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)


-----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?