They both have their time and place to be used. You cant say one is better than the other.There are situations in which either will out perform the other.
24p matters when you want to disconect people from their reality to another, it's a Movie, its a Fiction, 24p Helps a LOT. 60Fps turns everything much natural, not fictional, it's not good for fotography, where you are goind to capture something that execeeds reality and not try to replicate without any flavor over it.
If the video is manipulated so that 24p is shown in 4:3 aspect ratio and 60i is shown in 16:9 aspect ratio than the 60i will be with out a doubt better.
Your right 24p doesn't matter much. The only reason we use it is because back in the days of film 24 frames per seconds was the lowest frame rate that still gave the illusion of fluid motion. Why did they do this? because film is expensive. oh and with higher frame rates you would usually use them when you plan to do something in slow motion. then you would bump it back down somewhere around 24.
Doesn't matter because the Youtube flash player will only show 30p so the 60i isn't going to show up properly anyway, but yes color composition matters most.
I've started shooting 60i after I shot a wedding for a TV producer..havent looked back at 24p since..depends what you shoot..online/sharper stuff 60i - washed out slower tripod stuff 24p..film 24p video 60i...its a matter of taste, im now a 60i kind of guy as i shoot with more and more movement rather than tripod..as lighting scensors get better 24p will be past...more frames in a second will mean sharper HD
Sure colour and compositon matter but the 24 frames progressive system is what gives films their unique feel and results in a smoother more film like image. 60i looks like video not film.
I think 24p is a gimmick. I'm working on a dual comparison using 2 identical 5d mark II's with exact same set up and lens. So far I can't tell a difference.
I can however tell a difference in the 2 Mark II's I used. Both cameras have same lens and color profiles, focal lenght, f-stops etc. I even switched lenses and it made no difference. One camera was warmer than the other looking at the back of the screen.
I think that computer monitors run interlaced scanning so even with pulldown I'm not seeing a true 24p in the video. Anyways... I think that composition and color are more important than frame rate but you're comparing two totally different variables here; which is strange to do :)
You can't upload a video with two different frame rates anyhow. Your encoder most likely used a 3:2 pulldown or some other method to match the 60i to 24 fps, which is why they look essentially the same as far as pixel motion is concerned. If you really want to do this right, do it in two different videos.
you're an idiot if you think that people use 24p as a main technique to try to copy a "film" look. And it in no way parallels matting, composition, or talent blocking as a means to create a unique and creative look for your movie
I like the motion in the 24p version better. It looks smooth and less realistic (in a positive way). Of course the colour correction makes the 60i version look better, but framerate is also a very important aspect.
24p to 60i is no difference if you know what your doing with shutter speed. the only difference is 24p is progressive and 60i is interlaced, so if your planning on playing your video on a computer, you want progressive, tv you want interlaced. you can mess with all that in post anyway so it doesnt really matter.
especially to an untrained eye, it makes no difference which one you use.
@vindennl48 well I totally agree. If you make a really good movie or video. 24p and 60i wont really matter. But if you are shooting sponsored movies, you need 24 p cameras
@Pwells1 I thought we were talking about pro-sumer video cameras and not professional grade films/tv shows. Yes, on high end applications, 24p is the standard. However, 24p can still be achieved on pro-sumer cameras with 60i IF you set your settings CORRECTLY in pre AND post production with little to no observable difference especially to an UNTRAINED eye like I said. If you have a 24p setting on your camera then yes go for it. If you dont, you can still achieve 24p-like video with 60i.
@vindennl48 In terms of pro-sumer video, you still no matter what want to choose the 24p mode on your camera. Depending on how you output the footage will determine whether it is converted to 60i via 3:2 pulldown or whether it stays in straight 24p for later progressive use.
If you don't have a 24p setting, then yes some cameras (we're not talking new stuff, btw. DSLRs and modern pro-sumer cameras all shoot progressive) have settings that approximate 60i, but you lose A LOT of resolution.
@vindennl48 And of course if you're shooting live sports/news, you just shoot 60i. Documentary I guess you can choose whichever you want, though I prefer 24p.
@Pwells1 Well at the time when I originally made the comment, over 2 years ago, most pro-sumer gear was shooting native 60i and could do 24p via 3:2 pulldown but would lose quality that way, aka the Canon HV30 before the HV40 came out. Its much easier to deal with shooting in the native frame rate than messing around with pulldowns.
@Pwells1 So... if you take a camera that shoots native 60i, fstop and shutter speed are set with 24fps in mind, and then cut out the extra frames in post, convert it to progressive, then color correct, then export to desired codec, you can make it look as if you shot it on a native 24p camera and most if not anyone will be able to tell the difference. Since there's no pulldowns, not much of any loss except for the unwanted frames.
@vindennl48 Except that's not really true. The only way to really get that 24p look is to have an in camera mode (or I guess you could do it after the fact) that deinterlaces your video and kind of approximates 24p, so you're losing about half your resolution and no longer have a true HD signal (that would be the whole "drop frames" thing you're talking about. Except you're not dropping frames, you're losing FIELDS and then combing the fields you have).
@vindennl48 And yeah, you kind of get a 24p look. Except the motion blur is a bit more awkward (Good luck with shooting quick action!), plus the loss in res. And if you're shooting on a non HD camera, wow is it going to be apparent.
But all of this is pretty mute anyway. Good cameras today shoot 24p, and prosumers are using the DSLRs or Sony EX3s and similar cameras. And you want to be shooting 24p.
