- February 8, 2011 at 10:52 pm
We are shooting a music series and are going for a more filmic look vs. a “live” tv broadcast look. Currently we are shooting with Sony 1400 XDCAM’s designed for broadcast which are limited to 1080i/59.94 and 720p/59.94.
My (dangerous) question is:
I want to create a more “filmic/cinematic” look but we aren’t shooting at 24p as the cameras are limited. I am leaning towards shooting 720/59.94p so that I have the option of dropping to 720/29.97p (much closer to 720/24p. I may even attempt to drop the 720/59.97p to 24p to see how it looks. If the show is to be broadcast, how will the upconvert translate from 720/29.97p (or 24) to 1080/59.94i for broadcast? Would it be smarter for any reason unbeknownst to me to shoot at 1080/59.94i as a “master format” if I’m trying to change the framerate for a specific look?
NOTE: It’s been discussed that the 1080/59.97i footage would have “more information” to change to other formats. I feel like having progressive frames is more desirable than having 2 sets of interlaced fields.
Thanks in advance for chiming in.
And, for the record, I know it’s best to shoot in the delivery format but we are at a severe disadvantage in that this will go to any number of channels.
- February 9, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Shoot/record at 1080i60, then field-blend the video. This will give you a 1080p30 look, which is also a little softer.
- February 9, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Either de-interlacing 1080i, without frame blending, or 720p30 from 60 is your best bet. If you have any motion in your shots, frame blending will start to look like odd motion blur.
I would be less concerned with frame rate and take your finished product to a skilled colorist. Remember “cinematic” means big budgets and high production value, frame rate won’t duplicate that.
- February 10, 2011 at 2:15 am
buy a Canon 7D.
end of story.
- February 12, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Point taken, though I respectfully disagree that frame-rate isn’t as important as coloring. I think the right selection of all of these assets is crucial to achieving a look. Shooting 60i has zero cinematic attributes. 30p, moreso. 24, yes. Coloring, absolutely, but a live music series?…
- February 12, 2011 at 6:15 pm
End of story? Really?
I’m not sure that H.264 footage is a very good format to work in for broadcast. Also, pretty sure that any DSLR is limited to about 12 minutes of continuous footage. Hardly awesome for shooting a live show. Additionally without any CCU capability it’s not a viable solution for anything professionally shot using a director, control room, etc etc.
I love the look of full frame 24p, but the equipment just isn’t where it should be for a production like this.
- February 13, 2011 at 12:47 am
That’s certainly a popular belief, and safe. 24p will never fix poorly exposed, clipped and uneven color. The image is everything, the rate is secondary in my opinion.
Cinematic = feature films = hollywood = big budgets = top directors, scripts, DPs, actors, locations, editors, scores, and marketing. It just so happens that 24 fps was the minimum speed needed to play an audio track. Before audio it was 18 fps or less. If 24 is better than 30 or 60, then 18 must be even better… no? Feature films HAVE to be shot at 24, the directors have no choice.. you do. With the advent of 3D and digital projection, the 24 fps requirement will eventually fall away. When feature films no longer NEED to be shot at 24, you will see frame rates go up… 48 and 60 would be my prediction.
Higher frame rates mean sharper images and smooth pans. 2K shot at 60 fps will be sharper than 4K shot at 24. Ask any still photographer if they shoot 1/48 (180 shutter)… they will laugh.
Ask your self why an inferior acquisition and delivery format that produces soft and stuttery imagery is so desirable. That’s an easy one… it’s associated with big budget films and people want that association to rub off on their productions. Frame rate is the least of the attributes that make feature films quality productions.
The power of the status quo is huge. 24p is familiar, 30 and 60 look different. Different = Bad
Oh… and I call BS on the whole “suspension of belief” theory, it’s simply the cult of 24. It will go the way of the horse and buggy. I’m sure directors of the Charlie Chaplin 18 fps era thought the same thing about 24 as you do about 30 and 60.
The future is progressive. 24 for broadcast means interlaced. Don’t get me started on 3:2 pulldown.
With all that said 24p has a place… international deliverables and theatrical release… for now!
Sorry for the length.
- February 22, 2011 at 6:26 am
Now, the long answer.
Last Saturday, I directed and produced the image of the first international broadcast in history to show Ivete Sangalo, Brazilian’s most popular singer, performing live over a “Trio Elêtrico” (a stage mounted in a very big truck) directly from Praia do Forte, Bahia, surrounded by a crowd of more than 10.000 people using 8 of 11 EX3 cameras with Letus Adaptors and Nikon 35mm lenses (and a pair of Adaptimax rings). It was broadcasted through YouTube.
I watched yesterday the full HD PGM recorded in XDCAM EX format in our grading room, and the result was incredible. Finally, we achieve a film look for broadcast!
We are very proud to be the first production company who introduces the film look given by the shallow DoF of the 35mm lenses in the Brazilian’s broadcast arena.
I’m very thankful to the people at Caco, Nova, Estudio Base, Axé Mix, YouTube and of course to Ms. Ivete Sangalo for the chance to innovate, and for their support.
You can watch one of the songs here:
Log in to reply.