Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by waloshin, Apr 21, 2012.
Why is 1080P 30 FPS the holy grail of dslrs?
Isn't 24P at 1080P better to shoot at?
It's not. Many people would like to be able to shoot 1080p60 though so they can slow it down to create a smooth, high quality slo-mo effect.
Depends on what you are shooting, why you are shooting it and what 'look' you are going for.
It seem to me that people covet 24 FPS more than 30 because of that "cinema look".
New Canon 1D-C DSLR - - 4k @24p, or 1080 at 24-60p... all at 4:2:2 color. Now we're closer to the Holy Grail, until you see the price tag: $15,000? Yikes.
Or an even holier holy grail, the new Sony NEX-FS700 which can do 120 to 240fps at full hd resolution (for really smooth, extra slow, slow-mo) or even 480 - 960fps(!) at reduced resolution... for $10,000! And I use to be a Canon fanboy, but between this Sony camera and the upcoming $3000 Blackmagic Cinema Camera (which shoots CinemaDNG 12-bit RAW uncompressed, for $3000! and comes with their DaVinci Resolve and UltraScope software!) Canon has shown how out-of-touch they are in this market of late, in my humble opinion...
Does this BlackMagic cinema camera come with a lens or are they separate? Also does it take slr lenses?
And at that point, you're approaching basic RED Scarlet kit territory - an infinitely better platform for shooting video.
It comes standard with an EF type mount for Canon lenses. One thing to note though is its sensor has a 2.5x crop factor. So a 50mm lens becomes a 125mm focal length, etc. Its wide angle shooting capability is going to be pretty limited right off the bat because of this. A cost-cutting measure, one would think.
24 fps is a legacy standard from the past that people have come to expect as cinematic. Hopefully The Hobbit at 48 fps is the start of the movement to a better standard.
30 fps is half the NTSC frame rate, so displays neatly on NTSC TVs. 60 fps would be the ideal rate.
The hobbit is being recorded for 3d though.
30 fps--29.97 fps, actually--is the NTSC frame rate. NTSC scans 60 half-frames/second. Even and odd half-frames are interlaced to achieve 30 complete frames/second.
Well, Jackson's main argument for 48 fps on The Hobbit is that it somehow makes 3D less jarring to watch. Whether or not this will truly be the case has yet to be seen. Some film purists will still argue all day that 24 fps is the ideal film frame rate. But then again, a lot of these same purists will also argue that 3D is a perversion of the art form. I'm not a huge fan of 3D myself, but I'm eager to see the final product when it's done, especially considering the film is actually being SHOT for it, rather than added after the fact in post.
I think the biggest issue will be whether or not an acceptable number of theaters will be prepared to exhibit The Hobbit properly. Thousands of screens updating equipment for one film is a pretty tall order.
Would it not just be 24P times 2. So 24P per eye.
No, I'm pretty sure it's 48fps for each eye.
Filmmakers like Jackson and Cameron are arguing that the higher fps is the next evolution of cinema, rather than the limited gains of just incremental resolution increases.
I'm skeptical though. As long as it doesn't have that unsettling smooth motion look to it then it might not be too jarring for most viewers. I do like the look and feel of the 24fps standard though. It has defined the look of cinema for almost 100 years now. I interested to see how it plays out though.
As for 3d, I think it sucks and will always suck.
There's nothing amazing about 24fps in terms of optical perception. It just happens to be the cheapest and slowest speed that old day Hollywood could find that gave an illusion of movement in a dark room.
Now, as mentioned above, it's got a century of tradition linked with it. That's certainly something to respect, while acknowledging that perhaps it's time to move on.
I film deaf people signing all the time, and sign language is notably harder to read on a video screen than it is from a live signer. Opinions vary, but I would love to one day test out filming a signer at 60fps and see if it is clearer on the screen. Especially with rapid signing and fingerspelling, some of the movements are very subtle, and as an analogy perhaps 24fps is equivalent to recording audio at 24 samples / second. Most would find that unacceptably low quality for listening.