Of course aspect ratio and color correction is going to make the biggest difference, 24p or 23.97 your not going to really be able to notice a big difference between the too especially in a test like this and poor quality video theirs no way you can see the difference. Sony did a test on a demo dvd that i have for the sony v1u, the difference very noticeable and looks way better but 24p is not going to take a homemade video and make it look like film though sorry, dof adapters is the key
I think aspects 4-7 are a little overrated. DOF adapters are difficult to build and expensive to buy. Colour correction cannot rescue a bad scenery and 24p alone won't help either (look at the video). The key is to concentrate on aspects 1-3 first.
@Jordifilms can you tell me one thing?if you would put a large battery onto sony hvr z7e, would it still fit the flash memory recording unit onto it?Thanks!
Yes, I meant to say Z7E, sorry. Hm, I think it would be quite thick of Sony to build an additional battery that blockades the flash recording unit (if I got you right).
lol very but yea its outdate and we probably shouldn't be giving him a hard time on it, but if he comes out with a new video with shitty quality then let the bashing begin.
Also, don't forget that most computer monitors after compressing the video file to fit on youtube cannot accurately display the difference between 24p and 60i because of the refreshment rate, so most of the effect is lost anyway.
The footage was recorded from far away. Which means it makes it difficult to see the difference between the two frame rates. But still, It is obvious that 24p is much closer to the look of film then 60i because film is 24p! Sometimes 23p.
BTW: Its letterbox not "matte box". Matte boxes are the things you put in front of the camera lenses to avoid light getting in from the side thus avoiding lens flare and poor contrast.
Actually, the first one looks better. The motion looks more like film and the second looks just like a color corrected home video with a letterbox. Bad theory mate. :D
then he could color correct the the 60i footage even more.
really frame rate doesn't make as much a difference in looks as shutter speed. If he would've set both of the shutter speeds and white balances, and apertures to be the same for both 24p and 60i, then the footage would look the same, except the 60i motion would look smoother, and the 24p motion would look more cinematic. But only the MOTION would look more cinematic.
24P records in 24 frames per second with a different pull down from 60i resulting in a more film like video that can be edited in post to give a more "indie film" look which would be hard to achieve with a footage taped in 60i. (Color correct my ass)
You sound more like a fool than most people leaving comments on this video. I feel that 24p looks less like reality, and more cinematic, how can it be more obvious than that.
ou're still originating in video, or haven't you grasped that fundamental fact? Shoot film then. Just junk your digital equipment and suffer until such time (as if) you will be able to wheel out a fucking Arriflex and make your projects ON FILM. I'm sorry, but this "film look" prejudicial bullshit makes my blood pressure rise.
You idiots swearing that 24p and only 24p is the "correct" choice, the next time you run into Michael motherfucking Mann be sure to tell him he made a mistake going for a strictly video look in "Public Enemies". Do that for me, ok?
You sound aggressive. You can't just say oh, 24p looks better, or 60i looks better... it depends on what you're filming. 60i is good for fast motion, but I still like the look for 24p for most situations.
I agree 24p. Depending on WHAT your shooting, 24p for film 60i for sports. Why? Detailed slo-mo. When your filming a slo-mo for film with like a red you are shooting 48 or 72 fps PROGRESSIVLY for film slo-mo. For sports its done at 60i or 90i. Watch nitro's? Your tv shows 30i theater is 24p. So depending on what your shooting for and what your showing it on. But if you shoot a film for tv shoot 24p and FILM it don't video it. You'll have a movie look not a news cast look.
i no absolutely nothing about film, but i have a question. What makes movies look so different than regular tv cameras? is it a different frame rate or something?
24p looks better because it's the frame rate of film we've all been used to for the last umpteen decades. nothing screams plain old video like 60i. color and composition aside.
your an idiot...24 is used in films....but what have you seen more than movies....T.V. which has been in 60i since like over 50 years ago....from what i know...60i is used for a completely shit than 24p....you cant really compare the two like that...in my opinion...
I fail to see what your disagreement is. Film is 24 fps and T.V. is 60i... You didn't even say which one you cared for and who the shit said I was comparing them? I just think 24p looks better. All you did was state an obvious fact.
Ok, 24p does look ALOt better. You won't be able to tell a big enough difference here because the subjects are far away already, so differences are harder to see.
Well, not always. Usually you do want to go with 24p. But if you plan on doing any slow-motion, you want 60i. So you will get a nice smooth slow-motion
i like 24p slightly better in this comparison, but I would like to see a better one, thats not on youtube, anyone have a link to a site that has a better quality comparison??
youtube has great quality these days, if you upload in a good quality you should get either an option to view in HQ or HD depending on the resolution.
HQ ("High Quality" res-640×480 Bitrate-900) is NOT even near the same quality as HD (High Definition res-1280x720 Bitrate-2000) Maybe your eyes don't see the difference but theres definattly a HUGE difference in the compression and quality!
yeah i know the the res demensions...but i think its pretty pointless to upload in hd when most computers cant handle it....like when i upload an hd video from a dvd and watch in hq it looks basically the same without the lag...but if i upload the raw video file then i can barely watch it...i just dont see the point in upload in hd...even though i did for three videos..
Most computers CAN actually play 720p video (same as YoutubeHD) perfectly fine, theres just some issue with either Youtube or Adobe flash, as it only happens on Youtube! You go to Vimeo and watch a 720p video and it plays smooth as hell! and Vimeo uses Flash as its player too! Youtube has to fix it. Also you will only benefit from the HD option if you have a HD camera or upload HD footage, DVD's aren't HD (480i-480p) so it wouldn't be any better in HD than in HQ.
Okay... First, the points Sugar Addict makes are valid. In addition to them, consider that this video has been coverted and whatnot so many times, the motion properties really can't be compared.
