights, audio, technique, writing, drama/action, color/grading, etc etc. Film look is just progressive vs. interlaced (to get roughly 1/2 of the speed of the other). If you disagree with that, just deinterlace a 60i DV stream to 30p and marvel at the film-like chop. If you can't see it, your eyes aren't as good as they should be ;-) Representation: Video = faster, Film = slower. $.02 __________________ PAL shooter in NTSC territory

July 9th, 2005, 10:57 AM	#20
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Number one most popular debate on DVInfo.net in the past two years: which is most important factor in creating a film look: frame rate or depth of field? My vote has always been frame rate--I started using a frame store to create a 30 fps look in the late 80's and Filmlook (the original 24p process that all current cameras license) a few years later, and I've never looked back. To me, 24p with all the depth of focus in the world is much more film-like than 60i with shallow focus (which I think looks odd, frankly). I am however open to the notion that over the next generation, a new aesthetic will become acceptable and preferred. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 9th, 2005, 11:36 AM	#22
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Indeedly--the last feature I operated was initially planned to be 90% handheld, although the setups themselves were classically composed and the script was standard romantic comedy. After it was discovered that while the director liked the activity around the frame while we were standing still (shouldering 45 lb Panaflexes with overhead suspension body mounts), she didn't care for the look when we had to take a couple of steps. Most of the setups became dolly-mounted with a simulation of handheld created on the head. Even during the most elegant of crane shots, when the camera came to a stop I would have to wiggle the wheels to keep a little bit of movement in the frame. I for one will be looking forward to the current "handheld is cool" trend to pass on to the next thing. Had a hard time watching "The Bourne Supremacy" in the theatre. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 5th, 2005, 12:04 PM	#17
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Ash, 24p is the biggest part of film look. As has been said many times in different threads, an old 8mm or 16mm home cine movie doesn't look like video just because it hasn't got shallow DOF, or feature film style lighting etc. What you are referring to is the 'high end' look, not the film look.

July 9th, 2005, 12:45 AM	#19
Evan Strobel Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 26	I feel that frame rate isn't really that important. I think it's D.O.F. Maybe it's just opinion. eh. I'm tired forget it. heh.

July 9th, 2005, 11:27 AM	#21
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Charles comment "over the next generation, a new aesthetic will become accepted and preferred" is the key comment in all discussions about video/film aesthetics. I've always argued that the aesthetics of documentary/ENG production have become increasingly absorbed into the aesthetics of narrative filmmaking. This started with smaller, lighter, 'faster', single system film cams that inspired cinema verite' - and continues with mini-dv docs and films. So called 'reality' shows which emmulate documentary style with a narrative film structure, and the general widespread tolerance for 'shaky cam' images - to the point of acceptance - has certainly altered the aesthetic. No question that the classic 'film look' will eventuallly be superceded by a generation that grew up watching and shooting video instead of film. And in my best guess... THAT generation is being born right about now. So figure it's about thirty years away.

July 9th, 2005, 12:45 PM	#24
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Charles, Maybe it's a generational thing, maybe it's because I started as a studio cameraman in television a gazillion years ago... But when I see shaky cam footage, I always think that I am "watching the scene through a viewfinder" which translates to news footage or home movie footage in my sub-concious. It tends to remove me from a narrative storytelling environement. I'm not an advocate of static shots by any means. Like I said, it's probably a remnant of my former job mentality, but SMOOTH, FLUID moves on a dolly, crane or steady cam, help to emphasize story, action or even dialogue. Shaky cam moves, to me, make me think I am hand-holding a camera. I used to think that it was a thought that occured to only those of us who spent hours looking through a viewfinder. But with home video so widespread by now, I sometimes wonder if the 'general public' doesn't find that trend more 'natural'? Simply because that's the way 'reality' looks to them through a viefinder???

July 9th, 2005, 04:40 PM	#25
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	My comment is not directed at the Charles Papert's of the world but rather the majority of people on these forums who are still learning the craft. I would say 90% of the 24P stuff I see has terrible production values. I guess the argument comes down to "film look" versus "looks like a film" two very very different things IMHO. I think something will look more like A film if it is properly framed, shot, lit, exposed, CCed, controlled DOF, etc. etc. etc. To me 24P is the LAST step, not the FIRST as it has become for most. I use 24P in many cases but it is always for a purpose, just like a shutter, etc. If you want something to be more cinematic and it is to be shot with smoother motions, cranes, dolly shots, steadicam and/or with a shallow DOF, this accentuates the 24P look. I just dont think you can take anything you are shooting, turn the dial to 24P and suddenly it looks like film... As noted above, I think most the 24P I see gives me the feeling that "this was shot on a DVX/XL2 in 24P mode" not a feeling like "this was shot on film." ash =o)

July 9th, 2005, 04:43 PM	#26
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	One more thing... I will not argue for a second that 24P is the ONE element of looking like film that cannot be overcome with great production values however... I would say that 60i with good production value will outshine 24P with average production value... ash =o)

July 9th, 2005, 05:53 PM	#28
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Which DV cameras do true 30P? I think the DVX100 does, and one of the 1CCCD cams does.

July 9th, 2005, 09:38 PM	#29
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	The XL2 does great looking 30P... the issue with that frame rate right now is that it doesnt transfer well.... if you ever wanted to go to PAL or film 30P is problematic... ash =o)

July 9th, 2005, 11:13 PM	#30
Evan Strobel Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 26	what exactly does all that mean? Why can't you print 30 frames to film? or "transfer" I should say. (Look at me, the poor little n00b.)