Testing123 said:
FTFY

When the D7000 is marketed as a viable part of a 3D workflow the complaint will be valid. ;)

In the excerpts from interview, Jackson noted a blur during motion, pans he now finds distracting when he watches 24fps movies in theatre now that he has realized the improvement with higher frame rate. While nausea watching 3D may be a driving force, he didn't seem to place his comments in that context.

Comment had nothing to do with D7000 (which I happily own and use for non-professional applications to make 1080p 24 images which is coincidentally what my TV can handle.

Hi WaterEngineer,

Thanks for you most kind words.

I've re-read the thread. The 24P thing won't die.

Aesthetically, folks ache for it, but it's a dog that just won't hunt. It's (the 24fps rate) is a rate based in the history of film, not in any, well, thing in fact.

There was a paper that someone did somewhere to prove that 24fps was just more 'pleasing' that was, a well, best said, a non-academic exercise. It didn't get vetted in any publishing circles, and the only folks I've seen to cite it are those who seem to hang on to 24fps for something akin to a semi-religious zeal.

Those who are into film making and have investments certainly want 24fps (if that is the equipment they have) to survive, but common sense says it won't. Digital cinema is designed to accommodate all frame rates that can be achieved creative process. Sixty frames per second will likely be the 'next' best thing, but it isn't a ceiling.

My best,

Mike

Mike G:

Thank you. Once again you bring a clear, reasoned explanation to the table. Thank you.

- Craig

The Man From Mandrem said:
Peter Jackson reported to be moving to 48fps for the Hobbit because 24fps creates distracting blur during pan and fast motion in the 3D effects

FTFY

When the D7000 is marketed as a viable part of a 3D workflow the complaint will be valid. ;)

Peter Jackson reported to be moving to 48fps for the Hobbit because 24fps creates distracting blur during pan and fast motion. 24fps RIP.

Engadget has an item today with this as the title: "James Cameron ponders 48 or 60fps shooting of future Avatar films" .....

subpardaemon said:
ok, well, i kinda understand why not having true 24fps is not such a big deal. however, not having 25fps@1080p _is_. why?

well, i live in hungary, that is, in europe, and it means that our electricity network operates at 50hz. now, lacking 25fps at full HD means that i can't record *anything* with artificial lights in 1080p as the light will start producing moving bands across the frame above 1/60 shutter.

THIS IS A SERIOUS BLUNDER, it, in effect, renders the D7000 (and the D3100) impossible to use at 1080p when not shooting with available light.

i don't know if this can be fixed with a firmware patch -- i seriously hope so. if the lack of 25fps@1080p is due to not having enough hardware calculation resources, well, by all means, disable the autofocus (which is crappy, anyway, but who cares) in the 25fps@1080p mode.

i feel like starting a petition... anyone from a 50hz area wanting to join?

subpardaemon said:
ok, well, i kinda understand why not having true 24fps is not such a big deal. however, not having 25fps@1080p _is_. why?

well, i live in hungary, that is, in europe, and it means that our electricity network operates at 50hz. now, lacking 25fps at full HD means that i can't record *anything* with artificial lights in 1080p as the light will start producing moving bands across the frame above 1/60 shutter.

THIS IS A SERIOUS BLUNDER, it, in effect, renders the D7000 (and the D3100) impossible to use at 1080p when not shooting with available light.

i don't know if this can be fixed with a firmware patch -- i seriously hope so. if the lack of 25fps@1080p is due to not having enough hardware calculation resources, well, by all means, disable the autofocus (which is crappy, anyway, but who cares) in the 25fps@1080p mode.

i feel like starting a petition... anyone from a 50hz area wanting to join?

shoot with 1/50 or 1/100 will help you. You will not get the moving bands across the frame.(or any shooter speed that can divide to 50.... 1/150, 1/200, 1/250...)
in USA the electricity network operates at 60hz. , to don't get the moving bands across the frame they will shoot with 1/60, 1/120.