The simple fact is, the ONLY way to make a valid comparison of the formats is to watch two things in those formats *natively* --ie, not on YouTube.
Framerate is an artistic decision... one isn't "better" than the other, they're just different. Each has its place.
shinWangXiao and SugarAddict are correct. The comparison could have been a little more "controlled." And I like what shinWangXiao said about framerate being "an artistic decision." You might choose to use 24p with a higher exposure level in a more intence movie and you might choose to use more color and softer light settings to achieve a gentle sense.
This video is a bad comparison. The combination of the distance of the moving objects as well as the brevity and the compression make this useless, in my opinion. Compare these two videos:
Interesting theory. Thanks for the presentation. With all due respect, I agree that 60i (30fps) looks like it's from a home video camera (amateur). It's ok here on YouTube since for some reason, YouTube does a frame blend and blurs each frame to make it looks non-rapid-30fps. But for tape or DVD, 60i looks amateur. Play around with 30i or even 15i to get a (poor man's) "film look" (less fluid).
You can't see the difference between 24P and 60i on a computer screen. That's because computer screens doesn't show fields which 60i have. So that's why the clip looks the same (hence the widescreen).
If production conditions are controlled and if comparisons are made solely on the basis of sharpness and color fidelity, the best 35mm film will be slightly inferior to the best video, assuming the latest professional-quality video equipment is used and the final result is broadcast.
ok see, I understand that you need good lighting etc. for either to look good. but film looks much better. it has more of a natural feel to it and the color is second to none. you must be talking about like a RED ONE or other digital cinema camera right?
and anyways, we were talking about FRAME RATE and how to high of a frame rate looks too video and too cheesy, no matter what the actual quality is. "faster the frame rate the better the quality"-- again, bull shit
pfranks44 is correct in that, high quality film, is yet to be matched by digital sources. However, the main reason why film through the ages has been shot at 24 frames per second is because film is expensive... Less frames equates to less film being used. We've become used to standard film framerates in movies (at the theatre) so having a 24p digital recording and 24p capable output source brings us that much closer to the "film" experience in a digital World.
24p gives you a film look so yes the look of 24p has a matted grainy finish. 60i gives you a news look which if you wanted to transfer to film you'd need to convert it to 24 FPS. In all reality film is a poorer quality than anything 30 fps or more because the faster the frame rate the better the quality. This rings true when you do a visual fast forward on your VCR.
I do not believe that 60i is smooth at all progressive gives you a full frame interlace separates the two half's of the frame combining a full frame. There is no way that the end result of an interlaced picture looks better than an already full frame Progressive frame. Ive done the test on high grade production monitors interlace is inferior to progressive by a long shot. i'm talk quality and color.
24p gives you 24 frames per second, while 60i gives you 60 frames per second, giving you more frames which makes the look of it a lot smoother and nicer. But in reality, 60i is not film standard.... yet.
60i looks like shit. it makes it look way to digital. 24 fps has much more of a natural look and thats why it is and always will be the professional standard
Moron! The reason 60i looks oike it does is because it is higher quality than film...look it up. Then the matter in which you speak of will come to light and you will understand what I am saying. Video is better image quality than film or 24fps video, and that is the bottom line.
24p doesn't make anything LOOK like film, it makes it MOVE like film. A combination of depth of field (or lack thereof) and 24p would give you something closer to film. But little depth of field in 60i doesn't feel like film because it moves like video. You're theory is partially correct...it's not ALL 24p, that's only one very important part of the overall film effect. Of course, there's much more to it, and the likelihood of video looking like film without using something like the F23 is slim.
24p is what really makes film look like film. I edit in 60 and drop to 24. My videos always look 10 times better when I convert the 60i master that has been color corrected and matted. Color correction, matte boxing, 24p, etc is what makes Dv-film look nice. To me it's about all of those put together.
from my experience, one is no better that the other. It's all about what you feel creatively. Sometimes I dont do a "proper" white balance when using sunlight & light bulbs together. It may be "wrong" but its what i prefer sometimes.
so what progressive does is change the exposure, saturation, and change the speed of moton in the clip.......? I've seen alot of 24p videos and 60i videos and 24p does looks alot like film.. I researched a little and it said 60i is for event shooting, like weddings, news... 30p is for sport events with fast moving objects.... and 24p is for film applications
Sorry to say, but 24p makes all the difference. It just has cinematic "look". If you notice the 2 people walking in 24p, it seems a bit slower and more fluent, but vs. the 60i, it seems more camcorder style which throws off the look of professional footage. 60i is great, but nothing is like 24p.
24p vs 60i makes a big difference colour wise if you take the time to white balance. 60i obviously captures better motion. Also, you'd be able to see a much more notable difference in a color saturated scene as opposed to the dark rainy day that you were shooting in.
You can't really tell because the Youtube frame rate is playing at 30p. And true 24p makes a huge difference when compared to a well composed and color graded 60i clip. The best example is broadcast football games. The DOF on close-ups is often very shallow, and colors are very nice, but it doesn't come close to looking like film.
well for YouTube it doesn't matter at all what format... but on a screen, I would say that the 24p was a tiny bit better. usually it doesn't make a difference too much. but i would take color corrected 30i over regular 24p
very very true and true progressive video is so much better than working with 60interlaced the reason most people use 24p is for trnsfer to film it makes it a whole lot easier. what did you shoot this one?
they both look like potatoes
AqualohA 1 week ago
both look bad, did you film this on an old school nokia phone or something :S
shushko69 5 months ago
how can you compare something that is playing back at 240P?
shamu3838 6 months ago
Thumbs up if you couldn't pay attention because you were wondering why the guy on the right walks like that.
