Is 24p dying?

Tommy James · July 10th, 2005, 04:13 AM

The JVC HD 10 high definition video camera does 30 progressive frames per secound in high definition. It also does 60 progressive frames per secound in standard definition. I never intended to suggest that interlace video would replace progressive video but rather that the new trend is to achieve the full 60 progressive frames per secound. The Cannon XL2 and the Panasonic DVX100 cannot capture 60 progressive frames per secound in standard definition nor can they capture 24p or 30p in high definition so both cameras are obsolete

Dave Largent · July 10th, 2005, 04:40 AM

Anyone know which 1CCD models do true 30P?

Patrick King · July 10th, 2005, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy James

The Cannon XL2 and the Panasonic DVX100 cannot capture 60 progressive frames per secound in standard definition nor can they capture 24p or 30p in high definition so both cameras are obsolete

Yeah, but then you've got that whole 720p is obsolete because 1080p is out. I think obsolete is a little strong because that indicates "an object is no longer wanted even though it is in working order" or "a design is no longer being produced". Neither of which is true as seen by the current pricing and sales of DVX and XL2s at B&H and EVS Online. Although...are they still making those JVC HD10 cams? ; )

Ash Greyson · July 10th, 2005, 01:10 PM

30P does not have the interlacing that they use in the process of converting to film or PAL... that doesnt mean someone cant come up with a new process, but for now, it is not optimum...

As far as the silly comment by Tommy, it only reflects his ignorance of the marketplace and technology in general. Do you even know what obsolete means? The camera you reference is a home consumer camera! It is only 1 CCD, does that make it obsolete? You sound like a fanboy for that camera and the fact that it is missing 24P must mean it is dead. Think about how ludicrous your statements are... right now the delivery methods are 60i and 24P, that is for every movie theater and every TV station and every movie in DVD/VHS... wow, I guess 99% of the world's media is obsolete.

I own 3 HDTVs but I am the rare exception. SDTVs outnumber HDTVs by a HUGE margin, are they all obsolete? Is 20/20 an obsolete program because the broadcast in SD? Right now even the major networks have no more than about 15% of their broadcast day in HD and down the dial? Forget about it...

If you think the XL2 and DVX are dead and obsolete you clearly do not use one and have not seen the incredible work people are creating with them.

ash =o)

Sig Wong · July 10th, 2005, 04:35 PM

DVX100 and XL2 obsolete? I dont even know what to think of that. If you were to read pretty much any videography publication or forum you will see that these two cameras are far from out, even in more professional work. The summer 2005 issue of Videography Magazine, they have articles on two productions both using the DVX100A: Mad Hot Balroom and Rock School. Both are pretty damn professional.

How can you say that the high-end SD camrea is obsolete? The affordable HD cams don't even meet ATSC standards for HD. And thats not even looking at the marketshare side of things. If you make an HD production, you had better also have an SD version of it as well. HD is on the rise, but it is by no means there yet, at least not for prosumers.

And besides, the ability to tell a story is what makes a movie. Not the ability to get high production values. (Granted, the prodcution has to be good enough for the story to be told effectively...)

That being said, 24p is not dead. Professional photographers still use black and white for some things. Are they stuck in the past? No, but the black and white is an artistic decision.

Javier Gallen · July 15th, 2005, 05:40 AM

Quote:

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.

As far as I know there's a few hollywood productions shoot at 30fps and 24fps simultaniously like "Around the World in Eighty Days" (1956). Depending on the projector's thater, a 30fps or 24fps version was seen.

Go beyond 30fps in a movie it's not a good idea. Watching a 60fps footage in big screen makes people feel sick. Anyone at home with a videoprojector could be able to check this. A simple pan running at 50 or 60fps in a big screen makes feel sick anybody.

Charles Papert · July 15th, 2005, 11:36 AM

Javier:

I'm not following you on this--60 fps is the same amount of information as 60i video, and there's no reason for people to find that "sickening". Non-dramatic perhaps,but that's another discussion...

The issue with pans that you mentioned would, I'm guessing, be strobing, which goes away at higher frame rates. It's much more of an issue with 24 fps.

Ash Greyson · July 15th, 2005, 11:43 AM

Actually I would think 60fps would make people LESS sick as it would, as Charles stated, smooth out the motion. It may begin to look like a soap opera... so I guess in that way, it could make you sick =o)

ash =o)

Dave Largent · July 15th, 2005, 12:00 PM

So what does 60P look like? Does it have that
reality TV/COPS video look?

Javier Gallen · July 15th, 2005, 05:14 PM

None understood me.

I insist. Please, watch a 60p (or 60i) in a big screen (at Futuroscope for example), or with a home projector with a theather like screen size (it means, big screen and close to it). After that, let's talk.

Is not the same thing playing a few hours first person shooter pc videogame running at +50fps, than 15-30fps. Any hardcore gamer can tell you, that the higher frame rate, the smothness movement, but you're gonna start to feel sick after an hour with a 19" monitor. Still, they prefer higher framerates because gives more acuracy.

