Which 24p camera to buy?

Disclaimer: Nobody is sponsoring this article in any way. I suggest Canons just because they offer the most control and features in terms of video than any other manufacturer.

These are my suggestions about artistic videos (experimental video art, music videos, short films). Not about random family/travel/sports videos.

– Price scale 1, $110: Canon A1200. 720/24p, 21 mbps, AA battery-powered. Get this if you can’t afford another camera. Video sample.

– Price scale 2, $200: Canon ELPH 100 HS. 1080/24p, 720/30p, 38 mbps, small cam. Get this if you’re after a tiny camera. Update 3: Avoid the 100 HS or 300 HS, they apparently don’t have lock exposure in video mode! Get the SX220 or SX230 instead for $300.

– Price scale 3, $300: Canon ELPH 500 HS. 1080/24p, 720/30p, 38 mbps, large display, fast lens. While its sensor is not as big as the S95’s, overall it’s a better camera for video. Update 4: Avoid the 500 HS, it apparently doesn’t lock exposure in video mode! Get the S100 instead for $400.

– Price scale 4, $800: Canon T3i dSLR. 1080/24p/30p, 720/60p, 48 mbps, swivel display, audio levels. If you can, get this one. But don’t forget the cost of lenses too.

I did not include any camcorder between scale 3 and 4 because none of them at that price range shoots in true 24p, but in PF24, which is a hassle to deal with. If you don’t mind spending hours removing pulldown, then there are plenty of camcorders to choose from, but personally I wouldn’t mess with PF24 again even if my life was dependent on it.

Update: Here’s a video off of the ELPH 300 HS (beware, it’s without any exposure compensation/locking, or “flat” colors taken into account, so most of it is over-exposed). If you pay close attention, you will see the rolling shutter on these new CMOS Canon sensors. Still, if you’re careful how you shoot, you can get great results out of these small cams.

Update 2: This and this are the best Canon S95 videos I’ve seen so far. Too bad that more people don’t use their small HD digicams in the same way — vast majority of digicam videos out there are just handheld crap.

43 Comments »

Yanni wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 4:00 AM PST:

“…personally I wouldn’t mess with PF24 again even if my life was dependent on it.”

Amen!


david wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 6:06 AM PST:

Coming late to the world of video, HD in particular, may I ask a dumb question? (I just did, so make that two…)

Why choose 24p over 30p? Is it just to get the frame rate of real film or am I missing something else?

Thanks,
–david


Dustin wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 9:00 AM PST:

Would you create the same list with camcorders? I respect your opinion. I would like you to venture into the sub 5k range to include some uber prosumer options. The new Panasonic, Canon and Sony camcorders have so many options it would be nice to have your detailed reviews. You have typically stayed out of the prosumer range but it would be nice to have your opinion and comparison with camcorders in the high end consumer low end prosumer categories as the prosumer line is blurred and the new tech is introduced.


Michael C. wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 9:45 AM PST:

“I did not include any camcorder between scale 3 and 4 because none of them at that price range shoots in true 24p, but in PF24” — The HF S 2XX series can record native 24p. HF S200 costs $609 in 42th Street Photo. This is a decent place, I bought from them.


Schimmerlos wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 10:33 AM PST:

david, yes people still live under the illusion that shooting video with a framerate of 24p somehow would transfer a film-like quality to their material. Which of course is complete and utter bollocks. “But surely a film camera captures 24 frames/second?” Yes it does, but the question is not what the camera does, it’s what you see when the film is PROJECTED and the simple fact is that movie projectors have rotating BLADE SHUTTERS designed with a flicker rate of 2 times or 3 times to give you a _smooth_ film experience with 48 or even 72! frames/second. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector)
So, you see, the ambitious videographer who’s after the elusive “film-look” would get much closer to his aim if he decided to shoot in 60p!

Sorry for the little rant, but I can’t get over the fact that there are still people out there that buy into the 24p nonsense…
I might add, there actually is one good reason to shoot 24p, that is if you wanted to transfer your video to film, but I guess that’s beyond the reach of people who buy a 300$ p&s camera.:)


Schimmerlos wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 11:17 AM PST:

As for the cams, the ELPHs (I believe they’re called IXUS in Europe) look interesting since they have CMOS sensors. If you’re like me and can’t live with the light smears CCD sensors give you at any opportunity (reflections of the sun in mirrors, in water, in window panes, carlights, etc.) than CMOS is a must in a video camera.
The Samsung WB2000 might also be worth a look (CMOS, AMOLED display and decent 1080p video)


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 5:14 PM PST:

>Why choose 24p over 30p?