TheMatt7000 8 months ago
THERE ARE TWO POINTS:
If you want to transfer to a film it´s possible in 24p, and...
when image is interlaced there are alising!
Expect it solve the question!
bye
GIUSEPPECONSENTINI 9 months ago
50i -> 50p? Use a smart-bobber!
jjovereats 9 months ago
24p easily
lykeeze 9 months ago
They both have their time and place to be used. You cant say one is better than the other.There are situations in which either will out perform the other.
ThePoonFish 1 year ago
24p matters when you want to disconect people from their reality to another, it's a Movie, its a Fiction, 24p Helps a LOT. 60Fps turns everything much natural, not fictional, it's not good for fotography, where you are goind to capture something that execeeds reality and not try to replicate without any flavor over it.
marcelosouza 1 year ago
yeah, i prefer 60p
CptZsoci 1 year ago
If the video is manipulated so that 24p is shown in 4:3 aspect ratio and 60i is shown in 16:9 aspect ratio than the 60i will be with out a doubt better.
MrPiggyDomination 1 year ago
its never real 24p in the first, 24p look a lot better than this xD
acrogs 1 year ago
Good Colors > Bad Colors
24p > 60i
Mix and match those however you want, such as
Good Colors + 60i > Bad colors + 24p
but the original statements are still true.
bf2widowmaker 1 year ago
Your right 24p doesn't matter much. The only reason we use it is because back in the days of film 24 frames per seconds was the lowest frame rate that still gave the illusion of fluid motion. Why did they do this? because film is expensive. oh and with higher frame rates you would usually use them when you plan to do something in slow motion. then you would bump it back down somewhere around 24.
hire2fire 1 year ago
Doesn't matter because the Youtube flash player will only show 30p so the 60i isn't going to show up properly anyway, but yes color composition matters most.
thegeekredneck 1 year ago
@thegeekredneck
But you can shoot in 60i, and render with interlacing removed down to 30p, which is good for slow mo, and youtube.
ThePoonFish 1 year ago
Forget frame rates. You think interlaced video looks better than progressive?
rvdsm 1 year ago 2
I've started shooting 60i after I shot a wedding for a TV producer..havent looked back at 24p since..depends what you shoot..online/sharper stuff 60i - washed out slower tripod stuff 24p..film 24p video 60i...its a matter of taste, im now a 60i kind of guy as i shoot with more and more movement rather than tripod..as lighting scensors get better 24p will be past...more frames in a second will mean sharper HD
SunshineCoastVideos 1 year ago
Sure colour and compositon matter but the 24 frames progressive system is what gives films their unique feel and results in a smoother more film like image. 60i looks like video not film.
MrMalthus80 1 year ago
I prefer 1080 quality instead of this blur, its not even on 360!
JamesWorldStudios 1 year ago
I think 24p is a gimmick. I'm working on a dual comparison using 2 identical 5d mark II's with exact same set up and lens. So far I can't tell a difference.
I can however tell a difference in the 2 Mark II's I used. Both cameras have same lens and color profiles, focal lenght, f-stops etc. I even switched lenses and it made no difference. One camera was warmer than the other looking at the back of the screen.
iKeithb 1 year ago
24p looks smoother to me
Vol41nWav 1 year ago
I think that computer monitors run interlaced scanning so even with pulldown I'm not seeing a true 24p in the video. Anyways... I think that composition and color are more important than frame rate but you're comparing two totally different variables here; which is strange to do :)
Jeremysk23 1 year ago
you are a terrible person and an idiot
golfr7k1 2 years ago
You can't upload a video with two different frame rates anyhow. Your encoder most likely used a 3:2 pulldown or some other method to match the 60i to 24 fps, which is why they look essentially the same as far as pixel motion is concerned. If you really want to do this right, do it in two different videos.
Oh, and shoot in HD.
scoffey3214 2 years ago
I think you need to make a different test using faster motion. This is where you can see an obvious difference.
keithhopkin 2 years ago
i agree with seanfoulkes , u are a moron.
brettv10 2 years ago
you're an idiot if you think that people use 24p as a main technique to try to copy a "film" look. And it in no way parallels matting, composition, or talent blocking as a means to create a unique and creative look for your movie
you're a moron.
seanfoulkes 2 years ago
24fps not for look you dumb ass its for theatre viewing. You can't take your shit to film fest if its 30fps
cutestalien 2 years ago
really? Can you explain this a little bit more?
COLDHEARTEDFILMS 2 years ago
I like the motion in the 24p version better. It looks smooth and less realistic (in a positive way). Of course the colour correction makes the 60i version look better, but framerate is also a very important aspect.
Jordifilms 2 years ago
24p to 60i is no difference if you know what your doing with shutter speed. the only difference is 24p is progressive and 60i is interlaced, so if your planning on playing your video on a computer, you want progressive, tv you want interlaced. you can mess with all that in post anyway so it doesnt really matter.
especially to an untrained eye, it makes no difference which one you use.
vindennl48 2 years ago 3
@vindennl48 well I totally agree. If you make a really good movie or video. 24p and 60i wont really matter. But if you are shooting sponsored movies, you need 24 p cameras
XJNHMVz 3 months ago
@vindennl48 You don't know what you are talking about. 24p is the standard for fiction filmmaking. All TV shows shoot at 24p.
Pwells1 3 months ago
@vindennl48 And by ALL, I mean all fictionalized shows. It makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE as to which one you use.
