Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Cameras and Camcorders › Other Camcorders › Is 24p the way to go?
- December 5, 2007 at 12:14 AM #42807
I’m ready to produce a script that I’ve recently finished (I’ve already talked with a couple distributors), so I was in the process of purchasing a Panasonic AG-DVX100B. But I just read that 24p is NOT the industry standard anymore for independent movie production. I was wondering if anyone knew what the industry standard IS now (HD, etc). I only have $2,300 for a camcorder, and I prefer one that has prosumer features (manual controls, XLR mic inputs, 3 CCDs or CMOS, etc.) Because of my budget, am I stuck with the AG-DVX100B (not a bad camera to be stuck with, admittedly), or are there alternatives? I really want a film-look to the finished movie.
I appreciate your input.
- December 5, 2007 at 1:49 AM #179306AnonymousInactive
If your end product will be a film to be projected by a standard film projector in the United States (or anywhere else where 24 fps is the standard film projection speed), then 24P is the correct choice. However, there seems to be a growing trend to skip film and stay with digital video, even for projection. In that case, I would recommend the slightly smoother action of 30 fps. And progressive is preferable if doing things like compositing, slow motion, or freeze frames, so shoot 30P. I suspect 30fps might be less complicated to work with than 24fps, when it comes to editing. (Don’t have to deal with having 24 usable frames in a 30 frame space.)
That’s my 3 cents worth,
- December 5, 2007 at 3:13 AM #179307
Thanks for the info. My biggest concern was 24p vs. HD. I probably can’t get both on my budget, so I guess I’ll stick with the AG-DVX100B (it can shoot 30p, too). If a distributor or studio wants to distribute it on film, then they’ll probably want to remake it anyway, so I’m not going to worry about it right now.
- December 5, 2007 at 3:24 AM #179308AnonymousInactive
Too many people [not saying you] believe that 24p is what makes video look like film but it’s not. 24p only makes sense if you know you’ll be going from video to film.
How you shoot video has more to do with film look than frames per second.
I’m getting off track here.
I agree with Ken.
- December 5, 2007 at 2:02 PM #179309
Thanks for your input. At this point, I’m fairly positive that I’m not going to film with this movie, but I definitely do NOT want it to look like video. I am experienced with 3-point lighting, but what I shoot still looks like video (oversaturation of colors, etc.). Admittedly, I’m not using the best camera, but do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions about camcorders that may not necessarily be 24p, but are able to achieve a filmic quality (assuming that lighting, set design, composition, etc. are all based on film theory)? I’ve also read about changing the
fps in Final Cut to help give more film-like movement within the shot.
Again, thank you.
- December 5, 2007 at 5:41 PM #179310AnonymousInactive
I notice the “film-like” setting on my prosummer camcorder does its trick by slightly increasing color saturation, slightly decreasing exposure, and then faking progressive scan. Thinking back to how my 16mm movies looked (many years ago), I suppose those adjustments make some sense. But I think the best technique you could use is to use soft lighting, and try to position the lights so that any shadows fall outside the field of view. Also, don’t forget to add a little background noise for “atmosphere”. That will help create the sense of film.
BTW, the DVX100B (or DVX100A) is a great camcorder, offering lots of adjustments. I use the DVC30, kind of a “little brother” to the DVX100B, with some of the adjustments.
- December 5, 2007 at 11:05 PM #179311AnonymousInactive
<p style=”margin-bottom: 0in”>I think too that the gamma of video and film has much to do with the difference in look.
Video has a more washed out harsh look and you can bring it down by adjustments to the gamma curve.
<p style=”margin-bottom: 0in”>Lighting in the shadows or I should details in the shadows is another thing the hurts video and that would take you back to lighting which you already know.
<p style=”margin-bottom: 0in”>
<p style=”margin-bottom: 0in”>I’ve never done video to film but there are some post software like Magic Bullet which will make video look just like film. I have seen test from it and it works!!!
<p style=”margin-bottom: 0in”>I have also read however that if you know you’re going to film out that you should not do anything to the video and just shoot it straight and the film transferring company will make any adjustments as needed.
I don’t know if you have gotten that far on your project yet but I would talk to the film transferring people and see what they say. It may save you much time and some money…
<p style=”margin-bottom: 0in”>Keep us updated on your project and what you learn.
- December 5, 2007 at 11:06 PM #179312AnonymousInactive
I don’t know why my reply posted that way.
- October 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM #179313arildpedMember
I like to ask some questions!Without using a low framrate, how arewe going to record, artistically, fast movement in 50 or 60p? Even with a slow shutterI will only get frozen frames without any motion artefacts. Film photographers call it video look, but even still photographers are using motion blur to show movement in there pictures. Im talking about the art of photo here, not the technical part of filming.Some years ago I made two editions of a music video, one in 25p, the other in 50p. The audience preferred to look at the 25p version. Why? Because it had more motion in it, more spirit, it showed more human life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.