More
15. The 24p Conspiracy
11 months ago
24p is often sold as a magical button that will transform video into film. It won't. 24p is merely one small and relatively unimportant part of "The Film Look" and this video graphically presents the definitive argument proving that 24p video doesn't automatically look like film... but it also makes a decisive argument (or two) for shooting 24p anyhow.
videopia.org
* Update: YouTube is distributing HD at a frame rate of 29.97, so that is what you should use for YouTube. But who would do something like that?!
videopia.org
* Update: YouTube is distributing HD at a frame rate of 29.97, so that is what you should use for YouTube. But who would do something like that?!
-
Jonathan Labez5 days ago -
Christoph Lerch7 days ago -
Alex Wolski10 days ago
-
Harold House14 days ago -
John Magne Olsen16 days ago -
john lewis23 days ago -
-
Robert Newton25 days ago
-
Scott Mohrman30 days ago -
Ryan Melling1 month ago
This conversation is missing your voice. Take five seconds to join Vimeo or log in.
Hey, there is 1 more comment in
1 group
MP4
00:04:57
-
playslikescomments
-
Total
8,188 
134 
87 -
Feb 10th 10
0 
0 -
Feb 9th 15 0 0
-
Feb 8th 11 0 0
-
Feb 7th 8 0 0
-
Feb 6th 10 0 0
-
Feb 5th 16 1 0
-
Feb 4th 12 0 0
Previous Week
-
Vimeo: About / Blog / Developers / Jobs / Community Guidelines / Community Forums / Help Center / Site Map / Merchandise
/ Get Vimeo
I bought a Canon HF100, shoots in that 24p you mention, but is run through a pulldown in the camera to produce a 60i signal.
When I import into Premiere Pro, it has to be in a 29.97fps project. Doing a reverse telecine in After Effects can fix that, but then makes the project files hella-huge. I do enjoy the look of 24pf, and will probably use it.
Again, good video.
The close ups you have on your face appear to have a lot up lighting which makes you look a little odd.
Oh, and thanks for the support! I think the easiest way is to order the PDF for $10. I am working on getting listed on Amazon (etc.) and while I like the print edition (the quality is good), Lulu's shipping is expensive. In my opinion.
Interesting video, although I already knew that 24p did not make your video look like film. :-P
No but seriously great episode. Funny, because I fell for it. I am going to purchase a VIXIA HF100 and this in fact, is listed as a key feature. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to buy the camera it's just makes more sense now.
Personally, I like 24p more simply because we all have it drilled in our minds that 60i is to "video-ish" and is way too "smooth"? There is obviously a noticeable difference but this brings up another question....If a film camera was shooting at 30 fps, wouldn't it still look like film? Of course it would! It would appear "faster moving" to our eyes but as you mentioned, its the 17th most important aspect of the film look.
I don't know. Its just the way we all think. Pretty brave of you to go out there and just stomp all over the "secret to film look." You probably broke their hearts :'( Are we all under some kind of 24p placebo effect?
I hope the point of the video is clear: 24p is an artistic, aesthetic decision. If you like it, you like it.
And I also hope I didn't stomp too hard on the marketing folks: they aren't evil, it's their job to promote features and if I were a camcorder manufacturer, I'd fire my marketing team if they didn't say that 24p was the greatest thing since sliced bread. That's their job! My only point is that we, as consumers, need to be smarter!
I agree that 24p wont make your video look like film but i do disagree on it being #17. It's part of the main ingredients that makes video look like film. It cant be lower than Depth of field!
Lighting, 24p 1/48 (cadence), Cine gamma (dynamic range)
Also a lot of studios only buy films that are 24 fps. Most cinemas may also only support that are 24 fps too. thats accdg to this guy prolost.blogspot.com
Now the bottomline, you dont need the "film look" to create and tell stories.
One other benefit is that 24p requires less light so is good for low light situations.
Considering that you shoot with a 1080i60 camcorder, your 24p videos look surprisingly smooth. Or did you shoot this one with the HV20? Good stuff.