Pwells1 3 months ago
@Pwells1 I thought we were talking about pro-sumer video cameras and not professional grade films/tv shows. Yes, on high end applications, 24p is the standard. However, 24p can still be achieved on pro-sumer cameras with 60i IF you set your settings CORRECTLY in pre AND post production with little to no observable difference especially to an UNTRAINED eye like I said. If you have a 24p setting on your camera then yes go for it. If you dont, you can still achieve 24p-like video with 60i.
vindennl48 3 months ago
@vindennl48 In terms of pro-sumer video, you still no matter what want to choose the 24p mode on your camera. Depending on how you output the footage will determine whether it is converted to 60i via 3:2 pulldown or whether it stays in straight 24p for later progressive use.
If you don't have a 24p setting, then yes some cameras (we're not talking new stuff, btw. DSLRs and modern pro-sumer cameras all shoot progressive) have settings that approximate 60i, but you lose A LOT of resolution.
Pwells1 3 months ago
@vindennl48 And of course if you're shooting live sports/news, you just shoot 60i. Documentary I guess you can choose whichever you want, though I prefer 24p.
Pwells1 3 months ago
@Pwells1 Well at the time when I originally made the comment, over 2 years ago, most pro-sumer gear was shooting native 60i and could do 24p via 3:2 pulldown but would lose quality that way, aka the Canon HV30 before the HV40 came out. Its much easier to deal with shooting in the native frame rate than messing around with pulldowns.
vindennl48 3 months ago
@Pwells1 So... if you take a camera that shoots native 60i, fstop and shutter speed are set with 24fps in mind, and then cut out the extra frames in post, convert it to progressive, then color correct, then export to desired codec, you can make it look as if you shot it on a native 24p camera and most if not anyone will be able to tell the difference. Since there's no pulldowns, not much of any loss except for the unwanted frames.
vindennl48 3 months ago
@vindennl48 Except that's not really true. The only way to really get that 24p look is to have an in camera mode (or I guess you could do it after the fact) that deinterlaces your video and kind of approximates 24p, so you're losing about half your resolution and no longer have a true HD signal (that would be the whole "drop frames" thing you're talking about. Except you're not dropping frames, you're losing FIELDS and then combing the fields you have).
Pwells1 3 months ago
@vindennl48 And yeah, you kind of get a 24p look. Except the motion blur is a bit more awkward (Good luck with shooting quick action!), plus the loss in res. And if you're shooting on a non HD camera, wow is it going to be apparent.
But all of this is pretty mute anyway. Good cameras today shoot 24p, and prosumers are using the DSLRs or Sony EX3s and similar cameras. And you want to be shooting 24p.
Pwells1 3 months ago
Of course aspect ratio and color correction is going to make the biggest difference, 24p or 23.97 your not going to really be able to notice a big difference between the too especially in a test like this and poor quality video theirs no way you can see the difference. Sony did a test on a demo dvd that i have for the sony v1u, the difference very noticeable and looks way better but 24p is not going to take a homemade video and make it look like film though sorry, dof adapters is the key
garrick2007 2 years ago
I think film look takes:
1. Suitable scenery & costumes.
2. Light setup
3. Camera work & composition
4. DOF
5. Colour correction
6. 24p
7. 2,35 or 2,4 aspect ratio
I think aspects 4-7 are a little overrated. DOF adapters are difficult to build and expensive to buy. Colour correction cannot rescue a bad scenery and 24p alone won't help either (look at the video). The key is to concentrate on aspects 1-3 first.
Jordifilms 2 years ago 2
@Jordifilms can you tell me one thing?if you would put a large battery onto sony hvr z7e, would it still fit the flash memory recording unit onto it?Thanks!
JaksProductions 2 years ago
Well, I don't own a Z9E. Do you mean an external recording unit? If not, using a large battery shouldn't be a problem...
Jordifilms 2 years ago
@Jordifilms did you mean z7e?and I dont know what you mean by external because it comes with a flash recording unit.
JaksProductions 2 years ago
Yes, I meant to say Z7E, sorry. Hm, I think it would be quite thick of Sony to build an additional battery that blockades the flash recording unit (if I got you right).
Jordifilms 2 years ago
@Jordifilms I think 60i looks more like a movie.
kyleain 1 year ago
I think 60i looks better
LiquidFl4me 2 years ago
Which do I think? I think you need to go record a new comparison, because this one is old, outdated, and shite quality.
Bertziethegreat 2 years ago
lol very but yea its outdate and we probably shouldn't be giving him a hard time on it, but if he comes out with a new video with shitty quality then let the bashing begin.
garrick2007 2 years ago
Karma Police lol.
Thats why
cinematography > film editing
MagnumVFD 2 years ago
it somehow seems like letterbox became part of visual effects...
kelvintwt 2 years ago
Also, don't forget that most computer monitors after compressing the video file to fit on youtube cannot accurately display the difference between 24p and 60i because of the refreshment rate, so most of the effect is lost anyway.
midtownandfriends 2 years ago
The footage was recorded from far away. Which means it makes it difficult to see the difference between the two frame rates. But still, It is obvious that 24p is much closer to the look of film then 60i because film is 24p! Sometimes 23p.
BTW: Its letterbox not "matte box". Matte boxes are the things you put in front of the camera lenses to avoid light getting in from the side thus avoiding lens flare and poor contrast.
aaron1a12 2 years ago
Hey! GUYS STOP ARGUING ABOUT 24p VS. 60i !
You know what I choose? I chose neither! I choose 30p!
