Hey Dan,
Funny story for you: Last year I got involved in the post of a
big-budget prime-time PBS show. The E.P. told he'd shot in 24p, and
the director and the DP were all very proud of the "film look." (I
wasn't involved in the shooting, only the post.)
So anyway I start in by backing up the files (KiPro & Red) & I'm
not paying too much attention to the content. But I'm sorta curious
about how the files will play on different CPUs, so I put a couple of
files on a flash drive and take it to a friend's 3-year-old MacBook
for a look-see. So I'm playing some KiPro files looking for dropped
frames and a light bulb goes off over my head - WTF, this doesn't look
like 24 fps! And sure enough, I go back to my Avid and step
frame-by-frame through the slate, and clear as day, there are 30
distinct frames in each second.
Yup, they shot the whole thing (KiPro from a Varicam, and Red) at
30fps, not 24fps. And the yup, the E.P., the director, the DP, and
the AC were all looking at monitors on the set and never noticed it.
Just last month I ran into the AC on a set, and he said "Hey, I heard
that you think we shot the [redacted] show at 30fps, not 24fps." I
said "I don't think, I know." And I showed him a PDF I'd made of 30
frame grabs from a slate.
So that tells you what people "like" about "24Pness." Sheesh.
Wilson
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Dan McCabe <danlist@bestmail.us> wrote:
> I think Bouke's point is that shooting 24P in general is dopey
> unless you have European partners/markets or theater release in
> mind. And an interesting point it is. I guess my question would
> be how much of the "film look" that people in the States like is
> the cadence of 3:2 pull down and not really 24Pness? It's the way
> folks have watched film on TV in the States forever.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment