Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Hybrid Still/Movie/MP3 Digicams

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 15, 2008, 1:52 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
Default

30 fps is an accident of history too. It was based on the AC line frequency which used to be used for synchronization. Two fields at 60 cycles. Likewise PAL was based on the 50 cycle line frequency in Europe.

I have to think of all those amateur cameramen using the Panavision Genesis in Hollywood. :lol:
hdguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2008, 7:59 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

Again... the material acquired with a Panavision Genesis is not being displayed at 24 frames per second.

There is much more to the "film look" than temporal resolution. In fact, composition, lighting, exposure, etc. have a greater bearing on the "look" of the finished production than the so-called "24p" frame rate.

Private Idaho
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2008, 9:17 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

It may be your understanding that 24 frames per second was "carefully chosen," but then if that were really true, why do many of today's professional filmmakers hate 24p and want to persuade the film industry to move up to 48p or 72p?

Director James Cameron gave an interview to Variety dated April 10, 2008. It was a very interesting read:

Link to article:
http://www.variety.com/VR1117983864.html

Trevmar wrote:
Quote:
Private Idaho wrote:
Quote:
But remember... 24 frames per second acquisition is a mere accident of history associated with an entirely different medium.

There's nothing magic about 24.
Somewhere back many years ago, when I was studying medicine, I learnt that there are threshold frequencies at which the brain can be triggered into an epileptic fit, and also at which the brain perceives smooth motion. My understanding is that 24 fps was carefully chosen based on those physiological parameters:?

http://juicystudio.com/article/photo...e-epilepsy.php
Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2008, 11:26 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

Trevmar wrote:
Quote:
Private Idaho wrote:
Quote:
But remember... 24 frames per second acquisition is a mere accident of history associated with an entirely different medium.

There's nothing magic about 24.
Somewhere back many years ago, when I was studying medicine, I learnt that there are threshold frequencies at which the brain can be triggered into an epileptic fit, and also at which the brain perceives smooth motion. My understanding is that 24 fps was carefully chosen based on those physiological parameters:?

http://juicystudio.com/article/photo...e-epilepsy.php
Yes that was my understanding also, that 24fps was used simply because it was the minimum they could get away with to give the illusion of smooth motion. Very important back then as the more frames per second, the more film stock you would use! This is important not only from a cost perspective but also the fact that film takes up physical space and this is very important in small cameras such as the Super 8 I once had. It could only shoot 3 minutes worth of film as it was! A faster frame rate would reduce that quite a bit unless they made the film cartridge and obviously the camera bigger.

These days there really is no need to stick to that frame rate as effectively we have unlimited storage costwise and I can see what Private Idaho is saying in that the 'film' look is more than the frame rate. You need to process the video somehow to get rid of the 'digital' look. Perhaps that is what the Canon does as well?

My pet annoyance with digital video on regular still image cameras is not the frame rate but why some manufacturers were still including a video mode without audio! I can understand on the real cheap cameras that have a basic video mode as an afterthought but quite often it's the lower end of major brands that did this. I know it's a cost cutting measure but come on, even poor audio is better than none at all for that level of device. I think most camers now are including audio but I remember recommending a lower end Canon digital camera to my brother and only realising later the 640x480 video had no audio! Of course it takes excellent photos though. I remember he took some video at a race track and it just looks surreal without audio.

rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2008, 12:03 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
Default

Movie projectors usually come with 3 blade shutters that means that 24 fps frames are displayed 3 times making them effectively 72 fps. NTSC telecine projectors had 5 blade shutters so that they effectively scan each frame five times or 120 fps so that each frame was displayed 4 times for each 30 fps frame or IOW twice for each 60 cycle field. Even home 18 fps super-8 projectors have 3 blade shutters.

My local theater has Christie DLP projectors in each auditorium. But I don't think people would particularly like the "television" look of a film except for the concerts which are probably also "video'd" at 24 fps with HD cameras.


hdguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2008, 12:26 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

Read the article: http://www.variety.com/VR1117983864.html

24p is now considered obsolete by modern filmmakers.

Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2008, 3:03 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
Default

For blockbusters maybe where they need all the marketing hype they can get hence the resurrection of 3D. :-) But 24 fps will be around for a long time.

The actual "film look" is more owing to progressive scan frames as compared to interlace. My first HD cam, the JVC HD1 looked like 16mm film to me due to the progressive frame. My Sony HC1 looked more like video due to be interlaced.

hdguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2008, 3:22 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,153
Default

Well, I actually think 3D is more than marketing hype. I think it's the one thing that could save movies in theatres.

It really is an amazing experience.

And it makes 1080p flat screen HDTV at home seem kind of old-fashioned.

Director James Cameron is perhaps best known for "Titanic."

But his forthcoming (2009) "Avatar" will be a 3-D "epic."

I suspect it's going to be a blockbuster.

The problem with shooting 3-D is that it actually makes the flaws of 24p stand out.

Private Idaho


Private Idaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2008, 4:06 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 584
Default

A tip: How I make 30p or 24p footage look better in Post...


There is a Virtualdub filter called Dynamic Noise Reduction (MMX).

If you have footage that was shot in 24p or 30p with a fast shutter, so that each frame transitions to the next frame without any decent motion blur, then the DNR filter (set to 12) will smooth that motion for you and stop the jerkiness between frames.

OK - you will also get a 'trail' behind moving objects if you set the DNR value too high.. somewhere in the range of 6-12 seems to work for me.

Oh - and it filters out random video noise in the process...


Trevmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2008, 2:31 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
Default

I render 3D animations at 24 fps for obvious reasons: fewer frames to render than at 30 fps. When I imported the files into Media Studio Pro it renders with a 29.97 fps MPEG-2 setting it renders those frames at 24 fps with pull down flags. I noticed this after I rendered the same file at 24 fps and noticed it was the same size as the 29.97 fps file. An MPEG checking program revealed the pull down flags.

Certainly a technology such as 3D can take advantage of the higher frame rate that technology has given us. However the article also shows that 3D has indeed been resuscitated as a method of getting audiences back in theaters now that they have home theaters that may often rival some of their local theaters.

Of course the technology race probably won't stop until we have holodecks where you're in the movie. And hybrids probably won't stop until you can buy a camera for $200 in today's money that can capture holodeck experiences. :-)

hdguy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:33 PM.