I DP'ed one feature-length film with 2 panavision genesis cameras and loved it! The camera is heavy which is the only drawback but the image is so beautiful.
On top of that the camera is not THAT expensive to rent after all.
Actually, 24 fps is great for creating works of fiction, because it sucks you into an alternate world that is simply more suggestive than 60i especially.
For other uses, there are other frame rates, it is just a creative choice.
I'd love to see a psychological study of what happens when 24P is shown at 120 Hz and 240 Hz.
I only know Panavision's Woodland Hills office here, but what an impressive outfit! Nothing left to chance, and they go far far beyond other high end rental places.
And there are horses roaming free across the street... :O)
I'd love to see research results that confirm any magic about 24fps cadence. I've said often enough that I see nothing wrong with 24fps and indeed now shoot 25P. Possibly I see no magic in the cadence because I've grown up with 24fps and to me the magic is in the images where, until recently, video was markedly deficient. But I suppose if one sees the normal world as 60i then 24fps is perceptibly "other-worldly".
I've said this before. There's a new generation whose primary entertainment (video games) are always watched at as many fps as they can be. I'm no player of these games, one reason being they're too immersive for me. That's without surround sound, physics and 3D.
Regardless I hope we can all agree the images from the Dynamax are gorgeous. I hope unlike fps no one thinks more dynamic range is a bad thing.
A bit depth approaching neg film would be very nice and Dynamax is going there -- maybe more. Far greater significance than frame rate in terms of quality.
I'd love to see a psychological study of what happens when 24P is shown at 120 Hz and 240 Hz.
Something that's very close to that is the Motionflow technology employed in a lot of consumer TVs. Go to any major electronics store and they probably have a set that employs it.
IMO, movies look very video-like with that turned on and it is highly disturbing to me.
2- Regarding higher than 24fps, that would probably be very beneficial to 3-D projects. Motion with 3-D at 24fps just doesn't look right.
Those might not be Dynamax screenshots? The images seem to suggest that they are traditional HDR images shot with dSLRs.
There is also tone mapping applied. Without tone mapping, a HDR image will just look like a normal image except without any noise (and you'd probably want to expose it very dark).
Regarding higher than 24fps, that would probably be very beneficial to 3-D project. Motion with 3-D at 24fps just doesn't look right.
Amen to that.
I saw Chuck 3D on NBC this week, it was not enjoyable (and an inane show to boot, should be rated "Not For Mature Audiences Over 12 Years of Age"), but this may or may not have been shot in 24P. Miserable regardless.
Something that's very close to that is the Motionflow technology employed in a lot of consumer TVs. ... IMO, movies look very video-like with that turned on and it is highly disturbing to meI've done quite a bit of work turning kinescopes back into video. A few days ago, just for grins, I applied the same technology to some 1929 home movies of the Cubs-Athletics World Series baseball game. I removed dust and motion stabilized first, degrained, and then applied the 24p to 60i technology.
I think "disturbing" is a good description. It really did look like video, but the idea of video from that era was interesting, but definitely vaguely unsettling. The 24p definitely does lend a "once-removed" feel.
I think I've seen what GlennChan calls "Motionflow technology". And if we're talking about the same thing, then I agree that it's VERY disturbing when watching movies. It makes the movie experience like watching an ESPN sports broadcast -- exactly the look I DON'T want in a movie.
Pity I mentioned the 24 fps business because it has been a great diversion and entirely irrelevant to the topic of Bob's thread. The related Panavision lecture I mentioned is well worth the download time, dealing with a number of matters that I've wondered about. One is that "most" electronic cameras are naturally balanced to tungsten, which I'd deduced (without confidence) for the XDCAM EX.
"One is that "most" electronic cameras are naturally balanced to tungsten, which I'd deduced (without confidence) for the XDCAM EX. "
I haven't had time to watch those lectures as yet but now I will certainly make time. I'm quite interested in this topic as every other input I've had indicates the exact opposite. I'm curious as to exactly what "naturally balanced" means. Every other piece of information I can lay my hands on indicates the opposite but then again "naturally balanced" and spectral sensitivity maybe quite different.
Farss, I think you will find the talks interesting. You'll see an example why Sony is using a new designed cmos pixel and why "fill" is important. They discuss the different "filtering" stages used to improve a 'image". It seems that I usually fail to clearly explain DOF and focal point from a CCD design view, but they do a fair job explaining from a "film industry" view vs design. While it only touches the surface of CCD issues but it does point out why the public and most professionals are "in the dark" about pixels, sharpness and their relationship.. ;-)