[Torqueguru]

@ITinspector
Like I mentioned before, the reason is simple, file size! So benefit is smaller size, that why i mentioned in my previous post, just like how we didnt want to waste film before, now we dont want to waste bandwidth since a lot of HD content these days stream right to your desk through the internet.
Regards,
TG.

[amitk26]

Dear Proton,

Let me first make a disclaimer that my post is purely from the point of view of Electronics engineering and not from the point of view of art of cinematography . The link provided and from where you have quoted has factual errors and any text book of TV engineering ( used in 3ed year BE Electronics course can confirm it).

While I can not explain what is the asthetic difference in 24 FPS and 30 FPS , I can definitely point errors in the explanation given. So the end result may be same as you say 24 FPS is better for Cinema effect somehow but the explanation given for the same is not correct.

Originally Posted by proton

Okay this is going to be an encapsulation of what we read in the links.

If you read my earlier response everything given on link was not correct and there were quite a few errors example NTSC being 60p instead of 60i etc.

Originally Posted by proton

24 fps was chosen because it was the least frame rate acceptable to the human eye, and as mentioned, for audio synch purposes. 20 would have been okay, but since the AC frequency stateside is 50hz, 24.97 stayed for TV's NTSC(Google 24.97fps for clarification). Europe chose 30fps to match its 60hz frequencies, but 24 is the linear editing standard (Hollywood rulez!)

It is other way round 50 Hz in Europe and PAL has 50 Hz and USA has 60Hz and NTSC has 60 as refresh rate the purpose was two fold in early days of TV Oscillator was still expensive circuit and clock could be derrived from power source and secondly to reduce interference

Yes 24 FPS is due to Hollywood and film industry which developed independently of TV standards.

Originally Posted by proton

A high frame rate (150 fps for gaming) increases realism, while a low fps introduces a dream like quality to the rendering (read, very good for escapist material like movies!). 60fps with HD video camera equipment is great for news broadcast or Rose Bowl footage, but counterproductive for Sleepy Hollow or LOTR! So explaining the effort to grab at 24fps native and avoiding converting, and introducing artifacts.

An analogy is with HD, where the increased resolution required extra make up to be applied, to hide the flaws on the likes of Angelina Jolie's and our own Piggy Chops’ (Priyanka to you Aussie plebes) faces!

Since we run with the PAL standard, 3:2 pulldown does not apply. But the fact remains that we do get 60 complete picture frames per second with SD broadcast, albeit interlaced, ie half resolution.

May I again humbly reiterate that above all is Bunkum on that link.

Points highlighted in quote are wrong and you can cross check with any text book on TV transmission.

(1) In PAL of NTSC it is never 60 or 50 Complete frames , Analog TV broadcast is always interlaced in terms of number of fixed lines.

(2) Gaming does not use 150 FPS or high frame rate for Videos,
Gaming uses high refresh rate of monitor for better response time because Graphics rendered on screen is dependent on the user action and the Software running ( Game) so an improved response time is desired. Most of the games use vector graphics and a portion of the screen is refresh so fast refresh rate of Frame buffer and Monitor is favored.
This has nothing to do with Video rates.

The author of Link is confused between High Refresh rate of Monitors and FB used for gaming and high frame rate of Video.

(3) 150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details example in fight scenes you can distinguish how the punch gets delivered on face and how jaw gets deformed and blood flows.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by robimahanta

OT: Sorry for going off topic but I am planning to buy a canon zoom lens. Please help me choose between EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L and EF 70-200 f/2.8 L.
The price is pretty much the same for both ( around 1600 USD). On one hand I get a wider focal length while on the other I have a super fast lens.
Now I want to go for the 100-400 but then if I put in a 1.4x extender I get a decent range in the 70-200 as well with marginal increase in the f-stop.

Sorry but we not idea as to what are you shooting and what range are you looking for.

70-200mm f2.8 is an extremely versatile lens and is a very useful range. On the other 100-400mm is good for birding and wildlife type shots as its best ability is ultra reach.