This article is for people who want to give a film-like motion to their short films, not for people who shoot sports and family/travel videos. But of course, in small digicams, extra steps must be taken in order to get close to such a result.

>Would you create the same list with camcorders?

I don’t think anyone needs more than this HF-G10 model. It does most of everything a good videographer would need: full manual control, true 24p, color controls. There is no reason to pay $5k for something like it, when you can pay just $1300.

>The HF S 2XX series can record native 24p. HF S200 costs $609

Yes, but for that price, it’s best to get a T3i, or even cheaper, a second-hand T2i (which you would be able to find for less than $500). For me to suggest a 24p camcorder over a dSLR, the price should not exceed $500. This model costs $650 on Amazon. I personally would not buy from Brooklyn companies, except Adorama or B&H. I don’t trust anyone else in that neighborhood for cameras.

>people still live under the illusion that shooting video with a framerate of 24p somehow would transfer a film-like quality to their material.

I’m not under any such an illusion. You can read my opinion about the movie look here. However, if you know how to add ND filters, and estimate the shutter speed using the digicam’s P mode, you can get away with a small digicam too. My point is: it can be done, under the right circumstances, and in the right hands. As with everything cheaper, more skill is required to compensate for lack of features.

>I can’t get over the fact that there are still people out there that buy into the 24p nonsense…

24p is important for the movie-like experience — if everything else entailed (e.g. framing, audio etc) is also taken care of. Otherwise, if you have fixed everything else, but your shutter/fps is not right, it will look like a soap opera. People don’t like this look, even people who know nothing about movie filmmaking notice the difference.

>The Samsung WB2000 might also be worth a look

Sorry, but the Samsung is a joke compared to the Canons. The Samsung has no exposure locking, it has no contrast/saturation/sharpness controls, I’m not even sure the exposure compensation works during movie mode. Plus, it stops recording at 20 minutes, no matter if your video reached the FAT32 4-GB-per-file limit or not. And the worst offender from all? Its 1080p bitrate goes up to 14.5 mbps. Which is a far, far cry from Canon’s 38 mbps. There is a reason why I only suggest Canon digicams for cheap video. I explained this in the first paragraph of this blog post!


Michael C. wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 5:28 PM PST:

>>The HF S 2XX series can record native 24p. HF S200 costs $609

>Yes, but for that price, it’s best to get a T3i, or even
>cheaper, a second-hand T2i (which you would be able to find
>for less than $500).

Tsk-tsk-tsk. The HF-S200 will be new, while the T2i will be a used one. It goes against your idea of buying new stuff, though you are posting these recommendations for others, so I guess used is fine.

Also, I don’t see why the HF-G10 for $1,500 (where did you get $1,300, this model is not on sale yet) is fine, but the HF-S200 for $600 is not.

42nd Street is a decent place. As I said, I bought there, no problems.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 6:13 PM PST:

>The HF-S200 will be new, while the T2i will be a used one.

Yes, but the T2i would offer a better look than that of ANY camcorder. Sure camcorders have some advantages over dSLRs (zoom, continuous autofocus), but overall, for actual movie filmmaking, dSLRs win every time — especially when they’re so close in price. This is why I would NOT suggest an actual camcorder over a dSLR at a similar price range, for movie filmmaking. I’d never do that. As I said above, to do this, the camcorder must have true 24p, Tv mode, and a price not more than $500. For anything else, a dSLR (second hand or not), will give it a run for its money. My 5D MkII was second hand btw (but I bought it from someone I trusted).

>I don’t see why the HF-G10 for $1,500 is fine, but the HF-S200 for $600 is not.

Ugh, jeez. Do you really have to be so competitive in your replies all the time? That suggestion was a for a DIFFERENT kind of user. This guy asked for a camcorder advise, and he was willing to pay $5000. Definitely not the kind of user who would be just an amateur enthusiastic filmmaker wannabe, who would be interested in a digicam, or a camcorder that doesn’t have full manual control. So I offered him a camcorder-specific advice, based on what a professional videographer would need, without having to pay $5k. If that guy was more specific in his needs and was telling me that he’s actually an art filmmaker and not a videographer, my advice would still be T3i+lenses instead. But since he seems to be more into *camcorder* with full manual control kind of PRO market, the HF-G10 is the best buy for his case.

