http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ Videomaker Community Forums » Tag: 24p - Recent Posts en Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:00:45 +0000 http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/panasonic-hmc-150-for-sale#post-73506 Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:12:32 +0000 Benjamin 73506@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> <strong>Selling a gently used Panasonic HMC-150</strong></p> <p><strong>Hours: 203</strong></p> <p><strong>Lens: Mint</strong></p> <p><strong>Body: 9/10</strong></p> <p><strong>Functions: Like New</strong></p> <p><strong>Package Includes: Original Box, 3 sd cards, 2 batt, charger, carrying case, and a Calumet Lightweight Tripod.</strong></p> <p>$2,500.00</p> <p>Please call or text 773.860.8951</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-68068 Wed, 18 May 2011 05:40:33 +0000 Dave Haynie 68068@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>The eye doesn't have a "frame rate", it's continuous. The idea of frames is based on the fact that we don't have any reasonable way of recording film/video without breaking it down into samples. And yeah, 24fps was standardized ages ago because of the need to standardize audio recordings more than anything. </p> <p>It's remained simply because 24fps is about the minimum frame rate that most humans will perceive as motion without judder. The eye is continuous, but it's not terribly fast, and the brain helps here... it tries to make sense of what you see with an extra layer of image processing. Individual frames make no sense, continuous motion does. </p> <p>With that said, we actually would see it flicker, but theaters long ago started double-shuttering it. If you can still find a film based theater, you get 24fps displayed as 48fps. Digital cinema is usually 2K (nominally 2000x1000 pixels) at up to 144fps. So in a very real sense, the technology is already based on the fact that 24p is a minimum, not necessarily a preferred frame rate. </p> <p>There ramifications, though. Digital television and Blu-ray fully support only two progressive modes: 720/60p and 1080/24p (1080/30p would have been trivial to support, and most displays handle 1080/30p encoded at 1080/60i just dandy) in NTSC lands. There was a chance to correct this with the recent Blu-ray upgrade to enable 3D formats, but sadly, they did not add support for 1080/48p or 1080/60p. </p> <p>Online downloading and streaming, satellite, etc. all love the 24p format, simply because it offers higher quality for the same bitrate, versus 60i (also viewed as lower bitrate/size per unit qualty). Many of the online sites automatically transcode to 24p regardless of the upload format, simply to save on storage and streaming bandwidth while maintaining some level of quality. </p> <p>Given all that, while it's very much time to expand beyond 24p, it's not going to vanish any time soon. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67958 Fri, 13 May 2011 15:16:03 +0000 XTR-91 67958@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"here's a clip I shot a 25 fps..."</em></p> <p>Everything on Youtube's converted to 24p.  It does look a little jittery by the nature it's downconverted from 25p to 24p.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67760 Sat, 07 May 2011 19:20:19 +0000 Don 67760@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>frame rates are just another tool in the toolbox...</p> <p>here's a clip I shot a 25 fps...</p> <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTZ4eDFFQL0" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTZ4eDFFQL0</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67758 Sat, 07 May 2011 13:54:03 +0000 Moab Man 67758@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>As someone getting into video a few years ago I never knew of 24p and the "film" look. The way that some praise it I thought I must be missing something. No matter how much I tried to like it, because clearly I wasn't understanding something, I could never figure out why 24p hasn't been left in the round filing cabinet under my desk. To me it seems like the desire for 24p is out of nostalgia.</p> <p>Please don't take my comments as hostile towards those that like 24p or that old frame rate. I simply can't get my head around it but love reading the comments.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67734 Fri, 06 May 2011 10:31:11 +0000 2ten 67734@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I wish 24fps would go away.  I am one of those that sees judder in the theater and it drives me crazy.  If I sit close to the screen it will make me physically ill. My wife does not see it at all so not everyone is susceptible to it - but I hate it.  The higher frame rate the better.</p> <p>As far as converting for theatrical release, this will not be true in time either as movie houses switch to digital projectors.  They do not want to print and ship film any more than they wanted to pay for the cost of it originally.  Digital projectors are already in some theaters and eventually will take over and film will officially die the death it should.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67717 Thu, 05 May 2011 18:41:55 +0000 WSanford 67717@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67716 Thu, 05 May 2011 16:19:11 +0000 XTR-91 67716@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I've downgraded my videos to 24p, and the more you compress them, the more you start to see artifacts and mistakes, especially by downconverting 1920x1080p60 videos to 24p.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67699 Thu, 05 May 2011 09:00:08 +0000 PJ McConnell 67699@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>There is an actual framerate that the eye can see, though I've heard multiple rates depending on what the source is.  