Weddings in 24 FPS

[Randy Johnson]

I know we may have talked about this before but I forget. I just came back from a bridal show and for the first time I had a bride mention about a video that looks like film. The only way to do that is to shoot 24 fps (I think) I have been hesitant because of the studdering like dancing and for me table shots. does anyone shoot whole weddings in 24 fps? Do you deliver on bluray or just internet? I do notice the studdering isnt as bad on PC monitors.

[Noa Put]

There once was a time where everyone said that 24p was needed for a filmlook, then they said you need shallow dof, then they said you need a large dynamic range...

24p is just a very small part in a large chain to achieve a film look and as far as I am concerned the least important one.

[Dave Blackhurst]

"looks like film"... WHICH film?

Part of the problem here is that the novice watches MOVIES and knows they look "different", but doesn't know what goes into that "look", which is very likely different from movie to movie, or even within a movie to strike a "mood". And of course, they probably read "trends" and here about "cinematic", and think that the latest trendy thing is what they want...

Of course movies are shot with trained actors and crew, on set or location, with massive amounts of equipment, not what a couple of people can carrry in a couple trips and shoot candidly and unobtrusively with... on a "where is, as is" location with "where is, as is" lighting conditions... with few or no "retakes"

The cadence of 24p is a little different, but frankly that's the LAST or close to the last thing I notice - I pick up THE PLOT (or lack thereof), the overall "scenery"/content, the "talent" of the actors, the sound track, the color "correction" (more accurately the color "sweetening" to achive a "look"), the camera work (or lack thereof!), shot angles, cutting techniques, and MAYBE the DoF here and there, and probably poorly done compression once in a while <wink>.

There is SO MUCH to creating or re-creating a "film look", and you really have to find out WHAT film look, as various eras and film stocks have VASTLY different qualities (I recall reading about "The Aviator", and how they sought out period film stocks for each period!).

Then, perhaps you can try to shoot to match, and adjust in post to achieve a "look"...


You probably wouldn't want a "cold" film look... warm and popped color would be more "in character". Sometimes soft and dreamy (yeah after all that work to get really sharp images!) is desirable... and so on...

[Bill Grant]

Randy,
I agree with the others that the film look is elusive and not easily acheivable. I shoot all weddings in 24p and take that to web, dvd, and bluray. If I shoot anything fir broadcast it's 30p. But. Do what you think is best... Don't go chasing a thing that you most likely won't acheive. I do it because I like the look.
Bill

[Dave Blackhurst]

I like the fact that the 24p files are smaller on disk <wink>... nice for fitting your final renders onto a DVD with more "time" to work with!

But I shoot 60p, since I can see the stutter in fast motion, and don't want to take that chance that it will ruin the original footage should anything in the frame decide to move quickly!

So 60p in capture, and edit, then render out to 24p (or 30p would be better for web, from my understanding).

It's probably heretical, but the "look" to my mind comes more from any color work, how well you composed your shots, how well you edit (hard to notice the cadence if you're sucked into the "story"), and how well the whole audio and visual mix keeps the viewer involved...

THAT to me is what divides the "documentary videographer" from the "cinematic"... put another way, the former is craft, the latter is "art", or perhaps even "magic". Art and magic are tougher to pull off!


Oddly enough, it's sort of like the difference between a "photojournalist" style still shooting (documentary), and the traditional "formal" style where things are more carefully posed and composed... You just have to figure out what your client is looking for, and see if it's a good "fit" with your shooting style!

[Noa Put]

I think dslr's in general have that kind of "filmlook" most clients are referring to.

[Danny O'Neill]

The film look consists of, but is not limited to;

Framerate, dof, composition, lighting, colour grading, action, direction, story, pacing and a whole lot more.

In the UK our standard is 25fps which looks identical to 24fps. So for us the stuttering is just normal but its what you see in the movies so why is everyone so against it?