The "sickness" of higher framerates on big screens is not from my own. People who worked with that frame speeds knows that the way they have to shoot has to be complete diferent in order to not disturb the audience. Same thing happened with IMAX films. If anyone saw the Matrix Reloaded IMAX version should know what i'm talking about: mostly unwatchable. Obiously, it wasn't shoot keeping IMAX in mind.

So, if a "tiny update" like 60fps, goes to a cinema standard, the way of making movies is gonna change drastically.

Javier Gallen · July 15th, 2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

It may begin to look like a soap opera... so I guess in that way, it could make you sick

Wrong.

Imagine an opera with pans and camera shakes smooth as you eyes can see. Trust me, you're gonna be sick.

Quote:

So what does 60P look like? Does it have that
reality TV/COPS video look?

Looks like a movie with Phillip's Natural Motion filter ON (filter of some Phillips Televisions that creates new frames, making movies look like "makings").

Also, you can try Intervideo's WinDVD. It has a filter that works mostly like Natural Motion.

Tommy James · July 15th, 2005, 05:54 PM

When you look at the real professionals like George Lucas do you think he would shoot star wars in standard definition ? George Lucas uses high definition video to shoot his movies. And look at Mel Gibson when the Passion of the Christ was released in video Mel Gibson made sure that a high definition copy in D-VHS was also released. Now thats professional. And look at Arnold Schwarznegger who released the Terminator 2 Extreme DVD in high definition.

Charles Papert · July 15th, 2005, 06:18 PM

Tommy, Arnold is a little busy running the state of California to be choosing release formats for the films he acted in.

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that the other two gents (the ones that are actually filmmakers) are playing in a pool where the choice of format has nothing to do with economics. Lucas could shoot 35mm, but he opts to shoot HD. Many productions would like to shoot 35mm, but they can only afford HD. That's a whole different ball of wax. Just as many DV filmmakers can't afford to drop their current cameras and dive into HDV just yet; that doesn't make the cameras obsolete or incapable of shooting a great film.

Professionalism has nothing to do with shooting formats. Being a professional means you are paid to do what you do. And even if you aren't, you can act like a professional or produce professional-looking material, regardless of the number of lines of resolution.

Material with poor production values (bad sound, lighting, blocking, editing) could be referred to as looking unprofessional. A beautiful looking film shot in SD is unlikely to be deemed unprofessional--a distributor may have concerns about the medium, but they wouldn't use that terminology.

Leo Bodnar · July 17th, 2005, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Javier Gallen

None understood me.

Javier, you have brought up an excellent point! We do understand you.

Get 100 people to read a book in a fast moving car. Most will feel sick. This is what sitting in a cinema with high frame rate would be. As real as it can get. And the number of big TV screens at homes is growing. Bigger resolution and frame rate is not necessarily better. Too much details both spacially and temporally. Nobody blames great artists for not painting high enough resolution paintings. What happens is unnecessary details got filtered out by the artist. In film this temporal filtration happens naturally. Are we sure we want more details? Do you want "higher resolution" news about people being killed with all the details? I don't. Low res is bad enough. And this is a psychological rejection, not technical.

I think low frame rate was a technological decision but it has much more behind it than most think.

Ash Greyson · July 17th, 2005, 09:26 PM

Not so fast my friends... Sorry but comparing watching a movie on a TV screen to playing a video games with MASSIVE non-stop motion in a 1st person environment when you are sitting 2 feet away is APPLES and ORANGES. The same to be said for IMAX, which INTENDS to bring you into the experience. 24P would make those people just as sick, if not more. There are, in fact, guidelines one should use in 24P in regards to motion. There are many people who claim that The Bourne Supremacy made them sick...

I dont think 24P is dead, I dont think this is the year of HD, I dont think that SD is obsolete and I dont think most people will ever know or care anyway! The truth is, that good CONTENT will usurp the format on which it is delivered.

ash =o)

July 15th, 2005, 11:36 AM	#37
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Javier: I'm not following you on this--60 fps is the same amount of information as 60i video, and there's no reason for people to find that "sickening". Non-dramatic perhaps,but that's another discussion... The issue with pans that you mentioned would, I'm guessing, be strobing, which goes away at higher frame rates. It's much more of an issue with 24 fps. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 15th, 2005, 06:18 PM	#43
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Tommy, Arnold is a little busy running the state of California to be choosing release formats for the films he acted in. Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that the other two gents (the ones that are actually filmmakers) are playing in a pool where the choice of format has nothing to do with economics. Lucas could shoot 35mm, but he opts to shoot HD. Many productions would like to shoot 35mm, but they can only afford HD. That's a whole different ball of wax. Just as many DV filmmakers can't afford to drop their current cameras and dive into HDV just yet; that doesn't make the cameras obsolete or incapable of shooting a great film. Professionalism has nothing to do with shooting formats. Being a professional means you are paid to do what you do. And even if you aren't, you can act like a professional or produce professional-looking material, regardless of the number of lines of resolution. Material with poor production values (bad sound, lighting, blocking, editing) could be referred to as looking unprofessional. A beautiful looking film shot in SD is unlikely to be deemed unprofessional--a distributor may have concerns about the medium, but they wouldn't use that terminology. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 10th, 2005, 04:13 AM	#31
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	The JVC HD 10 high definition video camera does 30 progressive frames per secound in high definition. It also does 60 progressive frames per secound in standard definition. I never intended to suggest that interlace video would replace progressive video but rather that the new trend is to achieve the full 60 progressive frames per secound. The Cannon XL2 and the Panasonic DVX100 cannot capture 60 progressive frames per secound in standard definition nor can they capture 24p or 30p in high definition so both cameras are obsolete

July 10th, 2005, 04:40 AM	#32
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Anyone know which 1CCD models do true 30P?

