George Lucas - 24p -------(was: Frustrating...")

Tyler.Durden wrote on 9/17/2002, 12:29 PM

I felt the need to kick this to a new thread beacuse the other was too long and meandering for my taste. (I hope you don't mind, folks.)

In another thread, George Lucas asked: "Is a 24p HD version anywhere on SF's horizon by any chance?"

Later in the thread John remarked: "Catching up on my VV reading (recharging my batteries actually) and I see where the biggest gun in digital film-making suggests interoperabilty with industry standard formats, goes on to ask if 24p editing is on the SoFO horizon, and nobody bothers to answer!"

As far as I know:

If you got some 24p SD (from where?), edit it in Vegas today. If you got some 60i and want it to be 24p, render it in Vegas today. If you got some 60i and want it to look like 24p transferred to 60i, render yer 60i to 24p and render it back to 60i. (Much of this is covered in the Intercutting video and film tutorials.)

I think I prefer the look of rendering to 30p, as mentioned at the Cow recently. Rendering to uncompressed 30p (or 24p) can chew up time and disk-space, but the image will hold up fine (on the return trip to DV too).

But I'm wondering, will 24p be useful before Vegas-class NLEs can edit HD...

...George?

MPH

Comments

John_Beech wrote on 9/17/2002, 2:52 PM

One small thing I thought of after I wrote - and addressing your question from the perspective of somebody immeasurably lower on the food chain than George Lucas.

The usefullness/attractiveness of 24p has been tremendously enhanced by Panasonic's new camcorder. What's more, it's message of switching between NTSC and 24p is compelling and sure to resonate with all film makers currently working with video.

Even wannabes like me are interested even though I recently purchased three Sony PD150 camcorders! Fortunately, I don't anticipate participating in the 24p film world anytime soon, so all I did was grimace when I saw the ad - instead of gritting my teeth but certainly seeing the advert first would have made me evaluate it against the PD150.

SonyEPM wrote on 9/17/2002, 2:54 PM

George Lucas: We do not as a matter of policy talk about or promise features before a product is ready to ship. Hopefully you can understand why, email me offline if you need further explanation (drdropout@sonicfoundry.com).

Question for everybody who is not George Lucas: You personally need "24p" so you can <fill in blank>

Tyler.Durden wrote on 9/17/2002, 3:58 PM

I need the "24p look" so I can impress my friends and relatives, by fooling them into thinking I shot film when I shot D-8.

My clients ALWAYS want the "24p look", so they can impress their friends and relatives into thinking they shot film.

I only want to look like video when I am making a early-eighties British tele-drama... but I use 24p for the exteriors.

My twenty-four-pee
Looks enough like I shot film
To fool all *my* friends

MPH

Chienworks wrote on 9/17/2002, 4:37 PM

Just curious, but can you define how 24p looks "different", other than having a slower frame rate? Do you really notice the interlacing that much on your television?

John_Beech wrote on 9/17/2002, 4:58 PM

Perhaps George Lucas does not monitor this forum closely, since SoFo have the e-mail address of everybody on the forum, please consider sending him that question directly.

Imagine the cachet of VV if it became know that George Lucas used it for anything!

John_Cline wrote on 9/17/2002, 5:45 PM

Of course, you're assuming that it was the REAL George Lucas that posted the single message in the other thread. Anyone can sign up for this forum with any name they wish.

Bill Gates

Sr_C wrote on 9/17/2002, 6:05 PM

I'm seriously considering the new camera from Panasonic. I will be evaluating all options over the next couple months but by the first of the year I plan on a new camera and the Panasonic has caught my eye mainly du to the 24P record option. 24P is, as odd as it sounds, easier on the eyes, and works the best for my type of projects, Music Videos. Although I'm confused, like the original poster, I thought Vegas had no problems editing 24P. Am I wrong? Please let me know for this is the kind of info I need before I plan to drop $4000 +/-.

Tyler.Durden wrote on 9/17/2002, 6:51 PM

Vegas can edit 24p, no sweat. It also converts 60i to 24p, no sweat (time & drive tho).

As I understand it, the Pana cam can output 60i or 24p converted to 60i; 60i being what comes down the 1394. So, the Pana cam can save you the time of converting 60i to 24p and back to 60i.

In the future, some NLEs will be able to detect the extra frames that the Pana cam throws in to create the 60i, throw them away, so true 24p is in the timeline. Then, you might be able to produce a variety of outputs: 24p for multimedia and digital cinema, or printing to film (SD?) and 60i for video.

So, why go to all the cost or effort, or both? Because some people like the way it looks; not all, but many. I do... but I also like 30p and 60i too.

If I got this all bassackwards, please set me right!

mph

John_Cline wrote on 9/17/2002, 7:25 PM

The Panasonic camera does not output a true 24fps progressive image, it does a 3:2 pulldown on the 24 frame progressive and outputs it as a standard 29.97fps, 60 field interlaced signal. The whole 24fps progressive scan thing on the Panasonic camera is seriously misunderstood. The 24p concept is explained exceptionally well in this month's VIDEOSYSTEMS magazine, it is a "must read." You can download the .PDF of the article here:

VIDEOSYSTEMS Magazine 24P Article (PDF)

John

dalydose wrote on 9/18/2002, 1:05 PM

I don't feel that anybody *needs* 24p or any of the other technologies we are blessed to have, but I will say that I would like have 24p becase:

1. It adds production value to projects. Our eyes and brains have been trained to see 24 frames per second in big budget, high quality movies. The effect on motion is a slight blurring that adds to it dreamlike state. The clarity of video actually contributes to its quality perception problem. Wierd, but true.

2. If we have final product that is already in 24p, the transfer to film process will be easier and presumably less expensive. Great for us short film wannabe guys.

Thanks

Sr_C wrote on 9/18/2002, 1:56 PM

Thanks John, That was an excellant article. I'm still confused though, even though the stream to the PC is a pulldown and 30fps, doesn't the camera actually capture 24P. That is what I'm looking for. I can always bring it back from 30fps once I'm editing. I just want the original capture to be 24P. But again that was an excellant article, thanks John. -Shon

John_Cline wrote on 9/18/2002, 2:47 PM

Yes, it captures 24fps progressive, but since most televisions can't display 24p, it does the 3:2 pulldown to convert it to 29.97 fps 60 field interlace. This is exactly the same method used to convert movies to display on regular television.

However, you can always use a program like Virtual Dub to do an "inverse telecine" which "removes" the 3:2 pulldown and converts it back to the original 24 fps progressive.

John

Sr_C wrote on 9/18/2002, 3:36 PM

Thanks again John, sorry for all the questions but I must plead ignorance in this area. I really appreciate your input. -Shon