Combat/Reality Frame Rate

[Scott M]

As my goal of dedicated historical filming overseas on the RED moves along slowly (getting more traction lately), I wanted to find out some opinions on what the frame rate should be if I get the opportunity.

I inherently want to shoot at 24 for the look/feel but perhaps 30 is more appropriate? What would you hope the footage would be returning at for modern/historical use?

Here is the link to my presentation piece which I shot (Via RED at 24fps) earlier this year in Afghanistan: http://vimeo.com/1021632

[Nick Gardner]

Hi there,

24 (23.98) FPS will be the best archival medium, if for only the reason that it transfers well to 30 (TV- with 3-2 pull down) and International (Pal -25fps), and to 35mm film if need be. Plus it's what movies is ;-)

Really enjoyed your footage,

Nick Gardner

[Harmonica]

What a beautiful piece and worthy endeavor. Best of luck to you!

I would agree with you on choosing 24 for the look/feel, plus you can get more out of over-cranked footage. (120/24=5, whereas 120/30=4)

PS- Thanks for your service!

[Shawn Booth]

MrGlory -

As your title tells us, "combat/reality" frame rate, one would naturally suggest 29.97. Especially for "reality".

Combat photography switched to video and has been 29.97 for sometime, you know this, but that's based on what DoD purchased and what was available. With you using RED, the field changes ever so slightly.

Look at actual combat shot, and shot at 24 fps, what do YOU think? How is it? When I shot in the army, I was usually one of the only people watching my footage before it was "turned in" and whisked away. That was 94-95, perhaps it's different now...

[Nick Gardner]

Just restating what I said before, 23.98 gives you the most options. 30fps transfered to PAL looks like death. Call Getty and ask what they prefer - 23.98 PSF HDCAM. 23.98 is the most universal, and there fore in my opinion, the best archive choice. All of the footage shot by the armed forces up till betacam was shot on film at 24 fps. The fact that they switched to 30fps when video came along doesn't mean it was a good choice, it was the only choice available.

No disrespect meant to mister Booth, just my opinion.

Nick Gardner

[Shawn Booth]

None taken sir. I was just pointing out that that combat footage has been 29.97 for a while now. Perhaps he should stick with it for the DoD.

[Scott M]

With you using RED, the field changes ever so slightly.

Exactly, I think the opportunity to shoot at 24fps again immediately gives it a historical look/aesthetic, but can't decide whether it's most appropriate for modern history. Just looking for additional perspectives from those that would be consumers/viewers/editors of such history/footage from this point out.


Just restating what I said before, 23.98 gives you the most options. 30fps transfered to PAL looks like death. Call Getty and ask what they prefer - 23.98 PSF HDCAM. 23.98 is the most universal, and there fore in my opinion, the best archive choice.

Good point, this makes a good case for a reason to stay with 24 (23.98) beyond the aesthetic.

[Shawn Booth]

All of the footage shot by the armed forces up till betacam was shot on film at 24 fps.

Not all. There was a time when it was slower.

MrGlory -

If DoD is cool with it, stick with 23.98. I don't think it matters what the consumers/viewers think -

[Philip Lima]

I really like the look of 24p personally as a viewer and I have to say, after just finishing(editor) a doc that included 5 different formats, one of which was RED 24p, I think it is the most universal there is at this time.

As a side note, your footage you have posted on vimeo is downright spectacular. Your an amazing and brave cinematographer to take a Red into situations as you did. What you came away with is beautiful.

I noticed from your avatar picture, what are you using to hold the camera? Its hard to tell from such a small picture, but it doesn't like as big as a steadycam. Whatever it is, I'm impressed, your shots are excellent!

[Scott M]

If DoD is cool with it, stick with 23.98. I don't think it matters what the consumers/viewers think -

Interestingly enough, they're not even setup to take in HD right now through DVIDS or (it's new replacement). This will be new precedent of sorts, and that's what got me thinking about where to take it from here.