> (where did you get $1,300, this model is not on sale yet)

Eventual street price within just a few weeks.


Schimmerlos wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 8:10 PM PST:

24p is important for the movie-like experience

No, it is not.
When you’re sitting in a movie theater watching a movie being projected on a movie screen (“film-look” innit?) you _will_ _not_ get 24 frames of film per second. You will get 48 or 72 frames/second.
Again, it’s not about what the camera captures, the “look” can only be the look of projected film and that is not 24p.

The only experience watching 24p video will give you is that of juddery film and less fluid motion (strange – my movie experiences never had any of these ingredients…)

But your tips about using ND filters are excellent – obviously, controlling the ridiculously high shutter speeds in photo cameras is far more important for good looking video than messing around with frame speeds. Wish I had seen those tube adapters earlier – I was trying with an adapter from a slide projector, which didn’t work, as I couldn’t avoid the lens being mirrored in the filter glass.

I’m not sure about exposure lock on the Samsungs: I read somewhere in a forum that manual options could be used for video, incl. locking AE, but couldn’t find any evidence for that claim in all the clips I watched on YT…
Anyway, now that the IXUSes have their CMOS, you’re probably right in expounding the virtues of the Canons. (Still, the Samsung does look far better than those butt ugly Canon toys, hehe)


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 8th, 2011 at 8:19 PM PST:

>No, it is not.

Yes, it is.

>When you’re sitting in a movie theater watching a movie being projected on a movie screen

I haven’t been into a theater for 1.5 years now, I find it completely irrelevant. All the movies I watch are via the TV, either via a Roku or AppleTV or GoogleTV, or Blu-Ray. So as long as I can get close to that TV movie experience with a 24p camera, I don’t need, neither I claim or suggest, anything more than just that!

>[projectors] You will get 48 or 72 frames/second.

TVs don’t show 24 fps either, they add pulldown and they show 60 fps. New TVs can show 120 fps or 240 fps. So the smoothness of a movie projector CAN be emulated with a modern TV. My own plasma TV does 72 Hz btw, so it’s 24×3=72 fps. Obviously I’m talking about such a TV-based experience, so when exporting a 24 fps video, especially if shot at 1/48th, it will work just fine on any _modern_ HDTV and as long the rest of the things I mentioned in the linked article about the movie look are taken into account, it will look like a REAL movie (**as it would be shown on a TV**). But getting to that result, it’s a SHOOTING matter, *not* a projector/TV matter. 24p matters for movies, because the audience is USED to it. Not because it’s better than 30p or 60i, but because people EXPECT a very specific motion blur and frame rate when they *condition* their brains for movie-watching.

You seem to be talking about theater projection experience, while what I suggest is nothing more than TV-based watching of the same movie.


Wayne wrote on February 9th, 2011 at 12:29 AM PST:

I use a Canon 7d and 5d to shoot Music Videos and Live Music exclusively (video)… and I don’t think I would buy anything else other than a Canon (for work) ever again.

I think I would totally go for a 60D before I went for a T2i (haven’t looked into a T3i yet) But none of these are in the low price range that this post is aiming to promote.

:0)


Helen Oster wrote on February 9th, 2011 at 4:57 AM PST:

Eugenia

Great blog, but neither Adorama or B&H are in Brooklyn…..Adorama is in the Flatiron district!

BTW if you ever need advice or after-sales support with any order from Adorama, please don’t hesitate to drop me an email: HelenO@adorama.com

Helen Oster ☺
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

http://twitter.com/HelenOster


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 9th, 2011 at 5:07 AM PST:

>Adorama is in the Flatiron district!

Close enough to Brooklyn. 😉 I don’t trust most of the online shops, except maybe half a dozen, especially most photography ones in NY area have a bad name. Amazon, B&H, Adorama are the only photograpy shops I personally buy from.


