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

'24p' versus 'high definition'

Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 8:09pm

Post 1 of 60

TVK

Force: 1000 | Joined: 7th Jan 2002 | Posts: 65

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Right now, I have a high def Sony HDR-HC1 camera. I love the quality this camera produces at the price the camera goes for. It's small and very light. You plug this baby into a large high def flat-screen monitor and it's like looking through a window! Incredible quality.

However, I've been looking into getting a Panasonic AG-DVX100A or Panasonic AG-DVX100B, to take advantage of it's 24p capabilities.

Now, my question is: How does the DVX100 series quality compare to the HDV quality of the HC1? I'm willing to sacrifice some quality to get that "film look".

I don't know if I want to stick with the HC1, film in 30i, and convert to 24p to "somewhat" get that film look. Or film with the DVX100(A/B), and hope that the quality is up to par.

I've searched the web for reviews, and the DVX100 series gets rave reviews, but the reason I'm asking here is because I want the input from people who use the DVX100 camera for the same reasons I will be using it for: editing/altering footage using FXHome products.

I'm looking for any comments you may have about the DVX100 series. What's the difference between A and B? Is it worth the price? The HC1 films in widescreen. I hear the DVX100(A/B) have a widescreen feature. How good is it?

Which one do you recommend I get? A or B? or...?

TIA for all your replies! smile
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 8:24pm

Post 2 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

The question is wrong...


What do you need? High resolution? Or 24 frames per Second.
And WHY would you need either one more then the other?


As many have said, 24P basically only makes sense if you convert to film later. And even so, a higher resolution might also help...
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 8:44pm

Post 3 of 60

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

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

SuperUser

And it would be more affordable to spend money on a software that converts your video file into 24p than to actually buy a camera just for that function.
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 9:17pm

Post 4 of 60

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I know that you already have a HDV camera, but do you have a computer that is able to edit it? I was conisdering gettnig HD as well before I got a used dvx100a, but I didn't want to upgrade my computer just to be able to edit the footage.
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 9:17pm

Post 5 of 60

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

Redhawksrymmer wrote:

And it would be more affordable to spend money on a software that converts your video file into 24p than to actually buy a camera just for that function.
YES!!! Great Point!
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 9:48pm

Post 6 of 60

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Software can't really replicate the way 24p looks. It's not only the colors of 24p it's the way it replicates motion or films . With 24p you have to adapt the way you film, for example, if you are panning you need to allow at least 7 seconds for objects to pass through the screen to not strobe horribly (unless there is a foreground object you are following like someone walking). Watch any film where they are following someone, but look at the background instead, you will notice horrible strobbing.
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 10:00pm

Post 7 of 60

Obi Wan Kenobi

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

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

hatsoff2halford wrote:

Software can't really replicate the way 24p looks. It's not only the colors of 24p it's the way it replicates motion or films .
Huh? Does 24p have anything to do with colors?
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 10:02pm

Post 8 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Does 24p have anything to do with colors?
No. Don't listen to him. smile
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 10:17pm

Post 9 of 60

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

hatsoff2halford wrote:

Software can't really replicate the way 24p looks. It's not only the colors of 24p it's the way it replicates motion or films . With 24p you have to adapt the way you film, for example, if you are panning you need to allow at least 7 seconds for objects to pass through the screen to not strobe horribly (unless there is a foreground object you are following like someone walking). Watch any film where they are following someone, but look at the background instead, you will notice horrible strobbing.
You know, I've heard this point made before (not by you), but I've never seen this, so I'm curious to see this strobing effect. think

24p
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 10:36pm

Post 10 of 60

TVK

Force: 1000 | Joined: 7th Jan 2002 | Posts: 65

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Hey. Thanks for all the replies guys. I appreciate it.

Yes, I have an editing station, that I built about 6 months ago. Dual Samsung 19" LCD screens, with 4ms response rate (ZERO GHOSTING! Perfect for gaming!), 1.2 TeraBytes of HD space, 4gigs of RAM, AMD64 9000+ socket 939, Asus A8N32-SLI system board, all packed into a Thermaltake case.

I've heard of software that will convert 30fps video to 24fps, but I've read many-a-times that it never is as good as filming in 24fps from the get-go. I've actually done some research on this, and so far, the best one out there that I've heard, is "Atlantis 2.1" (http://www.dvfilm.com/atlantis/). Anyone here use this before?

Another advantage of being able to film in 24fps is you convert the video into 30fps for DVD, whilest retaining the 24fps look/feel. While on the other hand, if you filmed in 30fps, you'd have to convert to 24fps, then back to 30fps. Catch my drift?

