why 24p? at DVinfo.net

fargogogo · November 22nd, 2002, 09:40 PM

Why is 24p so popular for television productions? Why not 30p, since 24p needs to eventually be converted to 30 frames to be broadcast?

Is it thought that the 3:2 pulldown adds a "film look"?

Robert Knecht Schmidt · November 22nd, 2002, 11:03 PM

Yep.

Josh Bass · November 22nd, 2002, 11:56 PM

Isn't half of what's on TV actually shot on film? National commercials, hour long dramas, most sitcoms (or at least some sitcoms). . .

Peter Moore · November 24th, 2002, 11:12 PM

If the show's shot on film, it's going to be 24p because that's the standard.

So why film vs. video? Video is an accurate reproduction of what the eye sees, for the most part. I mean to say that its very fast framerate gives smooth motion so that you get a sense that you're watching a live thing happening. That's why it's so good for sports and news.

Film, on the other hand, is an art form. It's seen as not just a reproduction of what the eye sees, but rather a representation of it. The difference between film and video is like the difference between an oil painting and a photograph. Film is not meant to look like you're live in the action, but rather to look like you're watching, literally, a moving picture.

That explanaiton may make no sense, but it's the only one I can think of. The simple answer to your question is because 24p is the standard and because all film editing techniques are based on it.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · November 25th, 2002, 03:16 AM

It might be added to Peter's conclusion that when it comes to film 24 fps is cheaper than 30 fps. Any lower refresh rate than 24 fps and sound sync might suffer. (Prior to the introduction of motion picture sound, it was common to shoot film at 18 fps.)

Jeff Donald · November 25th, 2002, 07:21 AM

Yes, back when the speed was standardized on 24fps, economics played the biggest role in the decision. Studios then, just like now, didn't want to part with their money.

Jeff

Peter Moore · November 25th, 2002, 09:59 AM

Oh of course, good point. 30fps adds 25% more to the cost of the film stock and processing, which is pricey. I remember reading somewhere that film alone for a motion picture can run into the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.

November 25th, 2002, 03:56 PM

If you want the filmlook then shoot on film - there is no, I repeat, no substitute. Go to www.8mm.filmshooting.com and find out how.

Otherwise content yourselves with frame mode or whatever as some kind of near facsimilie with its own fantastic qualities and stop for God's sake banging on about this issue.

Jeff Donald · November 25th, 2002, 07:08 PM

Since the whole point of this thread is trying to have your video look less like video and more like film, I hope people don't stop banging on about it.

Jeff

Paul Sedillo · November 25th, 2002, 07:35 PM

Has anybody read the article in the latest issue of DV magazine? I saw it on the newstand and it has an article on how to obtain a "film look."

November 25th, 2002, 11:39 PM

>> Has anybody read the article in the latest issue of DV magazine? I saw it on the newstand and it has an article on how to obtain a "film look." <<

Yeah I read it. Just the usual de-interlace this, gamma that, color balance this, use film production techniques that.

However, something did catch my attention in the article. The author seems to think that using twixtor to go from 30i to 24p duplicates film motion almost perfectly. While twixtor is great for speeding up or slowing down your video, I've yet to get a non-jittery frame rate conversion from it.

Peter Moore · November 26th, 2002, 06:29 PM

What we really need is a non-interlaced DV format. Why don't these cameras simply support 30p native? At least that would eliminate this interlacing crap.

IMO interlacing should've been abolished years ago, the day DVDs came out. The DVD players could have interlaced the video as necessary for the television, but that's it. Interlacing went by the wayside years ago with computer monitors and HDTVs.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · November 27th, 2002, 03:22 AM

Peter, everything you say is true, but many NTSC monitors still exist and many people still play 24 fps originated material on them. 3:2 pulldown, the process for conversion of 24 fps source to 60i, relies on the fact that the material will be interlaced.

Hagop Matossian · November 27th, 2002, 05:16 AM

I beleive sony have just come out with 24p DV format camera, with a signal ratio of 4:2:2, better than DVs 4:1:1 (is that BV figure right? its off the top of my head). I think it uses DVCAM tapes, and records the picture as MPEG 2

Peter Moore · November 27th, 2002, 08:38 AM

"Peter, everything you say is true, but many NTSC monitors still exist and many people still play 24 fps originated material on them. 3:2 pulldown, the process for conversion of 24 fps source to 60i, relies on the fact that the material will be interlaced."

I'm saying that the source cameras should all just be progressive, and the intermediary sources (such as the DVD players, etc.) should do the conversion for the legacy TVs, rather than the source materials themselves being interlaced. That's how DVDs should've been designed, but unfortunately the DVD industry and HDTV industries seem not to have spoken to each other when they developed their technology.

November 22nd, 2002, 09:40 PM	#1
fargogogo Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 49	why 24p? Why is 24p so popular for television productions? Why not 30p, since 24p needs to eventually be converted to 30 frames to be broadcast? Is it thought that the 3:2 pulldown adds a "film look"?

