Hi there. I'm James, and I'm a newbie.

I'll be going to film school this fall (undergrad), but I can't wait till the fall to start learning, so I've been scouring the web for as much info as I can.

So I've been reading tons about 24p and its "cinema look", and the difficulties of transfering it to 30fps for TV... and about shooting techniques for each application, how the frame rate or progressive vs interlaced affects motion-blur, etc...

And I'm fascinated... but I wanted to see a clip shot in 24p, and the same scene shot in 30fps or "video" mode, to compare, to see the difference, and not just understand it intellectually.

Any help? Any suggestions?

Now, I've watched tons of movies like everybody else, and they're (almost) all shot at 24p, I know. Please don't tell me to "go to a theater".

Thanks!

That's a really good question. I can't think of any place where you'll see the two, because people usually don't release the 30p versions if they did a conversion.

I personally don't care about 24p. I find that every other aspect matters a whole lot more than that slight fps speed difference.

Actually, I was hoping someone filmed a scene in both formats for the purpose of showing the difference... no conversions involved (which as I understand, is seldom 100% perfect)...

Actually part II, a third clip, call it the conversion version, would be interesting too, in the comparison.

isn't there any website out there that shows off or compare these formats visually?

quote:

Originally posted by titaniumdoughnut:
I personally don't care about 24p. I find that every other aspect matters a whole lot more than that slight fps speed difference.

I agree. I have an XL1 so I can't shoot in 24p, and I've simply never bothered with a conversion in post. It's not worth the hassle. If this is a "making video look like film" thing then I would concentrate on lighting design and color correction.

quote:

If this is a "making video look like film" thing then I would concentrate on lighting design and color correction.

Actually, no. This is a "what is this look they talk about" thing.

I've got no experience. Zilch. But I've been reading a lot, and among other things, I want to buy my first camera in August when I get to the US to start my 1st year as a film student.

And I want to get the best and most appropriate camera I can, given my budget, experience level, film school requirements and equipment.

I've settled on the Canon HV-20 for it's image quality, Mini-DV tape use, and available manual controls. And it boasts this 24p thing, the real deal, not the simulated sony crap, and I wanted to visually see what it's about.

And I'm not curious just for the camera. For knowledge' sake as well...

24fps, 30fps, 60fps. The number of images you see on screen in one second, to achieve the illusion of motion.
Closely related to it is shutter speed. How long each frame is exposed to the light, affecting blur.
And Aperture size: How much light gets to the film on each frame.

I'm dying to start experimenting with these... and seeing the results. I'm dying to finally understand why a model shot at a high frame-rate will look more realistic on the screen (cause I fail to see the logic in it, from my limited knowledge)...

So, the 24p thing is just a drop in an ocean of questions I have.. and I'm thirsty. I could use a drop.

Please don't begrudge me this drop.

thanks

I agree. A model shot at a high frame rate won't inherently look any more real. Could this refer to slow motion, making it seem "bigger" cause it moves slower? Or maybe, less motion blur due to shorter shutter opening at higher frame rates?

Also, I'm not sure which school you're going to. But you might want to hold off on buying a camera, and save your money. It's usually not hard to borrow one from the school, or a friend, or whatever. This way you can hold off on buying one until you really need it, and they'll all be better ones by then anyway.

As to the 24p craze. I like the progressive part of that. Interlacing SUCKS. I don't care a whit about the 24 part.

Thanks Titanium. Good advice.

I hope to go to Chapman undergrad, if they'll have me. If not, I'll most likely go to LACC and then take it from there after one or two years. My other options (it's good to have a couple) are SMC and Orange Coast.

I'm confident on my talent, vision, and capabilities.. and most importantly, my drive. so I'm not worried about goint to a community college... it's all about the effort you put in, after all.

Since I'll get to the US a full month before classes begin, I was hoping to start shooting "film" during this time, and get a feel for the camera, for editing, etc (while I buy a car, find an apartment, register for classes, get a drivers licence, furnish the aparment, watch The Simpsons movie, watch Grindhouse (if it's still playing somewhere), spend a weekend in Vegas, drive around Southern Cali to get to know what I hope will be my new home for a very long time)

But it might be wiser to wait till I get going on my semester and see if the investment is worth it.

Good luck!

I guess it depends on the amount of expendable cash you've got floating around. If a camera purchase isn't a big deal, then go for it. I'm just worried that a good camera will cost you around $4k, be outdated in a year, and have proved relatively unnecessary in that time, but again, you know your life better than me.

Well, I've got 1000 bucks budgeted for a camera. Maybe 1500. Money that could be spent buying a better computer for editing at home, or whatever... I'll certainly not pay 4k. Not before I graduate and/or get real filmmaking jobs (which is a way to say "not before I know what I'm doing with a camera").

And I didn't mean to sound like I've got cash or not.. only that I plan to be busy during that month. I re-read that post and I saw it could sound snobbyish.


But we've gotten way off topic.

If anyone knows of any site where they compare visually different kinds of shots, would you post the address here? thanks

This message has been edited. Last edited by: XJames,

I own an HD100u (way overkill, I know), so this is my experience.

