An opinion from someone who shoots a LOT of 24p . . . including narrative films . . .

If you want the look commonly associated with cinematic film, 24p is pretty much a must. There's a big difference between the motion cadence between 24p and 60i, and you can have the best-lit, best-framed, best-shot 60i in the world, and it's still going to look like video, like reality TV, like a soap opera or a game show or an '80s sitcom.

24p will look much more cinematic when all other things are equal, which I would imagine they would be when you shoot.

Now, you can work with 24p in two ways -- you can shoot it natively, or you can shoot in another framerate and convert it. 60i will convert to 24p, and Vegas does a very good job of it.

But consider --

1) Native acquisition beats conversion, if for no other reason that it saves you a tedious processing step in post. WIthout needing to convert, you can get right to editing. Also, there's a generational loss when you do the conversion.

2) But there are other reasons. 1080i is obviously higher-resolution than 480p . . . but interlaced footage, owing to a necessary "Kell factor" to keep it from flickering horribly, is at best 77% of its potential vertical resolution -- so, 1080 x 77% would give you a best-case resolution of about 830 lines, and I believe Steve Mullen tested it to be about 750 or 770.

480p gives you an actual 480 lines of vertical resolution. And 770 is more than 480. But when you convert your footage to progressive footage, you necessarily lose vertical resolution, and chances are, if you're making a motion picture, you're going to have motion, so you're going to want to "interpolate fields" when you deinterlace, and that process will necessarily cut your resolution up to half. So, you'll end up with a vertical resolutionf of 385 or so, compared to the native 480p's 480. In essence, you end up with less vertical resolution despite having shot in 1080i.

You will, however, have better horizontal resolution, though superior horizontal resolution isn't as visually apparent as vertical.

So, at the particular price point of the FX1 and the 100B, for 24p acquisition, based on that, I'd recommend the 100B.

But there are other factors to consider as well. Will you be using the camera for 60i work? WIll you want HD for that? The 100B doesn't do HD.

Are XLR inputs important to you? The FX1 doesn't have them.

Do you want native 16x9? The 100B isn't, though the squeeze mode is quite good.

Again, is your interest narrative film? The film look? The 100B's cinegamma settings are outstanding; the FX1 doesn't compare.

So, the final decision will depend on many factors. Decide which are the most important to you and go from there.

I've made (written & directed) two movies, a short and a feature, both low-budget "films" on DV. The short project was shot at 60i on a Sony 3-chip, the feature was shot on DVX100's at 24p.

I played back the short the other day as captured and the 'video look' just jumped out at me. I say 'as captured' because I slapped it on a Vegas 6 timeline, converted it to 24p and it has virtually the same film-like look as the native 24p I shot on the Pannys.

At this point anyone worth his/her salt would jump in and say the 'film look' equally mandates a special kind of lighting, and proper color correction including such things as gamma adjustments, the Vegas color curves, the Celluloid plug-in, etc (all of which we used). But the fundamentally different look of 24p compared to 60i video is something that's hard to describe verbally but is easy to see on a screen.

Added on after reading Mr. Jimerson's post: What I'm trying to say is put more cogently by Mr. Jimerson:

"24p will look much more cinematic when all other things are equal."

This is totally my experience. (I like saying totally because I'm from the 60s and want to sound more up to date.)

If you want the look commonly associated with cinematic film, 24p is pretty much a must.
I'd have to dispute that, no one can tell the diff between 24p and 25p, and 25p is a much easier format to deal with. Converting 25p to 24p is a very painless process as well.
But of course you're right about 60i, 60i screams "video," and while you can shift the gamma, color, etc, it still cadences like video.

Yeah, 25p is almost identical -- and in the PAL world, it's what you should use. Even in the US, indy filmmakers used PAL Frame mode (approximating 25p) before 24p video came along.

But I would dispute that 25p is easier to deal with in the NTSC world, especially if you're using Vegas. Editing 24p in Vegas is every bit as easy as editing 60i (you just capture, drop, and edit, like any other format), and it's primed for making 24p DVDs, as all Hollywood movies are. No conversions necessary; you're just ready to go. I don't see any reason to use 25p if you're in NTSC land.

I don't see any reason to use 25p if you're in NTSC land.

Because there are a lot of cheap cams capable of 25p frame mode still floating around out there, or maybe they've got a Z1 with CF25 or 50i capability, and want the additional originating resolution, or...

But indeed, Vegas makes this a dream. Try doing this in Avid or FCS, and it's a nightmare.

Well, OK . . . if it's what you've already got, then sure. I was speaking more from the point of view of choosing a camera to go forward with.

However, I'd still dispute that 25p is easier to work with than 24p in NTSC land, even if it's all you've got.

Try easily syncing external audio clocks to 23.976 vs 25.00.
Then we'll talk.

ALL external audio gear (that I'm aware of) and all DAW software easily talks to 25.00fps. Not all support 23.976, and the ones that do, many don't support it well, ie; Logic, Sonar, etc. PAL has been around forever, but 23.976/23.978 haven't. Development has been slow, and even many of the NLE's don't support it yet.
So, if you're staying in Vegas world, recording only to camera, and never leaving those two parameters, then yes; shooting/editing 24p is no different than editing 25.00, 29.97, 59.98, or any other framerate that has been an industry standard for a while. But if you're shooting in a situation where you don't have T/C, jamsync, black, or word capability for 23.976 (and you rarely will have these options unless you've got huge budgets) then the workflow in 25.00 is easier and far less hassle-prone.

Are you going to transfer to film?

You are without a doubt the audio guru, Spot. Points well-taken.

