Frame Rate 29.97 v 24 fps

[Breakingnews]

I wanted to get all of your feelings on shooting news in 24 frames vs 29.97 frames. Is there a place in news for it and if so where? I have a shooter here that likes to be "cutting edge" and shooting 24 frames is one way he likes to do that.

I have seen a few paks on air and they do not look good. They strobe and look very grainy.

What are your thoughts?

 

[2 Hungry Dogs]

There is no reason to shoot 24p if your final output is broadcast 29.97. The main reason for shooting 24p is if you are going to do a film out. Film runs at 24p.

Also if his stuff looks jittery then he is not following the ASC rules, which were developed for 24p shooting.

Maybe a specific story could benefit from a 24p "look", but he should have a good reason for it, and 99% of his stuff should be 29.97. Unless of course your station is broadcasting in 24p, which I doubt.

 

[adam]

It's been said here before (what hasn't?) but I'll reiterate; For years film guys would look at the 30 fps world and salivate. 24 fps is a restriction that bedevils cinematographers. They have to deal with pan to travel rations etc. More frames is better particularly now that the "film look" is springing up all over, it's lost a bit of it's uniqueness. When theaters switch to digital projection I wouldn't be surprised to see 24 fps disappear from cinema.

 

[Ben Longden]

24? Nup.....
25.. Yup.... but thats us in PAL land of course....

On the subject, networks here require PAL, 25i, 720x576.... but I know one stringer who supplies it 1080 at 60p, and the strobing is comical when footy players run on screen.. its like a cartoon.

It dosent matter what the flavour of the month is, its what tech specs your client wants - and uses - that counts.

Ben

 

[adam]

Good point Ben, your client knows best.

I think that the example here was for one of us lowly local shooters. You see a bit of "special project" type pieces being shot in 24 fps as opposed to 30 fps. This is becoming more common as stations start to buy new cameras capable of switching between the various frame rates.

 

[ChrisFigProductions]

For broadcast purposes, I love 30p. That's my preferred frame rate.

24p is problematic largely because of the look when panning. It's very jittery and gives me nausea. I only use it for filmmaking purposes, when most shots are on a tripod and relatively static.

 

[shootist]

I shoot with a Panny HPX-2000 and have downloaded a number of scene files from the Panasonic website.

Tweaking some of these scene files, I've come up with a "film" look that I think is appropriate for certain applications and has been appreciated, accepted and requested by my "clients" (news director and other department heads) for these applications.

Most news stories I shoot 60i but I shoot 24p:


1.) Daily news "headlines" that are taped in the studio with the anchors at 4:15 and turned around for the top of the 5:00. The look definitely makes it stand out with a look that is consistent with our station's promo pkg. because.............

2.) I also shoot much our station's promos. Often we bring in the gang of thousands with jibs and cranes and zeiss primes for big gigs, but I shoot a lot of "run and gun" type promos like following our crews as they actually do their jobs on big stories (imho a LOT better than the obviously staged shots running up the courthouse steps of promos past). A lot of green-screen work for daily promotions of specials during ratings books as well.

3.) PSAs in and out of the studio.

4.) PKGs that are contained within a special. We do a LOT of specials and when they are outside of a regularly scheduled newscast, I hesitate less to go with what has been termed around here as "the look." Just did an hour "jobs summit" special this week. Joint project between news and programming. I did 3 pieces in 24p. One piece I didn't because it involves a family I started following a year ago and we go back to "revisit" earlier visits that weren't shot this way.

We often do multi-camera interviews for specials (penguins/steelers) and the scene files are fantastic because in a minute we can make three cameras shoot identically.

5.) "Special Reports" that air within a newscast. This is where I stop and think and discuss whether it's appropriate. I think it's important for a station to maintain a consistent look. One that doesn't jar the viewer when something looks different. Unless you WANT to jar the viewer, that is. I don't want to overuse this look to the point where it loses an impact or worse...have a ND say: "That didn't work. Don't do that anymore." So I use it when I know it will be a visually compelling story that will benefit from a deeper, richer look. (Did a moving story on a failing family farm with early am and late pm video that worked with that look).

6.) Sports features work when done well.

I guess my point is, I think it's inappropriate in a straight news piece for a newscast. It seems manipulative in a way. But much as there is a difference between columnists and reporters....I think there are differences in the types of stories we do. It's a very subjective tool. Does it enhance the story? Distract? Sway? Too much?

My recommendation is to think twice (thrice?) and engage others in the discussion. Don't just try to be different and stand out. Be different and stand out when it works for the "client"....whomever that might be.

 

[AlexLucas]

I have seen a few paks on air and they do not look good. They strobe and look very grainy.

I can understand the strobing, because chances are, he's using a 1/48th shutter.
That'll strobe like a mad dog when running against a flourescent light source, and totally freak on a CRT.

The only reason he would have graininess, on anything, especially in a newer video camera, is that he's using gain, or worse, an auto-gain setting within a camera.
I cannot advise enough to never, ever, ever, use an auto-gain, if you can help it.
A photographer should NEVER have grain in his video, outside of a night shoot. A 1/24th shutter is the highest standard framerate light level a camera can take.
SO- he's probably filtering so heavy, then gaining out of it. That's bad technique. He thinks the filter is depth, instead of the iris if he's doing that. That means he needs some edu-ma-cation. Or he's using a polarizing filter all the time outside, and that's just nuts.

That's screwing up your camera, like, intensely, if you're pulling 24p AND getting grain.

In my estimation, he's got a lot of tricks, if what you're telling me is right, he doesn't know why those shooting tricks should be applied. Don't model your shooting after this individual. Learn the mechanisms of light. A heavy filter removes color. Makes an image look dull. Pulls out light reflections. It's not good.
Polarizing filters are for specific shots, not all outdoor shooting...
Gain is also your enemy..
And so is 24p if misapplied.

Let's put it this way, if you think that only shutter should be used to get that 'sports look,' then it's time to talk.