Here is an interesting website that tries to explain the process:</p> <p><a href="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm">http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm</a></p> <p>I personally don't understand why we watch video in 24fps anymore, obviously we can distinguish (though barely) the difference between 24fps and 30fps we should at least try upgrading the frames per second to 48-60 for better clarity and stills. The closer we are to how our eyes really see the world, the better, right?</p> <p>And I do think we will see this change in the next 5 years, instead of jumping resolution I think cameras will start boasting higher fps recording instead. James Cameron is pushing higher Frames Per Second really hard and apparently so is Peter Jackson and I applaud them. Why not change the norm?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67698 Thu, 05 May 2011 08:45:05 +0000 VM4GLENN 67698@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Like all Great things in life, humans are designed for change. although we resist change at every corner, we benefit from such advancement. Film is a great venue to have used, and now it's time for digital. As such many are resisting the change: "Video can look like Film". But we will move forward as a community into the digital realm.</p> <p>example: 3D coming to a town near you soon :)</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67665 Wed, 04 May 2011 14:17:52 +0000 Charles Schultz 67665@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Funny thing, I just shot footage for a commercial to be played in a movie theater and they wanted it at 30p. 8string, you can come close to the film look with filters that smooths out the edges a little bit so the are not so sharp; remember, I said close. Film will always be film and digital will always be digital and there is a gulf of difference between the two. </p> <p>Personally, I love black and white movies and there is no way to make that happen in digital without a lot of post production. I can't imagine Cassablanca being shot with digital, the grainy look lends itself to the pictures sucess. Showing my age I know. </p> <p>One more thing to realize and I will get off my soap box. In the early days, actors actually had to be able to act to make the film a success and most of the footage could not be fixed in post. The stringent demands made on film actors is great as film is not cheep, digital we can have a hundred cuts until we are satisfied. </p> <p>I will now contradict myself, I am really glad for the digital revolution as it allows many creative people to be able to get involved in film making and be able to show what they can do, I am one of them. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67658 Wed, 04 May 2011 06:36:38 +0000 8string 67658@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>In dredging up my memory of film school, the choice of 24 came from the upgrade in the teens/20s from 18fps (the old herky jerky silent movies frame rate), to something that would smooth out the motion enough for the eye to be fooled. Once in place, there was no real good reason to change it. Does that jive with what some of you remember? (too lazy to Google it this am). Likely we will move to higher frame rates as the computing power dictates. I for one, still like the look of film, (think about the filmic look of The Conformist, one of, IMHO, the most beautiful films ever made, regardless of what you think of the plot.). All these new 'videos' require enormous post processing to be made to look like film, so why bother?  By the way, was "Get Low" filmed or done in video? I ask because while I thought it totally failed as a movie (the ending was a terrible let down after the wonderful lead up), but was one of the most beautiful period pieces I've seen lately. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67447 Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:55:22 +0000 robGRAUERT 67447@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><strong>"24 frames worked back then, but why oh why are we still using it now."</strong></p> <p>2 reason:</p> <p>1 (and the most common): People think using the same frame rate as film makes their video better. Too bad they're completely wrong.</p> <p>2 (more practical reason): If you're going for a theatrical release and will transfer to film, you're definitely better off shooting 24p instead. If 60p became the norm and you transferred to film at 60fps, the cost of the film transfer just because twice as expensive.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67446 Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:51:09 +0000 WSanford 67446@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>&nbsp;From my understanding 24 fps came about due to a need to be cheap. When faced with how few frames per second could be used to use less footage of film, 24 just happened to be where some drew a line. I've also read of some importance with how sound was matched to the fps so that it looked real when people talked. Sounds logical and makes some sence.</p> <p>My attempts to use 24p were not that fruitful early on. I was interested in it for lowlight reasons outside. However, the need to move an pan a lot while filming animals, the motion was to great and the footage suffered greatly. It just didn't fit my environment at all. I'll also propose there is another element to this other than just frame rate and shutter speed. Attempting to use some consumer grade cameras with cheap sensors resulted in footage that would look good in a film about&nbsp;meteor's hitting the earth or a "Bumper" cam for the Duke's of Hazzard 2. In my experience the whole fad of cheap cameras with 24p was a disaster.