I dream of one day filming high-speed signing at 4k / 120 fps ...
Maybe it's the best they can do within the DSLR body of whatever camera(s) you are reviewing? There's a fair amount of relatively cheap consumer camcorders that shoot 1080p60fps. Having looked at the 2 myself, I see great reasons to shoot almost everything at 60fps. So between the 2, I would see 1080p 60fps as my own "holy grail" (for now).
However, as soon as a better standard comes along in a consumer product (at a consumer price point), I'll likely change that opinion and move on to it. Cameras & camcorders shoot videos you'll never get to shoot again. You only get to shoot family at this age now. Children are only children for so long. Someone's newborn is only new born once. Some important relative in your life today may not still be in your life in a month or year or few years. A child's bigger events only occur once. Etc. My advice: capture them while you can as good as you can.
My father died a couple of years ago. My grandfather died in 1974. All these years later, I can't hardly remember what my Grandfather's voice sounded like, how did he laugh, etc. But I can hear my Dad's voice on demand through all of the video we shot over the last couple of decades. I sure would love to have something similar of my Grandfather... and his parents... and their parents... etc. Step back just 4+ generations in my family and I don't even know names of people that were extraordinarily important to my existence. I'd sure love to "know" them too.
In my house, we prize old 8mm silent film home movies because they were around at a time when we could capture video of relatives long since gone. Even without sound, moving imagery of those loved ones is generally treasured more than still photos of the same people. They seem "more alive" in motion. My Grandfather lives on there.
Since the 1980's, the mainstream have had a new tool to create these lasting memories with sound through various incarnations of camcorders. From that point on, another way for us to "live" for well beyond our years is realized. 4 generations from now, if my descendants wonder what their great, great grandfather looked like, how he sounded, laughed, moved, etc, they'll likely be able to just call up some old 1080p60fps on their iPhone 95. Whether they'll covet that like I covet such video is unknown... but at least they'll have the option of knowing their family line in ways beyond old, faded still photos... or nothing.
Currently, consumers can reach 1080p 60fps without breaking the bank. That's a pretty great standard for recording forever memories with sound. If you can't reach that, 1080p30fps is generally better than capturing video at 720p or 480p or 320x200 and so on.
I don't think any resolution and fps can be an all-encompassing "holy grail." It's all "eye of the beholder". A few years from now, 1080p might be slipping away in consumer equipment much like SD resolutions are fading out today.
RedTomato nailed the 24fps comment in the first paragraph of post 14. It's not that 24fps is superior... unless "superior" is measured by cheapest in its day. I bet if a time traveler could take 30fps or 60fps technology back and make it available at equal cost to 24fps, the "old standard" would be something superior to 24fps. Purists will talk about that "film look" etc but even the big dogs like Jackson and Cameron are cranking up the fps numbers for impending projects. I think I read that Avatar 2 is going to be shot at 60fps. Perhaps they are not "purists".
I think he used the term "holy grail" synonymously with "industry standard."
30fps (29.97) has been the broadcast standard for years, whereas 24 is the film "standard."
Most consumer / prosumer video cameras that shoot 1080 are shooting 60i not 60p. The "i" stands for interlaced. 60i is basically 30fps interlaced (2 fields per frame hence the 60) which is not an optimum standard. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) 60p is available on a few high-end cameras and a few of the new DSLRs.
What's "high end"? I recently paid $799 for a new 1080p60fps consumer camcorder. It's definitely not 60i and it's not capturing 2 copies of frames (thus 30 unique images per second) so that it can spin "60fps" in its marketing. Maybe $799 is considered "high end" these days? I thought it was relatively cheap at that level.
But I know what you are saying and yes there are a number of marketing claims about 60fps that are just trickery & spin. But the OP does reference DSLR so I think he's not chasing a cheap camera. And the higher end of the consumer range is generally where the better features can be delivered (for real).
