15 Responses to “Just Say No to 24p? Stefan Sargent is Mad as Hell”  

1. 1 Jon Neely Mar 19th, 2008 at 1:30 am

   I have to Disagree with the point of 16 different steps for getting the HV20 24p into a FCP time line Capture 60i>Convert to AIC in JES deinterlacer>use in in a DVCPRO HD time line in FCP… I count Three, I just made a Documentary with the HV20 and Sgpro, and I just went threw the whole digest portion two says ago. I shot in 24p and I have to say, I knocks the doors off of 60i For the film look no matter who its worded above, and the whole JES process is really pretty painless.

   Cheers,

   Jon

2. 2 Eugenia Mar 19th, 2008 at 5:46 am

   I agree with him 100%. 24p is overrated. 24p is a frame rate we are stuck since the 1920’s for *technical* reasons rather than aesthetical reasons. The “film lookâ€? is not 24p, it’s a combination of at least 10 different things that a random person with a $500 camcorder will never get close enough to reproduce. It’s the camera’s sensor, the lenses, the DOF, the lighting, the color grading, the sound and more. So there is absolutely no reason to shoot your newborn baby in the jerky 24p frame rate (I have had HV20 users emailing me for advice on how to use 24p to shoot their newborn babies).

   A few months ago I started a thread on REDuser.net suggesting to use 60p instead of 24p. Needless to say that 80% of the directors there thought I was crazy for suggesting that. But I know what I am talking about. 24p is just a “used to” thing, not something that we should be using in this day and age. It’s legacy. Nothing more.

   It takes ONE famous director to shoot in 60p to get the others interested in (of course, some theater projectors might need replacement to display the higher frame rate).

3. 3 Jon Neely Mar 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

   You must remember to do a Film out, the only option is 24p(in all most all cases) not saying everyone with a HV20 is going to do film out, but certainly the people with the RED one will. 24FPS is still the standard, 60p+ is great for slow motion, but 24p still achieves great results, plus I would rather have a progressive line than an interlaced, the HV30 has 30p, I would use that, When I do commercials with my DVX I always use 30p and looks great. The jitteriness I see in the LCD seems to not be there or is less apparent when in the computer, The LCD seem to kinda over do it, but after capturing it seems to straiten out. Eugenia check out the JES deinterlacer, it makes getting 24p from the hv20 a cinch.

   Cheers,
   Jon

4. 4 Eugenia Mar 19th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

   Jon, you are talking to the master, so no need for advices on HV20’s 24p. ;-) ;-)

   As for HV20-to-film, no one did that so far. And even if you want to do that, today’s theater projectors can do 48Hz and a few of them can do 72Hz. If you could shoot at 60p, you can print to 48p (the loss won’t be much).

5. 5 stephen v2 Mar 19th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

   You’ve gotta be kidding me. Stefan is a experienced, talented guy but that column in way off-base. I’ve posted a rebuttal on my blog at http://outsideinthemovie.com/blog/?p=97.

6. 6 Jon Neely Mar 19th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

   Well Eugenia, I’m glad you hold your self to that high of a standard, so from now on I will refer to you as “Jedi Eugenia” Master of all holy HV20 techniques,

   All kidding aside, Stephen, you wrote a very well worded blog there, and It makes a lot more sense than Stefan. Jedi Eugenia, I know where you are coming from but 60p to 48p would be noticeable. Also there have been plenty of award winning films done in 60i, Namely all documentaries yet people still strive to have 24p for their movies… weird…

   Jon

7. 7 Shane Ross Mar 19th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

   24fps is psychological. Studies have shown that watching movies at 24fps puts the viewer into a pseudo-hypnosis, and they can get so drawn into the movie that they zone out their surroundings. A good movie only improves this, where a bad movie will keep you in your senses.

   30fps is “too real,” and we as an audience are distracted by that. And one big reason is that we are USED to filmed stories looking like feature films…having that cadence. We are drawn into a story. 30fps is too close to real life, and 60fps even more so, so we can’t get into the story. TOO real. If we see a video that was shot 24p and one that was shot 60i, I can say, without hesitation that the audience would be more drawn to the 24p film. Unless the 60i film was a better film then story would take over and we’d get sucked in.

8. 8 stephen v2 Mar 20th, 2008 at 12:30 am

   Thanks Jon. He also failed to note Cineform NeoHDV makes it easy to edit 24p on the HV20. I used it for some broadcast spots, real-time pulldown removal during capture. Great codec.

9. 9 Eugenia Mar 20th, 2008 at 3:16 am

   Jon:
   >I’m glad you hold your self to that high of a standard

   Yes, I do. I am one of the most visible members of the HV20 community and I am saying this with authority, not because I am living in the clouds, but because I AM a visible member. How many emails do you get daily for video advice from strangers? I get over 10. Look me up. The article I linked to you above is the most visited pulldown removal tutorial for the HV20 online today.

   Stephen2:
   1. I do not disagree with you on the 60p vs 60i thing. I do prefer 60p too over 60i. But except the RED, no other cheap camera will give you today 1080/60p (not even the Blu-Ray specification support it yet). So what makes sense is to use 60i/30p, not go all the way down to 24p. This is like having a pain on your pinky, and the doctor amputates the whole arm instead. Besides, MOST people are using video in order to burn DVDs, and so burning a 60i DVD is fine, as the TV or the DVD player will de-interlace it on the fly. Of course, not all de-interlacers are born equally, but I personally have one of the better living room setups where you will never figure out if a footage was originally progressive or interlaced just by looking at it. So I really don’t understand your first point. I think it’s off topic to what Stefan was saying.