We eventually will go to HD. Right now we are still in SD so that is all we are working with.

Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com (http://www.good.com))


-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXX
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: XXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXX
Subject: RE: Cinema Quality Military Footage

If we can handle the format then I'd say we'd be happy to take it in. XXXX any insight?

[Nick Gardner]

Ah modern history....I do a lot of period pieces and the way something is shot really does impact the perception of the content. For example, I find that doing zooms on a show set in the 1500's just takes you right out of the story. I don't think people who watch footage from Vietnam, or D-day, or the Korean war think it is any less "Real". I do agree that people associate 30fps/60i whatever as "Live". I think that now that we can shoot 24fps again perceptions are going to change. A lot of reality shows are shooting 24fps now, and I have seen a bunch of combat footage from Iraq shot on HD at 24PFS. I think that in the next few years everyone will get used to seeing "video" footage at 24fps and it will be back to like before video tape, when it was lighting and shooting that told you whether you were watching a beer comercial or a commercial for The Carpet Ware House.

Also 30psf is a lot less hatefull than 60i, but it still has that look.

I am waiting for a plane so I have nothing better to do than sit here and type, but it is an interesting question about perception and the apropriate way to use the camera to tell the story.

Nick Gardner

[Shawn Booth]

I think it's settled then?

(It's true, there is a lot of military HD material out there, especially for the Marine Corp.)

[Scott M]

As a side note, your footage you have posted on vimeo is downright spectacular.

Thank you very much, my main goal in life right now is to be able to film this footage on a dedicated assignment (I've only been able to film on the side so far).

Here is my favorite still grab from the RED footage I was able to shoot http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/262/allsquiet1080kg3.th.jpg (http://img359.imageshack.us/my.php?image=allsquiet1080kg3.jpg)

And 4K: link (http://www.glorycubed.com/%7Ehpxbct/allsquietx.jpg)



I noticed from your avatar picture, what are you using to hold the camera? Its hard to tell from such a small picture, but it doesn't like as big as a steadycam. Whatever it is, I'm impressed, your shots are excellent!

My avatar photo was actually from my first deployment in 2003 where I used the Canon XL1, that's just an M16 hanging around my neck.
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/7386/filmingeb3.th.jpg (http://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=filmingeb3.jpg)

[Scott M]

(It's true, there is a lot of military HD material out there, especially for the Marine Corp.)

Yes, the Marines hopped on the HD bandwagon very quickly, and when I was in Afghanistan the first time they were my inspiration and motivation to continue trying to shoot at a more cinematic yet historical style for the Army. When I ended up home I was lucky enough to be picked to shoot on the National Guard's theater campaign (on Panavised F900's) which was co-developed with the company that produced those ads I watched in Afghanistan (American Rogue). I have since brought the National Guard's internal production suite up to HD first on Varicams and then P2 cameras along with Final Cut (up from Canons and Avid). But when it comes to the RED, that bridge is fully there now for that intrinsic filmic quality to return, not on a system sweeping scale but at least a small team level, and that's my goal.

[Steve Gibby]

Mr Glory,

We've talked a few times. Good to see you having fun with RED!

I've been shooting with RED for over 10 months now, in a wide variety of productions: commercials, television programs, features, and high-end business projects. I don't specifically shoot DoD projects, but as you know I'm a veteran.

We're in the middle of producing several TV programs and features right now, using several REDs and also some other cameras. The subject matters are natural history and adventure travel. This involves shooting everything from aesthetic beauty sequences, to high action sequences - a mix that is similar to what you need to shoot in your DoD work.

Our frame rate approach? We always analyze each sequence to be shot, then brainstorm the camera, lens, resolution, frame rate, and shutter speed that will best achieve the "look" of the footage that will best illustrate the portion of the story we will be wanting to tell with that particular sequence. For low-motion beauty shot sequences, to be cut into mood montages and aesthetically softer sequences, we usually use RED in 4k/23.98/48th second shutter. For higher action sequences to be shot in 4k, we usually use 4k/29.97/96th second shutter because the 6 frame slow down when footage is played in a 23.98 timeline, coupled with the faster shutter speed smoothes out the footage and softens judder. For very fast action sequences, where glass smooth slo-mos are needed, we shoot RED at 3k/59.94/192 second shutter.

