Is 24p dying?

David Jimerson · July 18th, 2005, 09:28 AM

I’m not going to change any minds here, of course . . .

But every time I do a session on the difference between 60i and 24p, show a well-lit and composed shot in 60i, and then show the SAME shot in 24p, I always get at least a few gasps.

People see the difference. People LIKE the difference.

Video in 60i looks like a soap opera. Video in 24p, while you can argue that it’s not a perfect film look, doesn’t look like a soap opera. It looks a lot like film. People get that.

Simon Wyndham · July 18th, 2005, 10:29 AM

Absolutely. I know of one video company that will not touch 25p (I live in PAL land). They abhore it saying it is too jerky etc. The fact is that if something is well shot nobody notices the jerkiness.After all people in cinemas don't complain that the film is jerky.

Often when I am commisioned to make a project I will ask if they want it shot interlaced or progressive. If the client doesn't understand what I am on about I will shot them some example footage of both. Almost without exception they always go for the progressive option! In the UK more and more documentaries, and even some of the current affairs programs are shot in progressive scan mode. It just looks nicer.

Although there is one thing I have mentioned many times, but that doesn't seem to be getting through. Please turn down the edge enhancement on your cameras! You get a more pleasing image, and it minimises the judder (24p video appears to judder more than 24fps film because video is better at showing detail in the mid-range frequencies that make up the bulk of the picture).

Patrick Jenkins · July 18th, 2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Largent

Anyone know which 1CCD models do true 30P?

The JVC HD1/10 are the only 1 chip cameras (currently available - original Opturas are old) that do 30P.

David Jimerson · July 18th, 2005, 06:21 PM

But then, you don't want to completely eliminate the judder. Judder-free 24p looks very video-ish, much moreso than it should. Video and film are fundamentally different ways of acquiring moving pictures, so you want to err on the side of things which are more like acquiring film images than acquiring video images. You can eliminate judder by having your shutter "open" all the time (1/24 or slower), but then you're shooting more like video, because you're capturing more motion than you should. There needs to be a little staccato to it or it's not going to look as film-like.

Brian K Jones · July 22nd, 2005, 05:29 PM

Tommy, I have to ask...Are you in the business or just an HDTV junkie? I have a problem with some things you have said on this thread. Your actually comparing indie filmmakers with limited budgets to the unlimited means of George Lucas? You think it was Arnold that had anything to do with the T2 release you mentioned? The DVX/XL2 is obsolete? You OBVIOUSLY are very unfamiliar with the facts of this industry and the market of its technology. Yes, HDTV is excellent and an important facet of the future of this industry. But just as importantly, we have the PRESENT that must be addressed as well. Alot of people are doing excellent work with these cameras, and while techies like yourself are always waiting for the next best thing, creative people are out there doing amazing things and telling amazing stories with the good ol' fashioned SD DV cameras that are available today. It is idiotic to think that companies and indies alike need to drop their entire SD workflow today for HD.

Tommy James · July 23rd, 2005, 09:28 AM

Well yes it is indeed possible for an independent filmaker to compete with George Lucas. One must first realize that George Lucas did not start off being a billionaire. One of his first films was THX 1138 and of course it was not a big budget film like Star Wars never the less the it introduced some important concepts of the future with ideas from George Orwell but with an additional component that George Orwell missed and that is that future societies will have robots. The problem with Star Wars was that it was over commercialized and could not have the philisophical depth that the original George Lucas films carried.

That being said George Lucas talks about high definition but has failed to release any of his movies in a high definition video format. An indepedent film producer can compete with George Lucas by offering videos in a high definition format something that George Lucas has failed to do.

When I have said that the Cannon XL-2 is obsolete I did not mean to say that releasing videos in a standard definition format is obsolete. In actuality standard definition will have to be phased out very slowly and we cannot make the jump to high definition overnight. What I meant to say is that capturing video in standard definition is totally obsolete because you are not future proofing your work. The correct way is to shoot in high definition and then release your videos in a 2 DVD set with one DVD in standard definition and a secound DVD in high definition which is playable on most windows XP computers.

When the Wizard of Oz was shot in color future generations apreciated the fact that the film was future proofed and the film had more
investment value even though at the time the additional cost of color production did not make sense. So todays high definition videographers are making an investment in future proofing their work and can avoid depreciation.
And future proofing means a nice retirement nest egg.

On ocassion I will shoot a wedding in high definition even if the clients already have a standard definition videographer. Then I wait ten years and then I release the video if the clients are willing to pay for it. This way I'm building up a pension.