If you are going be to shooting sports and street then 70-200mm is simply the best choice, if its more like wildlife or panoramic landscapes 100-400mm is good. If you want to do extreme sports and need lightning quick AF then 400mm f5.6 is a good choice.

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@ITinspector
Like I mentioned before, the reason is simple, file size! So benefit is smaller size, that why i mentioned in my previous post, just like how we didnt want to waste film before, now we dont want to waste bandwidth since a lot of HD content these days stream right to your desk through the internet.
Regards,
TG.

I agree 100% on the topic of delivery and size. But at what speed we play the video or stream it has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting speed except ofcourse ease of editing.

I am merely asking as to what are the benefits of SHOOTING at 24p and not PLAYBACK. With my limited knowledge in the field of video, i only know of the downsides of SHOOTING at 24p.

Originally Posted by amitk26

Yes 24 FPS is due to Hollywood and film industry which developed independently of TV standards.

Yes and i am merely trying to ask why.

Originally Posted by amitk26

(3) 150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details example in fight scenes you can distinguish how the punch gets delivered on face and how jaw gets deformed and blood flows.

I agree.

Cheers

[proton]

Hi AmitK26,

You wrote:
Let me first make a disclaimer that my post is purely from the point of view of Electronics engineering and not from the point of view of art of cinematography . The link provided and from where you have quoted has factual errors and any text book of TV engineering ( used in 3ed year BE Electronics course can confirm it).

While I can not explain what is the asthetic difference in 24 FPS and 30 FPS , I can definitely point errors in the explanation given. So the end result may be same as you say 24 FPS is better for Cinema effect somehow but the explanation given for the same is not correct.

Can you show where “60p” is written in the link?

You wrote:
It is other way round 50 Hz in Europe and PAL has 50 Hz and USA has 60Hz and NTSC has 60 as refresh rate the purpose was two fold in early days of TV Oscillator was still expensive circuit and clock could be derrived from power source and secondly to reduce interference

You’re right here: I tried to edit the post but went over the 20 minute limit for editing. My bad, must try not to show off and must compose my posts in Word before plonking posts in in real time!

You wrote:
May I again humbly reiterate that above all is Bunkum on that link.

Points highlighted in quote are wrong and you can cross check with any text book on TV transmission.

(1) In PAL of NTSC it is never 60 or 50 Complete frames , Analog TV broadcast is always interlaced in terms of number of fixed lines.

But an interlaced frame is a complete frame! If you take a frame grab of Standard Definition TV, you will get a complete picture at half resolution!

You wrote:
(2) Gaming does not use 150 FPS or high frame rate for Videos,
Gaming uses high refresh rate of monitor for better response time because Graphics rendered on screen is dependent on the user action and the Software running ( Game) so an improved response time is desired. Most of the games use vector graphics and a portion of the screen is refresh so fast refresh rate of Frame buffer and Monitor is favored.
This has nothing to do with Video rates.

The author of Link is confused between High Refresh rate of Monitors and FB used for gaming and high frame rate of Video.

But the Graphics Card generates the same frames as a video camera, NTSC or PAL or HD, only at a 150 frames per second rate! My contention is that high frame rate is conducive to immersing the gamer in a real life environment, while the film camera tries to do just the opposite, make a viewer think he is seeing dreams! And having a high response time (2-5ms) monitor is again good for gaming, as well as for sports and other real action footage. Also, maybe it’s not helpful to introduce monitor response time into the discussion?

You wrote:
(3) 150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details example in fight scenes you can distinguish how the punch gets delivered on face and how jaw gets deformed and blood flows.

I’m not sure how this is achieved, but again this is not useful to the discussion.

I’m speaking not from referring to text books, but from actual time spent on Avid non-linear editing and Quantel Paintbox workstations used for broadcast quality video. We can have a separate discussion for gaming rigs and their requirements if you want: as I have mentioned elsewhere, I used to cobble together rigs for a living!

[janitha]

Quote:-

"150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details"

But wont it result in very slow motion?

