Quote:
Originally Posted by VideoFreek 
You're absolutely right, from a strict technical viewpoint, 60fps images are certainly "better" and more lifelike. However, people are so wedded to the "look" of 24fps that I think we may never see motion pictures shot at higher frame rates...it would look too much "like video" to us. In fact, some TV shows are shot on 35mm film and then transferred to video precisely to achieve this "filmlike" look. Ironically, I think people associate the look of 24fps with higher "quality."
You're absolutely right, from a strict technical viewpoint, 60fps images are certainly "better" and more lifelike. However, people are so wedded to the "look" of 24fps that I think we may never see motion pictures shot at higher frame rates...it would look too much "like video" to us. In fact, some TV shows are shot on 35mm film and then transferred to video precisely to achieve this "filmlike" look. Ironically, I think people associate the look of 24fps with higher "quality."
True...but this is a learned behavior and I'm going to make a totally unsupported assertion: one that likely wont last past this generation as kids grow up with digital media.
Quote:
Actually, 720p24 is a valid HDTV format, but you're essentially right...if someone is going to make the effort to handle 24fps natively, they'll go for 1080p and not 720p. Another problem is that right now, I'm not aware of many sources that actually output 24p over HDMI. Out of curiousity, do you know of any?
Nope. I do notice that every so often when the ATSC specs are discussed someone always pipes ups to note that some of thse approved formats are never used for broadcast (like 720p24).
I've never seen anything that said it takes in 720p/24 or outputs it in the consumer market outside of HD cameras and then it goes to your computer not as a video output. And these are prosumer models. I can't recall which camera's either but it was for low end pro's that wanted film look (wedding shooters, etc) or indie projects.
Quote:
Look how long we've lived with crappy 480-line resolution with NTSC!
]
No arguments there.
Quote:
BTW, judder, which is defined as uneven or jerky movement during slow pans, is not inherent to film--it comes about from the pulldown process when 24fps film is transferred to 30fps NTSC, because fields are recorded in an alternating 3:2 pattern during telecining.
Um, not that I'm a camera guy (computer guy) but my understanding was that you set up very carefully on medium pans to avoid judder. I've seen a chart for panning speeds and recommended focal lengths. Typically this means making sure the background is out of focus with a narrow depth of field...which you get with 35mm. Someone shooting 24p HD not used to setting up for film will end up with judder on the background like crazy on these medium pans because the frame rate is so slow and the depth of field on a HD camera much higher.
But even for 35mm film, set up the shot not quite right and you get a bit of judder because of the low framerate and the movement.
Oh..and the discussion is rather moot...looks like the pulled 720p24 off the spec sheet...I guess we'll know the real specs when they actually ship.
Vinea