It gets the best of both world baby!
sonicballer8888 2 years ago
The one that looks better would probsably be the one played back at a rate closest matching the rate it wa filmed in... they look similar to me...
moomar1 2 years ago
Actually, the first one looks better. The motion looks more like film and the second looks just like a color corrected home video with a letterbox. Bad theory mate. :D
VlastaStevanovich 2 years ago 24
I agree.
RoganR 2 years ago
My favourite song :D
Karma Police by radiohead! FTW!
GuyWithThreeEyes 2 years ago
did you say matte box becuase you used a matte box, or are you mistaking a matte box with a letterbox
MuseumProductions 2 years ago
it's a letterbox. I heard it's a common mistake.
sonicballer8888 2 years ago
Why don't you compare the color corrected letterboxed 60i footage to some color corrected letterboxed 24p?
embroisured 2 years ago
exactly what i was going to say.
idioteque4189 2 years ago
then he could color correct the the 60i footage even more.
really frame rate doesn't make as much a difference in looks as shutter speed. If he would've set both of the shutter speeds and white balances, and apertures to be the same for both 24p and 60i, then the footage would look the same, except the 60i motion would look smoother, and the 24p motion would look more cinematic. But only the MOTION would look more cinematic.
sonicballer8888 2 years ago
This test would've been better in HD...
CAvideoFAN 2 years ago
24P records in 24 frames per second with a different pull down from 60i resulting in a more film like video that can be edited in post to give a more "indie film" look which would be hard to achieve with a footage taped in 60i. (Color correct my ass)
BkNy06 2 years ago
24p looks better.
The test fails though.
its should follow a scientific method - only one variable.
But nonetheless 24p>60i
I personally like the strobing ook.
dingdongfxck 2 years ago
"24p looks better!" How does it look better? Because it wants to look like fucking film? Is that your only reason? What hopeless fools.
nycic 2 years ago
uhmm...yeah! the film looks better...you know. where you been living?
GadgetVision 2 years ago
You sound more like a fool than most people leaving comments on this video. I feel that 24p looks less like reality, and more cinematic, how can it be more obvious than that.
MuseumProductions 2 years ago
ou're still originating in video, or haven't you grasped that fundamental fact? Shoot film then. Just junk your digital equipment and suffer until such time (as if) you will be able to wheel out a fucking Arriflex and make your projects ON FILM. I'm sorry, but this "film look" prejudicial bullshit makes my blood pressure rise.
nycic 2 years ago
You idiots swearing that 24p and only 24p is the "correct" choice, the next time you run into Michael motherfucking Mann be sure to tell him he made a mistake going for a strictly video look in "Public Enemies". Do that for me, ok?
nycic 2 years ago 2
You sound aggressive. You can't just say oh, 24p looks better, or 60i looks better... it depends on what you're filming. 60i is good for fast motion, but I still like the look for 24p for most situations.
embroisured 2 years ago
true that, I hate filming dirt biking in 24 fps, it just gives you a headache watching it but I love the look of it when it's steady
imacrazydude9999999 2 years ago
I agree 24p. Depending on WHAT your shooting, 24p for film 60i for sports. Why? Detailed slo-mo. When your filming a slo-mo for film with like a red you are shooting 48 or 72 fps PROGRESSIVLY for film slo-mo. For sports its done at 60i or 90i. Watch nitro's? Your tv shows 30i theater is 24p. So depending on what your shooting for and what your showing it on. But if you shoot a film for tv shoot 24p and FILM it don't video it. You'll have a movie look not a news cast look.
jbunger72 2 years ago
i no absolutely nothing about film, but i have a question. What makes movies look so different than regular tv cameras? is it a different frame rate or something?
golfr7k1 2 years ago
color correction, 35mm lens adapters, and more.
sonicballer8888 2 years ago
24p looks better because it's the frame rate of film we've all been used to for the last umpteen decades. nothing screams plain old video like 60i. color and composition aside.
B3D5X 2 years ago
your an idiot...24 is used in films....but what have you seen more than movies....T.V. which has been in 60i since like over 50 years ago....from what i know...60i is used for a completely shit than 24p....you cant really compare the two like that...in my opinion...
mrwashur1991 2 years ago
I fail to see what your disagreement is. Film is 24 fps and T.V. is 60i... You didn't even say which one you cared for and who the shit said I was comparing them? I just think 24p looks better. All you did was state an obvious fact.
B3D5X 2 years ago
The walking in 24p looks better , its little bit slower than 60i which give more attractive .. what do you think?
e7sasjded 3 years ago
lol...i was about to buy ur theory until i saw ur 60i. 24p looked way better here...sorry
roliax 3 years ago
Ok, 24p does look ALOt better. You won't be able to tell a big enough difference here because the subjects are far away already, so differences are harder to see.
pcdawg0321 3 years ago
maybe your camera sucks but the 24p is better for everyone..if you know how to use it
zoneterror 3 years ago
Well, not always. Usually you do want to go with 24p. But if you plan on doing any slow-motion, you want 60i. So you will get a nice smooth slow-motion
pcdawg0321 3 years ago
24p
obe3 3 years ago
i like 24p slightly better in this comparison, but I would like to see a better one, thats not on youtube, anyone have a link to a site that has a better quality comparison??
pitchblackfilms 3 years ago
youtube has great quality these days, if you upload in a good quality you should get either an option to view in HQ or HD depending on the resolution.
djlobb 2 years ago
its actually the formast and HQ basically shows it at the same quality as HD but not with the same dimensions and it doesnt make you internet lag.
mrwashur1991 2 years ago
HQ ("High Quality" res-640×480 Bitrate-900) is NOT even near the same quality as HD (High Definition res-1280x720 Bitrate-2000) Maybe your eyes don't see the difference but theres definattly a HUGE difference in the compression and quality!