How good is the DV quality of the DVX100 to.. let's say.. a Canon XL1?
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 10:39pm

Post 11 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

What do you want do convert in 24 fps for anyways? You actually planning on doing a blowup?

Cause if you dont, 24p will only make for a jerky looking video on DVD and TV (Even Films have to be recompressed to fit the TV norm, which isn't 24p in any country in the world)
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 11:00pm

Post 12 of 60

TVK

Force: 1000 | Joined: 7th Jan 2002 | Posts: 65

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

What do you want do convert in 24 fps for anyways? You actually planning on doing a blowup?

Cause if you dont, 24p will only make for a jerky looking video on DVD and TV (Even Films have to be recompressed to fit the TV norm, which isn't 24p in any country in the world)
I'm looking for 24fps filming, not the PAL setting, to give me that "film look". I've already explained why I want 24p. Why keep asking me why when I've already told you why? When someone asks what paint is good to use to paint their car red, you don't really help answer the person's question if you insist on asking him/her why they want to paint their car red, now do you?

99% of the movies out there are filmed in 24fps, and then converted into 30, to allow for NTSC DVD viewing. {I'll say it again: the movie is filmed in 24, yet played at 30fps, to allow for MPEG-2 NTSC DVD encoding.} If you're confused about that, consider a video filmed in 10fps... It doesn't matter whether or not you convert it to 30fps.. or even 60fps.. the video will still look like 10fps. They just "need" to convert the video from 24fps to 30fps in order for it to play on NTSC DVD players, even though the video itself still technically remains at 24fps. Make sense?

Now that I've cleared that up (or if you already understand that concept, now YOU know that *I* understand it as well), my question remains at contemplating whether or not a DVX100 is worth investing in, for the 24fps filming capabilty. Again, the "reason why" I want 24fps is because I DO NOT want that "TV Soap Opera" 30fps look. I want the "film/TVshow" look, where movement is somewhat "blurred" to give it that "dream" feeling, like in the movies.

I hope this clears up a lot of questions that people keep throwing at me.

Last edited Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 11:09pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 11:06pm

Post 13 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Heh, are we a bit touchy? smile

Fine, fair enough. If you know that you want 24p and you know the cam you mention does 24p, then what are you waiting for?
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 11:12pm

Post 14 of 60

TVK

Force: 1000 | Joined: 7th Jan 2002 | Posts: 65

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Heh, are we a bit touchy? smile

Fine, fair enough. If you know that you want 24p and you know the cam you mention does 24p, then what are you waiting for?
Sorry man, rough day at work. Don't take it personally.

I'm just really torn between having to spend more money getting another camera that I'm not sure will be good enough. I LOVE the HD quality the HC1 brings, but I REALLY want that 24fps look that software simply cannot replicate as good as filming in 24fps from the start.

My question is, TO ANYONE THAT HAS OR USED A DVX100, if the DV quality is still good. How well does the DVX100 capture fast motion? I'm assuming it has manual shutter speed control...?

24fps DV vs 30fps HDV. Ack!

If the quality of the DVX100 is not that bad, then I will definitely buy one...
Posted: Tue, 18th Jul 2006, 11:58pm

Post 15 of 60

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

the quality is great. As far as the fast motion thing, your not going to be able to capture fast motion when filming in 24p. However it still films in 60i which would be just like any other interlaced camera and could capture it just fine.

There have been a ton of films shot with the dvx series camears, search IMDB for them. One off the top of my head is the film November.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 1:34am

Post 16 of 60

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

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

SuperUser

I have no experience with any HD cameras, but the DVX100 has by far the best picture quality of any camera I have seen. Side by side, the quality makes the Canon GL2 (which is a very nice camera) look like crap.

What you should do is get the Panasonic HDX200, the High-Def version of the DVX100. Really it is more of an entirely new camera than just an hd version of the dVX, but then you can shoot in 24p and HD
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 4:49am

Post 17 of 60

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Axeman wrote:

...makes the Canon GL2 (which is a very nice camera) look like crap.
Served.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 6:21am

Post 18 of 60

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

There is actually software that does convert to progressive, and actually has better quality than using framemode, cinemode and what not. While it's all good and well wanting to have progressive you'll lose alot of quality in the picture doing so. I know this because I went to great lengths to do the same thing myself.
Here are a couple of links that will help you on your quest for the filmlook your after, one way is a program converting interlaced footage the other is the 24p route.