Brian K Jones · July 23rd, 2005, 10:00 AM

(QUOTE) When I have said that the Cannon XL-2 is obsolete I did not mean to say that releasing videos in a standard definition format is obsolete. What I meant to say is that capturing video in standard definition is totally obsolete because you are not future proofing your work. (QUOTE)

Your contradicting yourself here. If you are capturing in SD, obviously you are going to be releasing it in SD. Future-proofing is great, but many couples are just not willing to pay for HD. Period. HD is just not the standard yet. Most clients I talk to have no idea what HD even is, much less how it works. Obviously that will change in the future, but not for a while. Besides, not being a fan of HDV to begin with, I am holding out for better HD options. I feel bad for everyone jumping on the HDV bandwagon, it is just to soon to be investing so heavily in it. That's just my opinion of course.

Tommy James · July 23rd, 2005, 11:37 AM

Well for one thing I would have to agree with you most people will not pay a videographer a dime more for HD but if your into affordable high definition video productions you won't have to charge a dime more.

And it is true most people really don't know what HD is but most people are bombarded with advertising by stores trying to sell high end HD televisions. Many people could actually think that HD is a bunch of bs but come Christmas time those same people will blow thousands of dollars on a new Plasma HDTV. Most people really do not know what HD is but they have a vague idea that its some kind of big screen or flat panel Plasma technology. Many people confuse picture quality with screen size.

But the message that has to be driven home is that HD ready is not an HDTV unless it is feed with an HD signal from a set top box. When you go
"HD BUILT IN" and all you need is an antenna to get that free HDTV signal. Many of the new HD-VHS decks Have HD ATSC tuners built right in so you can pirate those free HD signals right of of the air.

Simon Wyndham · August 3rd, 2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

But then, you don't want to completely eliminate the judder. Judder-free 24p looks very video-ish

I'm not talking about eliminating the judder. Film has a slightly different motion characteristic than straight progressive scan video because of the way it handles detail. I've outlined things more on my website;
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm

Tommy James · August 3rd, 2005, 10:35 AM

Unfortunately the Sony XD cam lacks the resolution to give it the film look unless you call super 8mm the film look. To get the 16mm film look you need a progressive high definition video camera like the JVC GY-HD100. In the UK all owners of Windows XP computers have access and the ability to play high definition video over the internet at this very moment.

Thomas Smet · August 3rd, 2005, 11:19 AM

Simon Wyndham,

I agree with you about the edge enhancement. One of the big contrats between film and video is the sharpness. Video is way too sharp. A lot ofpeople are getting all crazy about the amount of detail in HD but detail isn't everything. A nice clean soft detail image can look a thousand times better than a sharp detailed image.

The reason Hollywood DVD's can get away with such low bitrates is because movies just do not have a useless amount of detail that changes every single pixel. There are other factors of course but detail can quickly make a low bitrate encoding look like garbage.

Visual effects work in Hollywood using HD is a pain because of the massive amount of detail compared to film. Whole new model making methods needed to be created for hand made models to look good on HD.

Makeup is also an issue with HD. HD shows a lot more skin problems because of the extra high detail.

Remember film is an illusion and not meant to mimic reality. We need to stop treating our video like reality if we want it to look like film.

Simon Wyndham · August 3rd, 2005, 11:24 AM

(To Tommy) Really? Guess I must be blind then.

Sarcasm aside, 720p is not much of a leap over 576p (PAL). And since most of my projects go to DVD I know I'd take the XD over a smaller chip camera any day of the week.

Regardless this thread is not a discussion about high def over standard def. It is about filmlook. Unless of course you think that all films that are released onto DVD look like 8mm because they have been converted to standard def DVD's?

You might as well take a look at my upconverts from a not very good video project I worked on. These are converted to 1080p. I can do some 720p ones if you like?

http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algoli...comparison.htm

Simon Wyndham · August 3rd, 2005, 11:26 AM

In addition to my comments above, a colleague of mine is purchasing the new JVC in the coming weeks. As soon as he has I will arrange a direct comparison between it and my xdcam.

I know it is really apples and oranges. But with the number of people who compare the footage from these HDV cams to 100,000 dollar HDCAMs I think it only fair that I compare it to a high end SD cam. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe you will!

Charles Papert · August 3rd, 2005, 11:55 AM

True enough. Tommy, when you refer to "the film look", it's a can of worms. I think we can all agree that 35mm film transferred to NTSC i.e. SD has an indisputable film look, even though it is a 480i image at that point. If, as you have referred to earlier, you are defining film look as what will look good projected in a theater, obviously there are resolution limitations to any SD source material, but if it is really well shot, then I feel it is safe to say that it has a "film look" even if it occasionally falls short on resolution. Case in point was the theatrical print of "28 Days Later"--some shots were distractingly SD-esque but many were beautiful and made it easy to forget we were watching digitally originated material to begin with, let alone older generation DV!

But I would deduce from your collective posts that your point of reference for defining "film look" is overwhelmingly resolution-based over other factors such as lighting, camera movement, composition etc...would you agree?