sorry, typo: "create one more info display MODE"

well, as much as i've heard, canon made the same slipup in the beginning, so it's very likely nikon will release a firmware patch. i'm actually gathering data and experience to write up a sober petition that would ask nikon to release a patched firmware that supports:
- 25fps @ 1080p (it is a MUST), even at the price of sacrificing of autofocus in video mode, which is pretty useless anyway
- if possible, 30fps at 720p (30fps at 1080p might be stretching the firmware too thin, but at 720p it might be possible)
- turn off autofocus field indicators (and follow mode) when autofocus is turned off on the body -- if one doesn't use autofocus anyway, they just clutter up the screen
- create one more info display more (or change one of the existing ones), like a "filmmaker" mode, that would display the following:
-- rec sign (same as it is now)
-- the microphone sign should move to the frame cut area
-- if possible, add a current volume gain display (four- or five-segmented, indicating low, normalx2/x3, too high)
-- the mode display (eg 720p@25) should also move to the frame cut area
-- grid to show 2.35:1 cut area, and possibly, "thirding" lines; grid lines should be less direct than they are now
-- the frame cut area should be more indicative than it is now
-- in essence, the actual shooting area display should be as clutter-free as possible

anyone agree?

subpardaemon said:
ok, well, i kinda understand why not having true 24fps is not such a big deal. however, not having 25fps@1080p _is_. why?

well, i live in hungary, that is, in europe, and it means that our electricity network operates at 50hz. now, lacking 25fps at full HD means that i can't record *anything* with artificial lights in 1080p as the light will start producing moving bands across the frame above 1/60 shutter.

THIS IS A SERIOUS BLUNDER, it, in effect, renders the D7000 (and the D3100) impossible to use at 1080p when not shooting with available light.

i don't know if this can be fixed with a firmware patch -- i seriously hope so. if the lack of 25fps@1080p is due to not having enough hardware calculation resources, well, by all means, disable the autofocus (which is crappy, anyway, but who cares) in the 25fps@1080p mode.

i feel like starting a petition... anyone from a 50hz area wanting to join?

I agree, I don't understand why Nikon has slipped up so much, what a blunder, Cannon will be laughing again at them over this.

thanks, mike.

however: i already bought my d7000, and it drained me financially quite well, so buying another camera is out of the question for me.

however, there already seems to be a petition going at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/d7000video/ , so i'm not alone with this blues. although they want more, i'd be happy settled with a 1080p@25fps option -- and today at my camera shop they said, off the record, that nikon is likely to have a firmware update soon to fix this omission.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your point.

However, it's fundamental that everyone get that it _is_ the technical reason for 24fps _in the first place_.

It is the raison d'être for a 24P in the video cameras.

Moreover, and much more importantly, it's the foundation - the basis - for the aesthetic choice, not the choice itself.

I totally disagree, however, in the basis for that choice. It's dumb-ish, if not downright dumb.

But that's another thread.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:

Well, sort of yes, there is. It comes from the film's rotating shutter being open 1/48th of a second

[...]

True, i am well aware of this, but i see shutter angle and shutter speed of 1/48, 1/60 and 1/125 as also being a "asthetic" choice not a technical limitation.

Though now that i think about it you could say that about almost anything in photo/cinema.

my point is just that its all a matter of taste and what tastemakers agree what is characteristic of "good" cinematography.

subpardaemon said:
(ok, in all fairness, i know that there is specialty lighting equipment that operates at a frequency that does not cause this banding -- they are used for high-budget filmmaking, and they are expensive. i already have a modest lighting grid, and i don't think the camera should tell me that i can't use it.)

Hi sub,

I totally 'get' that and feel your pain.

Where I was coming from was a multiple lack of options missing from the frame rate menu, something that a serious consumer would be looking for in a movie making tool. It might be beyond the D7K's market audience.

There's plenty of good news on the horizon. Sony recently announced a professional upgrade to the Nex-VG10 that "plans to implement 1080p (60p / 30p / 24p or 50p / 25p)". Since they use the same size sensor and Nikon adapters are available for the mounts, they should be better video/filmmaking cameras and use the Nikon-made lenses easily.

My best,

Mike

(ok, in all fairness, i know that there is specialty lighting equipment that operates at a frequency that does not cause this banding -- they are used for high-budget filmmaking, and they are expensive. i already have a modest lighting grid, and i don't think the camera should tell me that i can't use it.)

ok, well, i kinda understand why not having true 24fps is not such a big deal. however, not having 25fps@1080p _is_. why?

well, i live in hungary, that is, in europe, and it means that our electricity network operates at 50hz. now, lacking 25fps at full HD means that i can't record *anything* with artificial lights in 1080p as the light will start producing moving bands across the frame above 1/60 shutter.

