24p is outdated

[zlfan]

On 12/30/2023 at 12:14 PM, zlfan said:

try 180 or 360 degree slow panning, you will see clearly the difference between 24p and 60p. for 24p slow wide panning, i am used to ml raw's unaffected image quality, r1mx's redcode 42 is good enough, prores 422 hq is barely enough, even renowned xavc 480 makes me feel dizzy, not to say other thinner codecs which are popularly used in many latest mirrorless cams. on the other hand, even af100a's avchd 24 mbits 60p is totally fine to my eyes. 

 

for hollywood blockbusters, even they use 24p mostly, you never know if they do motion blur reduction in post or other techniques onsite to reduce motion blurs, unless you are onsite or in the circle. 

i rewatched my previous footage to make sure the above mentioned impression is right. to my surprise, only ml raw is really tack sharp during slow panning, r1mx is close enough but if panning speed is a little bit up, there is still something blurred or dizziness. prores hq at 24p is clearer than xavc480, but still there is some bumpy fillings, nano flash's highest 280 mbits intra frame is about 50% more than prores hq, still there is blur/dizziness during panning. it is a joke that 50 mbits long gop codec is the standard for broadcast industry. uncompressed/true lossless raw is the king if wanting to shoot 24p. 

[zlfan]

i think the motion blur we talked about is actually 24p film based, means no blur from rolling shutter, no blur from codecs. nowadays, lower end digital cameras have more to worry about than using a 24p film cam. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, zlfan said:

it is a joke that 50 mbits long gop codec is the standard for broadcast industry

I assume you're talking about delivery via streaming service?

If so, yeah, yes, it's a real weakness.  However, there is a huge difference between the quality of a 50Mbps file coming from a camera vs the ones coming from the streaming platforms.  I've done a lot of testing of codecs and streaming compression and one thing I noticed is that the quality of the image you create in the edit really carries through the entire streaming pipeline.

Just take a look at the camera demo reels from ARRI and RED on their YT channel from 10+ years ago.  The image quality speaks for itself.

[JulioD]

Fascinating. 
 

Super wealthy hobbyists who make fancy home movies think 24p doesn’t look like cinema having never actually made anything with actors or working with a crew and using their family as their evidence of audience approval.  

Little to no understanding of the difference between acquisition frame rate and distribution or display refresh rate in multiple environments or global territories but still drawing conclusions. 
 

So many experts one one place. How lucky we all are. 
 

 

[kye]

35 minutes ago, JulioD said:

Fascinating. 
 

Super wealthy hobbyists who make fancy home movies think 24p doesn’t look like cinema having never actually made anything with actors or working with a crew and using their family as their evidence of audience approval.  

Little to no understanding of the difference between acquisition frame rate and distribution or display refresh rate in multiple environments or global territories but still drawing conclusions. 
 

So many experts one one place. How lucky we all are. 

Agreed, but I'd go one step further.  

To be perfectly honest, I read/watch half the online stuff about film-making and just shake my head - it's like vast sections of the people discussing this online have forgotten what cinema actually looks like.....   if they'd ever even been!

Almost any YT search for a camera or lens-related phrase will instantly deliver an endless stream of videos that were shot with kit lists that rival the price of a new car, and yet somehow look more like home videos than my actual home videos.  Of course, the biggest issue is that almost no-one in the whole online film-making community actually make films, they're mostly professional or amateur videographers and have clients that want a high-end video look.

As a dad that makes home videos, if I think your stuff looks awful then you're in real trouble, and that's how I think most stuff looks these days - until I see something from actual film-makers!

[hojomo]

6 hours ago, JulioD said:

Fascinating. 
 

Super wealthy hobbyists who make fancy home movies think 24p doesn’t look like cinema having never actually made anything with actors or working with a crew and using their family as their evidence of audience approval.  

Little to no understanding of the difference between acquisition frame rate and distribution or display refresh rate in multiple environments or global territories but still drawing conclusions. 
 

So many experts one one place. How lucky we all are. 
 

 

How lucky we are --let's all hope we can benefit from loads of personal anecdotes about care-free extravagance & fine-grained looks at political movements.

If the world is ready and able to receive it...maybe Jedi can one day gift us with some kind of John Galt on vacation, No Reservations wannabee show, except with zero humanity, skill or entertainment value.

[PannySVHS]

That T2.1 lens seems to be a Zeiss CP lens in EF mount. Am I right? @Jedi Master Or what else? Did you carry a tripod along as well? Heavy Daddy and Mama, oh Papa! What made you buy the C300III over a C70? Do you regret your choice of the former over the latter when it comes to strolling the city?

[zlfan]

17 hours ago, kye said:

I assume you're talking about delivery via streaming service?

If so, yeah, yes, it's a real weakness.  However, there is a huge difference between the quality of a 50Mbps file coming from a camera vs the ones coming from the streaming platforms.  I've done a lot of testing of codecs and streaming compression and one thing I noticed is that the quality of the image you create in the edit really carries through the entire streaming pipeline.

Just take a look at the camera demo reels from ARRI and RED on their YT channel from 10+ years ago.  The image quality speaks for itself.