Ash Greyson · August 3rd, 2005, 02:39 PM

Actually, I think it is much harder to get a film look out of an HD cam. Most HD looks like very clear video. Once Upon a Time in Mexico looked great but again, that is with a very expensive HDCAM. I bet I can come up with a better film look from an XL2 or DVX than from a 1/3"CCD HDV cam...

ash =o)

July 18th, 2005, 09:28 AM	#46
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	I’m not going to change any minds here, of course . . . But every time I do a session on the difference between 60i and 24p, show a well-lit and composed shot in 60i, and then show the SAME shot in 24p, I always get at least a few gasps. People see the difference. People LIKE the difference. Video in 60i looks like a soap opera. Video in 24p, while you can argue that it’s not a perfect film look, doesn’t look like a soap opera. It looks a lot like film. People get that. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

July 18th, 2005, 06:21 PM	#49
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	But then, you don't want to completely eliminate the judder. Judder-free 24p looks very video-ish, much moreso than it should. Video and film are fundamentally different ways of acquiring moving pictures, so you want to err on the side of things which are more like acquiring film images than acquiring video images. You can eliminate judder by having your shutter "open" all the time (1/24 or slower), but then you're shooting more like video, because you're capturing more motion than you should. There needs to be a little staccato to it or it's not going to look as film-like. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

August 3rd, 2005, 11:24 AM	#57
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	(To Tommy) Really? Guess I must be blind then. Sarcasm aside, 720p is not much of a leap over 576p (PAL). And since most of my projects go to DVD I know I'd take the XD over a smaller chip camera any day of the week. Regardless this thread is not a discussion about high def over standard def. It is about filmlook. Unless of course you think that all films that are released onto DVD look like 8mm because they have been converted to standard def DVD's? You might as well take a look at my upconverts from a not very good video project I worked on. These are converted to 1080p. I can do some 720p ones if you like? http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/algoli...comparison.htm Last edited by Simon Wyndham; August 4th, 2005 at 02:22 AM.

August 3rd, 2005, 11:55 AM	#59
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	True enough. Tommy, when you refer to "the film look", it's a can of worms. I think we can all agree that 35mm film transferred to NTSC i.e. SD has an indisputable film look, even though it is a 480i image at that point. If, as you have referred to earlier, you are defining film look as what will look good projected in a theater, obviously there are resolution limitations to any SD source material, but if it is really well shot, then I feel it is safe to say that it has a "film look" even if it occasionally falls short on resolution. Case in point was the theatrical print of "28 Days Later"--some shots were distractingly SD-esque but many were beautiful and made it easy to forget we were watching digitally originated material to begin with, let alone older generation DV! But I would deduce from your collective posts that your point of reference for defining "film look" is overwhelmingly resolution-based over other factors such as lighting, camera movement, composition etc...would you agree? __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 18th, 2005, 10:29 AM	#47
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Absolutely. I know of one video company that will not touch 25p (I live in PAL land). They abhore it saying it is too jerky etc. The fact is that if something is well shot nobody notices the jerkiness.After all people in cinemas don't complain that the film is jerky. Often when I am commisioned to make a project I will ask if they want it shot interlaced or progressive. If the client doesn't understand what I am on about I will shot them some example footage of both. Almost without exception they always go for the progressive option! In the UK more and more documentaries, and even some of the current affairs programs are shot in progressive scan mode. It just looks nicer. Although there is one thing I have mentioned many times, but that doesn't seem to be getting through. Please turn down the edge enhancement on your cameras! You get a more pleasing image, and it minimises the judder (24p video appears to judder more than 24fps film because video is better at showing detail in the mid-range frequencies that make up the bulk of the picture).

July 22nd, 2005, 05:29 PM	#50
Brian K Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 68	Tommy, I have to ask...Are you in the business or just an HDTV junkie? I have a problem with some things you have said on this thread. Your actually comparing indie filmmakers with limited budgets to the unlimited means of George Lucas? You think it was Arnold that had anything to do with the T2 release you mentioned? The DVX/XL2 is obsolete? You OBVIOUSLY are very unfamiliar with the facts of this industry and the market of its technology. Yes, HDTV is excellent and an important facet of the future of this industry. But just as importantly, we have the PRESENT that must be addressed as well. Alot of people are doing excellent work with these cameras, and while techies like yourself are always waiting for the next best thing, creative people are out there doing amazing things and telling amazing stories with the good ol' fashioned SD DV cameras that are available today. It is idiotic to think that companies and indies alike need to drop their entire SD workflow today for HD.