I wish you explained that shooting movement in 24p requires shallow DOF to reduce strobing, and shallow DOF requires big lens/chip, which is not a standard fare of a consumer camcorder. And this is another reason why 24p is a gimmick, unless one is very-very-very careful with his shots. Talking head is fine ;-)
Re: my 60i source video to 24p - I dunno what to say except (1) I'm careful with the deinterlacing now and (2) my videos have very very low motion where frame rate differences aren't going to show up anyhow.
i must say - you are asolutely right !
in audio we are asolutely looking for highter sampling frequenzy and higher bit deph to maximize audio quality.
if you don't like perfect quality (in audio just like in movies) just donconvert it or add noise at home . the main thing is to have a good source material with the highest possible quality...
when you say that audio engineers found that 24 frames per second was the minimum for optically printing the audio...
you must be reffering to 35mm , but thats totally backwards because the heighth of a 35mm, 16mm, and 8mm frame are all different, an 8mm frame would have significantly less room to record an audio track then a 35mm frame. if 24p is the minimum for audio on 35mm then the minimum for recording audio on other formats,probably close to double for 16mm, i dont want to do the actual math right now, but you can clearly see the frame rate would have to be higher to get this "minimum" audio recording quality you are talking about across the smaller formats.
if the audio engineers said that the minimum for 8mm sound is 24fps then that would be different.
i am curious to see which format had a minimum of 24fps for audio and who made this decision.
-chase mayer-
Then the NEXT problem you'd raise is "Do you mean 35mm 3-perf or 4-perf?" Ha! Thanks for keeping me sharp!
Then we have the the fact that when the standard was established, post-mixing and the likes where not heard of. You shot the film and had a friggin semi-trailer with the optical-sound-"camera" close by for the audio-track. They where then superimposed on the releaseprint as is.
Which is why early "talkies" seldom had cuts and seldom had off-screen music. Because it meant that somewhere in the studio, they had to have a symphonic orchestra ready to play on the mark for every take.
By the time we get to 2 or 3 perf acquisition we not only already have the practice of recording the sound to tape and later digital for post-mixing but also, even if it's shot on 2 or 3 perf, the main distribution-format has always been in 4perf 35mm anyways. This has changed somewhat in latter years with digital audio either on the film itself or sync-points that controls a DTS-disc-player on the side of the projector for greater sound quality.
Liked the video, but now let's do follow-ups... like
"why an open shutter kills 'film-look'" and my pet peeve:
"The DoF conspiracy of 'film-look'"
You should like at least part of my 35 Lens Adapter piece tho and I agree: shallow DoF is great in it's place (and it is always better to have a choice than not), but using a shallow depth of field JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN (or because you bought a $2,000 adapter and need to use it) is ridiculous. Ansel "deep field" Adams and Orson "infinite focus" Welles would be rolling in their graves. Right lens for the job and all that.
This video was well done and informative, as always. My preference is to always shoot progressive frames at 30fps or less (24p depending on the client/project). I don't think you can approach film look at all at 60i, even using the right techniques. 60i is great for sporting events, but I don't care for it otherwise.
So, that said: If you are moving to Asia for a year, then I wouldn't bother trying to match the country's standards, because you'll be coming back. If you are going native and never coming back, then it is a good idea to get a camera that matches. In any case, you'll be editing on a computer and computers are all compatible with everything, esp. camcorders that shoot to memory cards/HDDs (i.e., not tape) and conversion to whatever is pretty easy.
Incidentally, they don't shoot 25p in Asia as a whole. Some places do, some don't. I lived in Taiwan some time ago, and they used 29.97 there (same as US).
Now, sure, there are a ton of things that go into a filmic look, including camera, DoF, gamma, shooting technique, lighting, etc., but 24p is way down the list, maybe just above shutter angle (real or simulated), which I assure you, also makes a difference, but no one in marketing is pushing as a feature.
youtube.com/watch?v=czQfPdPaK_8
And I do entirely concur with your tests on the HV30. Can't wait for the HV40!
Blair witch project is the real look of interlaced video camera.
And I didn't make it all the way through Blair Witch...
I didnt used XL-1 ,but in good hands its footage looks nice.
Also on dvx forums one guy wrote(sounds funny cause anybody could wrote this) that 28 days was shot on XL-1 only in small parts.I dont know how much of it its true but i recognize interlaced by super sweet movement and 28 days dont look like its interlaced.
After closer look at this film i think some scenes were shot interlaced and got deinterlaced later but not many of them.
Sorry I don't have a "You should buy X" answer for you, but you are asking the right questions!
I would most certainly disagree that 24p is "as critical as lighting and sound." Shoot poorly lit 24p and it looks like crap. Shoot excellently lit 23.97, 24p, 29.97, 59.94i, 60i, 60p... and it will look great, no matter the frame rate.
Therefore, artists and "filmmakers" today should feel free to shoot whatever they want and not feel bound by arbitrary technical decisions made 80 years ago by audio engineers with no regard to the aesthetics or look at all. If you want to shoot 24p, by all means, shoot it!