</p> <p>I'm currently using a NEX-VG10 for outdoors which I do like very much at 30p and opt for a faster lens for lowlight, which is what&nbsp;I should do rather than adjust fps. I would like to see 60p in the same camera just to see what it could do. However, I have dropped the shutter speed to 1/50 to induce slight motion blur and I can't tell it apart from well shot 24p at 1/48. Its really nothing more than just a look, like "Hollywood teal", but done with fps.</p> <p>So&nbsp;my opinion is 24p is much like&nbsp;Disco. It didn't start out cool, it just happened. Lots of people jumped on the band wagon because so many said it was cool. Down the road a lot of people are going to look back at it and be shocked that so much of their life was a blur. :-)&nbsp;</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67424 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:20:23 +0000 shippocaio 67424@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>That brings a question to mind.</p> <p> </p> <p>What is the eye's frame rate?</p> <p>or is there such thing?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-era-disappearing#post-67423 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:21:20 +0000 Cinebasics 67423@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I recently read an article from Peter Jackson how he's filming the Hobbit in 48p and how he's done with and prefers the faster frame rate in all aspects. And I have to say I agree with him.</p> <p>The 24 frame rate was established a very long time ago when sound was introduced to film. And mostly because projectors and film cameras of the day had an intermittant which would only react so fast. 24 frames worked back then, but why oh why are we still using it now. Everone wants digital cameras with 'native' 24p, which doesn't actually mean anything, but yet everyone wants it. There's nothing wrong with your digital footage NOT looking like the blurry film you're used to seeing. I agree that 35mm captures more color variances than most digital chips can, but the eye percieves motion oh so much faster and clearere than 24 frames a second. And isn't the ultimate goal to have footage that is exactly how our eyes see the world? </p> <p>SO that's my question, discuss, debate, argue, and I'm curious what other opinions are on this. ;)</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-63471 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:33:23 +0000 XTR-91 63471@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>60i or 60p.</p> <p> </p> <p>24p is for convenient uploading online.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-63459 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:28:47 +0000 bbi bogdao 63459@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>30 fps is not too much? 24 is the usual no?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-vixia-hf20#post-60044 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 00:43:27 +0000 Orlando136 60044@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Sorry for taking too long to answer but thank you for everything. I've been making a few short clips just to test the shutter speeds and some of them really improve the look of my videos and i'll soon be getting some of those Azden microphones.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-vixia-hf20#post-59994 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:01:21 +0000 rexomus 59994@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Using different shutter speeds will produced a better feel to your footage when motion is involved.</p> <p>Videomaker had a good article about making your footage appear more film like. </p> <p><a href="http://www.videomaker.com/article/12720/">http://www.videomaker.com/article/12720/</a></p> <p>also, read this article too</p> <p><a href="http://www.videomaker.com/article/13747/">http://www.videomaker.com/article/13747/</a></p> <p>As for sound. Depending on the project, I use wireless lapel mics. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Technica-PRO-88W-Wireless-Microphone-171-045/dp/B000SMVH1G/ref=cm_cr-mr-title">Audio Technica</a> pro-88w is a good one for $150, and the microphone canon makes for the camera, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-2591B002-Directional-Microphone-Camcorders/dp/B0012ILNK0/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&amp;coliid=ILIU0ITIXKALR&amp;colid=2TMEAPJU4FHRM">2591 B002</a>, that fits right in to the mini shoe is good to.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-vixia-hf20#post-59983 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:52:49 +0000 hmueller 59983@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Azden.com is a good source of inexpensive mics. They have a stereo shotgun mic for about $100</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-vixia-hf20#post-59981 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:08:06 +0000 Orlando136 59981@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Thank you for your replies. To hmueller: thanks for the sugestion as I was not sure what was the best procedure. Another thing you said that has always bothered me was sound quality.. I'm thinking about buying one of Canon's DM-100 directional mic but is there another good alternative that doesn't cross the $100 dollar range? this also goes to rexomus and anyone who had this camera or thinks they can help.</p> <p>To rexomus: so are you saying that changing to 1/48 is the better way to do it? and thankz cause I thought I had to set it to 24p but you're right. The footage is still 60i, just with the look of 24p.