The traditional TV network industry uses 50 mbits long gop codec as the standard, like bbc does. twenty years ago, when it was established, it was really good at the time. nowadays, higher standard should be implemented. 

i agree with you that arri and red reels are good even on 10 years' old youtube channels. i notice this also on tv too. typical news pieces are shits, all kinds of muddy damped color, but the movie channels, especially the black and white ones, are much better looking. 

[fuzzynormal]

18 hours ago, hojomo said:

loads of personal anecdotes about care-free extravagance

That bit pretty much sums up about any hobby.  People that buy 20 guitars but can only play three chords.  A dude that has a 40 year old Cessna airplane.  The grandma that does scrapbooking.  Model trains. Race cars.  Dirt biking. Jet skis. Bowling. 

It's all 1st world luxury that even affords us the ability to "waste" our income. 

Beyond that, I make a living (somehow) doing this stuff for corporate so I guess I could be considered a pro at it in a way, but I still feel as if I'm a dilettante within it's sphere.  The technology and techniques always outpaces my understanding.

And the fascinating thing to me about making movies is that the people that truly excel in the business don't really chase the tech, they focus on the storytelling --and they let the technology specialists dig most of the rabbit holes.  

Wanna talk about "fundamentals" with all this motion picture stuff? Perhaps it's best to consider the notion of Art vs. Craft.  

Have any of y'all ever taken art classes during undergraduate studies?  In my experience there was that there was always a person that's a marvel at drawing incredibly realistically...but sucks at making that work interesting or engaging beyond "oh, that looks real."  Then there were people that could do one brush stroke on a canvas and somehow make it mesmerizing.  Then the exceptional creatives do both.

My issue with any kind of fundamentalist in a discipline is a narrow perspective that curbs imagination. It gets in the way to create something surprising.

Like a Robert Kincaid, y'know?

[JulioD]

Yes.

Spec chasing nerds.  Half the posts here are higher number must be better. 
 

Few actual practitioners.  It’s ok if you don’t make a living from doing this but you can tell the posters that only care and the technical process and not what it’s in service of. 
 

Most successful image makers aren’t posting on forums like these.  They don’t even participate in these kinds of conversations because they’re such a small part of the end result. 

And yeah I’m posting here so what does that say about me.  

[Jedi Master]

21 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

That T2.1 lens seems to be a Zeiss CP lens in EF mount. Am I right? @Jedi Master Or what else? Did you carry a tripod along as well? Heavy Daddy and Mama, oh Papa! What made you buy the C300III over a C70? Do you regret your choice of the former over the latter when it comes to strolling the city?

No, it's one of these: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1629147-REG/meike_mk_ff35t21_pl_full_frame_35mm_t2_1.html

Sorry to disappoint anyone who might have thought I wouldn't settle for anything less than a ARRI Signature Prime or a Cooke S4/i. 🤑

Yes, we brought a tripod as well. My wife held on to the tripod while on the cable car.

I decided to upgrade my tripod when I got the C300 and got a Sachtler Flowtech 75 CF tripod. It's lighter than my previous tripod and much easier to set up and use as the leg locks are at the top.

There were several factors that led me to buy the C300 over the C70: Bigger and non-built-in monitor, availability of a native PL mount, CFexpress card support. I didn't find it difficult to shlep the C300 and tripod around the city. I carried the C300 by its top handle in my left hand and the tripod by it's handle in my right. My wife and I are strong hikers, so the hilly terrain of the city wasn't that big of a challenge. The cable car ride was the only physically demanding part of the day, and that was only because I was hand-holding the camera at arm's length to get a better view (and avoid getting the head of the passenger in front of me in the frame).

[Jedi Master]

2 hours ago, JulioD said:

Few actual practitioners.  It’s ok if you don’t make a living from doing this but you can tell the posters that only care and the technical process and not what it’s in service of. 

In my case, it's only in service of my own enjoyment.

[Jedi Master]

On 12/31/2023 at 8:08 PM, kye said:

One thing that people often forget is that film-making is a creative pursuit and that humans are emotional creatures.  One of the critical ways this manifests in film-making is that if your equipment is frustrating to use then you will be frustrated and will not make as good creative decisions (e.g. compositions) as you might have if you were in a better mood.  If you are around people, and especially if you are interacting with the people you are filming, then your mood will alter the behaviour of those people, directly influencing the people in the frame.

Personally, I have used cameras in the past that made me feel like I was fighting them the whole time, and I am sure the shots suffered because of it.  When I shoot now, not only do I use cameras that feel like they're helping me, but I also know that the images I get in post will be aesthetically pleasing and working with them in post will be straight-forwards, and these things make me enjoy shooting much more, making the experience nicer (which is important considering I do this for fun) but also meaning that the influence I am having on the creative aspects will be more creative as well.

One of the reasons I prefer travelogue-style work is because I don't relate well to people in person. I attribute this to my Asperger's. I'm kind of like a milder version of Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. I work all day with nerdy engineers like myself and most of the casual conversation is about technical subjects, not about anything related to art.

I've always been a big advocate of using the right tools for the job. I'd rather work with a tool than fight with it, even if the right tools cost more--to me, it's worth it in the long run.