Good Luck.

http://www.jorenclark.com/whitepapers/dvforfilm.html
http://www.dvfilm.com/fx1/index.htm
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 6:48am

Post 19 of 60

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Axeman wrote:

...makes the Canon GL2 (which is a very nice camera) look like crap.
Served.
You may have grading and lighting talent, and the camera gives it some justice too. But I'm sure if you had the cameras side-by-side (based on what Axeman said) you would get better results. A compressed Sorensen 3 low res video certainly doesn't put a "served" status on the matter. That's just your lighting and grading skill. Sure, GL2 is still great, not denying that. My 2¢. You can't justify camera quality with your footage, unless someone outright says it can't produce anything good, which hasn't been said obviousl. razz
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 6:56am

Post 20 of 60

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

yeah, ben, you posting the same clip over and over again is getting slightly annoying, all axeman is saying is that the actualy video produced from the dvx100 has far more detail the the GL2, the dvx has 1/3 inch CCD's, while the gl2 has 1/4. He isn't putting the GL2 down in any way. Like serpent said, if you shot the exact same footage using both the GL2 and the DVX100a/b and graded it the exact same way, the dvx100 would look much better.

Also, the clip has some excelent lighting and grading, not to put that down in any way either. It is a great representaion of the GL2 at it's best. I enjoyed it.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 6:58am

Post 21 of 60

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:
Axeman wrote:
...makes the Canon GL2 (which is a very nice camera) look like crap.


Served.


You may have grading and lighting talent, and the camera gives it some justice too. But I'm sure if you had the cameras side-by-side (based on what Axeman said) you would get better results. A compressed Sorensen 3 low res video certainly doesn't put a "served" status on the matter. That's just your lighting and grading skill. Sure, GL2 is still great, not denying that. My 2¢. You can't justify camera quality with your footage, unless someone outright says it can't produce anything good, which hasn't been said obviousl.
True.. the GL2 is a great cam but doesnt hold to the DVX. You slap your grading on to DVX footage and it just up's it more.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 7:07am

Post 22 of 60

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Then I guess I should be glad that I can do better grading than most people. biggrin

Otherwise, my camera would look cheap. And that would not be good. I know that video isn't any argument, it's just a little annoying when someone calls images from a camera that you spent thousands of dollars on, "crap". There's a reason the DVX is like 1,000 bucks more, I guess. wink
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 8:26am

Post 23 of 60

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

ben3308 wrote:

I know that video isn't any argument, it's just a little annoying when someone calls images from a camera that you spent thousands of dollars on, "crap".
ben, you have to learn to be happy with what you have and allow other's opinions. Firstly, Axeman's comments is more towards how much better the DVX's picture capability is than a GL2, and YES one of the reasons are that the CCD chip is larger etc. etc. If Axeman's comments were against the VX2100 (which I own), I can honestly admit that he's right and there is nothing wrong with admitting that.

You like your camera? Fine! You want others to buy it on your recommendations? Fine! Just be happy with that.

Secondly, you come off like the GL2 is the second coming of the DV world, and then when someone proves you otherwise, you deflect the argument STILL trying to make yourself look like a great director/artist/creator/editor (whatever is the goal).

ben3308 wrote:

Then I guess I should be glad that I can do better grading than most people.
There is a maturity issue with that statement.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 8:33am

Post 24 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

you deflect the argument STILL trying to make yourself look like a great director/artist/creator/editor.
And a chap with an overly high selfesteem, not to use the word starting with a and ending in rrogance... smile


I could sing you a song if you want ben? Maybe it'll make you feel better?
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 8:40am

Post 25 of 60

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Garrison:

Smileys are a blessing. Check out what I said about grading, and how I'm super-awesome-to-da-max. Oh right, there was a smiley. Meaning it was a joke. So when did I try to make myself look like a great director/artist/creator/editor? I think you just want to be able to slap a generalization of arrongance on me there.

Oh, and my GL2 turned water into wine once. Can you explain that? wink

Oh and, nah, Sollthar, I think I'll be alright. I have some good Gnarls Barkley to jam out to. biggrin
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 8:54am

Post 26 of 60

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

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

FXhome Team Member

Most professional films which are recorded digitally (i.e. not on film) use 25fps anyway and are then just slowed down a touch for film. 24fps is a bit of a consumer gimmick - half of "film look" is the way that cinemas project film anyway. I would take a camera which can do progressive 25fps over a 24fps progressive which is then been automatically pulled down to 30fps by the camera. If its not HD then the PAL will also have superior resolution.

