Hi Tor,

I'd contend that we have developed a cultural code:

Film footage connotes professionalism, while video footage connotes amaturism.

In the era of NLE, movie-makers can more easily post-process to signify the film-code than in production... lighting and shooting video with the degree of control that film production typically encounters is more cost-prohibitive. I'm not saying it isn't done; but rather that it's easier to "create in post" by shifting the framerate to a cadence that resembles film and subsequently signifies the code (and shifting image values helps too).

Consider when a TV program like "The West Wing" intercuts video footage (i.e. depicting a televised debate) with the film footage. There is a response that goes beyond "oh, that looks different"... (my personal initial-response is more like "eeeewwwwww", after which I acknowledge the method and move on), that response is the product of the cultural code I believe is in play.

There are users that will actually print a finished 24p to film for theatrical release. They will be in the minority, compared to those finishing for conventional/web electronic delivery. 24p digital-theatrical is not far away, so true 24p has a future beyond printing to film.

Plainly stated, people like 24p and people want it... that's a fact. Whether or not a cultural code is really in effect is for a study to confirm or refute.

My armchair analysis my be a wordy way of saying why *I* think people like it and want it, but many might agree to the assertion that since the advent of video recording, folks have tried to make it look more like film for reasons like the above.


My .04

MPH

I remember hearing that TV drama writers in (and around) BBC in the sixties and seventies used to write in a couple of out-door scenes to make sure their production got shot on film. I always thought this was because they then got "real" cameramen as opposed to electro-optical engineers, real lightmen and so on. I never thought they wanted the film look as such. I mean the end product was a TV broadcast anyway.

Now martyh tells me people like 24p and people want it; is this a fact (or mere analyzis)? Do you mean viewers or videomakers or both?

Tor

I agree with you, Marty, there is a certain "look" that triggers viewers to think "film" and in many cases, film to them indicates a greater level of professionalism. But, I think -- to the casual viewer -- the look has little to do with 24p.

An example: I shot a scene for one of my actor friends a few months ago; she needed it for her reel before heading out to Los Angeles. I shot the footage on my VX-1000 with careful framing, knowing that I would letterbox in post. I was also careful with the lighting, and I shot with a diffusion filter to take the edge of the video look. In post, I turned down the saturation and cranked up the contrast just a bit too. After editing, I ran it through DVFilm Maker to make it 30p and added the letterbox bars.

Jen called me after she picked up her tapes from the dupe house. She laughed and said that the operator asked where she had done her film-to-tape transfer, thinking we had shot on film and transfered to mini DV. I'm sure what fooled him was the color/saturation treatment and the letterboxing -- not the apparent frame rate.

-- Jon McPhalen
-- Dallas, TX

Tor,

Thank you for bringing up the 24p topic. I also "don't get it". I've never had a conversation with anyone who even knew there is a different look to film than video. To be honest, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. I personally think that anyone who gets really interested in shooting video and starts to actually study the art of filming and the associated nuances, develop the ability to see all the subtle differences; but I just don't think the average person on the street gives a darn.

Hi Jon,

I'll concur that the look goes way beyond cadence/framerate, but the big buzz *is* the framerate.

I wonder if Pana offered a cam that only featured the image values you describe, would the buzz be on?

Similarly, there seems to be so much about framrate that I gotta think that it is the popular way to "signify the code", because it doesn't require delicate image manipulation.

MPH

Didn't the 24 frames per sec originally come to be because it provided the slowest possible expusures while still maintaining a workable illusion of movement? It's a compromise, isn't it?
And now, when there are "better things" to be had, people flocks to get that same old compromise, because it speaks professional?

Tor

TorS,
Have you read the article about making video look like film in the latest edition of DV, if not, you should, its pretty interesting. Basically, what it comes down to is just plain old personal preference. I, myself like the 24P feel for music videos, short films and commercials. Training videos, news, documentries..I think 30 interlaced is more appropriate. To me, 24P has a different visual "feel", almost smoother, more surreal which deems it more useful in dramatic projects (as mentioned before). I am not yet convinced if the new Panasonic DVX100 is worth the hype or not, I'm still trying to figure that one out. For now, the conversion process in post suits my needs just fine. -Shon

dcrandall:

The average joe/jane might not be able to tell what's different, but there is a difference that the brain registers, and it produces a perceived difference. Make sure to check out the tutorial at full-NTSC output rates:

ftp://ftp.sonicfoundry.com
user: dude
password: sweet
folder: Sample Projects/intercutting film and video

-or-

ftp://dude:sweet@ftp.sonicfoundry.com/Sample%20Projects/intercutting%20film%20and%20video/

I think you'll be amazed at the diffence.

///d@

SonicDennis,

I'll check it out. That's what I like about this forum...an opportunity to learn.

As a very minor addition to this discussion I'd like to point out that 24fps is a perfect speed for "master" avi files intended for conversion to web video. This is what I always use since when you need to drop-down the frame-rate you can choose 12, 8, 6.

Most shows on tv are filmed in 24p...then hollywood dvds are encoded at 24p...the movies in the theater are showed at 24p...

When you have your "film/ video" and it is shot in 24p...you can burn to dvd easy...you can show that dvd to rich people. If the rich people like your dvd then they can pay the 22,000$- 50,000 to convert it to film for theater release. If the tv stations like your work they will convert it to 60i and it will retain that film look. The point is these conversions wont degrade the quality or require you to reshoot your project.

But all I have heard is the tru buzz should be 25p. Shooting in pal you can conquer europe...it is still easy enough to convert to 24p. On dvfilm.com website they even say if you want final destination to be film not to use the panasonic dvx 100 but a pal camera cause it will have more quality when transfered (Thus there other product Dv film atlantis)

There is still a "buzz" about the panasonic dvx 100 because it is ntsc 24p60i so you can use your existing ntsc equiptment and editors thus eliminating working with pal equiptment and monitors.

...you just shoot..run through computer to vegas..edit..effects..exit to dvfilmaker and presto...the rest is history.

These reasons generate the buzz on 24p. Know for 15,000$ I can make a movie professional enough to end up at blockbuster, tv or the theater....thats the buzz.

No more having to rent equiptment it is now cheap enough to buy.
The advantages are tremendous...so as you can see 24p is a good choice.

My 2 Cents. There's a certain framerate threshold below which the brain perceives it is watching individual pictures, not something live. That's why TV was interlaced at a 60fps rate, to get beyond that threshold. When your brain perceives it is looking at a succession of pictures versus something live it's telling the brain, hey this isn't really true, but it may be a good story! I think that's the jist of the difference between 24 or even 30fps and a much higher rate. Although you may not conciously be thinking "this isn't true, it's a story,", I think subconciously that's what's happening, so you react to it like a book. And so, if it's interesting, you suspend disbelief and enjoy the experience.

It doesnt matter what kind of equipment you have. If your a filmmaker, your job is to tell a story and tell it well. Regular people are not watching the film/video thinking.. "hmm.. is this film or video?" If you don't have a story (be it documentary, commercial, feature film, etc..) You dont have much of anything. Its whats in your head that counts, NOT whats in your equipment.