[kye]

7 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

One of the reasons I prefer travelogue-style work is because I don't relate well to people in person. I attribute this to my Asperger's. I'm kind of like a milder version of Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. I work all day with nerdy engineers like myself and most of the casual conversation is about technical subjects, not about anything related to art.

I've always been a big advocate of using the right tools for the job. I'd rather work with a tool than fight with it, even if the right tools cost more--to me, it's worth it in the long run.

My point was that there's creativity to all art, but maybe it's not obvious.  Here's what a video process might look like if it had no creative decision making involved:

• Generate random GPS coordinates (applying some sort of criteria to ensure they're practical / accessible etc)
• Go to GPS coordinates, setup camera on tripod
• Select a lens at random from the selection - if it's a zoom select the zoom randomly
• Set the focus distance and aperture to random values
• Generate three random numbers between 0 and 365, orient the camera using these values as pan / tilt / roll
• Record for a random amount of time
• Repeat above sequence a random number of times, then proceed to editing
• Put all footage on the timeline in random order
• Generate a random percentage, then remove that number of clips from the edit at random
• For each remaining clip generate random start points and durations and make the edits
• For each cut apply a random transition effect
• Select a random number of pieces of music from all music ever created
• Cut random sized sections from these and add them to the timeline in random locations
• In the colour grade, randomise all the controls
• etc etc

Obviously this would not be pleasant approach, and regardless of your views about "art" "creativity" etc, you wouldn't think this is a good way to make a film (with the exception of the experimentalists, but that's another discussion).

ANY choice you make during the process that isn't random and isn't directed by some other factor (like "the cheapest one available") is a creative choice and will be based upon some sort of aesthetic preference.

It's easy for people to get blind to the bigger picture and just narrow in on tiny details, which is what most disagreements stem from.

[PannySVHS]

Would love to see some footage, if you come around to share @Jedi Master and if you don't mind the hassle with uploading, editing, which I have become a bit lazy these days, as my professional aspirations and obstacles in that have been hindering my flow a bigger bit. So i understand well that sometimes it is not trivial at all to share stuff. I myself will get back on track but for now I feel a bit in a phlegma. Got some interesting footage from my S1H during a wrestling testing all kinda modes. That was four weeks ago. So I'm not in a hurry myself about sharing.😊

C300III is a great camera. Had a chance to compare its internal h264 codec with my Bmmcc during a demanding shoot and the Canon outperformed it clearly on the technical level of the footage. It is a valid allarounder with a cinema quality image. C70 allows to adapt to more lens mounts such as Konica, Minolta, Canon FD, Leica M, C- mount and what not. But a rocksolid PL mount is of course a great feature. The Meike Cine lenses are pretty sweet. Congrats on your choice. 🙂

[zlfan]

funny 24p believers. they even attack you that you are an egyptian scammer because you challenge their 24p belief. they never accept and will never provide scientific evidence why 24p is sacred. but they will attack you because you dare ask them to provide evidence why 24p is sacred. lol. 

[mercer]

Not this again...

You were the one that made the case against 24p, so you provide the proof that it's inferior.

We understand, from your posts, that you are most likely a teenager or young adult, and maybe nobody has ever told you how the real world works but your claims, statements and wishes aren't proof that 24p is inferior...

[JulioD]

On 1/24/2024 at 8:59 AM, zlfan said:

funny 24p believers. they even attack you that you are an egyptian scammer because you challenge their 24p belief. they never accept and will never provide scientific evidence why 24p is sacred. but they will attack you because you dare ask them to provide evidence why 24p is sacred. lol. 

LOL yourself buddy.  

Kindly present YOUR scientific evidence that counters the already existing BOX OFFICE evidence that in a market that already allows free choice for any frame rate you like the entire world has decided that 24 is what people LIKE.  

Theres nothing stopping you from going out and making a 69fps masterpiece right now, so go set it up now at Netflix. 

If an audience preference was for HFR, there would be a lot more HFR content.  

That is actual fact. 

Your childish LOLs are just an opinion.  

[zlfan]

i figure out the best way to do 60p. 

for 60p, do shutter speed of 1/60sec.

there are two advantages:

1. lighting requirement is easier to meet. 

2. motion blur is closer to 24p, if 24p is what you want, because it is actually the shutter speed that determines the motion blur, not the fps. 

3. at the same time, 60p helps tremendously on motion for weak codecs. 

 

no quarrel no politics all are happy. 

 

cheers, 

 

[kye]

5 hours ago, zlfan said:

i figure out the best way to do 60p. 

for 60p, do shutter speed of 1/60sec.

there are two advantages:

1. lighting requirement is easier to meet. 

2. motion blur is closer to 24p, if 24p is what you want, because it is actually the shutter speed that determines the motion blur, not the fps. 

3. at the same time, 60p helps tremendously on motion for weak codecs. 

 

no quarrel no politics all are happy. 

 

cheers, 

 

60p at 360deg shutter looks like poop.

60p at 180deg shutter looks like poop.

60p at 45deg shutter looks like poop.

60p at 1deg shutter looks like poop.