The DVX is a level above the GL2/XM2 really in most terms. I would also never recommend the XM2 due to all the problems the camera suffered for its first couple of years and how terrible Canon was when it comes to fixing these cameras. Well, it doesn't fix them it just asks for a ton of money.

Panasonic make much stronger cameras.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 9:19am

Post 27 of 60

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

schwar, a couple of things. My tape deck has recently made my footage mosaic-y. (this is what I'm talking about) Should I send it into Canon?

Another thing, if 25fps footage is slowed to 24fps, won't people with perfect pitch notice the slowdown in sound?
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 9:23am

Post 28 of 60

Alex Reeve

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

MacOS User

Member

One (fairly major) thing that is never mentioned in these discussions is the Cine-Gamma of the DVX. I think that contributes enormously to it's perceived "film" look. Panasonic spent a lot of time tweaking the settings to get the colour balance as close as they could to that of film, within the limited boundary of the DV colour space.

I'd also disagree, to some extent, that 24fps is a gimmick. The human brain has acclimatised to that format for narrative work over the last 70 years, and people accept that slightly unreal, dreamlike cadence as the norm.

Likewise they associate the crisp, harsher look of video with documentary, news & cheap TV footage. Of course, its ridiculous to expect a consumer video camera to equal film footage, but its not surprising that people embrace anything that can bring it closer.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 9:31am

Post 29 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

What you notice isn't the 24 frames per second though, which is the main issue people don't seem to understand...

It's the difference in lenses, shutter speeds, ccds, light, colors, contrast, motion blur, crispiness, grain etc that makes an image appear different. Not by how many frames per second it's played.

Or does a movie suddenly look like video to you when you watch a DVD?

Even when it comes to actual film, there's hugely different types of celluloid available which will give a different look. Depending on what lab equipment you use to develop the film, what shutter speed you use, what lense filters etc will also give a different look.

The whole "film look" issue is a consumer gimmick.


If someone really wants his movie to look like film, then he should shoot on film. Or at least be WELL aware of what exact aspects he wants to imitate, then try to imitate those.
The framerate seems to be the worst place to start really.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 9:35am

Post 30 of 60

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

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

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Personally I still maintain that good lighting, camera movement, lenses and grading have far more to do with the so-called 'film look' than the framerate.

24p will make a tiny, mostly subliminal difference that most people won't even notice (a general TV viewer/movie-goer won't be able to tell you the difference between a soap and a feature film). Lighting, camera operation, lenses and grading will all have direct and noticeable impacts on the professional look and feel.

Why anybody would actively strive for the strobey appearance of film I have no idea. Isn't that something that the new breed of cameras and projectors coming from the Cameron/Lucas drive is hoping to eradicate?

If capturing film's eccentricities is so vital, then I'd just go ahead and shoot on film. Otherwise it's always going to be a little bit like trying to create a watercolour painting using acrylics.

Edit: I see Sollthar basically just posted my exact points at the same time. razz
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 9:51am

Post 31 of 60

Alex Reeve

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

MacOS User

Member

Tarn wrote:

Personally I still maintain that good lighting, camera movement, lenses and grading have far more to do with the so-called 'film look' than the framerate.
I agree. I did try and word my post as neutral as I could, simply trying to proffer a reason as to why the 24fps function was popular. I'd take well shot 50/60i over badly shot 24p any time.

Tarn wrote:

Why anybody would actively strive for the strobey appearance of film I have no idea. Isn't that something that the new breed of cameras and projectors coming from the Cameron/Lucas drive is hoping to eradicate?
As I stated in my first post, its what people accept as the norm. If Cameron & Lucas succeed in pushing their Digital Cinema ideals forward, then that will change.

Cameron in particular seems determined to change the way films are shot and presented quite dramatically, and in a way that the consumer will find impossible to emulate for a long time.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 10:08am

Post 32 of 60

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

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

FXhome Team Member

Another thing, if 25fps footage is slowed to 24fps, won't people with perfect pitch notice the slowdown in sound?
Every film shot at 24fps is just made a touch faster for the PAL market, hence our DVDs are shorter than our cinema releases (a little bit). This is standard practice and nobody seems to mind.

Anyway, as far as I'm aware (not that knowledgeable when it comes to sound) you can change the speed of audio without changing its pitch.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 10:19am

Post 33 of 60

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

I suspect that when people see some cool footage and hear that it's in '24p', they immediately think more about the '24' part than they do about the 'p' part.

While I agree that the 24 fps is a bit gimmicky, a camera that can record true progressive-scan is worthwhile, IMO, and does contribute towards the aforementioned 'film look'.