November 22nd, 2002, 11:03 PM	#2
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Yep. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 22nd, 2002, 11:56 PM	#3
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Isn't half of what's on TV actually shot on film? National commercials, hour long dramas, most sitcoms (or at least some sitcoms). . . __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

November 25th, 2002, 03:16 AM	#5
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	It might be added to Peter's conclusion that when it comes to film 24 fps is cheaper than 30 fps. Any lower refresh rate than 24 fps and sound sync might suffer. (Prior to the introduction of motion picture sound, it was common to shoot film at 18 fps.) __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 25th, 2002, 07:35 PM	#10
Paul Sedillo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 607	Has anybody read the article in the latest issue of DV magazine? I saw it on the newstand and it has an article on how to obtain a "film look." __________________ Paul Sedillo Image::Studio http://www.image-studio.com Houston, Texas

November 24th, 2002, 11:12 PM	#4
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	If the show's shot on film, it's going to be 24p because that's the standard. So why film vs. video? Video is an accurate reproduction of what the eye sees, for the most part. I mean to say that its very fast framerate gives smooth motion so that you get a sense that you're watching a live thing happening. That's why it's so good for sports and news. Film, on the other hand, is an art form. It's seen as not just a reproduction of what the eye sees, but rather a representation of it. The difference between film and video is like the difference between an oil painting and a photograph. Film is not meant to look like you're live in the action, but rather to look like you're watching, literally, a moving picture. That explanaiton may make no sense, but it's the only one I can think of. The simple answer to your question is because 24p is the standard and because all film editing techniques are based on it.

November 25th, 2002, 07:21 AM	#6
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Yes, back when the speed was standardized on 24fps, economics played the biggest role in the decision. Studios then, just like now, didn't want to part with their money. Jeff

November 25th, 2002, 09:59 AM	#7
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Oh of course, good point. 30fps adds 25% more to the cost of the film stock and processing, which is pricey. I remember reading somewhere that film alone for a motion picture can run into the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.

November 25th, 2002, 03:56 PM	#8
CUT Productions Posts: n/a	If you want the filmlook then shoot on film - there is no, I repeat, no substitute. Go to www.8mm.filmshooting.com and find out how. Otherwise content yourselves with frame mode or whatever as some kind of near facsimilie with its own fantastic qualities and stop for God's sake banging on about this issue.

November 25th, 2002, 07:08 PM	#9
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Since the whole point of this thread is trying to have your video look less like video and more like film, I hope people don't stop banging on about it. Jeff

November 25th, 2002, 11:39 PM	#11
klepdogg Posts: n/a	>> Has anybody read the article in the latest issue of DV magazine? I saw it on the newstand and it has an article on how to obtain a "film look." << Yeah I read it. Just the usual de-interlace this, gamma that, color balance this, use film production techniques that. However, something did catch my attention in the article. The author seems to think that using twixtor to go from 30i to 24p duplicates film motion almost perfectly. While twixtor is great for speeding up or slowing down your video, I've yet to get a non-jittery frame rate conversion from it.

November 26th, 2002, 06:29 PM	#12
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	What we really need is a non-interlaced DV format. Why don't these cameras simply support 30p native? At least that would eliminate this interlacing crap. IMO interlacing should've been abolished years ago, the day DVDs came out. The DVD players could have interlaced the video as necessary for the television, but that's it. Interlacing went by the wayside years ago with computer monitors and HDTVs.

November 27th, 2002, 03:22 AM	#13
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Peter, everything you say is true, but many NTSC monitors still exist and many people still play 24 fps originated material on them. 3:2 pulldown, the process for conversion of 24 fps source to 60i, relies on the fact that the material will be interlaced. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 27th, 2002, 05:16 AM	#14
Hagop Matossian Woodyfang Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: London/Nicosia Posts: 125	I beleive sony have just come out with 24p DV format camera, with a signal ratio of 4:2:2, better than DVs 4:1:1 (is that BV figure right? its off the top of my head). I think it uses DVCAM tapes, and records the picture as MPEG 2 __________________ 10 films online http://www.undeadarmy.org STOP PRESS!! http://www.honeyweasel.com STOP PRESS!! Lighting Cameraman / Director / Producer / Music Producer / DJ / Web Designer / Visualist / Media Student / IT Tutor / Digital Artist W00dy See, W00dy d00...

November 27th, 2002, 08:38 AM	#15
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	"Peter, everything you say is true, but many NTSC monitors still exist and many people still play 24 fps originated material on them. 3:2 pulldown, the process for conversion of 24 fps source to 60i, relies on the fact that the material will be interlaced." I'm saying that the source cameras should all just be progressive, and the intermediary sources (such as the DVD players, etc.) should do the conversion for the legacy TVs, rather than the source materials themselves being interlaced. That's how DVDs should've been designed, but unfortunately the DVD industry and HDTV industries seem not to have spoken to each other when they developed their technology.