Regardless of the reasons why 24P is a standard--which are admittedly interesting, though irrelevant--films today are shot at 24P. That's the plain, flat truth. We are conditioned to regard 24fps as a movie, and higher rates as video. A narrative movie looks wrong at 60i, just as live sports looks wrong at 24P. If you want your work to look like a real, actual movie, you just plain GOTTA shoot 24P. It's top of the list.
What about "Malcolm in the Middle"? Just as a random show that popped into my head. That show used (uses?) a very sophisticated single camera style and I bet they use video. Frame rate? I dunno, but it looks really good. Could be 24p. Could be film.
I honestly can't tell and have never read anything about the production. So this COULD be a point in your favor, but my point is that the single-cam shooting style and lighting are what make that show look like it COULD be film, no matter the frame rate.
EDIT: Not a great example, but the first one I stumbled on, Courtney Cox's short-lived "Dirt" was shot 60fps on a Varicam (60i? 60p? dunno):
youtube.com/watch?v=F92XKkgeZFk
Gotta be a bunch more...
There's a reason why you're having trouble finding modern single-cam drama shot in 30P or 60i--because everybody shoots in 24P (or, at the very least, posts in 24P). This is not because it's easier to work in that format--TV is still largely broadcast at 60i, so it'd be much easier to just work at 60i. And it's not because of any marketing gimmick. It's because THEY WANT THEIR SHOWS TO LOOK LIKE FILM. AND FILM IS 24P.
I don't mean to seem confrontational, sir. No disrespect intended. Just clearing up some misinformation.
Here's where we agree: professionals shoot 24p as a part of the film look all the time.
My real point is that 24p - IN CONSUMER CAMCORDERS, as marketed to consumers as a magic film look button - is a gimmick. I suspect you agree with me on that as well! And, we also agree that 24p is a great format in general. I'd be shooting it right now if I could for these segments, since my distro format is 720p24.
Really only one fundamental disagreement (correct me if I'm wrong), which is HOW important 24p is to the film look (which is a great disagreement and one that will never be resolved, since we are really talking about a subjective "look"). MY argument is that it's not very important, certainly less so than lighting, the lens up front and professional technique (and, in my opinion, a dozen other things). And, as Dirt demos, if it's easy enough to go 24p in post (which I point out in my video), there's no reason not to shoot 60fps: you can't go the other direction.
And I still maintain that it's top-of-the-list in terms of importance to the film look. No matter how good your lighting, lens, and technique are, the simple truth is that 60i or even 30p are NEVER EVER EVER going to look anything like film (unless, of course, you do the conversion).
Read Stu Maschwitz's blog post here: prolost.com/blog/2009/4/20/chapter-12-after-the-subway.html (and especially his first update under it) for another pro opinion, based on shooting 30p on the new Canon SLR.
As for it being a marketing gimmick, well, anyone who wants to give their home videos a film look deserves to get screwed anyway. Home video is like live sports: it SHOULD look like video, and looks wrong at 24p.
And I'll see your blog post with this one from John Galt, with the teaser:
"You often hear cinematographers saying, there's something special about movies at 24 frames per second. This may be true, but I'll tell you one of the problems of 24 fps..."
magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
Anyhow, thanks for the great conversation and keeping it lively around here!
Huh?! Sorry but that's simply untrue. Home movies were originally shot on 8mm and 16mm film at 24fps way before video was available to the consumer.
I would add that any frame rate that conveys the film maker's vision to the viewer best is the best frame rate. That includes overcranking and undercranking.
Lighting, depth of field, etc., etc. are all part of it. Several years ago the ASC was involved in a test of video vs film. The film guys shot on video and the video guys shot on film. It was all converted to video and shown to a group of "experts." The footage shot by the film crews looked like film and the footage shot by video crews looked like video. I guess there's more to the message than the medium.
PAL countries had used 50i in their standard-def, analogue world, forever. They never needed to telecine film content; they'd just speed it up and interlace it, to match 25 frames (50 fileds). Today, former PAL countries broadcast their HD at 25p or 50i. And you can easily tell the difference between 25p TV shows in HD from 25p movies in HD. So, obviously, it ain't the frame rate. Of course, it is even easier to tell video from film if the video is 50i.
For American viewers, the situation is somewhat different, and I can see the opposite argument somewhat more valid. After 60 years of television, I have no doubt that their minds have adopted the premise that if the framerate is slow(er), such as 24p, then it's film, and if it's fast(er), like 60i, it's video, and these associations are very strong. Content shot on film and shown on TV with 3:2 pulldown is still preceived as slower framerate (after all, there are duplicated fields throughout), reinforcing the perception of film. And it doesn't have to do much with lighting, or single-camera shooting either. Shows like "Friends" or "Seinfeld" were multi-camera shoots on 35mm film, with multi-camera, global TV-show lighting -- nothing cinematic there. Yet, they are unmistakeably film when you watch them. The 24p source, as well as the film gamma curve, easily gives away the original medium.