July 10th, 2005, 01:10 PM	#34
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	30P does not have the interlacing that they use in the process of converting to film or PAL... that doesnt mean someone cant come up with a new process, but for now, it is not optimum... As far as the silly comment by Tommy, it only reflects his ignorance of the marketplace and technology in general. Do you even know what obsolete means? The camera you reference is a home consumer camera! It is only 1 CCD, does that make it obsolete? You sound like a fanboy for that camera and the fact that it is missing 24P must mean it is dead. Think about how ludicrous your statements are... right now the delivery methods are 60i and 24P, that is for every movie theater and every TV station and every movie in DVD/VHS... wow, I guess 99% of the world's media is obsolete. I own 3 HDTVs but I am the rare exception. SDTVs outnumber HDTVs by a HUGE margin, are they all obsolete? Is 20/20 an obsolete program because the broadcast in SD? Right now even the major networks have no more than about 15% of their broadcast day in HD and down the dial? Forget about it... If you think the XL2 and DVX are dead and obsolete you clearly do not use one and have not seen the incredible work people are creating with them. ash =o)

July 10th, 2005, 04:35 PM	#35
Sig Wong Tourist Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3	DVX100 and XL2 obsolete? I dont even know what to think of that. If you were to read pretty much any videography publication or forum you will see that these two cameras are far from out, even in more professional work. The summer 2005 issue of Videography Magazine, they have articles on two productions both using the DVX100A: Mad Hot Balroom and Rock School. Both are pretty damn professional. How can you say that the high-end SD camrea is obsolete? The affordable HD cams don't even meet ATSC standards for HD. And thats not even looking at the marketshare side of things. If you make an HD production, you had better also have an SD version of it as well. HD is on the rise, but it is by no means there yet, at least not for prosumers. And besides, the ability to tell a story is what makes a movie. Not the ability to get high production values. (Granted, the prodcution has to be good enough for the story to be told effectively...) That being said, 24p is not dead. Professional photographers still use black and white for some things. Are they stuck in the past? No, but the black and white is an artistic decision.

July 15th, 2005, 11:43 AM	#38
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Actually I would think 60fps would make people LESS sick as it would, as Charles stated, smooth out the motion. It may begin to look like a soap opera... so I guess in that way, it could make you sick =o) ash =o)

July 15th, 2005, 12:00 PM	#39
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	So what does 60P look like? Does it have that reality TV/COPS video look?

July 15th, 2005, 05:14 PM	#40
Javier Gallen Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Spain Posts: 67	None understood me. I insist. Please, watch a 60p (or 60i) in a big screen (at Futuroscope for example), or with a home projector with a theather like screen size (it means, big screen and close to it). After that, let's talk. Is not the same thing playing a few hours first person shooter pc videogame running at +50fps, than 15-30fps. Any hardcore gamer can tell you, that the higher frame rate, the smothness movement, but you're gonna start to feel sick after an hour with a 19" monitor. Still, they prefer higher framerates because gives more acuracy. The "sickness" of higher framerates on big screens is not from my own. People who worked with that frame speeds knows that the way they have to shoot has to be complete diferent in order to not disturb the audience. Same thing happened with IMAX films. If anyone saw the Matrix Reloaded IMAX version should know what i'm talking about: mostly unwatchable. Obiously, it wasn't shoot keeping IMAX in mind. So, if a "tiny update" like 60fps, goes to a cinema standard, the way of making movies is gonna change drastically.

July 15th, 2005, 05:54 PM	#42
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	When you look at the real professionals like George Lucas do you think he would shoot star wars in standard definition ? George Lucas uses high definition video to shoot his movies. And look at Mel Gibson when the Passion of the Christ was released in video Mel Gibson made sure that a high definition copy in D-VHS was also released. Now thats professional. And look at Arnold Schwarznegger who released the Terminator 2 Extreme DVD in high definition.

July 17th, 2005, 09:26 PM	#45
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Not so fast my friends... Sorry but comparing watching a movie on a TV screen to playing a video games with MASSIVE non-stop motion in a 1st person environment when you are sitting 2 feet away is APPLES and ORANGES. The same to be said for IMAX, which INTENDS to bring you into the experience. 24P would make those people just as sick, if not more. There are, in fact, guidelines one should use in 24P in regards to motion. There are many people who claim that The Bourne Supremacy made them sick... I dont think 24P is dead, I dont think this is the year of HD, I dont think that SD is obsolete and I dont think most people will ever know or care anyway! The truth is, that good CONTENT will usurp the format on which it is delivered. ash =o)