Why is 1080P 30 FPS the holy grail?

[LethalWolfe]

Argh, you guys are killin' me.

1. There is a ton of assumption of what the OP is up to based on one simple question.

2. 720p60 and 1080i60 are the standard HD broadcast frame sizes and rates in the US. You can shoot at whatever rate you want but if it's going to end up on broadcast, cable or satellite it's going to get converted to 720p60 or 1080i60 depending on the network.

3. Even if you aren't shooting specifically for broadcast it helps to keep it in mind so that if the opportunity ever comes up you are ready to go (or at least close enough that it just takes a little tweaking to get it there).


Lethal

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Lethal, now who's making an assumption? The OP says nothing about shooting for broadcast. That's been injected by others making comments. In reality, the OP is buying a CAMERA, not a camcorder. So it would seem that he is more interested in shooting stills than video but maybe looking for video options as a bonus (else, why not buy a dedicated video capture device instead of a still shot device?)

And your #3 requires an assumption that today's broadcast standard is still the broadcast standard if that referenced opportunity ever comes up. By that time, the standard might be something else. If so, that something else would likely be better than today's standards (which were finalized in about 1986).

Again, if we want to offer input based on today's broadcast standards, not only should the OP be looking for "i" (not "p") but something that shoots in MPEG2 not "4" or H.264. Is there even any such consumer device available?

 

[handsome pete]

All of our assumptions could be way off base, so unless the OP comes back to clarify what he's looking for then we'll never now.

Regardless, his original question specifically mentioned DSLRs. Seeing as this is in the video forum I assumed that he was likely looking into them mostly for the video features. If he is in fact looking into DSLRs for video use, then I can imagine that's mostly due to the "film look" most are seeking with them. Smaller chip cameras are probably not a viable option if that's the case.

Again, a lot of assumptions based on the original question.

The only reason I ever mentioned the words "industry standard" is because I'm guessing that's what he meant when he said "holy grail." Because, quite frankly, I've never heard anyone call 30fps the holy grail of frame rates.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Lethal, now who's making an assumption?

Not me. I answered the OPs Q at the beginning of the thread. My last post had nothing to do w/the OP.

In reality, the OP is buying a CAMERA, not a camcorder. So it would seem that he is more interested in shooting stills than video but maybe looking for video options as a bonus (else, why not buy a dedicated video capture device instead of a still shot device?)

DSLRs have become very popular to use a video cameras in the last few years. While the first gen were pretty rough around the edges, camera makers are refining the video features in many of their cameras. While there are certainly trade-offs many people accept them because they like the things that DSLRs offer that can be harder to find in a traditional video camera.

And your #3 requires an assumption that today's broadcast standard is still the broadcast standard if that referenced opportunity ever comes up. By that time, the standard might be something else. If so, that something else would likely be better than today's standards (which were finalized in about 1986).

Maybe, maybe not. Just sharing my experience so people won't lose an opportunity to get their work on TV. There was a show on Comedy Central called AtomTV that would showcase the best shorts that were uploaded onto the now defunct atom.com website and on more than one occasional we had to pull a short from the show because the filmmakers couldn't get us a version fit for broadcast. Kind of a shame to miss out getting national exposure because of mistakes that could've been easily avoided if someone during pre-production just would thought "Hey, what if someone wants to put this on TV?"

Again, if we want to offer input based on today's broadcast standards, not only should the OP be looking for "i" (not "p")

I'm not sure why you are stuck on 'interlaced = broadcast' when both interlaced and progressive are used in broadcast though many people (including the European Broadcasting Union) recommend progressive. It's much easier to take progressive footage and make a high quality interlaced version than it is to take interlaced footage and make a high quality progressive version so I always recommend shooting progressive unless there is a specific need that requires interlaced.

but something that shoots in MPEG2 not "4" or H.264.

Why? There are a number of cameras that record in h.264, or a variant there of, that have been used on TV shows, movie, commercials, etc.,. It all really depends on the implementation of the codec and the quality of the chips doing the encoding in the camera.


Lethal

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

To those last 2 comments, I'm not stuck on "i" vs. "p" or "MPEG2" vs "H.264". I'm simply using those as counterpoint to arguments about sticking with broadcast standards being very important. The arguments are being made against 60fps because 30fps is the broadcast standard. So why not use that to also argue for "i" and "MPEG2", which are also the broadcast standard?

My suggestion is that for DSLR prices and in pursuit of a "holy grail" (which I don't read as broadcast standards or very old film standards but reaching for the future now), that the OP can reach a bit ahead of today's broadcast standard and get 1080p 60fps instead of 1080p 30fps or something less. Yes, 1080p 60fps is beyond today's broadcast standard just as my interpretation of "holy grail" is reaching beyond what is established standard now. Just as it's relatively easy to go from "p" to "i", it's as easy to go from 60fps to 30fps. Basically, if there's nothing wrong with "p" there's nothing wrong with 60fps.

If we're going to alter the assumption of American HD standard to European standard, it's all the better for "p" over "i". But then their standard is 25fps or "holy grailing" at 50fps, but no one seems to be arguing that.

My intent in chipping into this conversation was not to argue about one standard vs. another. I just saw someone wanting to buy a DSLR (thus spend some dollars above "cheapest price") also looking for HD video capture and thinking that 1080p/30 is "holy grail" (which I read as something to strive for rather than something long since already in place... you know, like the actual pursuit of the holy grail). If the OP is checking in with his thread, he should have learned now that there are lots of options at DSLR prices and that he could likely afford better-than-current-standards if that's what he meant by "holy grail". Get better than today's standards and he can always down-convert to today's standards. It won't work well the other way though.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The arguments are being made against 60fps because 30fps is the broadcast standard.

Which, like I've said twice before, is false which is why I chimed into the thread. I saw you and handsome pete having a prolonged discussion based on a false premise and I just had to stop the insanity.

Waloshin's original Q about 30p being a 'holy grail' of DSLR video shooters is also a false premise. DSLR video shooters often lust after 1080p60 because it gives a 2.5x slow down when re-timed to 24fps. Many DSLRs will do only do 60fps at 720p which means having to take a quality hit for slow motion if the rest of your project is being shot at 1080p

The OP has, in other threads, talked about film making so when he started this thread I already had a good idea of the context his question was framed in.


Lethal