IMO being stuck in a "24 fps for everything because it is traditional" mind set is anachronistic and artistically limiting. 24 fps is fine for the footage sequences where it is the best choice for telling that particular portion of the story. I'm all for cinematic footage, and I shoot it regularly - but I don't hesitate to use higher or lower frame rates when they are the best choice.

The X factor is the Producer's Guidelines that each television network requires producers/packagers to conform to. You also have technical delivery requirements for your DoD projects.

Each year I judge various national Emmy Awards competitions (PrimeTime, Sports, Daytime, etc.). One key thing I look for while judging is the choices of frame rates and shutter speeds. "24fps no matter what subject matter I'm shooting" mentalities don't impress me in the programs I judge. Matching various frame rates and shutter speeds to best tell each portion of a story does.

Hope this input is beneficial to you...

From one veteran to another on the 4th of July, I hope you have a great Independence Day.

[Scott M]

Hey Steve,

A happy Independence day to you as well.

Thanks for the in-depth response as usual! I will definitely mix up the shutter speed and per shot frame rate, I was curious as to the base/timeline project rate of 23.98 vs. 29.97. Would you agree that without planning the shot and when capturing on the fly in this scenario, shooting 23.98 "over" 23.98 base/timeline is the most appropriate default if no particular standard was requested?

[David Mullen ASC]

Just depends on what your distribution target is. 30 fps is very US-centric, for 480/30P, 480/60i, 720/60P, 1080/60i TV broadcast, DVD release.

It's less friendly for conversion to PAL and European HDTV, which is all 25 fps / 50P / 50i, compared to 24 fps photography.

Even 60i converts to 50i PAL better than 30P does because you have twice as many motion samples to play with.

[Scott M]

Just depends on what your distribution target is.

Thank you for the reply, that's actually why I was looking for input, as there isn't a specific "target" per se. If I am able to bring this to fruition, it will be because no one else is actively doing so on behalf of the military at this level, not because of a specific request. It's purely for historical use as needed/wanted for any reason. Hence I was looking for thoughts on what would be the best default for the widest possible use now and into the future. It would seem from the input so far that 23.98 is the most versatile/adaptable base frame rate. It was my original plan to film at that rate already, but I didn't want to overlook a reason to default to something else more appropriate.

[Steve Gibby]

Hey Steve,

A happy Independence day to you as well.

Thanks for the in-depth response as usual! I will definitely mix up the shutter speed and per shot frame rate, I was curious as to the base/timeline project rate of 23.98 vs. 29.97. Would you agree that without planning the shot and when capturing on the fly in this scenario, shooting 23.98 "over" 23.98 base/timeline is the most appropriate default if no particular standard was requested?

If you're using the RED Drive, and you set up a project rate of 4k/23.98 (16:9 or 2:1, RC28) and you need a higher frame rate for faster motion shots, you can easily use Varispeed to up the frame rate to 30 fps. If your project was set up as 3k/23.98 (16:9) and you needed a higher frame rate, you can use Varispeed to go up to 50 fps. Remember, once the drive is set to a project frame rate, then that is the frame rate that must be used with the drive, except for the usage of Varispeed, which allows you to use variable frame rates over the project frame rate. The caution is that in Varispeed mode audio is disabled, so if you need audio in your faster frame rate shots, then you'll need to set up a higher project frame rate. The obvious workaround if you need audio on all shots is to alternately shoot to the RED Drive and RED CF cards, with each set up for different Project Frame rates, and quickly re-setup the camera to the appropriate project frame rates between drive and card usage.

