You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

24p camera vs. "film look" software

Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 9:31pm

Post 1 of 25

drummin dude

Force: 0 | Joined: 4th Jul 2006 | Posts: 14

Windows User

Member

When it comes to video software, I know absolutely nothing, but I'm in pursuit of that "film look". So would it be better to shell out the money for a 24p camcorder, or just use software to give it that "film look"?

Edit: The software is actually a plug-in for Adobe After Effects.
Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 9:37pm

Post 2 of 25

drummin dude

Force: 0 | Joined: 4th Jul 2006 | Posts: 14

Windows User

Member

One more question. Adobe Premiere Production Studio can handle 24p video, right...?
Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 9:48pm

Post 3 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Do you really think coverting the motion of the footage to 24p will make your footage look more like film? Unless you plan on eventually printing to a 35mm film showreel, footage in 24p isn't that HUGE of a difference.

You say you don't know much about video software, but are you grading your shots? Applying contrast and selective coloring, and the like? Because color grading makes a monumental difference in the look between video and film. It, more often than not, will yield that 'film look' you were going for, as opposed to simply changing the framerate.

As far as 24p in production as opposed to post, I think in-camera 24p is going to look better. Look at movies shot a the Panasonic DVX-100a. Most of the good ones are shot in 24p mode. So, if you really, really, really have to have 24p, I'd say filming at that rate while shooting would be better than after-the-fact plugins.

Last edited Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 9:49pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 9:48pm

Post 4 of 25

Obi Wan Kenobi

Force: 685 | Joined: 27th Oct 2003 | Posts: 187

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

The 'film look' is more than just framemode. There's always a bit of grain on film, and there's the depth of field, and all kinds of things that just look different. So, if you really are going for the film look, I'd say you use both.

And, maybe you can achieve that film look with what is already in the software that you have, and using 24p. And even 24p can be achieved digitally.
Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 10:19pm

Post 5 of 25

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

The best way to get more professional looking footage is to do some proper lighting. And it doesnt take much to make it look drastically better.
Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 10:26pm

Post 6 of 25

King of Blades

Force: 1700 | Joined: 29th May 2006 | Posts: 794

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Like Kid said, use proper lighting. If you have Composite Lab, go to the Presets section and find like a "Sepia" type of filter or something. Or just use the default filters in the program... and (I wouldn't know), but from what I hear, using EL or CL on 35mm film is pretty hard... (I think).
Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 10:40pm

Post 7 of 25

drummin dude

Force: 0 | Joined: 4th Jul 2006 | Posts: 14

Windows User

Member

Ben, you're always saying how much you like your Canon GL2. I've been going between that and the Pansonic DVX-100B. Do you think the extra money is really worth it for the Panasonic?

I don't have to have 24p, I just am a fan of the film look, even though I could probably do without it.
Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 11:10pm

Post 8 of 25

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

drummin dude wrote:

I don't have to have 24p, I just am a fan of the film look, even though I could probably do without it.
Do you have a Mac? If you do and have Final Cut Pro, you can get Natress Film Effects Plugins ($100) (That Recon 2022 used). Within the plethora of plugins, there is a 24p in there.

That's what I chose to get instead of springing for the DVX100. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the DVX, I'm just saying that post production can do a lot as well for way cheaper.
Posted: Thu, 13th Jul 2006, 11:51pm

Post 9 of 25

King of Blades

Force: 1700 | Joined: 29th May 2006 | Posts: 794

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I myself need a decent camcorder for my movie. I'm trying to aim for the Canon GL2 like ben3308, but I'm hearing some good stuff about that DVX100...
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 12:13am

Post 10 of 25

drummin dude

Force: 0 | Joined: 4th Jul 2006 | Posts: 14

Windows User

Member

Ok, well thanks to everyone for their opinion, I'm just going to stick with a Canon GL2 (I'm sure this time) because both it and the Panasonic are both great cameras, but I think the GL2 will give me plenty of quality for less money.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 12:16am

Post 11 of 25

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

If you are asking if the DVX is better than a GL2, the answer is yes. BUT it costs more so that's what it boils down to.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 12:19am

Post 12 of 25

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

kingofbladeslv wrote:

from what I hear, using EL or CL on 35mm film is pretty hard... (I think).
It's going to be difficult to use any software on 35mm film. biggrin

But if you scan the film into an image sequence / digital video, then ELab Pro, CLab Pro and VisionLab Studio can handle HD resolutions up to 1920 x 1080.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 12:23am

Post 13 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Canon should start paying for how many GL2 buyers I've created. It's somewhere at 637 I think...

biggrin
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 12:29am

Post 14 of 25

destron

Force: 100 | Joined: 20th Apr 2006 | Posts: 500

Windows User

Member

ok, call me an idiot for asking this, but what does 24p stand for?
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 12:32am

Post 15 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

24 progressive frames per second.

The reason the "24" is important is because it's the same rate as film. Normal American television standard (NTSC) is 29.97 frames per second, and the European standard (PAL) is 30 frames per second. That's why 24 is special, because it's basically abnormal.

You might also hear someone say they shot in 60i, 30i, or what I shoot in, 180i. With that, the "i" means interlaced.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 1:57am

Post 16 of 25

drummin dude

Force: 0 | Joined: 4th Jul 2006 | Posts: 14

Windows User

Member

Lol, Ben, some of your films (or "Atomic Production's" films) might as well be made into adverteisment for the GL2, the quality is really impressive.

Can't wait for Splinter Cell smile ...
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 5:43am

Post 17 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You think you can't wait for Splinter Cell? Didn't you join, like, ten days ago? Imagine the people who've waited almost a year!

In truth, we've only filmed a scene a weekend, and a weekend every 3 months or so, because we've all been so busy. SC has been something that, after actually shooting some scenes in our backyard, we discovered it's not as easy as "just shooting in the backyard".