[proton]

Originally Posted by janitha

Quote:-

"150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details"

But wont it result in very slow motion?

Very well observed!

Find "slow motion" here:
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/05/21/...t-joshua-tree/

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by proton

Hi AmitK26,

Can you show where “60p” is written in the link?

It is not written in link . The link says "60 distinct frame" which is 60p actually they should have written 60 interlaced frame with 525 scan lines.

Originally Posted by proton

(1) In PAL of NTSC it is never 60 or 50 Complete frames , Analog TV broadcast is always interlaced in terms of number of fixed lines.


But an interlaced frame is a complete frame! If you take a frame grab of Standard Definition TV, you will get a complete picture at half resolution!

Well TV transmission is quite different from streaming of interlaced frame on data network using RTP/RTCP or any other protocol or playback from mpeg4 on a computer.

NTSC It is not digitized so each frame there means 525 horizontal scanned lines , and not a discreet frame as in digital for example 680X480X24 bits in case of 24 bit depth VGA frame.

When you do a frame grab the NTSC or PAL using a PC card for example actually the PC card first converts the analog video in a number of discreet frames as per framerate of the card and one of this frame is grabbed from the memory. So you get is a close digital approximation in form of full frame but it is not exactly same as the NTSC or PAL half frame. I hope i have clarified the difference.

Originally Posted by proton

You wrote:
(2) Gaming does not use 150 FPS or high frame rate for Videos,
Gaming uses high refresh rate of monitor for better response time because Graphics rendered on screen is dependent on the user action and the Software running ( Game) so an improved response time is desired. Most of the games use vector graphics and a portion of the screen is refresh so fast refresh rate of Frame buffer and Monitor is favored.
This has nothing to do with Video rates.

The author of Link is confused between High Refresh rate of Monitors and FB used for gaming and high frame rate of Video.

But the Graphics Card generates the same frames as a video camera, NTSC or PAL or HD, only at a 150 frames per second rate! My contention is that high frame rate is conducive to immersing the gamer in a real life environment, while the film camera tries to do just the opposite, make a viewer think he is seeing dreams! And having a high response time (2-5ms) monitor is again good for gaming, as well as for sports and other real action footage. Also, maybe it’s not helpful to introduce monitor response time into the discussion?

Well I should have written "Gaming uses high refresh rate of graphics card and monitor for better response time "

No again graphics card does not generate same frame as NTSC and PAL. NTSC and PAL are not digital transmission they work in terms of scanned horizontal lines. Remember analog TV systems were designed keeping CRT in mind so this concept of horizontal lines come in to picture. So the cathode beam used to sweep horizontally from top left corner to bottom right corner with some banking intervals for synch etc. NTSC and PAL are essentially same.

On a digital TV such as an HD TV the chip set converts this analog frame data to digital frames and provide the same to be rendered. Which is close approximation in terms of frame but it can never be better in terms of information content.

The HD TV and PC Video Cards are digital , Lets take previous example of simple VGA card which gives 640X480 pixels with color depth of 24 bits at 24 FPS so here the frame buffer for each frame would be 640X480X24 bits and to stop the jitter you need to have some buffer so lets say if a buffer of 10 frame is required so it will maintain 10 frames at a time in memory in case the rendering device ( LCD device) is slower and say can handle only 5 FPS then 5 frames will be dropped from the buffer. A real graphics card is lot more complex then this simple arrangement and usually frame rate and buffer is adopted as per the display by card.

Now you must be thinking how monitor response comes in to picture ?
Well LCD monitor ( for simplicity sake) is a memory mapped device.

The Framebuffer Data is written to a Graphics RAM which is mapped pixel by pixel to the display so for displaying each frame the whole frame is written to the graphics RAM and an interrupt is generated, This is known as bit paletteing and this image is displayed on the LCD.
So suppose if the Graphics card is generating very high frame rates say 150 FPS but the LCD display can show only 50 FPS then there will be a lot of frame-drops due to buffer getting full ( in above example 10) and a gamer will observe the jitters

So for gaming setup a high FPS card should be matched by a display.

