24, the number that works...

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · November 2, 2004

Ok, this is a subject I've wanted to discuss for awhile. I don't really know how to say it without people misunderstanding. So I came up with this statement and I hope you'll get what I mean and it's by no means absolute>

60i video is a TV broadcast format and isn't desired as a cinematography format.

The reason I bring this up is I'm tired of hearing statements like, "If properly lit people can't tell the difference between my XL-1 and film." No, we all can. Also the recent threads like "should I get an XL-1, VX,DVC whatever or a DVX-100." The most important feature of the DVX-100 is 24p, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned it's the ONLY reason to by the camera.

With the exception of broadcast TV and sports, IMO, 24fps photography generally offers a supperior look. If it didn't, 24p video would not exist. Of course many people have a problem with its supposed "juddery" look. So you mean to say you don't like to look at the majority of the motion images you see? 24 is everywhere, features, commercials, MOW's, sitcoms and a lot of documentary. If you watch and evening of TV it is probably THE dominate format on the aggregate.

I can't speak to Europeans watching PAL TV. It's a different experience for them.

I'm not trying to make any grand statement or start an argument. I just wonder why anyone would want to shoot 60i when they have a camera that shoots 24p. I've only ever shot 60i professionally just a few times. It's not a format I want to work with. Consequently, I never have shot the ubiquitous DV Indy feature because, before 24p DV I kept running into people who wanted to shoot with a 60i camera. So I get hooked up to shoot a feature on the DVX-100, guess what? They wanted to shoot 60i!

In fact, once I didn't shoot a doc with an expensive Digibeta camera I could have used for free. I shot with the DVX-100 because of the 24p. Digibeta is clearly a technically supperior format but it doesn't have 24p and to me that's like missing your legs. Of course, I would have jumped all over an SDX-900.

This is directed mostly at SD. HD 60i at least has a WOW factor if it is seen on and HD set. I also left out 30p which I guess to me looks like some kind of hybrid.

John Sprung · November 2, 2004

Well, if you look at the whole world, and how you convert between different standards, and who'll buy which conversions, the answer is clear: 24p or 25p origination you can sell everywhere. The PAL/SECAM markets walk away from conversions from 60i. NTSC, PAL-M, and now alas ATSC, are the only standards that use the 30/60 numbers. Film and the rest of the world's TV systems are in the 24/25 realm.

That being said, if you want better motion resolution and you have no need for international sales, then you can use 60i. Our TV news and sports can be 60i without suffering any consequences.

For the future, if better temporal resolution is the goal, it would be smart to go with integer multiples of the legacy standard numbers, like 3 x 24 = 72. Fractions of a frame are a royal pain in making conversions.

-- J.S.

Phil Rhodes · November 2, 2004

Hi,

Personally I'd advocate more or less everyone shooting 25p, if only because it's easily converted to anything else (slowdown being more desirable than speedup) and it matches up with technically straightforward PAL offline.

Phil

Jon Allen · November 2, 2004

There are several companies that offer video to film transfers. All of the ones I've read material from practically BEG users to shoot & edit 24A if at all possible.

NTSC compensates for less resolution by higher framrate and thus, smoother motion, on the other hand, if your final output is 24 anyway, then you might as well opt for the extra 50 or so pixels.