djlobb 2 years ago
yeah i know the the res demensions...but i think its pretty pointless to upload in hd when most computers cant handle it....like when i upload an hd video from a dvd and watch in hq it looks basically the same without the lag...but if i upload the raw video file then i can barely watch it...i just dont see the point in upload in hd...even though i did for three videos..
mrwashur1991 2 years ago
Most computers CAN actually play 720p video (same as YoutubeHD) perfectly fine, theres just some issue with either Youtube or Adobe flash, as it only happens on Youtube! You go to Vimeo and watch a 720p video and it plays smooth as hell! and Vimeo uses Flash as its player too! Youtube has to fix it. Also you will only benefit from the HD option if you have a HD camera or upload HD footage, DVD's aren't HD (480i-480p) so it wouldn't be any better in HD than in HQ.
djlobb 2 years ago
for a good example go to my page and view Speaker Shake Test
djlobb 2 years ago
I'm not sure you can make the case entirly with this test example (in either case its still some type of mpeg compression....
Isn't the big question however, how the footage will hold -up its resolution on a digital TV?
luvfinger 3 years ago
Okay... First, the points Sugar Addict makes are valid. In addition to them, consider that this video has been coverted and whatnot so many times, the motion properties really can't be compared.
The simple fact is, the ONLY way to make a valid comparison of the formats is to watch two things in those formats *natively* --ie, not on YouTube.
Framerate is an artistic decision... one isn't "better" than the other, they're just different. Each has its place.
shinWangXiao 3 years ago
shinWangXiao and SugarAddict are correct. The comparison could have been a little more "controlled." And I like what shinWangXiao said about framerate being "an artistic decision." You might choose to use 24p with a higher exposure level in a more intence movie and you might choose to use more color and softer light settings to achieve a gentle sense.
Cineman2011 3 years ago
This video is a bad comparison. The combination of the distance of the moving objects as well as the brevity and the compression make this useless, in my opinion. Compare these two videos:
watch?v=Edj3LzRc9HI
watch?v=16hpVPa2EOc
SugarAddict 3 years ago 2
Interesting theory. Thanks for the presentation. With all due respect, I agree that 60i (30fps) looks like it's from a home video camera (amateur). It's ok here on YouTube since for some reason, YouTube does a frame blend and blurs each frame to make it looks non-rapid-30fps. But for tape or DVD, 60i looks amateur. Play around with 30i or even 15i to get a (poor man's) "film look" (less fluid).
hermogino 3 years ago
I definitely prefer the motion of a 24p shot.
60i is just too rapid, it's hyper-real.
doryenc 3 years ago 7
Actually it's simply real, but it doesn't look good on-screen.
SugarAddict 3 years ago
you thats sick, but jw what was the song. sorry for the annoying comment
bobjablonskie 3 years ago
karma police (:
QuestionMarkCo 3 years ago 2
thanks dude. im just decideing to get this camera used or a canon hv-20 with a 35mm adapter
bobjablonskie 3 years ago
You can't see the difference between 24P and 60i on a computer screen. That's because computer screens doesn't show fields which 60i have. So that's why the clip looks the same (hence the widescreen).
TM261180 3 years ago
If production conditions are controlled and if comparisons are made solely on the basis of sharpness and color fidelity, the best 35mm film will be slightly inferior to the best video, assuming the latest professional-quality video equipment is used and the final result is broadcast.
marshmelow 3 years ago
ok see, I understand that you need good lighting etc. for either to look good. but film looks much better. it has more of a natural feel to it and the color is second to none. you must be talking about like a RED ONE or other digital cinema camera right?
and anyways, we were talking about FRAME RATE and how to high of a frame rate looks too video and too cheesy, no matter what the actual quality is. "faster the frame rate the better the quality"-- again, bull shit
pfranks44 3 years ago
pfranks44 is correct in that, high quality film, is yet to be matched by digital sources. However, the main reason why film through the ages has been shot at 24 frames per second is because film is expensive... Less frames equates to less film being used. We've become used to standard film framerates in movies (at the theatre) so having a 24p digital recording and 24p capable output source brings us that much closer to the "film" experience in a digital World.
hotchalupa 3 years ago
agreed. our expectations of what real movies look like affect what we think looks good. and so many still feel that 24fps looks much better
pfranks44 3 years ago
24p gives you a film look so yes the look of 24p has a matted grainy finish. 60i gives you a news look which if you wanted to transfer to film you'd need to convert it to 24 FPS. In all reality film is a poorer quality than anything 30 fps or more because the faster the frame rate the better the quality. This rings true when you do a visual fast forward on your VCR.
marshmelow 3 years ago
bull shit. the faster the frame rate DOES NOT mean better quality. where the fuck did you read that?
the quality is a separate matter, and film is much much better quality than digital 30i cameras
pfranks44 3 years ago
What would be great would be a 60p fuction in progressive camcorders, getting the 60i smoothness without using an outdated compression system.
MatthewBuick 3 years ago
I do not believe that 60i is smooth at all progressive gives you a full frame interlace separates the two half's of the frame combining a full frame. There is no way that the end result of an interlaced picture looks better than an already full frame Progressive frame. Ive done the test on high grade production monitors interlace is inferior to progressive by a long shot. i'm talk quality and color.
