Hi all

You know I try my best to answer questions here since people always do it for me. But I would like to start a thread as to why everyone wants to edit 24p. I think there are some misconceptions out there as to what 24p is. For starters, if you are going to TV or DVD, I cannot think of one reason to edit 24p unless you are very advanced and have something specific you need to do.

From what I understand, most people who edit are doing so for TV, DVD or coporate videos for things such as companies or weddings etc. For this, with some exceptions, the format to edit is 30i drop frame. Sure you can acquire 24p but save some rare settings its actually not that easy to lay down a 24p acquisition on tape -- it's generally converted to 30i/drop anyway.

So here we are, 90% of folks who shoot 24p come back to edit with a 30i tape and then they start cutting 24p projects. I mean how many people actually output to film and then do blowup? And for that matter, it is more or less just as easy to go from 30 to 24 after you edit anyway...AND more and more projectors are digital anyway! our last 3 major events in theaters ASKED for HDCAM or DBETA!

I think --and I could be way off (I usually am)- that people do not understand 24 or 30 and they dont understand p or i. And I also think (sorry) a lot of people LOVE to tell others that they edit 24. Whenever I meet (sorry again!) self-styled-filmakers at parties here in NYC they like to almost name drop that they shoot 24. At which point I usually ask them why and they cant really answer.

Anyway have any thoughts on this? The reason i think it is important to discuss is that we all seem to spend a lot of time helping people with the 24 questions when in fact they should not be 24 to begin with...

Lastly, this is an AVID discussion as it pertains to questions that constantly show up here, on this forum, so I would humbly, kindly, respectfully ask that the moderators not move the thread. Thanks!

Back to y'all?

I agree completely Guy'. I have never seen the draw for 24p on a 30fps finish. Producers who use  it  here think it looks more like film. For me, folks who say that have never actually worked with film. All it looks like to me is smeary video.

BLKDOG:

Producers who use  it  here think it looks more like film. For me, folks who say that have never actually worked with film. All it looks like to me is smeary video.

Same thing in the PAL world, except the usual method is just to drop one field and operate at 25 fps.  The result?  Half the vertical resolution and increased picket fencing for no real gain.

Some years back (in the '80s I think) a post-grad student at San Diego did a series of tests with film-literate and joe-public audiences.  I can't find the reference, but I'm sure someone out there will.  The outcome of her tests was that if the audience enjoyed the test material they tended to regard it as film, whether it had actually been produced on film or not.  In the same tests, shooting on film did not guarantee better acceptance by the audience.

Presumably the same applies to the pretend "film look" these ignorant individuals favour.

If I work on film I expect it to look like film, if I work with video I expect it to look like video.  Both have their own benefits, both have their own shortcomings.  But expert colorgrading can make both look pretty good.

PS:  Relying on memory here.  I'm pretty certain the tests were done at UCSD, and I think it was around 1984.

I also agree!  I hear too many producers and younger editors using "24p" as a buzzword. Just tossing it around because it sounds so "cool".  I really don't mind people shooting in 24p if they want that "look" but I never suggest you edit in a 24p project unless you are planning to go back to film (which nobody I ever deal with does). if you want to shoot 24p, then just capture into a 30i project and edit away.

I think many people expects, consciously or subconsciously, 24p to be that magic bullet to their production when it is merely one of the many tools you can employ.

They get caught up in with things such as pulldown, native 24p editing, 24p DVD, etc.

But yeah for most, shooting in 24p should not necessarily mean you should edit in 24p. It is not efficient use of time, energy, and money.

For something that is completely shot in 24p, I don't see the problem editing in 24p. It gives you a 24p master, and even if you add pulldown in order to lay back to 30i, you still have the advantage of easily being able to do pulldown removal on it, which brings you back to the actual original frames.

For the DVD presentations especially, it will be much easier for the pulldown removal tools in players, projectors and/or screens is there is a consistent cadence. Adding pulldown first, then breaking the cadence and after that remove the pulldown again seems like a detour to me.

The 24p master you can end up with also easily translates to webversions, or even PAL versions for international release. Who needs 30i source footage for web based content?

I see no reason why one would deliberately want to break the consistant cadence, out of what seems to me like an irritation about a format. Sounds silly.

If, and only if, you are certain that your only delivery format will be 30i, yes, you can stick to 30i. But....why would you? What makes editing at 24p so complicated?

On a sidenote: why is it so important for AXP users that this is placed on the XpressPro forum rather than the general 24p forum?

Job in theory it sounds simple - shoot in 24p - edit in 24p. But in reality, it can be very complicated. Just outputing a 24p DVD will depend if your encoder and authoring software supports 24p.

In software only environment we are lucky that Avid supports RT 24p standard removal via software. Everyone else needs to conform it after capture (if they can!).

Forget about 720/24p, it is not a please experience.

Of course if you have certain hardware and software configuration it can be easier (break out box, 24p HD monitor, etc).

I don't doubt the advantages of 24p editing. I just think there is this silver bullet mentality approach to it.

In some ways I agree with you but there are reasons to shoot 24P not the least of which is the person creating the content likes the look and feel of material shot at 24 and played at 30. Additional reasons include DVD authoring of long content the reduction of 20% of the frames allows the material to be encoded at a higher data rate and still fit on a disk. The reduction in number of frames can also save time and money when rotoscoping, less frames less time not to mention progressive as opposed to interlaced.

