Is 24p dying?

Simon Wyndham · August 4th, 2005, 02:29 AM

Ash, one reason HD looks like clear video (aside from interlacing in 1080i mode) is because of the way the detail frrequencies are handled.

I cover the reasons in the article I mentions http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm

Alan Roberts, an ex-BBC setup engineer devised filmlook settings for the high end HD cameras. These were precisely developed and measured, One of their applications was to match HD footage with footage already shot on film. A big part of acheiving this is changing the detail frequency bias of the camera first, and then working on gamma and highlight handling. Alan has setups to mimick many different filmstock behaviours, as well as being able to set up cameras precisely to how you want it to look, or to mimick a filmstock you have in mind.

Nick Hiltgen · August 4th, 2005, 02:53 AM

Simon, I'm undertaking a similar project in building reference files into different film stocks. I'm starting with reversal because from what I'm told about film it has nearly the same latitude (IN POST!!!!) as the f900 or so has been the experience of the tests I've witnessed. Did Alan (or you) publish any of the results somewhere?

Simon Wyndham · August 4th, 2005, 03:57 AM

I'm no engineer myself. But Alans white papers 034 and 053 make for interesting reading regarding his research.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.shtml

If you want to ask Alan specifics he can be found over on the dvdoctor forums http://www.forums.dvdoctor.net

John Hudson · August 4th, 2005, 04:17 PM

Every bluemoon I stumble across some thread started by the anti-24p crusaders. Why? It's beautiful. 24p is a gift from the DV Gods. I fail to even comprehend why anyone would want to shoot 'Digitally' any other framerate. HD-24p is even more reason to get excited.

Quote:

Dont pretend frame rate is the only factor... I doubt a Spielberg movie would look like Dog the Bounty Hunter... I beg to argue that 24P is one of a dozen factors. If you shoot Joe Millionaire in 24P will it suddenly change the production? Make it look better? Like film? NO! ---

Lighting, framing, focus control, dof, angles, camera movement, STORY, editing, etc. etc. etc. are as important, if not moreso than 24P...

Frame Rate is one of the major factors of this beautiful asthetic; not a minor one and not chalked up as one of a dozen IMHO. Check Saving Private Ryan with RAW footage on the beach assualt. Not a terrible amount of Hollywood Tricks being used there; in fact they went so far as to make the imagery worse; stripping the lenses, purposely vibrating the cameras, all hand held, shooting under high noon conditions. A lot of those shots they're using no light other than the sun and a butterfly or some bounce.... Is it more than the framerate that makes it look great? Of course. But the 24 is a major component and lets not pretent it's a minor one:

Check this simple 'Home Movie' of my kid riding his bike. No fancy lighting or comps; just good old fashioned Home Movie Footgae (ND Grad and Polarizer being used)

Right Click and Save As
http://outlandpictures.com/movies/bike.mov

Don't tell me 24p is some 'Minor' piece of the puzzle. No way. It's huge.

And what's all this non-sense about future proofing? I'm still watching old school Twilight Zone episodes and loving every minute of it. Future proof? Baaaaaa. Stop already. Knock it off. You think some wedding couple cares if they're work is future proofed? It might work for about 5 minutes in the pimping of your services but down the road it won't matter it's VHS or Super 8 when it comes to these couple having it on DVD and watching old memories. It's the content that makes the difference.

I think too sharp is distracting. Too glossy, too slick.

What a great thread.

Charles Papert · August 4th, 2005, 05:03 PM

Go get 'em, tiger!

I agree that 24p rocks.

I think that the single element that distinguishes the "Saving Private Ryan" beach sequence is the use of the skinny shutter, which at that point had never been used so extensively in a feature. Seeing explosions and debris falling with the short exposure time was a brand new texture. Of course, it sparked a fad that quickly diluted the novelty, but I was blown away at the time (the flare work was great also).

But of course--a short exposure at a high frame rate (like 60i) would not have the same visual effect. It's like a short film I saw that used a Mini35 but was shot at 60i--the shallow depth of field with the soap opera vibe was odd-looking to the point of feeling almost creepy!

David Jimerson · August 4th, 2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

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

It's a nice article, Simon. Very thorough. (I mean it.)

But I've also seen Barry's side-by-side comparison of 24fps film and DVX 24p, and the motion characteristics are identical. This, I have seen with my own eyes.

Of course, when we're talking about "film look" here, we're talking about cinematic film, which is standard 24fps. Had Spielberg shot any of his movies on video, they no doubt would have looked good, but they would not have looked the same by any stretch. They'd have looked too real-life, too every-day, even if everything else was exactly the same.

Thomas Smet · August 4th, 2005, 05:47 PM

Saving Private Ryan is a good example for those who say 24p isn't good for fast action. Some of the best action we watch on TV came from 24p film.

David Jimerson · August 4th, 2005, 06:30 PM

I watched "Hero" recently, with all its gorgeous cinematography, and I can't imagine the travesty had it been shot in a faster framerate . . . or on video.

