24 fps / 29.97 fps Depth of Field

[ussinners]

I've always been told that the main difference between "film look" and "miniDV" is depth of field.

When we shot Us Sinners most scenes were indoors and shot in tiny rooms. Depth of field with the XL-1 in those rooms was impossible.

I realize 24fps is what film shoots at. But if the main difference is DOF, and I can get the DOF as in the photo below (shot with the XL-1) what would the other drawbacks be?

Ignoring the content of the photo (though Frances is cute as a button), what am I missing quality wise that would make a distributor say "that's obviously shot 29.97fps and not 24?"

 

[Ernest Worthing]

As far as only the "look" is concerned the main dif is the film like motion, not dof. But both is better. Being shot at 30fps is what will make anyone who knows what he is looking at say it is shot at 30fps.

If you have a good production (good lighting, good sets, good sound etc) the 30fps can look better than something bad shot at 24fps but the motion will not be film like.

 

[wheatgrinder]

Your asking us to judge a TIME DOMAIN quality issue with a static image?


Regarding the DOF of that image. If your subjects are the size of cats and your outside in the garden, then your good to go but like you said, when indoors in small spaces getting shallow DOF (on human sized subjects I presume) is neigh on impossible. I canna change the laws of physics capn!

 

[2001 Productions]

And the DoF thing is just a matter of preference. There are plenty of directors (Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, and Terry Gilliam, just to name a few) who like the deep focus they get with a short focal length lens. Nobody mistakes their stuff for video.

As Ernest said, there are any number of factors that make a movie look like a film, not the least of which is proper lighting. But the 24fps frame rate tricks the eye and helps disguise what used to be called the "soap opera" look of video.

 

[David.rhsc]

Just to get the unspoken part of this thread out of the way:

DoF is in not strictly related to frame rate.

Ninja Edit: Except in that frame rate equates to exposure time which can effect the stop needed for the shot. If that variable changes then DoF changes, naturally, but that is a function of stop.

Sorry.

Carry on.

 

[ussinners]

THANK YOU ALL.

People have only spoken about DOF and never that the motion looks different.

Which brings me to this question, how do you tell the motion is different?

If you could just watch the first shot (the rest is just photos and an mpeg video): To me (obviously I know nothing) he doesn't seem to be moving slower or faster. How do you tell? What should I be looking for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeAm9aTPFFY

 

[Ernest Worthing]

I can't watch the vid right now but why dont u record and watch something at 60fps and something at 24 or 18fps just to magnify the difference a bit between frame rates. You'll see the different effects yourself. Or if you can't do your own test just watch something recorded at 18fps and 60 fps online. Try vimeo.

Oh and make sure the vids recorded at 60 fps have not been conformed to a lower frame rate for slow motion.

 

[Cracker Funk]

As David mentioned, frame-rate and depth of field really don't have anything to do with each other. In a way, they do, but for all intents and purposes, those are two seperate conversations.

In my opinion, it's only the very experienced who can tell the difference between 24 and 30 fps. Maybe, maybe, in the back of our minds, the inexperienced people can feel a difference, but I seriously doubt 30 fps will make anyone think less of your film.

Shallow depth of field is easily noticeable, even to novices. Just to clear it up, you're kind of using that phrase, "depth of field", wrong. All cameras, all lenses, have depth of field. It's only a question of how shallow or deep. Shallow depth of field is the cinematic look you're talking about, when one thing is in focus, and everything else is out of focus. Wide depth of field is when more stuff is in focus.

I think it's been said before, but it bears repeating. Strong cinematography matters much more than frame-rate or depth of field. And more than that, story trumps all.

 

[David.rhsc]

What should I be looking for?

Motion Blur mostly. At higher frame rates played back at the same frame rate movement in the frame is sample at a higher frequency and thus looks "crisper" as a result of less motion blur. We are used to seeing film projected at this rate, and associate the motion blur effect with projected "film."

If you have the capacity, take a stills camera and shoot pictures at 1/48th of a second exposure time, adjust only to get proper exposure locked at that interval - you'll see what I mean about the blur.

29.97 on the other hand is what we all grew up watching on television. Our grandmother's Soaps (to borrow the example) were all 29.97. It just looks like TV to us because that's the association we were trained to make.

It is hard to tell what I am looking at in the YT vid, it almost looks like you are on a CMOS camera from the way the movement looks when kitty throws back its head early on in the clip. From an audience perspective, the effect is probably, mostly subconscious.

Not sure I can judge source frame rate after you tube mangling though. Cracker hits on this as well, the audience is making a subconscious connection if any at all. I can't tell what you shot it at based off that short clip, there's a chance I could if viewing the original on an awesome monitor , but only a chance. I'm not that good.

Best to do tests like Earnest suggested and see what you like.

Also, I'll second the remarks that the qualities that give something a "film" look have more to do with what goes on outside the camera than inside it.

 

[knightly]

1) DoF has nothing at all to do with Frame rate.

2) 29.97 doesn't look different than 24 in a still, it's the motion cadence that is different when viewing... the amount of motion blur on a given frame for a given amount of movement on the screen at a given shutter speed is the difference and without all of those things being known to be the same, the viewer can't judge a still. (I personally still feel that it's more a function of shutter speed than frame rate although I lack tests as I don't have a camera that can shoot 24p footage and 30p footage both at 1/60 and 1/4

3) the DoF does look different on the XL series of 1/3" sensor cameras as to get the blurriness you are looking at, you need to zoom in so much that the background becomes greatly magnified and looks "off" due to its increased scale in relation to the subject. With a larger format sensor, you'd be able to get that same amount of blurriness without having to resort to zooming in and pulling the camera back so far to account for it. You can actually get the same effect by moving the camera closer to the subject and staying zoomed out a bit more.

D) the image looks video due to the exposure limits DV impose upon us... Throwing more light into the shadows or playing with the image in post to stretch out the blacks to make them look less compressed... but don't lose your whites, as clipped whites look worse than the clipped blacks do.