The monitor repose time of 2ms or 5 ms is little different then this it is related to how fast LCD can refresh once command to display image is received ( image is bit paletted) so a slow response will result in some ghosting.

Now why I have LCD example and not CRT, Well CRT moniters involve one more stage the data recived on D-SUB connector is again converted by circuitry to the format again to move the cathode ray beams and it complicates things.
But the refresh rate of CRT is lot better then LCD ( 2ms or 5ms).

Originally Posted by proton

You wrote:
(3) 150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details example in fight scenes you can distinguish how the punch gets delivered on face and how jaw gets deformed and blood flows.

I’m not sure how this is achieved, but again this is not useful to the discussion.

I’m speaking not from referring to text books, but from actual time spent on Avid non-linear editing and Quantel Paintbox workstations used for broadcast quality video. We can have a separate discussion for gaming rigs and their requirements if you want: as I have mentioned elsewhere, I used to cobble together rigs for a living!

May be you are right I have no experience on Video editing software but my point that Analog TV bradcase and digital tansmission are two different things link provided has many inaccuracies and errors.
May be end result is same that 24 FPS provide film effect but explanation was incorrect.

BTW : Yes 150 FPS played back at 24 is what will provide matrix kind of fight sequences and that is what I have explained. If you really want to highlight intermediate seqences such as slow motion display to decide a run out case by 3ed Umpire in cricket match you need high FPS.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by janitha

Quote:-

"150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details"

But wont it result in very slow motion?

Yes exactly and that is what it is used for example in a cricket match you need a very high FPS rate to decide the run out to capture intermediate details. In case recording is done at 24 FPS then even playing it frame by frame you may not be able to decide when exactly bails fell off.

[proton]

Hi AmitK26,

Let’s regroup. What is germane to the topic is this:

You wrote:
It is not written in link . The link says "60 distinct frame" which is 60p actually they should have written 60 interlaced frame with 525 scan lines.

The contention is that HDTV’s 60fps is not advantageous to “film look”.

This is because the eye is bombarded with 60 complete images per second (whether interlaced or progressive), which in conjunction with persistence, EXAGGERATES/HIGHLIGHTS the faults in the image capture.

Now film was always 25 fps, and covered over many sins, giving a soft focus effect. Read my lips: great for movies!

This was still retained when the film was converted to dvd format by adding an additional frame for 3:2 pulldown purposes, giving you the NTSC’s 60i/29.97fps, maintaining the film look.

HDTV with its 60fps rate lost the advantages of SDTV 30fps, but tries to overcome the problem by using the technique described in the link.

BTW, nice discussion: your other points are spot on, but a little OT. It’s always good to question the status quo: things change all the time, and experts sometimes are not up to date. And always question statements, like Navin Sir often says: Don’t accept anything based on “authority”: always ask for explanation and demand that people defend their positions, and require from them accountability to logic and reason.

PS My new Panasonic Lumix compact tz7/zs3 has avchd lite which is 25fps HD and since it has a ccd sensor, no rolling shutter effect!

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/06/02/...ket-hd-camera/

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by janitha

Quote:-

"150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details"

But wont it result in very slow motion?

Depends how you do the PLAYBACK. Simple slowing down the frames, yes it will result in slow motion.

Pull down the frame rates and you have a 24p video with higher quality than if shot at 24fps. Biggest benefit being removing jittering for fast pace actions.

Originally Posted by proton

But an interlaced frame is a complete frame! If you take a frame grab of Standard Definition TV, you will get a complete picture at half resolution!

Yes an interlaced frame is a complete frame but with scan lines repeated.

Originally Posted by proton

But the Graphics Card generates the same frames as a video camera, NTSC or PAL or HD, only at a 150 frames per second rate! My contention is that high frame rate is conducive to immersing the gamer in a real life environment, while the film camera tries to do just the opposite, make a viewer think he is seeing dreams! And having a high response time (2-5ms) monitor is again good for gaming, as well as for sports and other real action footage. Also, maybe it’s not helpful to introduce monitor response time into the discussion?