Native progressive-scan footage is going to be far better than interlaced, or the Frame Mode stuff, since a progressive frame has all the vertical lines in it, whereas an interlaced frame has only half of the vertical info.

Deinterlacing or using software to convert to progressive is nowhere near as good as shooting native progressive.

Personally, I'd be going for a camera that can record progressive variable-frame rates. smile
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 10:24am

Post 34 of 60

Alex Reeve

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

MacOS User

Member

schwar wrote:

Every film shot at 24fps is just made a touch faster for the PAL market, hence our DVDs are shorter than our cinema releases (a little bit). This is standard practice and nobody seems to mind.

Anyway, as far as I'm aware (not that knowledgeable when it comes to sound) you can change the speed of audio without changing its pitch.
The Pal speedup bothers people with perfect pitch. I find it very hard to watch anything with a John Williams score in PAL, because of my familiarity with the music. Star Wars sounds terrible to my ears (although it's a poor sound mix anyway).

It's preferable though to the pitch correction occasionally used. EIV used it on the Fellowship Of The Ring R2 dvd, and it was terrible (although again, probably not noticable unless you have perfect pitch).
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 10:39am

Post 35 of 60

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

24p is a buzz word.

Don't ignore the fact that you need to be able to make a good film, before you worry about the framerate.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 10:41am

Post 36 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Don't ignore the fact that you need to be able to make a good film, before you worry about the framerate.
Yeah, you could end up with a guy wearing night vision goggles during a mission briefing and isn't even looking at the guy who's talking to him, allthough he's sitting right behind him... smile
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 11:05am

Post 37 of 60

TVK

Force: 1000 | Joined: 7th Jan 2002 | Posts: 65

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Perhaps "Film Look" wasn't the right term to use...

I am looking for the "Film Movement/Motion", and this is what 24fps brings. By "film look", we refer lighting, and colour grading and whatnot.

Soap Opera are filmed in 30fps, which gives it that "home video" movment to it.

Movies are filmed in 24fps, which gives it that "dream like" movement. THIS is what I am looking to achieve, and why I want to look into getting a 24p camera to give me that FILM movement/motion.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 11:11am

Post 38 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

So you think every film in cinemas is "dream like"? How weird.


Judging from what you describe you need to look into shutter speeds. Not framerates.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 11:49am

Post 39 of 60

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

I am looking for the "Film Movement/Motion", and this is what 24fps brings. By "film look", we refer lighting, and colour grading and whatnot.
Again if you use the links I provided in this thread it will answer your question. Everything you need to know is handed to you in a step by step guide.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 4:33pm

Post 40 of 60

TVK

Force: 1000 | Joined: 7th Jan 2002 | Posts: 65

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

So you think every film in cinemas is "dream like"? How weird.


Judging from what you describe you need to look into shutter speeds. Not framerates.
I know what shutter speed is, and it isn't shutter speed that gives movies the "film movement" I refer to.

Shutter speed simply decides how clear/crisp or blurry each frame is. A lot of music videos use high shutter speed to give a weird movement/feeling to the dancing.

Missy Eliott's music videos use high shutter speed a lot.
The beginning fight scene in "Gladiator" uses it quite a bit.
The movie "Running Scared" uses it almost throughout the entire movie.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head right now that uses high shutter speed.

Yet still, each and every one of those are filmed in 24fps.

You seem to be unable to separate the difference between "frames per second" and "shutter speed".

Shutter speed, again simply dictates how sharp/clean/crisp each and every single frame is. The faster the shutter speed, the clearer the picture. Think of it as someone take a picture of someone walking, and leaving the shutter open. You'll get a very blurry picture. If the shutter opens for a fraction of a second, the picture will be clearer.

If you have a video at 5fps, but high shutter speed, it won't give you that film look, now will it? Sure, each frame is crisp and clear, but the movement is super slow, right? This is the difference between shutter speed and fps.

Hey, you learn something new. smile
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 4:59pm

Post 41 of 60

Alex Reeve

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

MacOS User

Member

TVK, have you taken a look at DVXuser yet? You should be able to get any answers you need there with a little search, and if you can't, they seem very open and helpful to questions. The guy who runs it, Jarred Land, shot pick-ups for "Munich" on his HVX, and he and the other Mods are very knowledgeable on the technical ins and outs of both cameras.

For what its worth, I chose the DVX over the Sony HDV cams and the Canon XM2 (GL2). That was after extensive research and a lot of hands on time with each. To my eyes it had the most pleasing image, which at the end of the day should be the most important factor.