My conclusion is much along the lines of Videopia's. A number of factors contribute to the unmistakable film look. Interlacing is probably the most significant one. Film gamma is another rather important element; lighting as well. So is the framerate. In what order of importance? It will depend whether you grew up in an NTSC (60i) country, or a PAL (50i) country. For us, PAL people, framerate alone doesn't quite give it away; other factors have to be present in order for video to look like film.
And nice point about "Seinfeld" too - that'll make the next edition of my book for sure. I cover multi-cam vs. single-cam style, but only in terms of light/camera and neglected to tie that into the film vs. video debate. That's also another "yeabutt" against the argument that mult-cam sitcoms are the rule strictly because it's cheaper than film. Lots of reasons to go multi-cam. Lots of reasons to go 24p.
Overall takeaway from all of this is: Isn't it spectacular that we have these sorts of choices to make?
I have an HF-100 and I shoot in 24p. I remove the pulldown using Neo Scene (by Cineform) and edit the resulting ProRes Quicktime files in FCP, in a 24p (actually, 23.975) timeline. This works fine for any subsequent distribution. I can downsample into NTSC or PAL frame size for delivery on standard DVD (practically all current DVD players can take 24p and telecine on the fly to 60i for old NTSC TVs), or re-encode in full 1080 24p HD for Blu-ray delivery. For YouTube or Vimeo, I can transcode to H-264 or similar. The result looks as filmic as the filming process was.
Ideally, you'd shoot in the same format as your destination. If you want 24p destination and you have the choice to shoot 24p with your camera, I'd do it.
60i can look better (much higher temporal resolution), but it's not a matter of one being better than the other, it's simply a matter of selecting the right format for the task at hand. Sometimes that's 24p. Sometimes it's 60i.
Format profile : High@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 3 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 6mn 36s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 1 999 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 3 822 Kbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Resolution : 24 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.072
I just purchased yor book in pdf format and have to say that it really is helpful.. and ironic
but my question is: having understood (at last!! thanks!) the meaning of 24p, 1080i and so on, what I did not understand is: what happens if I shoot ,say 1080p, at 30fps instead of 24fps?
theorically, it could only be better, right?
thanks a lot..
ps: I am one of those who still don't love the unclean and undefined image quality of commercial lcd tvs, and still find amusement in watching movies on my old crt .. :)
And I hope you enjoy the book and have more questions, comments and criticism for me: Thanks!
i am not planning to share it on the web.
is it possile to have a "downgrade" process from 30 fps to 24 once you are in a digital editor?
i did not imagine frame rate could change the look of the image, as I tought it dipended on just the camera itself
And, yes, frame rate does change the look, but, as I argue, it is more subtle than many other factors, including, as you note, the camera itself.
tell me please what do you think about this clip.
it is my very first experience and was shot just with a Panasonic Dvx100Ae (Pal)
with no adapter, no color correction ecc ecc ..
thanks
alex
vimeo.com/6548216
dv-cafe.blogspot.com/2009/04/crank-2-high-voltage-behind-scenes-with.html
slashfilm.com/2008/05/02/first-look-corey-haim-in-crank-2-neveldinetaylor-using-consumer-grade-cameras-to-shoot-the-film/
According to 24p fans you're not supposed to be able shoot in 30p/60i and get a true filmic look, even if you're finishing format is 24p. not sure if this is true.
andrew disney shoots feature film at 30p.
gizmodo.com/5190883/shooting-a-feature-film-with-the-canon-5d-mark-ii-challenges-and-ingenious-workarounds
also check out vincent laforet's video shot at 30p. no grading or effects were applied
usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326
The main advantage of 24p is easy conversion to 25p as far as I can tell.
Great info and links - thanks!
Is it that FC and PP have to catch up to accomodate AVCHD 24p?
I can't wait until films are 48FPS, though! :D
Thanks!
It doesn't look smooth at all.
This kinda reminds me when people swore to the beta instead of the vhs. It's something that people will "argue endlessly about" as Videopia says
I'm just sharing my opinion.
Maybe true 24p on Tv, Film looks good and it's optimized for that. But as Videopia says that 24p on a camcorder is bull I totally agree for "24p,25p" on a camcorder is not smoooth and frankly it hurts my eyes when I look to long on it. It kinda looks like it skips a couple of frames.Sorry for the bad english. English is not my native tongue.