With the real intensity of professional light, the amount of light getting put into the camera results in over-exposure more often than it does under-exposure. Beginning hobbyists (as well as professionals) are the ones that chase the fantasy of 24p. Hollywood still uses it, and so does any serious movie making corporation. So why not choose 24p as an entry-level step if every company is producing it? The general popularity has labeled it as “magically acheiving a better film look” – it’s the psychological affect. It took a lot of effort establishing in order to compete with film, and it will take a lot of effort (and enough people realizing) in order to “make the switch”.

Your comment is a great piece of work that deserves some more attention. Front Page, anyone?

I regularly shoot programs using 24p and 60p, so I’ll chime in here. From my perspective as a Documentary Producer/Shooter, 24p as a standard seems to be like the standard of using 3-Point lighting. Neither of which makes a subject look “more real” to me. Each has been associated with quality.

To those with a documentary bent, the debate over how best to capture reality still plays on. I have chosen 24 fps, while many have chosen 60 fps.

Certainly 60p does make a subject look “more real”. But when coupled with extensive lighting, doesn’t 60p then lose it’s strength of recording reality? Maybe we’ll have to unload our light kits as we unload 24p.

-Andrew

I am doing mostly interviews and still video where is isn’t a big thing. 30fps is fine for me, but I can sure see where the HD is going to require more.

You hit the nail right on the head, the meme that 24p makes your video more like film, is like saying that hacking the arms off a sculpture makes it more classical. 24p is a limitation, not a benefit.

You are correct that interlaced video is better for motion unless you’re shooting 60p. My argument is that people should shoot more 60p. If you are still shooting SD, and viewing the result on a CRT TV, then interlaced is still your best bet. However most people shooting today are shooting HD (even if they don’t own an HDTV, they’re future-proofing their assets), and within a few years tube TV’s will be seen as quaint antiques. All flat panels de-interlace the interlaced signals they receive anyway, (some better than others), so there’s no reason not to move into the future progressively.

My argument against embracing 24p is that you have to do MUCH more when you’re shooting your video to make it look like film. I see so often people who shoot 24p “to be more cinematic,” but they don’t follow through with the rest of the attributes of feature films. For example, instead of dollying, they zoom. Instead of using a tripod, they camera is shaky when the shot doesn’t work shaky. Instead of lighting like film, they wash out the scene. Basically, everything else that needs to be done to make video look like film, never gets done. People think “24p?! BAM my image looks like film,” when in reality, 24p does the least in trying to make video look like film…in my opinion.

I guess your arguments come into play if someone were to follow up on everything they should do to make video look like film.

I disagree on your “interlace must die” comment though. I’ve read that interlace is better for fast motion than progressive unless you’re shooting 60p. A lot of people don’t have 60p; hell, I don’t even have an HD camera. I think it’s too soon for me to buy one. And not everyone has a flat panel display. Maybe one day interlace will be useless, but it’s too soon to do away with it now.

Great article though. I’m glad to see I’m not the only person who doesn’t like 24p.

Meanwhile, there doesn’t seem to be any good 720p/60 camcorders on my radar.

(By the way, is there some weakness in the audio, endemic to the HDV format ? Running manual audio in my Sony TRV 900 is much more forgiving than doing the same in my Canon HV30–don’t know if it is the Canon or the HDV format that is to blame.)