24p peeps

[rocky1138]

so I just wanted to get this off my chest...

I do some freelancing every once in a while, but lately I've been seeing a lot of ads for people w/ 24p cameras - that the shoot has to be in 24p - they're only using 24p

now I understand something like Star Wars, or Miami Vice should be shot in 24p b/c the makers of those movies wanted the flexibility of video & they knew for a FACT that their finished product was going to be put on 24fps 35mm film & shown to millions of people

but for MOST projects, if you're shooting on some 24p Mini-DV camera, you don't have nearly the $$$ to convert your finished product to 35mm film, thus MOST people who see your project will watch it on the web or DVD, which means that you'll have to convert your 24p to 30fps

now I'm all for progressive frames. so much so that when I got a check from the insurance company to fix the hail damage to my car, I took the money I bought a prosumer HD camera instead

I can shoot 480/30i, 480/60p, 720/30p. everything I shot looks really good (not as good as Miami Vice... sigh) and I don't have to worry about sampling my frame rates

PLUS on any TV that is running 30fps, I can do TRUE slow motion when I shoot 480/60p

now yes I am kinda just waxing my own car, trying to make me feel better about dropping a couple pay checks on a video camera, but still does anybody have a real valid argument for shooting 24p?

if you had the choice of shooting 480/24p or 480/60p what would you choose?

 

[shootist]

quote Rocky1138: "but still does anybody have a real valid argument for shooting 24p?"



ummmm...cuz i like the look of 24p?


not for all stories....but for some.

24p and a little tweaking of gamma and some other adjustments...like shooting wide open to lessen depth of field....etc...etc....and i get what i think is a nice "film look".

when I shot some advancer pieces on the flt 93 5th year anniversary at shanksville, pa.....i shot them all 24p and the pieces just seemed to jump at me and grab me by the collar.

i shoot hs football every week. when i did the "game of the week" one time, i shot 24p and got an overall positive response. reporter said: "what'd you do? is that a shutter?" i asked: "do you like it?" and he said "hell yeah....looks like 'friday night lights' or somethin'".


anyway...features and sports....not hard news but "feelings pieces" it just seems to work for me.

though you can't get the full feel on the web....here are two pieces in 24p:
http://www.wpxi.com/video/9838877/detail.html
http://www.wpxi.com/video/9839022/detail.html

 

[patssle]

I personally hate 24p. I hate the jitter of any movement. NTSC isn't 24p anyways, so that kind of defeats the purpose. Film looks great because of lighting, depth of field, and its contrasts. Not because of 24p.

My opinion of course

 

[rocky1138]

though you can't get the full feel on the web....here are two pieces in 24p:
http://www.wpxi.com/video/9838877/detail.html
http://www.wpxi.com/video/9839022/detail.html

so after watching these clips "24p"="dissolve like it will end world hunger"?




...I'm sorry, that was mean... before the flaming begins, back on topic.


have you tried shooting 30p? 60p? & compared those shots to 24p? has anyone here tried different progressive frame rates?

when you're viewers are going to be watching your work on an NTSC monitor, I really think that you'll get a nicer image when you shot 30 or 60 fps.

like I said before, I'm a big fan of progessive frame shooting. plus I've shot a lot of ENG in that "film look" (as wide open & longest lens as I can)

 

[Canonman]

I personally hate 24p. I hate the jitter of any movement. NTSC isn't 24p anyways, so that kind of defeats the purpose. Film looks great because of lighting, depth of field, and its contrasts. Not because of 24p.

My opinion of course

This gets discussed a lot on other forums. The consensus from a non-news POV is that 24P with 1/48 shutter (equal to 180 deg. shutter), has a motion cadence and blur that viewers equate with a non-reality look. People often go to the movies as an escape from reality and 24P helps. Granted it originally came into being as a tradeoff between acceptable illusion of motion vs. burning through expensive film stock at faster frame rates. But 24P has persisted through the years and audiences take to it, as witnessed by the feedback received by Shootist on his 24P efforts.

JMHO,

cm

 

[patssle]

If its for escaping reality and to give a non-reality look, then wouldn't it be ethically wrong to use it in journalism where you are trying to show reality?

Just posing a question, not making a claim

 

[shootist]

have you tried shooting 30p? 60p? & compared those shots to 24p? has anyone here tried different progressive frame rates?

sorry...read your original post too quickly.....thought you were comparing 24p and 60i not 30/60p. i never have shot 30p or 60p. only options on my camera are 24p 30i or 60i.

would definitely be interested in how 60p looks.

and as regards the blurring of "reality" patssle mentioned....when a football game shot in 60i came on the air directly after my 24p attempt. i was told that it looked like a bad soap opera compared to my "film"....i know what i'd choose given that option.

of course it also raised the issue to me that even tho my piece stood out....is that a good thing when continuity is less distracting? perhaps not.

another question for another time perhaps....