Alex wrote on February 9th, 2011 at 3:53 PM PST:

Hello Eugenia.
Please what you recommend and what is your opinion between media recording for camcorders?Tape or card?Canon HV40(tape)or HF G10(card)?It`s interesting like media recording selection,the minimum illumination also.
Minimum illumination at both camcorders are quite high.1,5 lux at 1/30 for HF G10.For HV 40 maybe it`s higher.The same what about XLR inputs?It`s valuable.What`s your opinion about the new Canon XA 10 compared with HV 40 and HF G10?XA 10 has the advantage of XLR inputs.At low light I would like 1 lux specification from Sony DSR PD170 camcorder.A good camcorder from Sony.
Thank you Eugenia again for your posts and please keep doing it.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 9th, 2011 at 3:59 PM PST:

These questions are kind of off topic I’m afraid. A few percentage better or worse low light is not important, since every filmmaker should take care of lighting before starting filming. Remember, this blog post is about amateur but enthusiastic filmmakers, not wedding/event videographers. Therefore, XLRs on a camcorder are not important either. Sound should be recorded on a separate device, like the Zoom H4n, and a separate shotgun mic (XLR or not). As for tape vs flash cards, why anyone would want to go back to tapes? I personally hate them.

If you’re an event videographer, just buy whatever camcorder would make your life easier in the random conditions of a wedding/event. But if you’re an actual filmmaker, you’re looking at the wrong hardware/setup. If you’re a filmmaker, get a dSLR instead, and follow some of the advice here.


Sam wrote on February 9th, 2011 at 7:24 PM PST:

Hi Eugenia, I was wondering if you know whether the small point and shoot cameras can be monitored via HDMI while recording? I see the Canon website lists a mini-HDMI port in the ELPH 500 specs. Thanks for writing about these interesting little cameras, Sam.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 9th, 2011 at 7:29 PM PST:

Yeah, all non-A series Canon cams come with HDMI now. I don’t have a mini-HDMI-to-full-HDMI adapter handy to test this for you though. I think I have such an adapter somewhere, I just have no clue where it is in my closet. I don’t expect to find it easily.

UPDATE: Just got a new cable. The HDMI port on both of my two Canon digicams only works in ‘play’ mode, not in live mode. So you can’t use it to record. However, you can record with an external monitor that’s composite-based and not HDMI.


Michael C. wrote on February 10th, 2011 at 11:56 AM PST:

> But if you’re an actual filmmaker, you’re looking at
> the wrong hardware/setup. If you’re a filmmaker,
> get a dSLR instead

I don’t know what do you mean by “actual filmmaker”. I have watched quite a few docos (should I rather call them “investigative video journalism”?) on Current TV’s Vanguard channel (it is on YouTube), they used Sony HVR-A1U camcorders to shoot those videos. I would not call them artistic, but they are plenty informative and the shots are well joined together, and the story keeps me watching them. Are these guys “actual filmmakers”? Or just lowly video journalists?

Equipment is secondary to the story. Don’t you agree with this yourself, with your recent move to small digicams? A DSLR does not make someone a filmmaker, it only adds extra hurdles.


Alex wrote on February 10th, 2011 at 2:28 PM PST:

Yes Eugenia,you`re right.It`s kind off topic.Thank you anyway for your answers.Please keep posting.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 10th, 2011 at 5:31 PM PST:

>would not call them artistic,

Then they would get by with a camcorder, not a dSLR. There are artistic documentaries, and then there are plain documentaries. It depends which way they wanna go.

>Are these guys “actual filmmakers”? Or just lowly video journalists?

I haven’t watched their show, but if they don’t feel artistic to you, then they are not “actual filmmakers”, but “video journalists”. Yes, there is a difference. (Update: I watched an episode. No, that’s not filmmaking, it’s video journalism. This is an artistic documentary instead.)

Remember, this article is about 24p cameras. Which means that it’s an article for a VERY SPECIFIC AUDIENCE that does very specific kind of video. It’s not about people who want to shoot their dog or cat licking themselves, or do travel videography. And it’s not about event videography either. It’s mainly about music videos, modern art, and short films. And documentaries that are made with a certain visual and strong look. Anything else, is not part of this article, so for God’s sake, please stop being so contrarian.

>A DSLR does not make someone a filmmaker

It does not make the filmmaker, but it will help a short film or music video or art filmmaker make his video look way better than a camcorder would. I told you above, and I will tell you again for the last time: when there’s a dSLR and a camcorder at the same price range, I’d go for a dSLR any time of day. The “hurdles” a dSLR represents get outweighed by its features.

Just because you made a decision to go with a camcorder doesn’t mean that we should abide with your needs just to make you feel good about your purchase. Where are your music videos, or art-like films? Please, give me a Youtube or Vimeo URL.


Michael C. wrote on February 10th, 2011 at 6:10 PM PST:

> Remember, this article is about 24p cameras.
> It’s mainly about music videos, modern art, and short films.