I understand exactly what you mean regarding the "dream-like" cadence of film, and the DVX will get you closer to that, but you must factor in lighting, grading, exposure and everything else that goes into producing a quality image.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:04pm

Post 42 of 60

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

TVK: In the most case, you are wrong.

Shutter speed is the length of time for which the light sensitive medium is exposed to the light. The shutter speed does not 'decide' how clear or crisp a frame is, lots of factors decide that outside of the set shutterspeed, and what Sollthar was referring to was your want to recreate the 'dream like' look of film in regards to FPS and shutterspeeds.

Truth be told, not many people will notice the difference between 24, 25 and 29.97 frames per second. But everyone will be quite aware of a shutterspeed difference. You're examples of high shutter speeds are bizarre, as most of the effects you've mentioned will be entirely heightened in post-production, with Gladiator probably filming the scenes you've mentioned at about anything from 60-100FPS.

The faster the shutter speed, the greater the possibility of freezing the motion you are filming. A clear picture is determind by focus, light, dof and other factors.

As I briefly said before, if you want to achieve the film look, every single camera aspect needs to be taken into account. Primarily, I'd suggest you completely FORGET about whether you're filming in 24, 25 or 29.97FPS, as in most cases and with the software available in todays computer market, you can achieve the fps without any noticeable damage to your production.

I'd much rather good scripts, stories and ideas were being produced, instead of all this 'industry standard' equipment technobabble and debates about what is the best format to shoot in. Who cares? If what you're shooting is sh.....


..ocking
smile
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:06pm

Post 43 of 60

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

If you are trying to transfer your work to film, then go get the DVX. I have it and love it. IM me if you would like to see some full qual footage that I have shot. I'm sure it might fall a little short to HD but the 24p helps so much. I personally cant stand looking at films who do not have that frame rate or close to on it. No matter the quality, it still looks "home videoy" to me for some reason.. thats why I couldnt stand watching that big star wars fan film that came out recently.


But if no on the DVX -- buy magic bullet. Their 24p converter is amazing, you'll save about $1,500 and you'll get some of the best color correction tools out there.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:10pm

Post 44 of 60

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

You have been provided links to the information your after yet you continue to repeat the same question over and over again. My advice is, if you really want that film look, buy a panavision camera and stop moaning, otherwise your only options are to open the links and read them.

Hey, you learn something new.
Quite, why don't you try it.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:14pm

Post 45 of 60

TVK

Force: 1000 | Joined: 7th Jan 2002 | Posts: 65

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

er-no wrote:

TVK: In the most case, you are wrong.

Shutter speed is the length of time for which the light sensitive medium is exposed to the light. The shutter speed does not 'decide' how clear or crisp a frame is, lots of factors decide that outside of the set shutterspeed, and what Sollthar was referring to was your want to recreate the 'dream like' look of film in regards to FPS and shutterspeeds.

Truth be told, not many people will notice the difference between 24, 25 and 29.97 frames per second. But everyone will be quite aware of a shutterspeed difference. You're examples of high shutter speeds are bizarre, as most of the effects you've mentioned will be entirely heightened in post-production, with Gladiator probably filming the scenes you've mentioned at about anything from 60-100FPS.

The faster the shutter speed, the greater the possibility of freezing the motion you are filming. A clear picture is determind by focus, light, dof and other factors.

As I briefly said before, if you want to achieve the film look, every single camera aspect needs to be taken into account. Primarily, I'd suggest you completely FORGET about whether you're filming in 24, 25 or 29.97FPS, as in most cases and with the software available in todays computer market, you can achieve the fps without any noticeable damage to your production.

I'd much rather good scripts, stories and ideas were being produced, instead of all this 'industry standard' equipment technobabble and debates about what is the best format to shoot in. Who cares? If what you're shooting is sh.....


..ocking
smile
Perhaps I am using the wrong "terms". I know what shutter speed does, as I've dealt with it many-a-times while working in film. And, aside from the fact that focus plays a roll, I was referring simply to what shutter speed does.

I see where the misunderstanding is now, and I apologize for not fully explaining what I meant: The higher the shutter speed, the clearer-crisp the picture is during a high-motion scene.

The "motion/movement" I speak of in the first battle scene in Gladiator is due to shutter speed, not how many FPS it was going at. The higher the FPS the more "home video like" the video becomes. The higher the shutter speed, the more crisp/clear each and every single frame will be.

