why 24p?

[skyy3838]

I quote as an example-"Attack of the Clones".Not a strip of film involved but it still looks like a movie,like a PRO Job and that is all that really matters.
If some of you want to bust the bank to get that "film look" via the Panasonic 24p,be my guest-just make sure you are not getting it for all the wrong reasons(eg. lack of aquisitional skills).
Plus it's the first camcorder of it's type-that means flaws and errors aplenty that need to be addressed in the next version of this cam. I would try and put my money to better use,like getting some film look plugs or programs.Or maybe "lowering" your standards just a bit and getting a real excellent Digital Imager such as the TRV 950.Or maybe that fluid head set that you've been promising yourself forever-Smooth tilts and pans look really pro.But don't put all of your hopes and dreams and whatnot into this one cam-it probably isn't worth it yet.

Learn your craft with what you have now, or can cobble together.
*That* is the most important thing.

A.

[Martin Munthe]

It is much much harder to make video look pleasing than film. Film is easy, expensive and limited in many ways. Video offers options not yet explored by most producers. Attack Of The Clones is a great example of the endless possibilities of aquiring on digital video. The way Ben Burtt edited that film picking actors from different shots and compositing them into new varieties of shots is much the way most of us will be working in the future.

Someone suggested Super 8 as the only option if you want the "film look" (phew, what is that?). I tend to disagree because super 8 offers scratches, weaving and extremely limited optics. And it offers excessive grain. To some that is the look of film. To me that is the look of an amateur format designed for shooting home movies before the time of 8mm video camcorders. I've shot super 8 stuff on Beaulieu cameras so I know what I'm talking about.