Digital Cinema specs are 24fps or 48fps from what I read briefly. Also most places are switching to digital 4k projectors....not all but most. I know the two Regal's around here went to ALL sony 4k projectors, only one has a legacy 70mm projector :O (I know 3 projectionists haha).
Panasonic HDC-HS900. There are many models now in that price area that offer 1080p60fps. And best I can tell, many of them are actually shooting 60fps (not 30fps X 2 (copies of each frame)). That HS900 came down from the usual $900-$1200 range because they've released it's replacement (2012) model. I believe the new one represents the third generation of 1080p60fps in this line of their cameras.
I would consider high end anything marketed as prosumer level or above. And even some of the prosumer gear really wouldn't be thought of as "high end."
But there are reasons why some consumer level cameras can capture 1080p60 while other professional level gear is still limited to 1080p30 or 720p60. The image quality that the higher end gear captures likely just can't handle the data rate that 60fps would require. So while you're able to capture 60fps on a cheaper camera, the image quality of the 30fps footage from the high end camera is still not really comparable.
Rather than turn this into a conversation about some subjective meaning of prosumer vs. consumer, high end vs low end, etc, I'll just circle back to the OPs post and offer that I've tended to run with the approx. $1000-$1400 price point for the last 6+ years (upgrading to best available camera every couple of years). That got me 1080i before most people shot 1080i and, more recently, 1080p60fps before most people shoot 1080p60fps. Each upgrade has been visibly noticeable vs. the prior camera's best quality mode.
If you are aiming for a good DSLR that can also shoot 1080HD video, I'm simply pointing out that 1080p60fps is also available around DSLR price points. As previously referenced, if you are shooting any kind of family video, you only get to shoot each big life moment once. My mentality has always been shoot them at the best quality you can afford because you won't get to come back and shoot them again with better cameras when they roll out years from now.
If you are chasing 1080p30fps, that is abundantly available in cameras & camcorders. If you are buying a good DSLR, you are very likely to get that as one of it's features. Personally, I don't consider it "holy grail" or even "industry standard" just a good option among currently-available options or one of several current standards.
I'm very happy with the 1080/60 vs. 1080/30. I see the difference on consumer reachable equipment.
I'm guessing if he's looking into DSLRs, then the allure of shallow depth of field is part of it. That's still hard to manipulate with fixed lens/smaller chip cameras.
And I'm not trying to argue, but it's hard to ignore that 30fps is in fact the industry standard for broadcast and that likely won't change any time soon.
Of course for non-broadcast material/hobbyist/home video/etc. none of that matters. It's all personal preference at that point.
While I appreciate the (correct) point, I am assuming he is not buying this DSLR to shoot video for broadcast purposes. Otherwise, the "p" he references is not broadcast standard either. So, while you are correct about it being a broadcast standard, I'm not convinced it's an important factor in choosing a camera or camera video feature (unless the OP is indeed shooting for broadcast purposes, for which then he should be looking at broadcast quality video cameras, not consumer DSLRs).
Technically, 1080i is the broadcast standard. So if the standard is overly important in the decision, he should be advised to not be looking at 1080p either. That means even the iPhone 4s video is irrelevant since it shoots "p" instead of "i".
Now, one might try to correct the above by claiming "p" is just fine since it's a simple matter to convert "p" to (the broadcast standard of) "i" if desired. But then I would say, 60fps is just as easily converted to the broadcast standard of 30fps. Someone shooting 1080p 60fps can easily down convert to 1080i 30fps without quality loss. But it won't work as well the other way. So if the OP is chasing a consumer "holy grail", he's probably right at chasing 1080p instead of 1080i/720p... and he should also consider 60fps (since it is accessible at DSLR price points) rather than just 30fps or 24fps. Note, I'm not telling the OP what to do... just what he can do.