Yes and no.

Such high fps in games are definitely helpful to create real life like scenario. What i am trying to put down is 24p is not required to create dreamy look. There are other ways to do it. I am just going to put an easy example. Anyone who played Need for speed most wanted can check it out, every single time you saw a cop or car jumped over the roof or went in air, fps did not dropped out but you were put in a dreamy look scenario.

2ms response time give your a maximum refresh rate of 250hz, any thigh higher not possible with 2ms response times. Graphics card is usually outputting with 90hz refresh rate, so 2ms response times actually means nothing, just a marketing hype

Originally Posted by proton

You wrote:
(3) 150 FPS or higher recording has nothing to do with realism but when you record at high frame rate and play them at normal 24 FPS it provides better details example in fight scenes you can distinguish how the punch gets delivered on face and how jaw gets deformed and blood flows.


I’m not sure how this is achieved, but again this is not useful to the discussion.

I’m speaking not from referring to text books, but from actual time spent on Avid non-linear editing and Quantel Paintbox workstations used for broadcast quality video. We can have a separate discussion for gaming rigs and their requirements if you want: as I have mentioned elsewhere, I used to cobble together rigs for a living!

Actually it is useful since that is what is discussed here, i am saying SHOOTING 24p is not a good idea and should be phased out, others are saying SHOOTING 24p has benefits. I am just asking as to what are those benefits. SHOOTING with higher frame rates is always better than SHOOTING at 24p.

We should stop calling it 24p since that related to PLAYBACK and just call it 24fps since that relates better to SHOOTING.

And your experience is well welcomed, we are all here to learn and share our experiences

Originally Posted by amitk26

Yes exactly and that is what it is used for example in a cricket match you need a very high FPS rate to decide the run out to capture intermediate details. In case recording is done at 24 FPS then even playing it frame by frame you may not be able to decide when exactly bails fell off.

Recording a cricket match is an excellent example but not just for slowing down motion. With the fast panning, anyone trying to watch it at native resolution with 24p playback will pretty much poke out there eyes due to the massive jittering. Hence the reason even on a blu-ray it will be pulled down to 2:3 and will be PLAYED at 60i

Even if you try to watch the blu-ray at 24p, some of the scenes will already be pulled down to 2:3 to 60i and then back pulled down to 3:2 to 24p, so the jittering is removed.

Originally Posted by proton

Hi AmitK26,

Let’s regroup. What is germane to the topic is this:

You wrote:
It is not written in link . The link says "60 distinct frame" which is 60p actually they should have written 60 interlaced frame with 525 scan lines.

The contention is that HDTV’s 60fps is not advantageous to “film look”.

This is because the eye is bombarded with 60 complete images per second (whether interlaced or progressive), which in conjunction with persistence, EXAGGERATES/HIGHLIGHTS the faults in the image capture.

Now film was always 25 fps, and covered over many sins, giving a soft focus effect. Read my lips: great for movies!

This was still retained when the film was converted to dvd format by adding an additional frame for 3:2 pulldown purposes, giving you the NTSC’s 60i/29.97fps, maintaining the film look.

HDTV with its 60fps rate lost the advantages of SDTV 30fps, but tries to overcome the problem by using the technique described in the link.

BTW, nice discussion: your other points are spot on, but a little OT. It’s always good to question the status quo: things change all the time, and experts sometimes are not up to date. And always question statements, like Navin Sir often says: Don’t accept anything based on “authority”: always ask for explanation and demand that people defend their positions, and require from them accountability to logic and reason.

PS My new Panasonic Lumix compact tz7/zs3 has avchd lite which is 25fps HD and since it has a ccd sensor, no rolling shutter effect!

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/06/02/...ket-hd-camera/

Actually its harder to spot faults with higher fps.

But yeah its good to have a heated debate/discussion.

Originally Posted by ph03n!x

For who don't mind buying refurbished for a good deal:

http://www.adorama.com/ICADRT1IKR.html
http://www.adorama.com/ICADRXSIBKR.html

Anyone bought stuff from here before?