The question too vague to really answer.
When someone talks about making a 'film' (which I have done) then I assume it's destined for projection on a large screen in a venue that seats 400 people.
For that not even 1080p is really adequate, from what I've seen recently I'd even postulate that even 35mm is marginal. I'm working from the premise that if something comes along that looks better than what we're used to then that becomes the benchmark by which everything else should be judged.

All of the above might be irrelevent if what's being talked about is creating video that looks like telecined film.

Even so I've yet to see anything from any 1/3" camera, be it SD or HD that comes vaguely close to how telecined 35mm looks on a 16:9 SD PAL TV. Once you hit HD of course it's even more critical. I'm certain that it's for good reason that serious drama destined for TV broadcast is being shot in the USA today on 35mm. Down here it looks like film, simply because it is film. They could save a bundle and shoot on 16mm but they don't. Do they just like burning money or did they do some serious tests and realise that this was the minimum that would cut it for world wide distibution.

Probably a better way to have framed the question in the first place would have been along the lines of "what looks less like video".

Put it on a scale of 0 to 100 where 0 is video and 100 is film and we're mostly talking about scores of 2 or 3 for projection. For broadcast the scores might creep up to the 20s.

Bob.

If you are serious about making a movie then gear is gonna be only a fraction of your costs. The crew will eat up (even on a low budget production) most of the money.

Still i agree that DVX's 24p looks is really nice.

It's funny how this thing always goes back and forth.

Some people claim that the FX1's better resolution compensates for the loss of native 24p when you convert it later using DV filmaker.

I don't think there is a point to compare these cameras with 35 mm head to head; to me it is about what simply looks a little more like film. If you want to hear it "less like video" its the same I think. The point is just how to make the most out of our budgets and the equipment available to get as close as we can to a "hollywood" look.

"November" was shot purely with the DVX100 and it won Best cinematography at Sundance. Pretty ineresting. So clearly talent matters alongside the camera.

I guess I'm trying to choose between a DVX100 or XL2 over a HD camera that does not do 24p...

So clearly talent matters alongside the camera.

I'd call that a gross understatement.
Talent matters more than anything. I'd submit that with a crummy FisherPrice cassette camera, a talented director and editor would turn out a significantly more interesting piece of work than anything a lesser talent could put out with the highest value HDCAM SR, Arri, or other high end rig.
Getting SDp to 720p isn't that hard, so if you are happy with that look, and happy with the camera feel and features, nothing wrong with going that direction. Bear in mind that the added resolution gives you some additional freedom, and none of the choices give you a better eye.

I have done film - as in "shot on film" films - and while 24p/25p is more "film like" than pure video it still is not film. But having said that - by all accounts people who have been shooting with the Pani 100's (Any version of them) seem to love the way the 24p blows up to film. Even blow ups to HD seem to be getting high marks.

But whenever this topic comes up a few key elements always seem to be left out. Most of the Vegas users are of the DIY ilk but most films are very hard to make by yourself. Most of the projects that have gone to film that I have heard about that were shot with the Pani's have included a lot more than just shooting and editing with Vegas. They have gone through not only the shooting process with a real crew but also things like timing for both the film prints and the video on higher end systems than what Vegas offers. Also no matter what you do there will be color shifts from video to film or from film to video or even from DV to HD and than to film and at each stage of the process you need some sort of timing. Corman jumped onto the HD bandwagon but so has the adult industry. All I am saying is that at the moment "Shot in HD" is sort of a gimic as far a feature films go. (Now "mastered in HD" or the like for DVD release is another issue all together and not the same thing. People tend to be more anal at home these days than in a theatre and going from film - as in real film - to HD for sure will retain much more of the film details and look.)

Along the same lines there is a good article on the feature "Family" that was shot on the Pani (100A) and than uprezzed to HD, and it was done in a real DIY sense. Short version is it was shot at 24p in Squeeze Mode, was cut on a laptop using Final Cut Pro in DV format, rendered to "uncompressed DV" brought into After Effects and output as HD with the AlgoSuite plug-in, rebuilt as psuedo film reels and output to HDCam and than timed on a DaVinci 2k system. There were some other tweaks in there along that way but at its'c core it was more or less done "at home".

Read more here: The Making of Family.

Visti the official website here: chooseyourfamily.com

That's interesting information. Thanks! I notice many people like the dvx100 too.

I don't think we need to constantly say the DVX100 is NOT film alot because clearly digital video is not film. It's just a matter of budgeting for an independent filmaker dont you think.

The new 3.0 version of Cineform's ConnectHD has a "capture 60i as 24p" option. Has anyone tried this or have any observations about it?

Omar, you never answered my question. Are you planning to transfer to film?

As with all projects you must define the end point before deciding on how to get there. If you're going from video to film you must end up with 24fps, but this doesn't mean you have to shoot 24p. If you're going out to film, leave all your colour correction to the professional colour timer responsible for the transfer. You talk to the transfer house. You run tests. Philosophy and psychology it isn't. And 24fps is the least of the issues.
An excellent response from a DOP to a new director wanting a "film look" was: "You tell me what that look is and I'll give it to you".

Jay, I have no current plans to transfer to film... but I don't want to rule it out totally.

I've heard you can shoot in HD 1080i/60 using something like the Sony FX-1 to get better resolution and then convert to 24 frames on post production, but I don't think it will be the same as shooting 24 frames in real time, although I guess you have to sacrafice better resolution for 24 frames using a sd camera such as the dvx100 ...

Well, as I mentioned, omar, after you make the conversion, you're taking quite a serious resolution hit. You're still ahead of the game horizontally, but not vertically.

you're taking quite a serious resolution hit. You're still ahead of the game horizontally, but not vertically.

That is true if you use non-intelligent deinterlacing.

With the right tools and a bit of work on a scene-by-scene basis you can do far better than that.

Coursedesign is right. Have a look at DVFilmMaker, for one.
The heading of this thread was misleading, right Omar?