Another example of a high-speed shutter shot would be in Matrix 2, when Neo is fighting all of The Merovingian's minions, after retrieving The Keymaker. The shot is when a badguy swings a sword at Neo (while he is holding the two Sais) and Neo ducks and the sword smashes through a lamp on the staircase. That one shot uses high shutter speed, yet is still filmed in 24fps.

I am trying to separate the notion between "film look" and "film movement", since many of you are trying to help me for something I am not looking for help with. I understand the concept of lighting, colour balancing, colour and contrast, etc. We all understand that.

I am looking for the "motion" of film. 24fps.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:16pm

Post 46 of 60

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member


I am looking for the "motion" of film. 24fps.
shoot on film then


-MAGIC

Last edited Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:18pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:17pm

Post 47 of 60

TVK

Force: 1000 | Joined: 7th Jan 2002 | Posts: 65

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

CX3 wrote:

If you are trying to transfer your work to film, then go get the DVX. I have it and love it. IM me if you would like to see some full qual footage that I have shot. I'm sure it might fall a little short to HD but the 24p helps so much. I personally cant stand looking at films who do not have that frame rate or close to on it. No matter the quality, it still looks "home videoy" to me for some reason.. thats why I couldnt stand watching that big star wars fan film that came out recently.
FINALLY, someone that understand EXACTLY where I'm coming from.

THANK YOU.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:18pm

Post 48 of 60

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

Do you even know what your talking about?
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:18pm

Post 49 of 60

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Wow. I think Sollthar knows what shutter speed is dude. He, I'm assuming, meant that if you slowed the shutter speed down a bit, it would move more dreamy like.

In my opinion, this is what you really need to achieve a proffesional, movie quality feel to your prosumer footage:

PRODUCTION

-Lighting - learn it, eat it for breakfast

-Camera settings - Learn what shutter speeds (you obviously do unsure ) and apertures are and how they affect how your lens reacts to light, Another proffesional element is using shallow depth of field (wide apertures with low F stop values) to reveal things or have your audience focus on non-blurred elements of the shot.

-Camera movement - Get or make a steadicam and/or a crane. This will allow proffesional movement and can add a lot to different ways you want to present the scene.

-Sound - Get a boom mic, all I can say.

-Acting- You're not going to have a movie feel if the acting sucks.

-Lenses- If you have a prosumer camera, even if it doesn't have interchangeable lenses it WILL support add on lenses. Look around B and H online. So many different lenses for different kind of shots. If you have a wide epic shot of mountains or something, and you use the cameras built in narrow angled lens, you are going to have an ameteurish shot.

POST PRODUCTION

-Colour correction- prosumer cameras will not have perfect colour, not even pro ones do. Learn how to do it.

-Colour Grading- Learn how to colour grade, how much and when and why. Colour grading is usually mood based.

-Visuals- If you use a visual effect, either do it subtly or get it right.

-Good soundtrack- For a good movie feel, you have to have a good movie soundtrack no doubt.

I personally don't know much about 24p, but I imagine every one of these elements are more important than the framerate of the video. Just watch Atom's/Ben's intro (only example I can think of right now for 30 fps awesomeness) - I think it gives a proffesional movie feel at 30 fps with a lower end prosumer camera. My 2¢.

EDIT: A lot has been said since I began typing, hopefuly this will still help.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:22pm

Post 50 of 60

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

TVK wrote:



The "motion/movement" I speak of in the first battle scene in Gladiator is due to shutter speed, not how many FPS it was going at. The higher the FPS the more "home video like" the video becomes. The higher the shutter speed, the more crisp/clear each and every single frame will be.
Well, you have no idea what I meant then. The first battle in Gladiator was most likely filmed at a higher frame rate and then taken down to 24 fps in post, as are most high octane action sequences.

I'd love to get my hands on (for the day) the new Sony camera that can shoot at 10,000fps, something the BBC has made use of for some recent sports/video advertising.


And if you're trying to find the balance or whatever between the two, for someone who has had experience with film? Why not as magic_man says.. just shoot on film.

You clearly know so much, but cannot explain yourself or don't seem to have much of a clue. The rules are there, film is film, video is video.

And again I state, it doesnt matter. As long as your product is good.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:25pm

Post 51 of 60

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

I've read most of whats on here.... im confused... whats the problem?

everything has been discussed.... yes the dvx100 is awesome at about everything and does 24p... which seems to be the look you want.

the hdv cam shoots hdv...... and softare sucks at making the film movement / 24fps look.

if you want that look so bad, done! dvx100

the picture quality on the DVX is great, i've used it -> ITS GREAT.. it looked amazing in "BROKEN"... done deal man

do it up on the DVX

-MAGIC
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:29pm

Post 52 of 60

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The next person to give this guy a tip that doesnt have anything to do with 24p frame rate should raise their right hand.