As Dave Mullen noted, 30fps is U.S.-centric, but since you're shooting for the U.S. Department of Defense, for their applications, then I'd say it is evident that a U.S.-centric path of 30fps makes the most sense. That's why I noted in my original post: "You also have technical delivery requirements for your DoD projects." Since your projects are for a U.S entity, and if they are televised, it would most likely be on a 30p-centric network, I also included this in my original post: "The X factor is the Producer's Guidelines that each television network requires producers/packagers to conform to."

Hope this helps...

[Steve Gibby]

It would seem from the input so far that 23.98 is the most versatile/adaptable base frame rate. It was my original plan to film at that rate already, but I didn't want to overlook a reason to default to something else more appropriate.

23.98 does not handle fast motion subjects well. Your military shooting frequently involves fast motion objects: jets, helicopters, etc. My usual sports and adventure travel productions also involve fast motion objects. Me and my crews simply do not use 23.98 for fast motion objects, but almost always shoot them at frame rates of 30fps and upward from there to smooth out the motion and enable smooth slo-mos. That said, as noted in my original post, we shoot slower motion and stationary scenes a 23.98.

A base frame rate of 23.98 is fine, but in shooting the kind of stuff you shoot, which also involves some fast motion objects, IMO there is a definite need for faster frame rates - thus 23.98 project rate, with Varispeed frame rate increases as I described in my last post should be the ticket.

[Nick Gardner]

23.98 does not handle fast motion subjects well

Yes it looked terrible in black hawk down, the road warrior, saving private ryan, the thin red line, full metal jacket, platoon, apocalypse now, the terminator, or any action movie for that matter:whistling:

Oh yeah I forgot, the 24fps motion blur totally ruined Children of Men for me.

But seriously, I think we are talking about 2 different things. 1 the way the image impacts you emotionally, and 2 are you just collecting data and you want the crispest images you can get.



Nick "Defender of 24p" Gardner

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, if you're not concerned about matching a film look to the motion, then shooting at super high rates like 60 fps or 72 fps will give you the smoothest motion while allowing conversion to slower frame rate delivery formats. But then you get into limits in resolution with the RED, so you may be sacrificing 4K resolution just to achieve more motion samples per second.

As for 30 fps versus 24 fps, 30 fps looks smoother... but I'm not sure the improvement is radical enough to justify if there is any chance of having to release this for 50i European television.

[Scott M]

Well, if you're not concerned about matching a film look to the motion, then shooting at super high rates like 60 fps or 72 fps will give you the smoothest motion while allowing conversion to slower frame rate delivery formats. But then you get into limits in resolution with the RED, so you may be sacrificing 4K resolution just to achieve more motion samples per second.

It would be a larger scale version of what I pieced together in the link in my first post. Occasional overcrank, but mainly capturing the daily operations at the "film" resolution for posterity (not necessarily all action and fast moving vehicles). Right now the still Combat Camera shooters have nice DSLR's with greater and greater resolution, but the standard for motion is still SD. While HD will be an improvement as it filters in, they will still be "run-n-gun" setups to cover the general use scheme. My pitch is to travel around with a RED for most of the shots and a Scarlett when available for tighter spaces, more maneuverability as needed, capturing high quality "slice-of-[military]-life" footage.


As for 30 fps versus 24 fps, 30 fps looks smoother... but I'm not sure the improvement is radical enough to justify if there is any chance of having to release this for 50i European television.

I think this makes the most sense.

[Steve Gibby]

Yes it looked terrible in black hawk down, the road warrior, saving private ryan, the thin red line, full metal jacket, platoon, apocalypse now, the terminator, or any action movie for that matter:whistling:

Oh yeah I forgot, the 24fps motion blur totally ruined Children of Men for me.

But seriously, I think we are talking about 2 different things. 1 the way the image impacts you emotionally, and 2 are you just collecting data and you want the crispest images you can get.