With 24p, it really all depends on what you're filming for. 24p and 30p look basically the same - I can see a SLIGHT difference with 24p (not quite as smooth and...video like?) But really, its all what you're going to do with the footage. If it is going to be shown on just about anything except film, go with 30p. Most video streaming sites require 30 fps, and most tvs handle 30 fps better than 24 fps. But, if you think you might ever transfer your footage to film, you'll want to do 24p, because if you don't, the conversion process can be long and expensive and annoying.

I shoot almost all of my stuff in 30p, because I plan to stream it over the web or show it on a DVD. If or when I want to make a film transfer, I'll switch.

Well 24p can easily be handled on almost all NLE like Final Cut Pro, Premiere and Avid, and edited on either a 24p timeline or 60i, so as far as streaming the video on the web, it shouldn't make a difference if its 24p or 30p once its converted to a quicktime video or whatever format you choose. I have a canon XH A1, and i almost always shoot in 24p. I assume the HV20 will look similar in good light to my camera, and the 24p mode does capture the film like motion very well. But like others have said, making your video look like film depends on a whole lot more than just the frame rate, so if your goal is eventually to get as close to that look as possible you'll probably need a 35mm adapter and knowledge on how to set up shots and light correctly. If you want to see some footage, check out dvinfo.net, and go to the forums. You can get footage of just about any camera you choose.

Check out DVXuser.com - you'll find lots of examples of INCREDIBLE 24p footage. Then, despite what one or two people are saying, you'll actually find out what the masses mean when they say 24p is great. Blah, blah - it's not only about the frame rate and it's about correct lighting, cinematography etc, but in all seriousness it looks a hell of a lot better than your average 60i. 30p is a different look altogether and I find it strange to hear someone say that there's not really a difference between the two. You are right in saying that it depends on what you're shooting for though. It actually does matter. My thoughts.

-Kegan

Oh yeah, P is better than i anyday, but it's the part before the letter that I don't care much about. 24P is better than 30i, but 30P is pretty much the same as 24P.

Also - just a tiny detail, I've never seen any sites that require 30fps.

thanks guys

and these 2 websites are very enlightning... although most of it is way over my head (for now)..

you guys are gonna get a kick outta this

http://www.frozenphoenixproductions.com/24plook.mov

I've been reading up trying to understand how to convert the stuff in post and I still don't get it. What specifics/frame rate do you need tos hoot with, or does it NOT matter?

Haha, that video was great. If only it was that simple.

Haha, that video illustrates how important I thought 24p was when I first started looking for a camera. I figured, since so much of a big deal was made over it, that it was the main component to the "film look". But, in fact, it really does have much more to do with the lenses and how you set up the shot. Much of what people associate with the film look is the extremely shallow depth of field, which can be more or less achieved with something like the mini35 and some good lenses (that'll cost many, many times more than the actual camera). And no matter how good or film like your equipment is, if the shot isn't set right it'll just look terrible. Well lit and constructed scenes, even on video (30p, 24p, 60i, whatever) can look amazing.

You can find very cheap mini35 kits ($300-$1500... and the $1500 is flawless aside from the image being upsidedown, which requires an external LCD, but still that's cheaper than a DVX or HVX), which when combined with 24p and CineGamma on a camera like the Panasonic HVX200 or DVX100B, will give you an absolutely incredible film look. 24p is very important, but you need a 35 kit too in order to get a good shallow depth of field, which means picking up a 35mm lense, 105mm, etc. Without 24p, the motion won't be right... it's very subtle, but 30 makes it look like TV. 24fps is film. I wouldn't recommend trying to do it in post. Just get a DVX, Micro35 kit, couple Nikon lenses off eBay, and an LCD monitor... just make sure to use 24p and CineGamma... and Magic Bullet helps a lot too (it's usually included with the DVX... it's software that helps give you certain film looks... combined with everything else, you really can do anything on a microbudget).

The film look of 24 versus 30 frames per second is simply referring to the amount of motion blur...which gives it a bit more film look. With 24 frames passing your eye versus 30 you get more of a blurring effect since there are less frames fillng that second. We are talking amount minimal impact to the every day audience. Very few of us can tell the difference. No audeince can tell the difference I guarantee you that. Ask your grandmother if she can tell the difference. That's all you need to know. Only the tech weenies that will never make a great film can tell. Relax! If you make a great film...it doesn't matter whether it's 24p or 30i or if you draw every frame on a roll of toilet paper. Make a great film and the experts will get it to the right format for the big screen. Looking mor elike film...video has two areas of concern. The amount of info in focus...meaning that with great film lenses you can select the areas of focus...blur out the areas that are not the point of the shot. The other area of concern is the way the colors show up on film versus video/digital. Film shows color better...less muted. For example let's say you have 5 shades of black or another color in your shot...on film those different colors come out...you see the different colors...on video they all look the same. The color does not show true colors as well. So how do you take care of these areas of concern? Lighting! Lighting is the key and is more important in video than in film. You can put less light in areas you don't want in focus...muting them out with less light. Work with your lighting to bring out the colors contrast. No flat lighting! Learn lighting and it doesn't matter what kind of camera you shoot on. Buy a cheap camera to learn on then when you are ready for the real deal buy a better camera. Shoot, shoot, shoot!