24P and 30P without Pulldown at DVinfo.net

Dan Vance · August 23rd, 2006, 07:52 PM

I've developed a recording system that allows either a true 24P or true 30P (29.97) stream to be constructed from the same master recording. The idea is that, for film out, you'd extract 24P, and for "TV" (DVD, broadcast, etc.) you'd extract 30P (as 60i), so you'd never have pulldown issues or artifacts. But the question is, "does anybody care"? Does anyone really object to the 24P cadence on their TV screen or even notice it? Opinions?

Glenn Chan · August 23rd, 2006, 10:27 PM

24p converts to PAL easily... 30p not so much.

2- A lot of people want 24p because "it'll look more like film". IMO it doesn't make things look like film (there are many other factors), but it does look different and/or better than 60i. But in any case, they want 24p and not 30p.

3- 30p may be nice since it's a little easier to edit than 24p. It also doesn't have the motion judder problem when panning too fast (although your 24p version would be susceptible to that problem, so you shouldn't pan too fast to begin with).

But if you edit 30p, it'll be extra work to do the 24p version. You might as well have edited 24p to begin with, and done effects at that frame rate.

4- I think people would be more interested in the camera aspect of the camera. If the camera doesn't put out good quality imagery, then does it really matter that it does 24p+30p? Anyways, that would vary with the application though.

Maybe this is a case of finding a problem that your tool solves, instead of finding a tool that solves a problem...? In any case, new cameras are still cool.

Jon Fairhurst · August 24th, 2006, 01:44 AM

If you're doing something "neutral", like a documentary, and it's only intended for TV or DVD in the US, 30P is the way to go. But, if you plan to go to a 50Hz country or film out, 24P is the best technical choice.

Chosing 24P for US broadcast or DVD is a stylistic, rather than technical choice. Nothing wrong with that.

For the web 24P is great for scenes with motion and single frame muzzle flashes. For slower moving content, you can cut down to 12 fps, but I find that I prefer 15 fps (from 30p) for low-motion web stuff.

Personally, I think it's best to have a good understanding of your target and style, and shoot accordingly. But when the reality doesn't match the plans, having good frame rate conversion software could be nice to have.

August 23rd, 2006, 07:52 PM	#1
Dan Vance Built the VanceCam Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Prescott Valley, AZ Posts: 109	24P and 30P without Pulldown I've developed a recording system that allows either a true 24P or true 30P (29.97) stream to be constructed from the same master recording. The idea is that, for film out, you'd extract 24P, and for "TV" (DVD, broadcast, etc.) you'd extract 30P (as 60i), so you'd never have pulldown issues or artifacts. But the question is, "does anybody care"? Does anyone really object to the 24P cadence on their TV screen or even notice it? Opinions?

August 24th, 2006, 01:44 AM	#3
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	If you're doing something "neutral", like a documentary, and it's only intended for TV or DVD in the US, 30P is the way to go. But, if you plan to go to a 50Hz country or film out, 24P is the best technical choice. Chosing 24P for US broadcast or DVD is a stylistic, rather than technical choice. Nothing wrong with that. For the web 24P is great for scenes with motion and single frame muzzle flashes. For slower moving content, you can cut down to 12 fps, but I find that I prefer 15 fps (from 30p) for low-motion web stuff. Personally, I think it's best to have a good understanding of your target and style, and shoot accordingly. But when the reality doesn't match the plans, having good frame rate conversion software could be nice to have. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

August 23rd, 2006, 10:27 PM	#2
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	24p converts to PAL easily... 30p not so much. 2- A lot of people want 24p because "it'll look more like film". IMO it doesn't make things look like film (there are many other factors), but it does look different and/or better than 60i. But in any case, they want 24p and not 30p. 3- 30p may be nice since it's a little easier to edit than 24p. It also doesn't have the motion judder problem when panning too fast (although your 24p version would be susceptible to that problem, so you shouldn't pan too fast to begin with). But if you edit 30p, it'll be extra work to do the 24p version. You might as well have edited 24p to begin with, and done effects at that frame rate. 4- I think people would be more interested in the camera aspect of the camera. If the camera doesn't put out good quality imagery, then does it really matter that it does 24p+30p? Anyways, that would vary with the application though. Maybe this is a case of finding a problem that your tool solves, instead of finding a tool that solves a problem...? In any case, new cameras are still cool.