Fatalfury

Fascinating. 
 
Super wealthy hobbyists who make fancy home movies think 24p doesn’t look like cinema having never actually made anything with actors or working with a crew and using their family as their evidence of audience approval.  
Little to no understanding of the difference between acquisition frame rate and distribution or display refresh rate in multiple environments or global territories but still drawing conclusions. 
 
So many experts one one place. How lucky we all are. 
 
 

I was wondering if the conversation would get to discussing this.
I was curious some time ago and did some testing and some math.  
In testing I can see the difference between 24p and 30p easily, on both a 60p display or a display that is set to the native frame rate.  The difference is obvious and the look of 30p is quite distasteful to me, regardless of the display frame rate / refresh rate.
24p on a 60p display does indeed introduce jitter in the timing of the frames (where the frames displayed are "nearest" and not synthesised from multiple frames in the source material).  When you go to higher frame rates the jitter becomes less, with 120p being an even multiple of 24p, so the jitter of 24p will be eliminated or drastically reduced with higher display frame rates.
In the math I did, I was surprised to see that capture frame rates are remarkably preserved even if put through different frame-rate timelines / displays etc.  
Assuming I didn't screw up the logic, here's what you see when watching 24p source material on 30p display.  Timing is all over the place, but for whatever reason both 24p on a 24p display as well as the below are still preferable to 30p for me.

What becomes interesting is when we shoot 30p, put it on a 24p timeline, and then display it on a 30p display:
 

Apart from a doubled-up frame every so often (because there are only 24 frames per second to choose from), the 30p is completely resurrected!
I have wondered if Netflix etc apps on smart TVs actually change the frame rate based on the source material or if they just run the TV at some fps and pick the nearest frame to display.  I have been meaning to test my TV with my phone (recording the screen with 240fps slow motion and then reviewing the footage and counting the frames is pretty straight-forwards).
TLDR;
24p is far superior to 30p/60p regardless of display refresh rate (for me anyway) When displays move to faster refresh rates the jitter from 24p sources will be reduced / eliminated Frame rate conversions can involve interesting time-aliasing effects where the time-resolution of some frame rates can pass through almost completely in-tact

Yeah, it doesn't look right at 24fps, probably converted from 120p to 24p has something to do with as the shutter speed isn't 180 degrees.
?
Your 60p video got a like on youtube and that's why hfr is better than 24p?

It is so.

But does it look better?

Yada, yada, yada - 24 fps looks great and that's why it's still 99.9999% of filmmakers choice even if they aren't technologically limited to use it. At the same time we are still limited to 50/60p, should higher frame rate is needed, but...
....look at this (the effect is especially noticeable when viewed full screen):

For comparison, same director.
Isn't it obvious? 
Here is Gemini Man in 24p if anyone would like to compare:
_
Yet interestingly, Gemini Man was shot in 120p. Would really love to see for curiosity sake but it's not available anywhere in 120fps. Is there even a video player that can play 120fps in real time, available at all in 2023?

Yada, yada, yada - 24 fps looks great and that's why it's still 99.9999% of filmmakers choice even if they aren't technologically limited to use it. At the same time we are still limited to 50/60p, should higher frame rate is needed, but...
....look at this (the effect is especially noticeable when viewed full screen):

For comparison, same director.
Isn't it obvious? 
Here is Gemini Man in 24p if anyone would like to compare:
_
Yet interestingly, Gemini Man was shot in 120p. Would really love to see for curiosity sake but it's not available anywhere in 120fps. Is there even a video player that can play 120fps in real time, available at all in 2023?

@zlfan with the due respect and pretty friendly... what else? ; )
Please let this community know WTH of shit you're smoking? : D
I'm saying this 'cause people respond to you and you insist on the same argument as before like going on circles... LOL
You obviously don't read the replies you ask, as a lot of others among us have expressed such concern about so particular world of your own, dude... : P

I've also decided to opt out.  The problem with these engineering technical I read it on the internet types and have an opinion clowns is that they are demonstrably wrong.  
Even when you point it out to them they seem to ignore that and move onto their next tightly held narrow idea.  
They post opinions as fact and only demonstrate what they do not know or understand.  I've stopped bothering to point out their misinformation.  I think the rest of the posters here understand where they are off on their own.  
Even in the last two pages they've made some really stupid claims without understanding filmmaking fundamentals. They won't even know what I'm alluding to, but it shows that they have only a little understanding of the technology.  Just like one thought Titanic was shot HFR.  Why bother if they don't want to truly learn or understand.