BLKDOG I'm not sure what the term smeary video means and you are a Moderator (sometimes with a slant in your posts - interested to see your personality in person, not a slam just your posts are sharp and sometimes deserve more explanation) but I would consider video shot with the proper shutter angle and 24 frames played at 30 to have the same temporal resolution  as film. Granted the resolution, latitude, texture, response etc. are not the same. I'm no expert just my opinion.  The smeary video I have seen usually are created by people not understanding pan speeds when shooting 24.

It's a creative medium  and I've seen lots of content I think could have looked better but if your happy and pay the bill I'll produce 24 or 30 progressive or interlaced. In the end the video works or doesn't.

ayoung:

BLKDOG I'm not sure what the term smeary video means and you are a Moderator (sometimes with a slant in your posts

Yeah, I often have to beg forgiveness for the sharpness in my posts. In addition to running a post department I moderate three fora here as well as help in others when I can. Sometimes I end up "Speed Posting".

I do have to strongly disagree with your assertion that the pulldown inserted in 24p material even closely approximates the pulldown look of film. Even the Avid's fluid film insertion is better that the pulldown from 24p.

Job in theory it sounds simple - shoot in 24p - edit in 24p. But in reality, it can be very complicated.

Lots of things can be complicated in this day and age. Yes, one needs the right tools. Still no need to ask for the end of 24p.

I agree that the silver bullet mentality approach exists. Like it does with HD. No reason to dismiss it.

The  title of  the thread notwithstanding, I don't think that I, for one, am advocating ending 24p. IT has its uses but, like we originally meant to say, if your delivery is 30i, there really isn't a compelling reason to cut in 24p and increase your workflow with all that entails.

That's all.

Guywithcat:

Hi all

You know I try my best to answer questions here since people always do it for me. But I would like to start a thread as to why everyone wants to edit 24p. I think there are some misconceptions out there as to what 24p is. For starters, if you are going to TV or DVD, I cannot think of one reason to edit 24p unless you are very advanced and have something specific you need to do.

From what I understand, most people who edit are doing so for TV, DVD or coporate videos for things such as companies or weddings etc. For this, with some exceptions, the format to edit is 30i drop frame. Sure you can acquire 24p but save some rare settings its actually not that easy to lay down a 24p acquisition on tape -- it's generally converted to 30i/drop anyway.

So here we are, 90% of folks who shoot 24p come back to edit with a 30i tape and then they start cutting 24p projects. I mean how many people actually output to film and then do blowup? And for that matter, it is more or less just as easy to go from 30 to 24 after you edit anyway...AND more and more projectors are digital anyway! our last 3 major events in theaters ASKED for HDCAM or DBETA!

I think --and I could be way off (I usually am)- that people do not understand 24 or 30 and they dont understand p or i. And I also think (sorry) a lot of people LOVE to tell others that they edit 24. Whenever I meet (sorry again!) self-styled-filmakers at parties here in NYC they like to almost name drop that they shoot 24. At which point I usually ask them why and they cant really answer.

Anyway have any thoughts on this? The reason i think it is important to discuss is that we all seem to spend a lot of time helping people with the 24 questions when in fact they should not be 24 to begin with...

Lastly, this is an AVID discussion as it pertains to questions that constantly show up here, on this forum, so I would humbly, kindly, respectfully ask that the moderators not move the thread. Thanks!

 

Back to y'all?

Probably the dumbest thus most arrogant topic ever...assuming under 24 we include 23.xx and 24 etc I have to say it's probably the most ignorant topic ever about 24p...

First and foremost: why on Earth you think we output to film? Did it ever occur to you that many digital delivery format supports this frame rate? For instance have you ever heard of 2:3 detection in DVD players? Or about HD DVD or BD players which all supports 1080p24?

Second, here's a newsflash for you: when you shoot in 24 but deliver in 60i it still looks different from native 60i footage.

In other words asking why do you shoot in 24 is just as dumb for a question as not knowing the reason for answer...

BLKDOG:

ayoung:

BLKDOG I'm not sure what the term smeary video means and you are a Moderator (sometimes with a slant in your posts

Yeah, I often have to beg forgiveness for the sharpness in my posts. In addition to running a post department I moderate three fora here as well as help in others when I can. Sometimes I end up "Speed Posting".

I do have to strongly disagree with your assertion that the pulldown inserted in 24p material even closely approximates the pulldown look of film. Even the Avid's fluid film insertion is better that the pulldown from 24p.

"pulldown look of film" - what are we talking about actually...?

Pulldown or telecine = turn 24p footage into 60i (interlaced 30p)

Pulldown removal or inverse telecine = restore 24p from 60i (interlaced 30p)

So what is that "pulldown look of film"? Fil look is 24p - without pulldown, that's the point in the so-called 'film-look'.

kamm:

Probably the dumbest thus most arrogant topic ever...

Ok, then there really is no need for you to participate. Nor is there a need for us to respond to you.

Well, after learning you don't really know what telecine vs inverse telecine mean I tend to agree...