Originally Posted by dools767
Right but what I'm saying is the majority of television viewers watch 24p content at 60i. This is how we've always watched movies until Blu Ray and 24P HDTVs came out. Like I said Canon records true 24 progressive frames, but it adds a pulldown not for recording but for playback. So using the reverse telecine methods you would be able to get true 24P for those viewing devices (24P and Blu Ray). If it was never shot in true 24P you wouldn't be able to get true 24P no matter what, but you can because it was shot that way.
It *is* recording 60i. Adding the additional frames results in a 60i recording. If you happen to have a good reverse telecine display, and one that deinterlaces really well, you'll get something close to 24p again, but most TV's are pretty bad at this combination.
And (one of) the whole points of BluRay is that 24p upconverted to 60i looks crappy on most TV's, and looks little like the original 24p (once you get used to real 24p). Same with this camera, of course, as adding the new frames and interlacing them produces something visually that looks very different than the original 24p, when viewed on a set that can display 24p natively.
The majority of users seem to be shooting 24P and using After Effects or NeoScene Cineform to remove the pulldown and you arrive at the same destination as a camera that records and plays back at 24P.
Who knows what the "majority" of folks are doing with a camera that's been out only a few months. But yes, if you spend more money on a software product to convert it to real 24p, then by all means, shoot at 24p. I don't have the patience or time to bother with that, and the point is Canon really should produce a true 24p file to begin with.
It's not like any information was lost. If it was recording at 60i like you say the progressive frames wouldn't be able to be extracted and information would be missing.
Again, it *is* recording the file at 60i. It's *shooting* it at 24p, but recording (and playing back) at 60i. The file you copy off the camera is 60i. No information is lost, correct, but frames are being added, and that jerkiness is visible when played back natively (to me and many others who care about this sort of thing).
Again I beg the question. If you watched a movie that was shot 24 frames and converted to 60i, are you saying the 24P is useless? To me that looks much better than 60i. I'd only use 60i for news footgage or talks shows or 30p for sports. But any movies deserve to be recorded 24P... even if it's played back at 60i, it's still better than recording at 60i and playing back at 60i.
I don't think you mean what you're saying here. Absolutely - a video shot at 60i and played at 60i looks *way* better than a video shot at 24p and played at 60i, on an average display device. Absolutely positively, and nearly everyone would agree when viewing it.
I don't know how you say things "deserve" to be recorded at 24p. That's a standard that was picked for no real reason other than mechanical/technical. It makes just as much sense to do 25p, or 30p, or 60p. And frankly, the higher the frame rate, the more data being recorded, which is always better.
And if I have to spend time and use software to convert to 24p from a file directly pulled off the camera, then yes, recording at 24p is (almost) useless, IMO.
Also, I can notice a major difference between 30P and 60i, noticeable with motion of course.
Now you're not making sense - if you see 30p to 60i, the difference is *much* more severe at 24p to 60i! So you seem to be contradicting yourself. If your display device can't properly deinterlace a perfectly interlaced 60i video, then there's no way it's doing reverse telecine *and* framerate conversion *and* deinterlacing better.
So if you're saying 30p in 60i has "major" differences, then 24p in 60i must look awful to you! To me, the differences are all minor and subtle, but enough.