Agreed. Not to mention OP couldn't probably tell a difference between 24/48 (Titanic being 48p turned out to be factually wrong).
I also find it funny when people think 50/60p is anything close to real life, as 50p is technologically still heavily compromised. For human eye it is certainly much smoother than 24p, but it's also it has this weird motion that sits in somewhere between 100 and 24, where the footage somehow ends up looking actually less real and seems hollow compared to the cinema standard. If you want your production to have videogamey/behind the scenes/soapy/whatever look, then go ahead. But no, it doesn't look real.
When we talk about realism that can fool the eye, it starts from 100 fps minimum. Yet I think none of the cinema projectors currently in use are technically able to show 100 fps material, most TV's in use also don't have the ability. YouTube is capped at 60, not to mention streaming services. There is a long way to go.
But once we are there, even then 24p will have it's place, as it has been said multiple times in this thread, that people experiencing movies crave to escape from the reality and 24p is perfect for that.
But don't tell me 50p = realism.
 

Agreed. Not to mention OP couldn't probably tell a difference between 24/48 (Titanic being 48p turned out to be factually wrong).
I also find it funny when people think 50/60p is anything close to real life, as 50p is technologically still heavily compromised. For human eye it is certainly much smoother than 24p, but it's also it has this weird motion that sits in somewhere between 100 and 24, where the footage somehow ends up looking actually less real and seems hollow compared to the cinema standard. If you want your production to have videogamey/behind the scenes/soapy/whatever look, then go ahead. But no, it doesn't look real.
When we talk about realism that can fool the eye, it starts from 100 fps minimum. Yet I think none of the cinema projectors currently in use are technically able to show 100 fps material, most TV's in use also don't have the ability. YouTube is capped at 60, not to mention streaming services. There is a long way to go.
But once we are there, even then 24p will have it's place, as it has been said multiple times in this thread, that people experiencing movies crave to escape from the reality and 24p is perfect for that.
But don't tell me 50p = realism.
 

No, it's not an echo chamber, and people are free to have whatever perspectives they want.
But take this thread as an example.  It started off by saying that 24p was only chosen as a technical compromise, and that more is better.  
Here we are, 9 pages later, and what have we learned?
The OP has argued that 60p is better because it's better.  What does better even mean?  What goal are they trying to achieve?  They haven't specified.  They've shown no signs of knowing what the purpose of cinema really is. You prefer 60p.  But you also think that cinema should be as realistic as possible, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  You are also not interested in making things intentionally un-realistic. Everyone else understands that 24p is better because they understand the goal is for creative expression, not realism. If we talk about literally any other aspect of film-making, are we going to get the same argument again, where you think something is crap because you have a completely different set of goals to the rest of us?
Also, the entire tone from the OP was one of confrontation and arguing for its own sake.  Do you think there was any learning here?
I am under no illusions.  I didn't post because I thought you or the OP had an information deficit, but were keen to learn and evolve your opinion.  I posted because the internet is full of people who think technical specifications are the only things that matter and don't think about cameras in the context of the end result, they think of them as some sort of theoretical engineering challenge with no practical purpose.
A frequently quoted parallel is that no-one cared about what paint brushes Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel except 1) painters at a similar level who are trying to take every advantage to achieve perfection, and 2) people that don't know anything about painting and think the tools make the artist.
I like the tech just as much as the next person, but at the end of the day "better" has to be defined against some sort of goal, and your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV.  Further to that, the entire method of thinking is different too - yours is a goal to push to one extreme (the most realistic) and the goal of cinema and TV is to find the optimum point (the right balance between things looking real and un-real).

Just got a gaming laptop and have tried some games in 120fps fully synced with the monitor and the difference between 60 and 120 is pretty damn huge. 120 - 200 and the difference is getting smaller. But since it's still a game engine, it doesn't look real but the slippery motion is eliminated. But sometimes I like the slippery motion in games a la fighting, arcade games etc.
Haven't tested with any real time high frame rate real life footage yet. My guess the result is the same, slippery look is eliminated. But even then, in the end I guess I will always prefer 24fps as it makes the visuals larger than life. But it will surely gain traction in the future.