Nick "Defender of 24p" Gardner

Sure, if your taste includes tons of judder and motion blur for a definition of "looks good". :biggrin:

24fps is a traditional cinematic frame rate used for cinematic themed productions. All of your examples are features destined for the big screen. If you look at the top of this forum, it it titled: "EFP/ENG and RED", to differentiate it from the other forums on RED User. I'm the one who originally suggested this forum to Jared, and subsequently wrote the EFP FAQ you'll find at the top of the forum page. If you read that FAQ you'll discover the broad array of EFP genres that RED One can be and is used in - most of which have very little in common with cinema or features - thus they have other aesthetic and technical requirements.

Mr. Glory's initial post asked for input about "Combat/reality frame rate" - something quite different from the movies you quoted.

Whenever you see a smooth slow motion sequence in cinematic productions it is achieved using higher frame rate. You don't get smooth action sequences from 24fps, and thus you certainly don't get smooth slo-mos from 24fps.

The combining of various frame rates, each suited to the content and motion of the shot sequences, delivers a "look and feel" that far surpasses a "24fps for everything approach". A combination FPS and shutter speed approach like I previously outlined accomplishes both goals 1 and 2 you listed above. Even a cinematic feature frequently has scenes where you need to/want to bring the audience into immediacy and "the now". That's where variable frame rates are a valuable tool.

This EFP/ENG and RED forum isn't the best place to stake a "24p is best" claim. There are other forums on RED User where that would be a more valid position.

Steve "I use the appropriate frame rate and shutter speed for each shot to more effectively tell the story" Gibby

[Nick Gardner]

Alright Gibby, I'm going to give this up because I think you are missing my point. I am not advocating a 24fps for everything approach. I am advocating a 24fps base. Higher frame rates for slow mo, slower for time lapse.

Having watched Mr Glory's footage, and reading
It would be a larger scale version of what I pieced together in the link in my first post. Occasional overcrank, but mainly capturing the daily operations at the "film" resolution for posterity (not necessarily all action and fast moving vehicles), my impression was that he is looking at documenting the life of men in service with a feel that is something akin to WWII, greatest generation kind of stuff, and looking at what is the best frame rate for archive material.

I am not sure why you feel the need to try to educate me in ENG/EFP, as it has no relevance at all to the above questions.

But at any rate, good luck Mr. Glory, really liked your stuff.

Nick

[Steve Gibby]

I am not advocating a 24fps for everything approach. I am advocating a 24fps base. Higher frame rates for slow mo, slower for time lapse.

We mostly agree here, with the exception that I feel a 29.97 base frame rate is a better choice for certain genres and types of productions. 23.98 is fine for many others, with the added overcrank and undercrank abilities of Varispeed added in.



Having watched Mr Glory's footage, and reading , my impression was that he is looking at documenting the life of men in service with a feel that is something akin to WWII, greatest generation kind of stuff, and looking at what is the best frame rate for archive material.

I watched his production also. It's good. There were sequences in it that called for higher frame rates: juddered helicopter flying in front of mountains, jets taking off, etc. If his goal is strictly an archival look, then perhaps 24fps throughout is OK. But if he wants to enhance the archival passages with smooth action and slo-mos, then higher frame rates are necessary.



I am not sure why you feel the need to try to educate me in ENG/EFP, as it has no relevance at all to the above questions.

Because this is an EFP/ENG forum, the predominant frame rate for EFP/ENG is not 24fps, and you seemed to not grasp those two facts. What Mr. Glory is shooting is electronic field production (EFP), plain and simple. He's using electronic cameras and shooting in a camera style that is EFP, regardless of the 24p frame rate. He's shooting EFP and this is an EFP forum - I'd call that very relevant.

-------------------

I'm not on one side or the other of the 24p "controversy". I shoot tons of 24p and also tons of other frame rates - again, the frame rate and shutter speed that best tells the story, or portion thereof. NTSC EFP, the genre Mr. Glory is shooting, is generally shot at 30p, 29.97, 59.94, or 60p. If he's after a purely archival look, 23.98 should be fine - with the faster motion sequences shot at higher frame rates.