John Hudson · August 4th, 2005, 09:55 PM

The same can be said for most any film; pointless to think of anything else.

Crazy talk I tell you. Yeah; let's shoot Schindlers List in 30p or HD 1080i.

Oy Vay.

Gints Klimanis · August 5th, 2005, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Coughlin

60 fps would be a horrible frame rate; the human elye can only see about 30 fps and the rest is just blurred. Its like flashing your hand in front of your face, the slower you go, the more clear the picture is, but the more strobe their is, the faster you go, the less strobe thier is, but the their is much more blurr.

I have little trouble seeing the jittery jumping of hard edges on pans in the cinema, so I bet that even quadrupling the frame rate to 100 fps isn't near our limits of perception. I'm not sure what the 24p frame rate is based on, but I wouldn't be surprised suspect it has something to do with the natural speed of facial expressions or normal body movements. Surely, it's not based on what is needed to accurately display wagon wheels in motion.

Ash Greyson · August 5th, 2005, 08:20 AM

Why does saying 24P is not right for everything make you anti-24P? Let me state for the record that I am talking about 24P VIDEO, not film.
I use a lot of 24P but purposely, not because I can. I am sorry, it is NOT good for everything. The MTV movie awards tried it and it made everyone who watched it feel awkward and they never used it again, same with the new season of "Good Eats" it is missing the charm at 24P. Beyond quality, there is a psychological factor that is hard to get a finger on.

It is a difference of philosophy but I think 24P was the latest and last major hurdle to getting film look (next is resolution) but now everyone is treating it like the first. I would say MOST the footage I see in 24P is missing every other cinematic element. Bad lighting, poor framing, no control over the DOF, bad angles, etc. John it sounds like you are arguing that a kid riding a bike in 24P is better than a professionally produced multicamera shoot shot in 60i???

As far as Saving Private Ryan, that is really not a great argument because the shutter angle was so steep, giving it that "crispy" look. I think those who say 24P film has trouble with motion are talking more The Bourne Supremacy.

I will say it over and over until I am blue in the face, 24p is an EFFECT that when used properly can enhance a production. It is not THE effect and it is not right for everything.

ash =o)

John Hudson · August 5th, 2005, 01:10 PM

Of course it is not right for everything; gameshows, soap-operas, weddings, corporate events, newscasts. I wouldn't think or entertain shooting 24p on these types of events (weddings I would).

Any 'film' related or film specific project (Indiependent filmmaking, nature documentary or other traditionaly film shot medium) however is a must have.

Quote:

...I think 24P was the latest and last major hurdle to getting film look (next is resolution)

I'll take 24p SD over 60i HD anyday. I don't care if it's 720 or 1080. What I am saying is 24p is the main component in my equation. Give me HD-24p but HD-60i is (sound of puking); again this is in reference to indiependent filmmaking NOT shooting a soap opera.

Quote:

John it sounds like you are arguing that a kid riding a bike in 24P is better than a professionally produced multicamera shoot shot in 60i???

Hell yes. Your picking up what I am putting down. I'll take a stock Super16 out of the camera anyday over some crappy looking HD-60i Mulicamera Lighted soap opera version of the event any day period. That's exactly my point; that video I submitted is 24p and ZERO tricks and techniques (sans a couple filters for sun) and it looks a gazillion times better than if I shot that with some 60i crap.

60i is crap. It screams crap, it taste like crap, it feels like crap.

Quote:

I will say it over and over until I am blue in the face, 24p is an EFFECT that when used properly can enhance a production. It is not THE effect and it is not right for everything.

I 100% agree with you; It is not right for everything; sopa operas and weddings for example....

But any traditionally Film shot event should incorporate 24p no doubt.

Dave Ferdinand · August 5th, 2005, 04:25 PM

24p is part of the artistic element of film. Stories need this, news broadcasts don't.

There's a difference between a photo in National Geographic magazine and a photo you see on your everyday newspaper.

I don't understand why anyone would want 24p to die. I want any 'i' do die, it's obsolete, or will be when HD becomes the standard. Let's all hunt down 60i, 50i and 1080i...

Tommy James · August 5th, 2005, 05:21 PM

What I think is the major source of confusion is that people compare 24 frames per secound progressive video with 60 half frames per secound interlaced. That is a totally unfair comparison. The only fair way is to compare progressive with progressive 24p to 60p. Interlaced video even 1080i interlaced video can never compare in quality with 35mm progressive film shot at 24 frames per secound. Interlace video is dying even 1080i will die and give way to 1080p. Once that happens and digital video cinema supplants film productions people will no longer be satisfied with the low temporal rates of 24p especially for fast action. Therefore 24p will die and give way to 60p.

John Hudson · August 5th, 2005, 05:29 PM

THis is the part whereas someone needs to EXPLAIN to me

Isn't 60p going to be 60 frames a second? Why would you wan't to view anything at 60 FPS ?