... and proceed to smack themselves ha

If I wanted to make my car better by buying a new steering wheel and the guy at the store keeps trying to sell me pedals and floor mats.. I would get a serious headache ha. Sure it might make my car look better but its not what I'm there to buy. (Sure I know some of you are trying to help but saying the same thing that doesnt really apply strictly to "24p" over and over again isnt going to help much.)


The guy is simply just tied between a 24p converter and a camera that can just shoot 24p in general. He just wants opinions on both... nothing else.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:30pm

Post 53 of 60

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'll debate that Magic_man. With a quote about the Sony Z1:

smile
'"Notice that it’s not actually able to shoot in 24p, but then this is not a bad thing at all. In fact, Sony could have fudged and called it 24p, because the result is the same. Sony has tucked electronics inside that give you progressive footage that’s shot at 24 frames per second, using interpolation that looks as good or better than any 24p. So don’t let that 24p buzzword get to you – this baby can give you that 24-frame film look and then some...This new Z1 model is actually shooting at 24 frames/48 fields per second, so the CineFrame technology has an easier time of electronically combining two fields into one progressive frame, giving you the same or better video than you’d get if you were actually shooting at 24p, especially considering the small size of these CCDs. The result to these trained eyes is some great-looking, smoothly cadenced 24-frame footage that looks exactly like 24p if not better. Bravo, Sony ."


So the Sony Z1 is another option smile And a camera I'd strongly recommend.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:32pm

Post 54 of 60

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

in that case.....

DVX100 -> dont bother with software to convert, doesn't work as good

Light it good, film it good. Look at BROKEN, pure dvx , if that doesn't look like what you want then it wont matter what you shoot on unless you actually shoot film


*edit*

er-no -> I don't know much about that camera, but based on the quote, and if your backing it, then yeah, or that cam too... either way.. all signs point to "not HDV video look camera" smile

-MAGIC

Last edited Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:34pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:34pm

Post 55 of 60

Alex Reeve

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

MacOS User

Member

er-no wrote:

Well, you have no idea what I meant then. The first battle in Gladiator was most likely filmed at a higher frame rate and then taken down to 24 fps in post, as are most high octane action sequences.
Shooting at a higher frame rate gives you slow motion when played back at 24fps. The look TVK is referring to in Gladiator (same as the Private Ryan battle scenes) was achieved through shutter speed and angle.

This has been discussed on cinematography.com often:

Link 1

Link 2
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:34pm

Post 56 of 60

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

CX3 wrote:



The guy is simply just tied between a 24p converter and a camera that can just shoot 24p in general. He just wants opinions on both... nothing else.
Actually no CX3, he got on top of a large horse and started to gallop around pointlessly? Everyone so far from my understanding has tried to help with advice and pointers, and you can't just generalise and sum up 'film look' with '24p' (I think everyone is clear of that now heh).

What to do? If you have a camera that shoots 24p. Shoot it. If you don't. Forget about 24p. It's a buzzword. Just make good films!
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 5:47pm

Post 57 of 60

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Magic_man12 wrote:

in that case.....

DVX100 -> dont bother with software to convert, doesn't work as good

Light it good, film it good. Look at BROKEN, pure dvx , if that doesn't look like what you want then it wont matter what you shoot on unless you a
We're just saying, there's more to it than that and it is something he needs to see before buying a new camera. They didn't just get some people together, flip the camera on to auto, and press the record button.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 6:01pm

Post 58 of 60

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Veddy Veddy True... but TVK said that it was his mistake on words because he meant "Film Motion".
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 6:04pm

Post 59 of 60

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

My camera films at 29.97 fps. Through changing shutterspeed and turning my ND filter on, I can achieve both the crisp pictures used in action sequences (Neo chateau angles, Undercover Brother final fight against Mr. Feather, half of Armageddon) and slower, more blurry movement that can convery the same, slow "dreamlike" look. Look aat Cover's Story. When he robs the store it's filmed at s/60 in frame mode and when he's running or moving around it's filmed at s/120 with ND on. You can notice the difference in motion.

So............................why shoot 24fps at all? You can always convert back to it later.
Posted: Wed, 19th Jul 2006, 10:59pm

Post 60 of 60

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

You seem to be unable to separate the difference between "frames per second" and "shutter speed".
That's cute, that made me laugh. Do you have another one of those? smile