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-vixia-hf20#post-59976 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:13:22 +0000 rexomus 59976@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I had the same issue with the HF200, same as the 20 but no internal memory. I have found that if I change the shutter setting to 1/48, the film effect is amplified. Also, when editing in Sony Vegas Pro, set your properties to 1920x1080 @ 60i. 24p on the Hf 20 and 200 is just an effect. All the footage is captured at 60i regardless. I hope this helps.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-vixia-hf20#post-59974 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:20:53 +0000 hmueller 59974@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Whenever possible, do the white balance in camera at the time of shooting.</p> <p>The Canon is great. I am not sure about your model though. The Canon HV40 and the HF S20/21 should shoot 24P natively.</p> <p>There are many effects in Sony Vegas but you should concentrate on your shooting tecnique first. Make sure that you use a tripod wherever possible, and that your focus is sharp. Blurriness and non-smooth video is more likely caused by technique rather than the fact that you are using 24P.</p> <p>The success of your films will be determined by your sound quality.  Be sure to use good external microphones with manual level adjustment which the Canon allows.</p> <p>Heidi</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-vixia-hf20#post-59961 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:09:14 +0000 Orlando136 59961@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Hi! I'm new here and I would like you guys to give me some ideas on how to make The Canon Vixia's 24p (through pulldown) to look even more like film because my videos have that sort of blurriness that you find in film but they don't run as smoothly. The image is great but isn't there a plug-in for Sony Vegas 8.0 Pro to make everything more "dreamy" and soft? Thankz</p> <p>I am working and trying to be a filmmaker and I've been reading a lot about filmmaking so I bought a couple of books and I can say I'm a little bit knowlegeable about what to do as a director but I don't have a lot of money to rent a Genesis or a Panavison camera so I have to work with what I have. I'll keep you updated about my first effeort. I wrote 2 scripts, 1 es suppsed to be a short and the other almost a feature lengh film (maybe 70 minutes long). I hope to start shooting by July so any help would be more than welcome. :)</p> <p>Another thing..do you think I should make the whole white balancing process in-camera or doing the post-production?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54378 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:37:45 +0000 XTR-91 54378@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"I could be wrong, but I thought the real reason we shoot 60i is because of our electrical wiring in this country, which runs at 60Hz. But like I said, I could be wrong or maybe we're both right."</em></p> <p>Wasn't even quite sure myself, but I think my words are better stated as: 'interlaced video was intended to create a 60 frame-ish affect while only being able to broadcast only one field 60 times a second.'</p> <p> </p> <p><em>"In my opinion, the standard should be 30fps, whether progressive or interlace. I don't like 60p because it looks too good. You see almost no motion blur, and motion blur is natural. I WANT to see some motion blur. The only time I would ever shoot 60p or higher is to achieve a VERY clean slow-mo effect."</em></p> <p>This part of your post struck me amusing at first, but I sort of get your point of making better motion realism (which in a lot of cases it's a good affect). For the most part, 60p was created to move forward in attempt to ditch the whole interlaced gag. 60p is really the only progressive mode that creates enough adequate fluid of motion. 30p is still a bit too jabbish - I'd still take 60i over it. If I had the option, I'd only use 24p for achieving a certain affect, not as my everyday story/movie/documentary shooting mode. I've heard some RED cams can shoot 120p for achieving some motion affects while retaining the good quality of 60p.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54359 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:00:10 +0000 robGRAUERT 54359@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>"The TV production world uses 24fps for no other reason than it saves money"</p> <p>How does shooting 24fps save money?</p> <p>"interlaced was intended to create a 60 'frame-ish' affect being able to broadcast in only 30 frames."</p> <p>I could be wrong, but I thought the real reason we shoot 60i is because of our electrical wiring in this country, which runs at 60Hz. But like I said, I could be wrong or maybe we're both right.</p> <p>Mocojez,</p> <p>I agree with you. I'm not down with 24p. The only time I find it acceptable is if you are transferring to film. The thing that bugs me most is people think 24p actually makes their video looks like film. It probably has the least impact. Composition, camera work, lighting...those all have a much bigger impact for creating a film look than the frame rate.</p> <p>In my opinion, the standard should be 30fps, whether progressive or interlace. I don't like 60p because it looks too good. You see almost no motion blur, and motion blur is natural. I WANT to see some motion blur. The only time I would ever shoot 60p or higher is to achieve a VERY clean slow-mo effect.