I shoot family videos in 24p on a $200 camcorder, but I do not call myself a filmmaker. It is just a matter of convenience. DVDs look better. YouTube videos look better.

> Where are your music videos, or art-like films?
> Please, give me a Youtube or Vimeo URL.

I was not talking about your videos, why do you want to talk about my personal achievements? I was arguing with your point that DSLRs are better suited for filmmaking because of their shallow DOF. Say, \No Reservations\ is a fairly artsy show. With their increasing use of DSLRs their later shows are harder to watch because of constant hunting for focus; this shallow DOF craze became ridiculous.

I don’t know what is \art-like films\, but if they are about blurring everything but a tiny portion of a screen and/or showing unrelated shots out of any conceivable sequence, then I just don’t watch stuff like this. If I want to turn on my imagination I either read a book or listen to music (no music videos except of recordings of live performances). TV and video are for delivering visual information, not for making a potato out of me.

P.S. Whoa, your captcha wants me to type cos(θ). Smart captcha.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 10th, 2011 at 6:28 PM PST:

>I was arguing with your point that DSLRs are better suited for filmmaking because of their shallow DOF

You don’t get it. I never said that DoF is that important. However, when you have to choose between a similarly priced camcorder and a dSLR, the dSLR *wins* for films. Yes, it will look better. If that camcorder was cheaper, I would root for it. But right now, it makes no sense to root for it.

>this shallow DOF craze became ridiculous.

I don’t disagree with this, but when used right, it DOES make for a more beautiful image. Besides, it’s not just about the DoF. The large sensor is important for dynamic range. It’s one of the reasons about what makes amateur films look amateur: burned out surfaces.

>I was not talking about your videos, why do you want to talk about my personal achievements?

Because you don’t seem to be my target audience on this blog post. So, this discussion is over. If you’re happy with your camcorder, then stay so.


Felix wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 3:17 AM PST:

If you shot video with 30p or 60p it would look better too. Interlace is just ugly.

24p is just convenient.


Michael T. wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 7:28 PM PST:

Eugenia,

I see the bit-rates of Canon P&S are extremely high, yet they offer 24p only. On the other hand, Sony offers and even P&S cameras, yet with only 24-28mbps.

For an average consumer shooting home/family video ONLY (not art) – what P&S camera would achieve a better video quality: Canon’s 1080/24p with 38mbps, or Sony’s 1080/60p with 28mbps ?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 7:45 PM PST:

In terms of video quality as such, the Canons with their higher bitrate will always produce a better image than its competition. 28 mbps for 60 frames are not enough, it’s barely enough for 720p at 30 fps, let alone 1080p at 60 fps. However, the 60i/60p modes of the Sony allow for 60i DVDs, while in the Canon case you’d need to create 24p Blu-Rays, or PF24 DVDs (less smooth, some DVD Authoring apps don’t support 24p DVD/BD burning).

However, even if you’re just doing family videos, the Canons offer more controls that will help you get a better image. If you’re not interested in learning how to get a nice video image out of these small digicams (e.g. setting exposure all the time and locking it, shooting in flat colors and color grading in post processing etc), then maybe a camcorder is a better idea for you, since they handle video better by requiring the least control. So basically, any P&S camera will require more control and preparation during shooting than any camcorder — to achieve a similar quality. But in any case, don’t go for a digirecorder (Flip, Kodak etc), these are the worst of all.


Michael C. wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 8:54 PM PST:

I suppose Canon uses I-frames only for its H.264 movies, while Sony uses long-GOP AVC similar to what Panasonic and Sanyo use. In this case I would bet on Sony. Eugenia, you have to check out those 1080p60 videos from the Panasonics, they look fabulous. 28 Mbit/s is plenty enough. Have you seen the famous tiger clip?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 9:12 PM PST:

AVCHD-Lite is called this way for a reason. And no, 60 progressive frames at 28 mbps is not enough. It’s barely enough for 24mbps at 60i (which are half frames).