Since I have no connections with anybody, it's been tough corralling locations, and even then, we haven't yet heard from our 'Lambert' as to whether or not he's still signed on to the project. (I don't personally know the actor, but he's still a great actor, as this clip confirms.)
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 6:02am

Post 18 of 25

GuitarsRule89

Force: 200 | Joined: 12th Jan 2005 | Posts: 139

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Like everyone says, 24fps is just one element of the film look.

In order to get a good look, you will need a very good camera. I would get an HD camera that shoots in 16:9 24fps. HD cameras are the newest and best thing for indie filmmakers. You should also get a plug-in for your NLE. If you have After Effects you should get the Magic Bullet Suite. This plug-in will give you a "film look" color grade which is very important if you are going for a 35mm look.

Here is the link for Magic Bullet Suite.
http://redgiantsoftware.com/magbulsuit.html

Hope this helps.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 7:31am

Post 19 of 25

Alex Reeve

Force: 470 | Joined: 3rd Oct 2005 | Posts: 364

MacOS User

Member

ben3308 wrote:

the European standard (PAL) is 30 frames per second.
No it's not, it's 50i/25p

ben3308 wrote:

That's why 24 is special, because it's basically abnormal.
No more abnormal than any other frame rate. Less in fact, as it's been a standardized frame rate for longer than any TV standard.

ben3308 wrote:

or what I shoot in, 180i.
No you don't, unless you have some super modified top secret GL2 that no-one else owns.

-----------------------------

As has already been mentioned, lighting is hugely important, as is properly exposing for that light. The GL2 & the DVX are superb cameras, but you can't point either of them at something and instantly have a "film" look. It takes work, both in pre & post production.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 8:03am

Post 20 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Alex Reeve wrote:

ben3308 wrote:

or what I shoot in, 180i.
No you don't, unless you have some super modified top secret GL2 that no-one else owns.
I change the aperture from 30 to 180. Simulated 180i, on a 30i recording. Call it shutterspeed, I guess.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 8:24am

Post 21 of 25

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

24 progressive frames per second.

The reason the "24" is important is because it's the same rate as film. Normal American television standard (NTSC) is 29.97 frames per second, and the European standard (PAL) is 30 frames per second. That's why 24 is special, because it's basically abnormal.

You might also hear someone say they shot in 60i, 30i, or what I shoot in, 180i. With that, the "i" means interlaced.
AKA Buy 12 GL2's and Ben will simply Evaporate into the air, His mission complete in the world.
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 8:33am

Post 22 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Okay, but I was right about the number being the number of frames, 'i' being interlaced frames, and 'p' being progressive frames.

I was wrong about the TV standards, though, I'll admit that. NTSC is 29.97 interlaced and PAL is 25 interlaced/50 progressive.

As far as my 180i comment goes, watch Cover's Story. The shot from inside the car is on another camera, recorded at 60i. Everything else I had at 180 shutter/2.6 iris/0 gain, ND filter on. Now tell me my aperture isn't different on every single other shot of that movie. If a videocamera doesn't have a shutter, so we can't call it 'shutterspeed', what do we call it?
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 11:10am

Post 23 of 25

ashman

Force: 4913 | Joined: 10th Sep 2005 | Posts: 904

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Or go here for a more in depth look on the matter.
http://www.jorenclark.com/whitepapers/dvforfilm.html
Posted: Fri, 14th Jul 2006, 11:37am

Post 24 of 25

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

NTSC is 29.97 interlaced and PAL is 25 interlaced/50 progressive.
PAL is 25 interlaced frames per second. 1 interlaced frame has 2 fields. In other words, it's 50 fields per second. It's definitely not "50 progressive". smile

ben3308 wrote:

As far as my 180i comment goes, watch Cover's Story. The shot from inside the car is on another camera, recorded at 60i. Everything else I had at 180 shutter/2.6 iris/0 gain, ND filter on. Now tell me my aperture isn't different on every single other shot of that movie. If a videocamera doesn't have a shutter, so we can't call it 'shutterspeed', what do we call it?
If I'm following you, you're saying that one camera was recording standard NTSC 30fps (really 29.97), or 60i as you say, and your other camera (I'm guessing your GL2) was recording at a fps you don't mention, but I'll guess it was also NTSC, and that you manually set this camera's shutter speed and iris.

The shutter speed and iris control the exposure of the captured image. Those 2 settings don't relate to the recorded fps. So it's not surprising that the exposures differ from the first camera to your second, considering you tweaked the exposure of your second but not the first one (presumably since it doesn't have manual controls).

If a camera doesn't have manual controls for shutter speed and aperture/iris, then normally it's referred to as having "automatic exposure".
Posted: Sat, 15th Jul 2006, 7:38am

Post 25 of 25

filmmakerfinley

Force: 10 | Joined: 28th Jan 2005 | Posts: 36

Windows User

Member

Hendo and Alex are right, FPS and Shutter speed are very different. The number on the Shutterspeed adjust means fractions of seconds. Or in your case the shutter is open for 180th of a second (or 1/180). This changes the amount of time your camera lets light in. Less time= Less motion blur. It also needs more light to work with. The slower the Shutterspeed (like say around 1/24), the higher amounts of motionblur you'll get, but you get more light in a scene. I hope that clears some things up.

Also, when talking about 24p, it does make a huge diffference.

1: because the p means progressive, you get more pixels as a solid frame, thus, sharper image.

2: You get a motion that is slower than your eye see's normally which actually sets apart 24fps footage subconsciously. In other words your eye's truly do see a difference side by side, because 29,97 footage is around the same speed your eye's scan movement.

This is just the science of it, there's penty of more reasons for 24p superiority in the "Film Look" sense.