[Rob Gardner]

.....

[Rob Gardner]

Sure is an interesting debate either way.

[Nick Gardner]

Sent you a PM Mr. Glory

Nick

[Jerry Nichols]

Mr.Glory,
This may be a bit dated, but a heartfelt God Bless You and to those who serve. Awesome footage!
Jerry

[M Hsu]

look. everyone knows that 15fps on youtube is the new reality frame rate. Also if possible, use a camera phone. Cloverfield is the new saving private ryan. :)

[Rob Gardner]

Congrats Mr. Glory for the full page story in Videographer this month. The writer doesn't quite get the camera, but neither did Wired... Nice picture of Scott with the Red hand-held with what looks like an Ang 25-250 (or a surface-to-air missile launcher). Looks pretty light-weight.

Anyway, way to go Scott.
Rob Gardner

[Scott M]

Congrats Mr. Glory for the full page story in Videographer this month. The writer doesn't quite get the camera, but neither did Wired... Nice picture of Scott with the Red hand-held with what looks like an Ang 25-250 (or a surface-to-air missile launcher). Looks pretty light-weight.

Anyway, way to go Scott.
Rob Gardner

Ha, thanks.

Got back to back covers for this story!

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/artwork/def31p01sm.jpg http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/7968/GVCover.th.jpg (http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=GVCover.jpg)

HD Article (http://www.definitionmagazine.com/issue_pdfs/def31/redmilitary_0608.htm) - [For my own perspective].

The interesting aspect to this quest of mine, is that I've received more interest via the Vimeo page than anything. When I returned home, I submitted the information and footage links up the chain of every military video/multimedia contact/email I could find, and it resulted in absolutely no follow up. So I went to the Combat Camera association themselves and they were interested and have asked me to give a presentation in Vegas later this year at their conference. During the interviews for the articles, there was a brief bit of interest on the military side (about the time I posted this question on frame rate), it apparently ceased as soon as the interviewing was done (hence in the government video/videography magazines, they got the info a little wonky, and my goal is not to replace all of combat camera with RED ONE's just a small team--however the Scarlet would be perfect... I would love to be able to bring more info to the Combat Camera Conference *hint* *hint* :wink: ).

Then, in the last week through the Vimeo page I have received 3 private messages from folks in government consulting groups and/or the exact people in the military I had hoped would see it, purely by chance (not out of my emails/phone calls sent up the chain through the "proper channels"). So there is definitely some interest on the "fringes" of the system.

I had just about given up actually. I thought this would be a no-brainer now that the technology and equipment was in place and I had essentially proven it would "work", albeit with a last minute setup that wasn't exactly the most effective (wobbly tripod, huge lens, etc.). It would seem that those pixelated reports being transmitted back via news broadcast or at best the SD video or youtube videos are all that people expect now for our military history. It boggles my mind. Some have asked "why not go back as a civilian journalist?" And my answer is that at that point it becomes too much "my story", and more about me and the equipment at that point than if I were able to film as a Soldier.

Anyway, thanks for the support guys, who knows what's really going on behind the scenes somewhere where the decisions are actually made. This is something I believe in, and hopefully it will come to fruition sooner rather than later, even if I don't get to be a part of it.

Edit>> Interesting, I just came across the Videography version (apparently same network of magazines so they share stories), it's slightly different than the GV version (http://governmentvideo.com/articles/publish/article_1572.shtml)

[Ronald Reddick]

MrGlory
I work and shot in Kabul and manage the Techncial Operaitons for ATN network here in Afghanistan. If you ever need local support, housing, etc and want to shot for us send me a PM. We shot local on Sony XDCAM 700's and I have my own R1 I use for my own work.

Best of luck and stay safe.
Ron

[Scott M]

MrGlory
I work and shot in Kabul and manage the Techncial Operaitons for ATN network here in Afghanistan. If you ever need local support, housing, etc and want to shot for us send me a PM. We shot local on Sony XDCAM 700's and I have my own R1 I use for my own work.