July 23rd, 2005, 09:28 AM	#51
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Well yes it is indeed possible for an independent filmaker to compete with George Lucas. One must first realize that George Lucas did not start off being a billionaire. One of his first films was THX 1138 and of course it was not a big budget film like Star Wars never the less the it introduced some important concepts of the future with ideas from George Orwell but with an additional component that George Orwell missed and that is that future societies will have robots. The problem with Star Wars was that it was over commercialized and could not have the philisophical depth that the original George Lucas films carried. That being said George Lucas talks about high definition but has failed to release any of his movies in a high definition video format. An indepedent film producer can compete with George Lucas by offering videos in a high definition format something that George Lucas has failed to do. When I have said that the Cannon XL-2 is obsolete I did not mean to say that releasing videos in a standard definition format is obsolete. In actuality standard definition will have to be phased out very slowly and we cannot make the jump to high definition overnight. What I meant to say is that capturing video in standard definition is totally obsolete because you are not future proofing your work. The correct way is to shoot in high definition and then release your videos in a 2 DVD set with one DVD in standard definition and a secound DVD in high definition which is playable on most windows XP computers. When the Wizard of Oz was shot in color future generations apreciated the fact that the film was future proofed and the film had more investment value even though at the time the additional cost of color production did not make sense. So todays high definition videographers are making an investment in future proofing their work and can avoid depreciation. And future proofing means a nice retirement nest egg. On ocassion I will shoot a wedding in high definition even if the clients already have a standard definition videographer. Then I wait ten years and then I release the video if the clients are willing to pay for it. This way I'm building up a pension.

July 23rd, 2005, 10:00 AM	#52
Brian K Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 68	(QUOTE) When I have said that the Cannon XL-2 is obsolete I did not mean to say that releasing videos in a standard definition format is obsolete. What I meant to say is that capturing video in standard definition is totally obsolete because you are not future proofing your work. (QUOTE) Your contradicting yourself here. If you are capturing in SD, obviously you are going to be releasing it in SD. Future-proofing is great, but many couples are just not willing to pay for HD. Period. HD is just not the standard yet. Most clients I talk to have no idea what HD even is, much less how it works. Obviously that will change in the future, but not for a while. Besides, not being a fan of HDV to begin with, I am holding out for better HD options. I feel bad for everyone jumping on the HDV bandwagon, it is just to soon to be investing so heavily in it. That's just my opinion of course.

July 23rd, 2005, 11:37 AM	#53
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Well for one thing I would have to agree with you most people will not pay a videographer a dime more for HD but if your into affordable high definition video productions you won't have to charge a dime more. And it is true most people really don't know what HD is but most people are bombarded with advertising by stores trying to sell high end HD televisions. Many people could actually think that HD is a bunch of bs but come Christmas time those same people will blow thousands of dollars on a new Plasma HDTV. Most people really do not know what HD is but they have a vague idea that its some kind of big screen or flat panel Plasma technology. Many people confuse picture quality with screen size. But the message that has to be driven home is that HD ready is not an HDTV unless it is feed with an HD signal from a set top box. When you go "HD BUILT IN" and all you need is an antenna to get that free HDTV signal. Many of the new HD-VHS decks Have HD ATSC tuners built right in so you can pirate those free HD signals right of of the air.

August 3rd, 2005, 10:35 AM	#55
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Unfortunately the Sony XD cam lacks the resolution to give it the film look unless you call super 8mm the film look. To get the 16mm film look you need a progressive high definition video camera like the JVC GY-HD100. In the UK all owners of Windows XP computers have access and the ability to play high definition video over the internet at this very moment.

August 3rd, 2005, 11:19 AM	#56
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Simon Wyndham, I agree with you about the edge enhancement. One of the big contrats between film and video is the sharpness. Video is way too sharp. A lot ofpeople are getting all crazy about the amount of detail in HD but detail isn't everything. A nice clean soft detail image can look a thousand times better than a sharp detailed image. The reason Hollywood DVD's can get away with such low bitrates is because movies just do not have a useless amount of detail that changes every single pixel. There are other factors of course but detail can quickly make a low bitrate encoding look like garbage. Visual effects work in Hollywood using HD is a pain because of the massive amount of detail compared to film. Whole new model making methods needed to be created for hand made models to look good on HD. Makeup is also an issue with HD. HD shows a lot more skin problems because of the extra high detail. Remember film is an illusion and not meant to mimic reality. We need to stop treating our video like reality if we want it to look like film.

August 3rd, 2005, 11:26 AM	#58
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	In addition to my comments above, a colleague of mine is purchasing the new JVC in the coming weeks. As soon as he has I will arrange a direct comparison between it and my xdcam. I know it is really apples and oranges. But with the number of people who compare the footage from these HDV cams to 100,000 dollar HDCAMs I think it only fair that I compare it to a high end SD cam. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe you will!

August 3rd, 2005, 02:39 PM	#60
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Actually, I think it is much harder to get a film look out of an HD cam. Most HD looks like very clear video. Once Upon a Time in Mexico looked great but again, that is with a very expensive HDCAM. I bet I can come up with a better film look from an XL2 or DVX than from a 1/3"CCD HDV cam... ash =o)