Adorama is pretty decent to buy stuff from but i will personally never buy a refurbished DSLR body. With lenses its a different thing.

Originally Posted by robimahanta

thanks it_inspector, kkr2k

as i am not into sports photography and more into landscapes and wildlife..guess i'll go for the 100-400L..for its better reach

If you are interested in Wildlife why not try Sigma 50-500mm, yea its a bit slower than canon 100-400mm but it also give more range and is significantly cheaper.

In Australia Bigma is a really popular lens with 1.7x TC combo for wildlife photography.

Cheers

[proton]

Quote
The biggest difference to me between 24p and 60i video is the motion signature created by a camera's recording mechanism. NTSC video records 30 images per second, however, each image is divided into two separate fields that interlace to form a complete image. This results in 30 odd-field images and 30 even-field images recorded each second. Consequently, 60 separate half-resolution images are recorded every second. Movement and its associated motion blur are therefore captured at a much quicker 1/60th of a second, with a negligible blanking interval in between field exposures. The outcome produces significantly less motion blur, and a sharper image, as the images are captured more frequently and for a shorter duration. This is what gives video its too-smooth look. It looks real like the human eye sees, and therefore not suitable for the fantasy worlds of motion pictures.

HD Cinema (and motion picture film) is recorded at 24 images per second (24fps) as full frames. Motion blur is the blurred effect you get when exposing an image with movement. With a typical 180 degree shutter, the exposed image movement, and subsequent motion blur, is therefore recorded for 1/48th of a second and results in more motion blur than 1/60th like NTSC. This gives you the motion clairity signatures of HD Cinema and 35mm motion picture film.

Simulating 35mm Motion Picture Clarity in After Effects by Daniel Broadway

The above is a good starting point, if you want to further discuss the aesthetic advantage of the "film look".

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by proton

Hi AmitK26,

Let’s regroup. What is germane to the topic is this:

You wrote:
It is not written in link . The link says "60 distinct frame" which is 60p actually they should have written 60 interlaced frame with 525 scan lines.

The contention is that HDTV’s 60fps is not advantageous to “film look”.

The whole lengthy responses I wrote mean just one thing 60 FPS of HD or Digital is not same as 60 of NTSC or 50 of pal. The said dreamy / realism etc is due to information contained in each frame. Encoded information is much less in PAL or NTSC as it is in form of distinct number of scanned line.

As all of this discussion is irrelevant to DSLR and we are not converging on anything I will refrain from posting further on this.
PS : I still maintain that I am not questioning teh end result that somehow 24FPS gives film look but the reasons cited on the provided source are technically incorrect and with this I would like to conclude this conversation from my side.

If mods want they can create a new thread on Broadcasting / streaming / encoding standards and we can discuss further there.

[proton]

Originally Posted by @ITinspector

"But the whole topic has been tangled and main confusion for everyone is for a simple reason which applies to rest of the world as well, SHOOTING/PLAYBACK analog vs SHOOTING/PLAYBACK digital vs different frame rates."

@ITinspector
I think I found the simplest explanantion. If you want motion blur in still image capture, which is better: 1/46 or 1/60 sec?

Now apply the same principle to moving image capture!

Cheers!

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by proton

@ITinspector
I think I found the simplest explanantion. If you want motion blur in still image capture, which is better: 1/46 or 1/60 sec?

Now apply the same principle to moving image capture!

Cheers!

In video motion blur is used to remove the jerkiness and shutter speed and Frame rate are two different things.

Cheers

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

and shutter speed and Frame rate are two different things.
Cheers

Yes, this is the source of a confusion for many.

shutter open time
<-->

|XXX________|XXX________|XXX________|XXX________|X XX________|

<----------->
a frame




I have a different question, somewhat related to DLSRs: Most of the new DLSRs have HD video capturing capability as we know. I've heard that any DSLR's shutter has a line time (no. of actuations) So, does this mean that shooting HD videos for long will significantly reduce the lifetime of a DSLR?