It's not a bad thread though : ) I think it has ended more a promotion of 24p as preferred frame rate delivery than its opposite! LOL : ) Looking it from both perspectives and each arguments seems 24p is well alive! ; ) Not that we had the need for such discussion but they came so powerful on bright and nonsensical sides respectively I believe we are still more comfortable on the natural side of the thongs... oops, things! : D
 



 
 

It's not a bad thread though : ) I think it has ended more a promotion of 24p as preferred frame rate delivery than its opposite! LOL : )

I guess you're in the 1% who actually liked the horrendously artificial movement fluidity of the movie.
And that's coming from a guy who has read every Tolkien book and movie ever produced (yes including the animated ones).
The contraste between the CGI and the real-life characters of The Hobbit is jarring and imposible to "un-see".
Progress is great except when it makes something worse, friend. 

@Andrew Reid wouldn't you like to pass the buck with a nice review of the GH6 and, maybe, one last artistic shot?

Hello to everyone on the forum!
A Merry Christmas from me!
I hope you're looking forward to having a good break over the holidays and are ready to welcome in 2022. Talking of holidays - I have been having a break from EOSHD for a few months. I went and sat on a hill and finally had time to reflect on my work which is this blog and the community around it. The last video had a lot of support, it's made me really appreciate what I have in a more positive light. I'm mega appreciative of the people who took the time to say how EOSHD has helped them over the years and that they want it to continue.
So that's what we'll do! EOSHD is back.
Read the full blog post here

Like the original Pocket6K, there is a far bigger argument for it having an MFT mount.
You can still have electronic control of EF lenses with non-speedboosted adapters, you can have a windowed mode for the native MFT electronic lenses, the manual MFT lenses like Voigtlander and Meike etc all cover the s35 sensor and of course, with the shallower mount, you are able to put PL mount lenses on it.
It makes it a lot more sense for P4K owners to upgrade to/replace/augment their setups as well.
Like JVC found though, trying to undo the pre-conceived notion of the relationship between the mount size and the sensor size being absolute is a bit of a tough sell.
To be fair, Blackmagic also have their higher end cameras with EF mount so from the point of view of the Pocket6K being a B cam for those it makes sense.
I'd be interested to know from which direction the majority of the Pocket6K sales are coming though, as A cams for Pocket4K/new owners or B cams for Ursa owners.
Going the sidefinder route like Sigma have with the Fp so that all three flavours of Pocket could have had benefited from the new EVF would have been nice.
 
 

This makes G9 very appealing but with all these improvements they should also remove recording time limit (30min in 25/30p, 10 min in 50/60p).
And no 10bit in 24p? 

On November 19th the G9 will almost become a GH5 with the 2.0 firmware, which includes:
"3. Enhanced video functions (G9)
・4K 30p/25p 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording is supported.
・4K 60p/50p 4:2:2 10-bit HDMI output is supported.
・Luminance level for 10-bit video is supported.
・VFR (Variable Frame Rate) shooting is supported (FHD 2-180 fps/4K 2-60 fps).
・HDR video recording is supported.
・V-Log L recording and Waveform Monitor (WFM) are available with the Upgrade Software Key DMW-SFU1 (sold separately)."
Diving a bit deeper, could this be an indication that Panasonic is getting ready to announce the GH6? 

What about the Mitakon 85 1.2 in EF mount?
I do love my old 85 1.2 FD but it has the dissolving bearings problem some FD lenses have so focus is very loose.      You could always get a FD to M43 focal reducer to go with the FD 85 1.2.

I think it looks eerily similar to the new Ghost in the Shell film, very pretty indeed but too sterile and glossy. Doesn't feature the depth of the original, same thing with Alien: Covenant. The music on the first half is good (because it's a version of the original Vangelis soundtrack, though not as good), the rest of it sounds cheap imo, standard modern action trailer background music that has no place in BR universe. I thought they would go the extra mile with this, currently it does not look very promising.

It is already... https://geizhals.eu/?cat=dcamsp&xf=516_Panasonic&asuch=GH5&bpmax=&v=e&hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=pl&hloc=uk&hloc=eu&plz=&dist=&mail=&sort=n
UK, e.g. http://www.wexphotographic.com/search/?q=GH5&search_type=All , https://www.ukdigital.co.uk/panasonic-lumix-dc-gh5-body.html
I could walk out of my door, go to a store and pick one up in person as we speak.