THIS IS A SERIOUS BLUNDER, it, in effect, renders the D7000 (and the D3100) impossible to use at 1080p when not shooting with available light.

i don't know if this can be fixed with a firmware patch -- i seriously hope so. if the lack of 25fps@1080p is due to not having enough hardware calculation resources, well, by all means, disable the autofocus (which is crappy, anyway, but who cares) in the 25fps@1080p mode.

i feel like starting a petition... anyone from a 50hz area wanting to join?

gelu88 said:
There is no technical reason why 24fps is the standard, and for content like sports its mostly shot fast anyways. But for creative filmmakers, 24fps has a "look" that has been associated with quality, while 30fps is associated with live TV/news broadcasts and home movies.

it might take a whole generation that grew up on youtube clips for that perception to change, and it might not even then.

Hi,

Well, sort of yes, there is. It comes from the film's rotating shutter being open 1/48th of a second - which is the shutter speed of all motion film cameras, but they shoot 24 frames per second. More advanced cameras have shutters with adjustable angles. If you have an analog light meter (and I haven't upgraded to digital), it will show you the cine speed dot at about 1/48th. (And if you don't have a light meter, well...):-)

Electronic video cameras, _per se_ don't really have shutters. It's very convenient to think in analog terms, but really the pickup is with CMOS or CCD sensors.

Although that is the standard, it doesn't mean it is a concrete ceiling. Talkies are what made it all standard. Movie theaters _had_ to have a standard to sell movies to theaters everywhere - if there wasn't a single standard rate, the movies wouldn't play correctly at each theater with asynchronous sound.

That 'look' however is so much more about other things than cadence of frame rate. Any film maker who thinks that 24p is going to make or break his/her production likely doesn't have much of a script to break.

@jbl

"About the soon too vanish 24frames, I bet some hardcore film enthusiasts of indie filmmaker using DSLRs or RED cameras would disagree..."

Yeah, probably, I DP a couple of shows on Discovery and Outdoors Channel here in the USA, and they are shot at 60fps at 720P. A lot of the action shows are at 60p for crispness. Granted, there's a time for 'softness', too.

Which is what makes digital delivery exciting. One can shoot to taste and delivery exactly to taste. There doesn't need to be any filter from director to audience. Whatever the producer, director and editor put together is what theater shows.

Neat.

My best,

Mike

There is no technical reason why 24fps is the standard, and for content like sports its mostly shot fast anyways. But for creative filmmakers, 24fps has a "look" that has been associated with quality, while 30fps is associated with live TV/news broadcasts and home movies.

it might take a whole generation that grew up on youtube clips for that perception to change, and it might not even then.

About the soon too vanish 24frames, I bet some hardcore film enthusiasts of indie filmmaker using DSLRs or RED cameras would disagree, however I believe that this particular movie look has way more to do with the short depth of field, high dynamic range images, great colors and perhaps the shutter speed (that famous 1/48) than with the 24fps itself.

I believe some studies prove that even though the human might not notice it, we can still "feel" images better when the frame rate is higher than 30. I think around 70 was recorded as being the breakpoint where a faster frame rate doesn't really enhance the image.

I think we should try to aim at least 60 fps as a standard in movies.. However, since slow motion is such a eye candy, I can't wait for faster frame rates in high resolution cameras... Of course I could get a Phantom HD or a RED, but I don't have that budget yet.

Hi,

The answer to 23.976 has to do with time code and timing all the content and color on the timeline which is an extremely complicated process. If you don't do broadcast editing, then likely it won't make much sense to you.

I doubt that you would have much trouble in increasing the rate of the content 1fps (more or less) for broadcast in PAL world, if you wanted to. The amount of what one could perceive from synchronization lost over small clips (a few minutes at most) would be trivial.

As to why or how Nikon didn't include for adding a true 24fps (it really would be troublesome to a lot of day-to-day editors), but it could have been a choice, and 25fps should have been included. More importantly, 30fps should have been included as well as 60p at 720.

There are a lot of options, as far as I'm concerned, that were left out of the motion picture menu.

But back to topic, the reality is that most broadcast rates will benefit from 30fps than 24fps for fluid motion. 24fps is herkey jerky. It is great if you want to take your video to film, but I really doubt that many will do that. OTOH, some will want to broadcast their video where it will benefit from smoother higher frame rates.

We're not too far from digital delivery of movies anyway. I suspect that 24fps will go the way of T-Rex. We'll be looking at much higher frame rates soon.

My best,

Mike

Because broadcast is not 24, for projection it doesn't matter, and as to the 25 IDK why they didn't, but (nearly) all 25 FPS content originally from the US is sped up 23.976 anyhoo.

one thing i don't get: why isn't there a true 24fps mode on the d7000? it's a hard 0.024 fps difference, and it would come in handy in some cases. also, why no 25fps@1080p, is that ONE fps so hard to achieve? does anyone have any info why these two modes are off limits in the d7000?