Have I been wrong all this time?
Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:41 PM
I was shooting in 24P for high-end stuff for the last several years and liked the film like look. The head of a big production company said that the only reason to shoot 24p is if the video was going to be transferred to film. What are your thoughts?
Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:50 PM
Posted 23 May 2008 - 03:08 PM
Bottom line, 24p is the choice that leaves the most options open for the future. If you like the look, use it. If you don't have a really good reason to want a different frame rate or interlace, use it.
Posted 23 May 2008 - 04:21 PM
24p came about because high definition video was not selling initially and Sony wanted to try making it more of a film format for success. Sony originally hoped to introduce HD to the world as the next great video medium. It came in one flavor, the same as TV, 30 frames. No one liked it or thought much of it after looking at the crystal clear pictures for a few minutes. In fact I wrote a few articles about various introductory events I went to for the trades and with each event the participents all had the same reaction, "yea it looks great, so now what? It's just sharper looking video." Sony had a long dream of making betacam the next film format. That never happened. There is the now famous story of Morita who's dream was to have SOny make all the movies in theaters with his video equipment who saw that a crew was shooting film at Sony. It was a film made by Sony about Sony. He asked why is was being shot on film and not Betacam (what he always imagined as the replacement for film...yea I know) . He then demanded filming be stopped and regardless of the fact that it was nearly complete and $1 million dollars had been spent on it, he had it completely reshot on Betacam. That story was told to me by a former Sony CEO during the filming of a documentary on Sony I was working on about 10 years ago. That idea started by Morita was always a goal for Sony, to infiltrate the film world and make Sony a leader in film style aquisition just as they had become in video. Working with Lucas, Panavision and other early embracers of video for film, Sony simply gave video what it lacked that aestectically made it look just like film and garunteed it would be embraced by the film world, and that was the blur now called 24p. All those techioncal points made in other posts are true, but the real origin was simply to mkae video look more like film with a faux blur and the easiest way to do that was to change the recording speed to 24fps. Actually the patent on 24p is held by Rob Farber of a company called filmlook who was creating tthe 24p look for 20 years prior to Sony "inventing" it. www.filmloook.com. Rob was converting video to film look for years. I used his company as have most all pros over the years before 24p was put in cameras. Of note: Rob has since fought and won every battle for rights to 24p technology from Sony, Panasonic, Arri, etc and now makes a hefty sum for licensing 24p technology with every professional 24p camera being used today.
Posted 23 May 2008 - 06:53 PM
Since this is the SDX900 forum afterall, keep in mind that 24p video can be laid to 60i tape with the same 3:2 pulldown that's used when transferring film to video. That right there should tell you that Panasonic recognized the value of the 24p-3:2 aesthetic, and that 24p is not only for transfer to film. Sony's 24PsF and Panasonic's 24pA allow for creation of 24p masters that can be transferred to film frames 1:1; while 24p with a 3:2 pulldown is really designed to stay in the 60i realm.