ShawnK41 3 years ago
your an idiot
rydeen18 3 years ago
24p gives you 24 frames per second, while 60i gives you 60 frames per second, giving you more frames which makes the look of it a lot smoother and nicer. But in reality, 60i is not film standard.... yet.
breakcoma7 3 years ago
60i looks like shit. it makes it look way to digital. 24 fps has much more of a natural look and thats why it is and always will be the professional standard
pfranks44 3 years ago
Moron! The reason 60i looks oike it does is because it is higher quality than film...look it up. Then the matter in which you speak of will come to light and you will understand what I am saying. Video is better image quality than film or 24fps video, and that is the bottom line.
marshmelow 3 years ago
it does matter when you watch the footage on tv.. go ahead try it, you'll see 60i is toooo video... but yes, collor correction is important aswell
ArtyomZakharenko 3 years ago
Ya but color correction isn't going to give you back the original full frame as progressive gives you from the start.
ShawnK41 3 years ago
Hi
Im still a beginner in this field.
can anyone explain to me how to do colour corection and matting???
is this a software? What brand of software??Do you do it in-camera??or post production on PC??
thanks
maltijien 3 years ago
using apples color for color correcting and its only on the mac i dunno the pc side of things and its all done in post
UGPProductions 3 years ago
hey its true!!
In the 60i format I noticed that the pace of the 2 people walking is much faster then in the 24p.But somhow the 60i picture is looks nicer??
So my guess would be to do colour corection and matting in 24p right??
maltijien 3 years ago
24p doesn't make anything LOOK like film, it makes it MOVE like film. A combination of depth of field (or lack thereof) and 24p would give you something closer to film. But little depth of field in 60i doesn't feel like film because it moves like video. You're theory is partially correct...it's not ALL 24p, that's only one very important part of the overall film effect. Of course, there's much more to it, and the likelihood of video looking like film without using something like the F23 is slim.
anitric2000 3 years ago
Not too enlightening, but the music choice gets you props.
erutander83 3 years ago
24p is what really makes film look like film. I edit in 60 and drop to 24. My videos always look 10 times better when I convert the 60i master that has been color corrected and matted. Color correction, matte boxing, 24p, etc is what makes Dv-film look nice. To me it's about all of those put together.
whiteboxpro 3 years ago
24 fps FTW!
stevenstreet483 3 years ago
from my experience, one is no better that the other. It's all about what you feel creatively. Sometimes I dont do a "proper" white balance when using sunlight & light bulbs together. It may be "wrong" but its what i prefer sometimes.
prowlaman 3 years ago
so what progressive does is change the exposure, saturation, and change the speed of moton in the clip.......? I've seen alot of 24p videos and 60i videos and 24p does looks alot like film.. I researched a little and it said 60i is for event shooting, like weddings, news... 30p is for sport events with fast moving objects.... and 24p is for film applications
DramaKidStudioz 3 years ago
Sorry to say, but 24p makes all the difference. It just has cinematic "look". If you notice the 2 people walking in 24p, it seems a bit slower and more fluent, but vs. the 60i, it seems more camcorder style which throws off the look of professional footage. 60i is great, but nothing is like 24p.
1brannon10 3 years ago
The 60i looks cleaner more like tv but 24p has a film look and on youtube you can't really see
subartone 3 years ago
you might get by on 30, but 60 gives the film a completely different feel. always go 24p if you have it.
cptmx 3 years ago
24p vs 60i makes a big difference colour wise if you take the time to white balance. 60i obviously captures better motion. Also, you'd be able to see a much more notable difference in a color saturated scene as opposed to the dark rainy day that you were shooting in.
Skapo 3 years ago
You can't see the difference on youtube, its only 29. something or 24. They don't have enough bandwidth for 60i.
KingR3aper 3 years ago
The bigger difference is in the exposure. Also, the second is more of a 16:9, so it will look more artistic by default.
Matrixdragon99 3 years ago
You can't really tell because the Youtube frame rate is playing at 30p. And true 24p makes a huge difference when compared to a well composed and color graded 60i clip. The best example is broadcast football games. The DOF on close-ups is often very shallow, and colors are very nice, but it doesn't come close to looking like film.
thelordoftheringsfan 3 years ago
well for YouTube it doesn't matter at all what format... but on a screen, I would say that the 24p was a tiny bit better. usually it doesn't make a difference too much. but i would take color corrected 30i over regular 24p
pfranks44 3 years ago
24p definitely.
stevenstreet483 3 years ago
Hey why the bars are much bigger with 60i? Just because of the mattebox or thats the 60i format?
casinoman123 4 years ago
oh yeah and its not matte box i believe you cropped it? and its under effects as matte
jaimedelgado 4 years ago
thats what i meant
QuestionMarkCo 4 years ago
If it were viewed on a TV, 24p by far. With a TV screen that actually interlaces 60i looks like the news, always.
AndrewReyna 4 years ago
Very true
QuestionMarkCo 4 years ago
very very true and true progressive video is so much better than working with 60interlaced the reason most people use 24p is for trnsfer to film it makes it a whole lot easier. what did you shoot this one?
jaimedelgado 4 years ago
i shot it 60i converted to 24p
QuestionMarkCo 4 years ago
i prefer 24pN to pA
QuestionMarkCo 4 years ago
I still prefer 24pA. As long as you color correct. Actually you can shoot with a crappy hi 8 camera but if you color correct...it can look good. haha
theappleseedcast 4 years ago
yes you can
Which would you rather have, 24p, or. Color corrected 60i
QuestionMarkCo 4 years ago
24p color corrected or even 30p
jaimedelgado 4 years ago
progressive fo sho
QuestionMarkCo 4 years ago
hmmm. im a lil confused. you can still colour correct when the frame rate is 24p, can you not?
andrewpearce89 4 years ago
They both look fine. But in my opinion, 60p is the best :D
QwertyProd 4 years ago