Best of luck and stay safe.
Ron

Ron, thanks, I appreciate it. I'm still hoping that the military will see the potential and want to pursue some dedicated filming, but as of now they (at the decision making level) don't seem to be jumping on board the idea. Should it come to fruition I will check in with you.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Shoot 24 FPS, it looks great.

Stephen

[Ronald Reddick]

Dude
No problem, can understand wanting to shoot with the troops, I have made some good contacts here, will reach out to some people I know in ISAF, DEA, and US Army and see if I can get you an in.



The civilian side is very interesting also, I am working on documenting what it is like to do business here, with the rebuilding, bombs, and the locals trying to get by. The dichotomy you see here is amazing, and driving around in a normal Prado instead of a HumVee or Striker gives you a different fell. It is amazing the crowds I get when I setup to shoot, people come over and talk, bring you tea, all and all very nice, and then the moments of sheer terror. My big dilemma is pulling the story line together to really tell the story well and let people see that there is more than the war here, but also it is never far away, even in Kabul or Mazar.



I will stay in touch and let you know if I can point you to some good contacts

Ron

[Scott M]

My big dilemma is pulling the story line together to really tell the story well and let people see that there is more than the war here, but also it is never far away, even in Kabul or Mazar.

Exactly! This has been my goal for a while (albeit from the ServiceMembers perspective) starting back in 2003 when I was able to do a lot more filming over the course of 10 months vs. 4 days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbDuvTmPXoE I had more opportunity to film the Afghan locals and the environment then as well.

Sure, people like the wham-bam rock music videos with action, but that's the fringe of the situation, there needs to be some balance for History's sake, and I think the RED makes that more viable than ever when it comes to quality motion footage.




I will stay in touch and let you know if I can point you to some good contacts

Ron


Please do! And good luck with your project as well.



Shoot 24 FPS, it looks great.


Thanks, that's what I'm going to stick with.

[Alexander Christ]

Hi,

Shoot 24 FPS, it looks great.

Stephen

24 or 23.976?

[Steve Sherrick]

Mr. Glory, let me just say, seeing that photo of you holding the Red and a cine zoom on it while also having a machine gun strapped to you, man, that is beyond commendable. Having shot a lot of Red handheld, it is challenging. And I'm shooting with still lenses most of the time. You look like you're handling that rig like it's a plastic toy. So, just wanted to say I appreciate what you are doing and I hope the military does as well, as the 24fps and high resolution are going to be something very special for the archives.

Be safe and keep on shooting!

[Ryan Patch]

this post just poped to the top of my list, and I didn't see it before. MAN that stuff is great, man! Love it!

If you ever need another cam op in the middle east... hell, in the us... call me up.

[Stephen Williams]

24 or 23.976?

Hi,

Shoot 24, edit 24, don't worry about NTSC TV that requires 23.967 it's not relevant in the 21st centuary.

Stephen

[Steve Sherrick]

Hi,

Shoot 24, edit 24, don't worry about NTSC TV that requires 23.967 it's not relevant in the 21st centuary.

Stephen

23.976 is still very relevant. It's what I deal with all day long.

[Richard Goodwin]

I love what you are doing and am excited to see more in the future.

Concerning the frame rate I just find that ~24fps treats people subjects well. Human motion tends to look jerky at higher frame rates. Ultimately to me what you are doing is about Human Effort and Sacrifice. So, a frame rate that is based on that seems like a good idea to me.

Technically, other than the issue of distribution I don't see a right or a wrong. The idea that somehow a Video frame rate is more modern seems a very short term view; esp. as the RED is more of a return to Cinema than an extension of video.

[Stephen Williams]

23.976 is still very relevant. It's what I deal with all day long.

Hi,

But only because you are using legacy NTSC equipment, time to move on I think....

Stephen