[Legreck]

Hi,

It just happens that I am hesitating on my monitor color temp as well.

I have a panasonic LH2600W and the LH1700W also.

I read everywhere that D65 is the proper setting, but if I am in a dark room and generate a BW ramp test signal and toggle between D65 an D93, the D93 looks white to me and the D65 has a warm amber color shift.

So technically, if I color grade in D93, my material will end-up too warm, and if I work in D65 it seems that it will end-up waaaaayyyy too cold on output.

Any words of wisdom from my temperature insecure mind?

[Legreck]

Interesting thread.

This is a good occasion for me to ask these few questions and put forward some thoughtd on the subject.

Am I wrong in saying that the “film look” part of the panasonic cameras have nothing to do with 24p?

I’m going to put down a few conclusions I have come to, and I would like to know your thoughts and also know if my perception of the subject is wrong.

Ever since I saw the first shots to come out of a DVX 100 at 24p a few years back, My first thoughts were: “I like this cinegamma feature, but could someone get rid of this awfull strobing!”. I feel the same now when I see 24p HD.

I love working in progressive and I love the “non-ntsc video” gamma but I dont understand what there is to like or that compares to film in the 24p strobing.

Here is my technical interpretation, tell me if I’m wrong.

(This applies to projects being finished for North American TV, I know and understand that 24p is most appropriate for film delivery)

If we do the math, every 24p camera availlable today (exept the Sony 900) have a timebase of 59.94. Therefore when shooting 24p the camera actually captures a frame at an exposure of 1/60th and marks it for playback for the duration of 1/24th. Then the 3:2 pulldown, etc… is then applied for playback on video systems.

On the other hand, a film camera running at 24fps, given the fact that the shutter be at 180, captures a frame at an exposure time of 1/48th and is played back at 1/48th.

Film plays back motion at the same rate that it was captured in realtime, outputing a sequence of contiguous moments in time, blurring motion that was faster than 1/48 of a sec.

The 24p video camera takes a short exposure and plays it back at a slower than it’s realtime capture rate, then, it skips to another “short” frame taken at a non-contiguous moment in time and repeats the process. This gives you choppy movements in your footage that you dont get when playing back 24fps film even on video with 3:2 pulldown.

This is what my eyes see when I look at 24p. And when I look at a still frame from digitized film footage and compare it to a still frame of “film gamma” HD, I love what i see in HD no matter what the recorded frame rate was, so this has nothing to do with 24 or 30 fps playback or record. Also, when you need to time strech your footage, 24p is even choppier that you can’t really go under 70% of real time and still have a watchable motion.

Therefore, I’m in favor of 30p when working exclusively for TV or DVD deliverable projects and I tend to discourage the use of 24p in such cases.

Hence my conclusion is that 24p for video has nothing to do with “film look” and is more of a nuisance than a “special feel”.

I have had countless philosophical debates on these issues, but never with people that actually had the sufficient technical understanding of the subject matter.

Please get back to me on your opinions of my hypothesis.

Thanks