   2. As for the “magic” of 24p, this is just a GETTING USED TO thing. If new movies were somehow shot in 60p, people will eventually get used to them. The 24p limitation exists because of TECHNICAL reasons back in the 1920s and it’s stuck with us because of projector legacy in theaters. It only takes ONE major director (with a Hollywood budget) to shoot in that mode for other directors to follow. Just like when Lucas went digital, others followed, while before that they would go on and on and on about the stupid film grain (which again, was a legacy, technical problem rather than a “feature”). Shooting a big budget movie in 60p, theater compatibility aside, is simply an open minded step forward that should happen at one time.

   I will testify here something. 20 days ago we purchased one of the best TVs ever released (an expensive Pioneer plasma, check online for reviews to that statement, we did our research before buying). The Pioneer TVs have a 72Hz feature that smooth out the 24p jerky pans (it only works for pans). Depending on the scene, you are going to get a kind of smoothness ranging from 30p to 60p. I watched a number of 24p movies in that mode. And I can tell you one thing: I WISH the whole movie was shot that way! It did not remove “magic” at all for looking hyper-real. It just looked smooth. When we turned that feature off, the movie felt TERRIBLE to us. It felt WAY to jerky (and we have isolated some good scenes on ICE AGE, so if you live close by to come and visit us we will show it to you first hand).

   For the last time: it’s a getting used to thing. Give it 3-4 hours watching high budget movies in 60p that do have the cinematic look and feel, and the viewer will get used to it in NO TIME. And when you show him/her again the same movie in 24p, it just doesn’t feel right anymore. It feels too 1920s. Take my word on that, because I did take a taste of it with this new TV we bought at home.

10. 10 Eugenia Mar 20th, 2008 at 3:36 am

    And btw, I don’t really object if people want to shoot Hollywood movies in 24p. It’s their art.

    What I DO object, is having people recording in 24p their newborn baby. Or fast-paced skateboard and ski videos. I mean, how stupid is that? Why would you ever use 24p for sports or for family occasions? I just don’t see the point, sorry. It’s not that you lose the film look or anything. Because even at 24p, HV20’s PF24 does not look like a Hollywood movie anyway. It’s a marketing ploy.

    The funny thing was this guy who emailed me a few months ago going on and on about HV20’s PF24 to shoot his documentary. I told him to go 60i. He didn’t listen. Two months later he emailed me back complaining how jerky 24p was.

11. 11 stephen v2 Mar 20th, 2008 at 7:51 am

    Eugenia, no one is suggesting 24p is better for capturing motion of skateboard videos or fast action. But I am (and so are lots of people) arguing 24p is better for narrative and stylistic work than 30 or 60p. The fact the frame was originally a technical limitation is irrelevant. Despite the fact the faster frame rates have been available for decades, people continue to gravitate to 24fps.

    I argue it’s precisely because it does not render motion accurately, because it gives reality a slightly different look, that is why it works so well. As for the idea we are “conditioned” to it, that is pure speculation, I know of no science that speaks to that issue one way or the other. But even if it’s true, you still have to accept that it is the audiences’ preference for narrative filmmaking.

    Perhaps there is some future world where people have never seen 24 fps and only see 120fps. But I suspect that someone in the strange and distant future world will have a frame rate control and start screwing around and figure out that often, depicting the world in a slightly unreal fashion (think painting, sculpture, still photography, dance and yes film) is a more powerful aethestic choice then a precise rendering of reality without visual flaw.

    Film grain, short DOF, lens focal lengths, dolly and crane shot, editing etc. are all other motion visual techniques all see the world slightly to radically different than the human eye. That’s a good thing.

12. 12 Helena Handbasket Mar 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

    I wrote a blog post about why we will continue to use 24P, and why 60P is NOT something we will just get used to with time. You can check out my reasoning at:

    http://mewanthorsie.blogspot.com/2007/08/some-tech-for-artists-60i-versus-24p-so.html
    (Editors note: Possible NSFW language and images)

    Cheers

13. 13 Helena Handbasket Mar 20th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    Ah yes, (re: the editors note about NSFW language and images) I should have warned your gentle readers that some language in my blog posts and the title of the blog itself is “irreverent.” But it’s all done with the best of artistic intentions, I assure you.

14. 14 Kendal Miller Mar 20th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Great article Stephen.

15. 15 Christopher Ruffell Mar 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    As this thread suggests, this whole thing is very subjective, but the average person when watching well-shot 24P/film won’t say “I can detect a different cadence - must be shot at a lower, progressive frame-rate� but they will be able to ‘feel’ something about it that tells them it’s film. We indie film-makers use this wonderful tool to tell our stories.

    When I shoot in 24P, people watching my work say it ‘feels cinematic’. Which is the ‘right’ feeling I go for - to set apart from all the 60i footage we see, and to see properly done 24P (which is what we see in the films we like - well done - literally - film making) and it sets up the mood, right there, off the bat. It’s a healthy stereotype to use to tell people “look, sit back and take a moment out - you’re watching something that took time and production value to create”.

    Goes hand in hand with proper lighting, music, slow pans, steady shots, narrative, etc. The whole package works very well together.

    With digital cinema on the horizon, sure, it may make great sense to have a action film shot in 60P (think Bourne Ultimatum), but again, that’s a choice. Asian markets tend to prefer higher frame rates and sharper images compared to ‘soft’ film, so, just proves it’s all subjective!