Michael C. wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 10:35 PM PST:

AVCHD Lite is 30p in 720p60 wrapper. 1080p60 is NOT AVCHD Lite, it is technically not AVCHD at all, because it is outside of specs. Regular AVCHD @ 24 Mbit/s is as good or better as XDCAM EX @ 35 Mbit/s. Progressive video compresses better than interlaced. 1080p60 looks great @ 28 Mbit/s, you should see it first before judging.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 10:53 PM PST:

If it’s enough for 60 fps at 28 mbps, I’m sure it’s even better for just 24 at 38 mbps. It’s 3.5x of more bitrate PER FRAME. That difference is so big that no long gop or gop with fried eggs can help Sony or Panasonic to overcome Canon’s quality per frame. For once more, you come here just to be contrarian.


Michael C. wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 11:49 PM PST:

> For once more, you come here just to be contrarian.

Not at all. Ask anyone who shoots with Panasonic cameras and they will tell you that AVC-Intra @ 100 Mbit/s is great, @ 50 Mbit/s it is nothing to write home about, and @ 28 Mbit/s I am sure it would look like crap, which is why there is no AVC-Itra at rates below 50 Mbit/s. Long GOP makes a whole lot of difference, you as a long-time owner of the HV20 should know better.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 11th, 2011 at 11:54 PM PST:

I do know better. The HV20’s codec is nothing to brag about. Terrible artifacts. Look, as much as long gop might have an edge, it does NOT have a 3.5x edge.


Glenn wrote on February 12th, 2011 at 12:09 AM PST:

I’ll be sticking with my S95. And thanks for posting the link to the NJE video, I still may end up fixing that to make it brighter.

I managed to download the 1080P stream of that Elph 500 clip from YouTube. Yes, it’s clearly 1080P, but I did notice a lot of rolling shutter glitches. One of the features that attracted me in the first place to these small cameras was that they all had CCD sensors. Well the Canon’s anyway. Very important when shooting hand held on such a small camera.

By the way, for anyone using one of these pocket sized digicams, don’t buy one of those Zacuto Point ‘n’ Shoot Pro devices to mount it on. The Zacuto guys tell you that can’t hold these cameras in your hands alone. That’s all marketing BS! They just want you to buy their product. I’ve tried mounting these cameras on small tripods roughly the same size as the Zacuto device, and it just isn’t a comfortable way to shoot. Hand holding these cameras with both hands is perfect for me. See here. The best way is to hold the camera tight with your arms still and use your body as the pivot point.


Schimmerlos wrote on February 13th, 2011 at 6:59 AM PST:

Back one last time to the vexatious subject of 24p. (I promise, I’ll stop with my mini crusade against 24 after that… at least at your place…)

My own plasma TV does 72 Hz btw, so it’s 24×3=72 fps.

Nope, with a flicker rate of 72 it’s more like 24×72=1728″p”. In order to emulate a cinematic look your TV or Computer monitor would have to do 2Hz!
But since you’re in the US, your signal wouldn’t be 24 in the first place, it’d be 29.97, wouldn’t it? That’s talking about broadcast experience, but you were referring to people being conditioned to the look, and I guess the conditioning would mostly happen in front of the TV. In Europe we’d be conditioned to 25p then, since film was (or is, no idea about the standard nowadays) sped up to 25 frames for broadcasting. (Of course it’s all i and not p anyway)

Now, I’ve read that Bluray discs (never came into contact with one) actually provide media in 24p and there seem to be TV sets that can play these with their native frame rate (an atrocious experience, I’ve read) or higher. If those TVs could do those 2 or 3 Hz, then we’d have finally arrived at the glorious 24p film-look!
But surely you’d agree with me that the 24p craze has developed independently from the latest progresses at the home cinema front. People were and are watching 24 material on their puters and producing their 24 material for the web.
Now, here’s another good reason to have 24p material available, since Vimeo and YT publish your vids in this frame rate (for reasons of bandwith consumption not looks, I’d suspect), I give you that.


Schimmerlos wrote on February 13th, 2011 at 7:17 AM PST:

oops, I messed up big time – lead myself astray with the flicker rate – obviously your right – it’s 48 Hz or 72 Hz to get cinematic not 2 Hz, oh my…
Still the rest with the broadcasting standards and the conditioning holds, or doesn’t it?


Michael C. wrote on February 13th, 2011 at 11:01 AM PST:

>> My own plasma TV does 72 Hz btw, so it’s 24×3=72 fps.
> Nope, with a flicker rate of 72 it’s more like 24×72=1728″p”.

You both are wrong. With 72 Hz refresh rate the frame rate does not increase, it is still the same 24 Hz, although flicker is less distracting. 24p may look smoother if you turn on frame interpolating engine, but this smoothing option is not directly tied to refresh rate.

