Getting ready to shoot a low budget feature and sending out feelers to see what type of camera to shoot it on, like I said it's a LOW budget feature, I'm hearing 24p is the best grade to shoot if we are sending it to festivals or the slim chance of anyone wanting to buy it and distribute it, any truth to this? Or can we accomplish the same with a more inexpensive option?
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
24p is it really necessary?
- Thread starter casey88
- Start date
Use 24p for narrative filmmaking, some documentaries, 30p or 60i for NTSC TV or 30p for internet. Use 25p or 50 for PAL exclusive markets. If all you have is access to a good quality 60i camera then use that for a short but I wouldn't use it for a feature unless you are going to post it straight to the internet, or unless its a doc.
You mean you want a large depth of field rather than a narrow
depth of field. You want more DOF (more in focus) instead of
no DOF (nothing in focus). The fps you shoot and if it is progressive
or interlaced has very little to do with DOF. And I don't know of
any software that will change a small (or shallow) DOF to a large
(or deep) DOF. It would be interesting to know what your roommate
is telling you about
Rather than making is seem as if you shot using a home video
camera why not shoot with a home video camera?
Don't shoot 29.97. It absolutely does matter. As one distributor told me., "There's no excuse anymore not to shoot 24fps, you can get a camera for under $1500." Besides the look, there's a problem wit 29.97 being translated for overseas distribution. it makes it that much harder a sell.
The T2i (I think that's it) can be bought for under a grand (700 at B&H brand new) with a lens and just look at the results.
24fps in 2011 is a necessity.
The T2i (I think that's it) can be bought for under a grand (700 at B&H brand new) with a lens and just look at the results.
24fps in 2011 is a necessity.
That's interesting.
My movie, "dark crimes" shot 29.97 interlaced, has ONLY found European
distribution. No domestic at all. If fact the transfer to PAL was easy, inexpensive
and looks really good.
That's pretty funny. But, that's what the guy told me.
When I started out to make Us Sinners the XL-2 was the 24fps camera I was going to buy. But, my DP talked me into buying her friend's used XL-1. As she explained it, it didn't matter in the long run. It didn't really. I was offered enough crappy distribution deals. But, most everyone I've talked to since screams about shooting 24fps. Back in 2004 or 2005 the price for 24fps was costly. In 2011 $700 for that T2 is cheap.
So, why start out with a big strike against you by shooting 29.97fps?
Please don't misunderstand me. I am in no way suggesting shooting
29.97 is the right thing to do. "This guy" was misinformed - that's all.
It happens. Many so called professionals are misinformed. casey seems
to want the "home video" look. That's why I suggested shooting 29.97.
Unless the specific look is interlaced video there is no reason at all to shoot
anything other than 24p HD these days.
"You mean you want a large depth of field rather than a narrow
depth of field. You want more DOF (more in focus) instead of
no DOF (nothing in focus)."
Yes, that's it. The movie will be shot from the main character's hand-held perspective a lot of the time and she'll be moving around quite a bit so we can't have things constantly moving in and out of focus.
depth of field. You want more DOF (more in focus) instead of
no DOF (nothing in focus)."
Yes, that's it. The movie will be shot from the main character's hand-held perspective a lot of the time and she'll be moving around quite a bit so we can't have things constantly moving in and out of focus.
I'd say that if you want to establish that video look in your project it would help to contextualize it with the opposite, which would be footage shot at 24p. That way you can cut back and forth and thus switch between styles/looks within your project and each transition would have an impact. If you shoot at 29.97 and then exaggerate the video look in some clips it might work okay, but it wouldn't be as dramatic. I second the thought, though, that the story itself should guide your project, not the look. The look is like make-up; if it dominates the face, there's something wrong.
Cheers.
The reason 24p helps give the cinematic feel is simply because that is what we are comfortable (use to) in movie theaters. 24p was common because it cut costs on film and it looked good under the right conditions. The reason 24p works well in movie theaters is because the projected image leaves an afterimage; giving it a smooth look at a lower frame rate.
24p in the digital age is not a very good idea as far as I can tell. While the effect is good under the correct condition, it doesn't have the same effect as a screen does. Also, play back on almost any tv or computer monitor will not have the look you want as the refresh rate on these devices are too high to display it accurately.
I am not an expert, so I could always be wrong.
24p in the digital age is not a very good idea as far as I can tell. While the effect is good under the correct condition, it doesn't have the same effect as a screen does. Also, play back on almost any tv or computer monitor will not have the look you want as the refresh rate on these devices are too high to display it accurately.
I am not an expert, so I could always be wrong.
They experimented in the early days of film and determined that 24 fps was the slowest you could run film without the human brain seeing it flicker, so it became the standard. Maximum footage from the least amount of film. Now human brains are trained from the time they first see a movie for 24 fps to look like "film" and faster frame rates to look like "TV" or "Video".
Film was originally shot at 18 frames per second. They bumped it up to 24 frames per second to catch more detail in motion, as well as synching with sound in the 1930's.
Video runs at 29.97 frames per second (or 60 interlaced fields, not frames) because video was originally based on the United States power cycles, which is 60hz, and in Europe PAL video at 50 interlaced fields because of the 50hz power cycle.
The beauty of the digital monitors is that it can accurately display any frame rate. 24P in digital video is working because a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) old style television can ONLY display 60i or 50i standard definition video, depending on if it's NTSC or PAL.
Whilst whether or not any person 'likes' the image on a digital monitor is subjective, the factual data on what they are capable of are not in question. It may never look 'right' to you and others.
I didn't say it... But there's a lot that is subjective in what looks good and what doesn't.
Shooting 24 also gives you less frames to have to go through in the editing, so not only does it look better, but it makes things easier all around.