What am I missing?

August 4th, 2005, 05:03 PM	#65
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Go get 'em, tiger! I agree that 24p rocks. I think that the single element that distinguishes the "Saving Private Ryan" beach sequence is the use of the skinny shutter, which at that point had never been used so extensively in a feature. Seeing explosions and debris falling with the short exposure time was a brand new texture. Of course, it sparked a fad that quickly diluted the novelty, but I was blown away at the time (the flare work was great also). But of course--a short exposure at a high frame rate (like 60i) would not have the same visual effect. It's like a short film I saw that used a Mini35 but was shot at 60i--the shallow depth of field with the soap opera vibe was odd-looking to the point of feeling almost creepy! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

August 4th, 2005, 06:30 PM	#68
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	I watched "Hero" recently, with all its gorgeous cinematography, and I can't imagine the travesty had it been shot in a faster framerate . . . or on video. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

August 5th, 2005, 04:25 PM	#73
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	24p is part of the artistic element of film. Stories need this, news broadcasts don't. There's a difference between a photo in National Geographic magazine and a photo you see on your everyday newspaper. I don't understand why anyone would want 24p to die. I want any 'i' do die, it's obsolete, or will be when HD becomes the standard. Let's all hunt down 60i, 50i and 1080i... __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

August 4th, 2005, 02:29 AM	#61
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Ash, one reason HD looks like clear video (aside from interlacing in 1080i mode) is because of the way the detail frrequencies are handled. I cover the reasons in the article I mentions http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm Alan Roberts, an ex-BBC setup engineer devised filmlook settings for the high end HD cameras. These were precisely developed and measured, One of their applications was to match HD footage with footage already shot on film. A big part of acheiving this is changing the detail frequency bias of the camera first, and then working on gamma and highlight handling. Alan has setups to mimick many different filmstock behaviours, as well as being able to set up cameras precisely to how you want it to look, or to mimick a filmstock you have in mind.

August 4th, 2005, 02:53 AM	#62
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	Simon, I'm undertaking a similar project in building reference files into different film stocks. I'm starting with reversal because from what I'm told about film it has nearly the same latitude (IN POST!!!!) as the f900 or so has been the experience of the tests I've witnessed. Did Alan (or you) publish any of the results somewhere?

August 4th, 2005, 03:57 AM	#63
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	I'm no engineer myself. But Alans white papers 034 and 053 make for interesting reading regarding his research. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.shtml If you want to ask Alan specifics he can be found over on the dvdoctor forums http://www.forums.dvdoctor.net

August 4th, 2005, 05:47 PM	#67
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Saving Private Ryan is a good example for those who say 24p isn't good for fast action. Some of the best action we watch on TV came from 24p film.

August 4th, 2005, 09:55 PM	#69
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	The same can be said for most any film; pointless to think of anything else. Crazy talk I tell you. Yeah; let's shoot Schindlers List in 30p or HD 1080i. Oy Vay.

August 5th, 2005, 08:20 AM	#71
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Why does saying 24P is not right for everything make you anti-24P? Let me state for the record that I am talking about 24P VIDEO, not film. I use a lot of 24P but purposely, not because I can. I am sorry, it is NOT good for everything. The MTV movie awards tried it and it made everyone who watched it feel awkward and they never used it again, same with the new season of "Good Eats" it is missing the charm at 24P. Beyond quality, there is a psychological factor that is hard to get a finger on. It is a difference of philosophy but I think 24P was the latest and last major hurdle to getting film look (next is resolution) but now everyone is treating it like the first. I would say MOST the footage I see in 24P is missing every other cinematic element. Bad lighting, poor framing, no control over the DOF, bad angles, etc. John it sounds like you are arguing that a kid riding a bike in 24P is better than a professionally produced multicamera shoot shot in 60i??? As far as Saving Private Ryan, that is really not a great argument because the shutter angle was so steep, giving it that "crispy" look. I think those who say 24P film has trouble with motion are talking more The Bourne Supremacy. I will say it over and over until I am blue in the face, 24p is an EFFECT that when used properly can enhance a production. It is not THE effect and it is not right for everything. ash =o)

August 5th, 2005, 05:21 PM	#74
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	What I think is the major source of confusion is that people compare 24 frames per secound progressive video with 60 half frames per secound interlaced. That is a totally unfair comparison. The only fair way is to compare progressive with progressive 24p to 60p. Interlaced video even 1080i interlaced video can never compare in quality with 35mm progressive film shot at 24 frames per secound. Interlace video is dying even 1080i will die and give way to 1080p. Once that happens and digital video cinema supplants film productions people will no longer be satisfied with the low temporal rates of 24p especially for fast action. Therefore 24p will die and give way to 60p.

August 5th, 2005, 05:29 PM	#75
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	THis is the part whereas someone needs to EXPLAIN to me Isn't 60p going to be 60 frames a second? Why would you wan't to view anything at 60 FPS ? What am I missing?