-
Shooting in 24p, editing in 30p, easiest workflow?
-
“It clearly looks better, and anyone but an untrained monkey or perhaps a very bitter old videographer would agree.”
That my friend is about a thousand times more insulting and condescending then the sum total of all Dave’s sarcasm combined.
Since I’m one of the bitter and old “untrained monkeys”, that also regularly dishes out the sarcasm, and ‘the gloves have come off’, I might as well chip in with my 2 frames worth in three easy points.1. Your above statement is clearly some pretty bold talk for someone that doesn’t have a clue about frame rates and technical standards.
2. As many others in this thread have stated, there are plenty of good reasons to shoot 24. However, ego is not one of them. No matter how cool you think it is to pound a square peg in a round hole, the rest of us watching you do this are shaking our heads.
3. Shooting 24 because it looks better? Really? How do you come by that conclusion?
As a blanket statement, that is simply wrong. There are situations that 24 will give better results because the pull down works out better, or isn’t needed. But on equal ground, where 30 vs 24 are both shown in their best environ, there is no real world difference in visual quality. This is a complete myth, urban legend, or whatever you prefer, that is constantly being regurgitated by a bunch of beret wearing urban hipsters, and Michael Bay wannabe’s.
If there was a real world difference in quality, the nod would have to go to 30, simply because there is more visual information being presented to the viewer per second.
More FPS=Better quality. Capisce?
The reason film (real film, not fake ‘digital film’) frame rate was set at is 24fps, is because its the least number of frames per second they could get away with. When 24fps became the standard frame rate it wasn’t chosen because it was better quality than 30 or more fps. It was chosen because film stock and processing was expensive, and the fewer frames that were shot meant lower cost for film makers for a number of reasons. 24fps is simply the lowest acceptable quality they could get away with. Pushing financial, storage, shipping, magazine size, and a bunch of other reasons aside, the standard frame rate would have been at least 30, and probably 48fps as these would result in higher quality.Scott Sheriff
Director
SST Digital Media
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com -
Bret
“Odd that you’d have to train the monkey to like 24p. :)”
LOL
Great observation!Scott Sheriff
Director
SST Digital Media
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com -
[Scott Sheriff] “pretty bold talk for someone that doesn’t have a clue about frame rates and technical standards.”
[Scott Sheriff] “No matter how cool you think it is to pound a square peg in a round hole, the rest of us watching you do this are shaking our heads.”
[Scott Sheriff] “This is a complete myth, urban legend, or whatever you prefer, that is constantly being regurgitated by a bunch of beret wearing urban hipsters, and Michael Bay wannabe’s. “
I am in complete awe. I nominate this for post of the month. After I stop laughing, that is…
😉
-
Alan
“…I don’t know if you’re aware if this, but many television shows and commercials have been shot on film at 30fps. …”I think this was pioneered by the TV show, Miami Vice. I remember reading about this in Shoot or Post mag back in the day. They had Rank build a custom 35mm FSS that ran at 29.9, so they could go Negative to 1″ without pull-down, and it gave them higher quality low light shots, and the shows trademark look.
Scott Sheriff
Director
SST Digital Media
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com -
Dave
“Do yourself, a big, huge favor: shoot 30p. That’s it. Just shoot 30p. The DVX 100 does a fine job of that, FCP treats 30p just like it was interlaced, you can cut it with no further work in a normal 29.97 timeline, you can broadcast it and the motion darn near looks like 24p.Just do it. It’s fast. It’s a no-brainer. It’s fast turnaround, y’know what I mean?”
That is simply straight forward good advice. I don’t know why these thin-skinned young’uns start whinging when they ask for advice, and you give them the bottom line.
This thread reminds me of threads from folks that insist on shooting interlaced, when they have a choice not to, and don’t have a reason to, and then have a bunch of problems in post.
And when everyone asks why, they say “I dunno”.Scott Sheriff
Director
SST Digital Media
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com -
[Scott Sheriff] “I think this was pioneered by the TV show, Miami Vice. I remember reading about this in Shoot or Post mag back in the day. They had Rank build a custom 35mm FSS that ran at 29.9, so they could go Negative to 1″ without pull-down, and it gave them higher quality low light shots, and the shows trademark look.”
Very cool. I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure I remember reading that Star Trek: The Next Generation was shot at 30fps as well. It would be interesting to compile a list of high profile episodic TV content shot on film or video at 30p.
-
NO. 29.97 will import into 29.97. That is, 24p with PULLDOWN. You’ve yet to actually show any inkling as to understanding the difference between 24pA and 24pN. Everything you record to tape is RECORDED at 29.97 fps. If you choose a 24p mode, it either adds pull down (which interlaces 2 out of every 5 frames to blend them togethr to create 30 fps) or it creates one interlaced frame that can easily be removed to create true 24p in a 24p timeline.
Newer digital cameras that don’t shoot to tape can actually record 24p for real. Your camera can’t do that. The tape mechanism has to record and play at 29.97 because there isn’t a deck that plays at anything but that.
-
Now you mention they’re audio guys. Ok, so they don’t know the difference between 24p with pulldown playing at 29.97 and 30p. They are just calling it 30p. That’s my guess. They just know they’re getting 30fps clips from shooters.
-
More, more!!
-
Joey, if you read the link I sent earlier, it explains in awesome detail in very understandable terms:
adamwilt.com/24p
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up