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54353 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:34:13 +0000 XTR-91 54353@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>60i (30 frames with 60 interlaced fields) has always been the standard broadcast quality since the early days of television. More recently with the introduction of digital video, video producers have been trying to acquire more of a film look in order to compete with india filmmakers by setting the rate which they record and reproduce to 24p. Film was always recorded and processed in 24p and sent to a 60i analog broadcast. Not the most ideal, but interlaced was intended to create a 60 'frame-ish' affect being able to broadcast in only 30 frames. 24p was almost universal for video recording since people have tried to boost the quality of their productions, when in reality they took on one of film's disadvantages into acquiring something more 'filmic'. If I had more options I would honestly shoot only 60p (or 60i if there's no 60p option), except for those occasions when wanting to imitate something that happened in the past, or achieving a special affect. I'd check out this article:</p> <p><a href="http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2008/10/4083-opinion-24p-must-die/">http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2008/10/4083-opinion-24p-must-die/</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54351 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:04:51 +0000 Mocojez 54351@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I just watched the tutorial on creating a 'film look' using 24P, and I felt there were some misleading statements. I'd also like to add a very big comment about PLAYBACK.</p> <p>If there's no way to display or present your material at 24fps, I challenge the whole concept of shooting at 24P. Most decent video editing software now has the option to work in 24P format, so the material can be encoded to 24P MPEG-2 and displayed using HD DVD and a 24P-capable LCD screen (at a multiple of 24hz, with 120hz and above being optimal). You can also play directly from many cameras in 24P direct to these screens.</p> <p>However, if you have to convert to an NTSC broadcast format to display the 24P, forget it. A lot of material is still produced on film for TV broadcast, and they generally shoot at 24fps. I've even seen digital video shot at 24P for television broadcast, which is perverse. The whole system for getting feature films onto North American TV is a horrible compromise. The 3:2 pulldown 'expansion' of film frames to interlaced video is not part of the 'film look', especially since that effect doesn't happen in places with 50hz systems, like the UK. They don't watch movies on TV with any 'mashing' of frames.</p> <p>The TV production world uses 24fps for no other reason than it saves money, particularly in post production. I've seen many TV commercials shot at 24fps where the advertising agency actually believed they were producing a 'film look', which is a testament to the disingenuous nature of advertising.</p> <p>A couple of other comments:</p> <p>Motion blur is not the same as strobe - it's the opposite. Strobe occurs when the brain cannot perceive continuous motion, and this happens when we use a slow display frame rate COMBINED with a fast shutter (or narrow shutter angle in a film camera). At 24fps we don't perceive the black phases between the projected images - that's what persistence of vision means. But a narrow shutter angle means that each frame only captures a small percentage of the motion, and we can't put that movement back together in a fluid way. The narrow (or fast) shutter also decreases the motion blur, making things crisper, and this INCREASES the strobe effect.</p> <p>I also totally challenge the idea that you should add film grain, unless you want a 'vintage' look. 35mm film has more than twice the detail resolution of HD video, and a modern feature film shot on film and transferred to digital video has no perceivable grain, unless it was intentional. Grain comes from degraded stored print, or from high speed stocks 'pushed' in exposure, printing or development.</p> <p>And lastly, I wanted to comment that the 24fps standard for film-making is not set in stone. I agree that it was introduced with costs in mind, and then became a standard which was difficult to alter for the same reason. But movies are increasingly shot on digital video, and displayed on digital projectors. There's no doubt that a higher frame rate would raise the quality, so I predict that 30fps might be introduced in the near future.</p> <p>Movies certainly produce the highest quality of image, being processed in post production and projected in theatres at about 4K resolution, but we can only display those images currently on a TV screen at 1920 x 1080, so I have to ask why we trying so hard for a 'film look' in video at 24P, when HD video at 30P arguably looks better on a TV screen?</p> <p>I look forward to getting some comments!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/the-truth-about-24p-video#post-49502 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:38:54 +0000 composite1 49502@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Mazda,</p> <p>Glad you're enjoying the thread. I recently shot some racing events one set using 60p the other 24p at high shutter speeds to make for more interesting slo-mo's. I dig the look of both though as you implied, the 24p has a less smooth look at normal speed. However, the stuttered motion does lend a certain 'excitement' to the look of the movements.</p> <p>Concerning whether your 'gearheads' computers can handle the footage, yeah it helps to format it so it will work for the lowest level units. However, YouTube does allow for higher-res viewing so you can put out a better looking piece and those who can view it at hi-res can choose to do so. </p> <p>Deciding to use 24p with video is purely an artistic choice. Using it just so your video will look like film isn't a good idea if you aren't sure about what you want to accomplish with it.</p>