> But since you’re in the US, your signal wouldn’t be 24
> in the first place, it’d be 29.97, wouldn’t it?

Dude, go read wikipedia for a start. You proved that you cannot calculate, do not try to prove that you cannot read.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 13th, 2011 at 12:32 PM PST:

>if you turn on frame interpolating engine

I do, it’s called Cinema mode or something on my TV, but it does require to go to 72 Hz for the smoothing to be achieved, the trippling of the frame rate is part of their algorithm to achieve the smoothness.

>I give you that.

You still don’t get it, even after I explained it to you. When we talk here about “movie look”, we mean the “watching a blu-ray on TV or PC” look, not a projector-based cinema/theater experience. So all that stuff about Hz, and projectors, are all beside the point, so give it up, you’re not on topic.


Michael C. wrote on February 13th, 2011 at 9:22 PM PST:

> I do, it’s called Cinema mode or something on my TV

Cinema mode, which shows 24p at 72 Hz is one thing (like triple-bladed projector in the movie theaters), while making fake frames (interpolation) is another thing. You are correct that interpolation does not work without higher refresh rate, but higher refresh rate works just fine without interpolation. I am surprised that a film-look buff like you uses frame interpolation.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 13th, 2011 at 9:38 PM PST:

I don’t mind it one way or another, but my husband prefers it.


Michael C. wrote on February 14th, 2011 at 7:32 PM PST:

> I don’t mind it one way or another

If you don’t mind it then why do you insist on 24p camera? Watching 60p at 60 Hz scan rate with all native frames is more natural than watching 24p at 72 Hz with two out of three frames being fake.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on February 14th, 2011 at 7:46 PM PST:

I don’t insist on a 24p camera. The SD780 IS, an older model that I actually “insisted” on a few months ago, was 30p. If was insisting on 24p, I’d ask everyone to get the S95 back then. But there are people who care about the cinematic feel and motion/blur, so that’s an article for them. For art videos and some music videos, it’s best to shoot at 30p for example, and then slow-down to 24p to give the videos an ethereal look.

But if you’re shooting short films, it is better to go 24p, because that’s what humans EXPECT from a movie, because they’re used to it. It’s not about what *I* like (in fact, Stu Maschwitz and I don’t agree on 24p – he’s a fanatic proponent of 24p and we have publicly disagreed on this), and it’s not what you like either. It’s about what it’s expected. That’s an article about such expectations.

Michael, I told you again, you’re coming out as a contrarian with the way you question everything I say or do. I don’t have to explain myself over and over to you, when the discussion here should be about the topic at hand. Here’s an article about 24p cameras, and you make a big noise about going 60p instead. We don’t care if there are fake frames, 24p is what viewers expect from some specific kinds of films. So do that noise on an article about 60p cameras. I would like to you ask to tone it down, or don’t reply at all. I feel like I have to babysit this blog, and since I do this blog as a personal release, I need it to be without getting pissed at it all the time.

I mean, look at this shit. 2/3 the replies here are for you, trying to explain myself to *you*. This is not right, it feels like trolling from your part. I don’t do this blog just so I can be dissected by you, in ways that don’t even make sense for the topic at hand. Please stop this. I want the commenting section of my articles to be 100% on topic, with valuable feedback and legitimate questions. Yours aren’t most of the time.

We have already established that YOU are not the kind of shooter this blog is about. It’s like having a blog about cooking, and you come here and questioning why I used butter, while if I had used olive oil the dish would be vegetarian. I don’t want it to be fucking vegetarian. Jeez.


glenn wrote on February 15th, 2011 at 8:30 AM PST:

Most aspiring film makers do have a dream that their work will be shown on the big screen…realistic or not, that requires some form 24p origin.

Anyone who claims that 24p isn’t important, in the film-look process isn’t paying attention, or are just attempting to justify their foolish purchase…especially if they are doing narrative film making.

Eugenia is correct there is a certain look that humans have been trained to accept as a real movie look. It’s subconscious…that will not just go away after only 10 years of a digital media rise.

Anyway, thanks for the post Eugenia, I learned a lot and it has helped me decide which camera to buy.


Chris wrote on February 15th, 2011 at 2:32 PM PST:

Good article. Better commentary. I always felt its the artist, videographer,filmmaker or douchebag with the camera that decides the content. Im glad 24p is coming more to fruition in smaller cams and such.


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.