[Noa Put]

So for us the stuttering is just normal but its what you see in the movies so why is everyone so against it?

I think you might also ask that if you can prevent the stutter if you shoot in 50p, why would you not try to? I personally see the stutter as distracting and you need to adapt your shooting style to it, with 50p you don't have to.

[Noa Put]

I was just thinking that if you would apply all what Danny described that a "filmlook" should consist of and shoot a wedding with, let's say, a panasonic gh3 side by side with one recording at 25p and the other at 50p. Would a client say the 50p recording does not have a filmlook? Considering that the whole workflow would be exactly the same, only not the framerate.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Keep in mind that the "stutter' is the result of a frame rate chosen as a kludge nearly a century ago... why should that be held up as a standard?? We don't drive model T's because they are the epitome of automotive engineering... or fly around in DC3's because that's the state of aircraft engineering...

In fact there have been MANY "limitations" imposed in professional movie production to accomodate the "standard" frame rate (mostly an economic consideration!) - pan speeds, overall motion in scenes, etc. etc...

If what you're suggesting is that we should expect normal people going about their natural activities to adhere to these sorts of limitations in order to get good captures... I don't see that working!! People want to behave naturally, not be told to move slowly or whatever... they aren't going to understand why they can't "do whatever".


To say "shoot around the limitations" is a two edged sword - sometimes we when wearing the "camera operator hat" must be aware that a camera can't handle certain things well, and either grab a different tool or make the best of it... if your equipment can overcome the "limitations", I'd argue for using what the gear can do!


The frame rate/cadence portion of "film look" is only ONE element, and may or may not really be all that critical if many of the other things like artistic color work and good camera work, sound and editing are in place. Too often a single ingredient in "the mix" is overdone, and ruins the whole recipe!

[Frank Glencairn]

It's funny. I go to the movies since about 40 years now.
At least 35 years, I never heard one soul complaining about stutter of 24 FPS. Nobody ever said it's on his nerves, unwatchable, distracting andwhatnot.

Only in the last few years this issue comes up, and suddenly everybody and his kid brother are super sensitive to it.

How comes?

When I remember that right, a film, shot on film and projected on film doesn't stutter in a way digital shot and projected material does sometimes.

Also we never saw any stuttering on CRT TVs (even when they show a film and not the news).
Only since they came up with those flat TVs, it's there.

Shooting higher frame rates (or use some 100 HZ voodoo in the TV) and make it look like a soap is not an option.

Looks like we are screwed for now.

.

[Noa Put]

I don't think it has anything to do with being supersensitive about it, there are just more options, like 50p, available today, the questions remains is if I or my clients can't see the difference between 25p and 50p on the same camera, why should I have to worry about panning speeds in 25p when I don't have to in 50p? For the sake of a so called 'cinematic' framerate?

[Randy Johnson]

Thanks for the responses I was thinking of getting the new Sony NEX camera which is pretty much a shoulder mount DSLR. I just dont know if I will get that look but shooting 1080P 59.94 or if I have to shoot in 24FPS. I personally like the look but im not hung up on it the only reason I am thinking about it is because I Actually had a bride ask.

[Jeff Harper]

I began shooting in 24p last year and I love the look. It is a much dreamier look. I resisted doing it, but was forced into it because it was the one progressive frame rate that all four of my cameras had in common. From the first wedding I fell in love with the results. It is different to be sure.

It is not necessary to be especially aware of DOF, etc or to do anything else to achieve the softer, filmic look. You do want to take care because the frame rate requires special panning techniques, etc. Otherwise, it is very nice and I'm very happy with it.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Randy Johnson

I personally like the look but im not hung up on it the only reason I am thinking about it is because I Actually had a bride ask.

You can be sure she was not refering to 24p, like being said here frame rate is just a very small part in achieving a film look, f.i. my sony cx730's can do 25p as well but changing from 50p to 25p doesn't give the handycam an instant hollywood filmlook, it will still look like video.