add 24fps support...hopefully firmware could take care of this. it can do 30fps, so wouldn't it be feasible to do 24? come on now...valentine's day present?
This is absolutely the feature it needs. If this could shoot 24p and include more manual control while shooting video then this sucker would be nearly unstoppable. From all the motion tests and reviews, this is the one area where it's just lacking. 30fps is just not filmic. Way to take 1080p on serious glass and a 35mm film back and make the motion look like video.
If the sole difference between "looking like film" and "looking like video" is that the video has 25% better temporal resolution, then I'll take video every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Wanting something to be worse so you can pat yourself on the back about how it hearkens back to Howard Hawks is not something I can get into.
the only other frame rate you need is 25fps and that is only if your shooting under fluorescent light that has a 50 hertz flicker as for the looks like film argument your going to edit on a PC or mac and the finished product will end up on DVD Bluray or the web played on monitors with refresh rates in multiples of 30 so 24fps at the source just makes encoding more difficult. I'm willing to bet that in a blind test between the two the percentage of people who could tell the difference would be tiny.
Then similarly strip away the ability to convert photos to black and white, or take photos with different types of lenses, or take photos portraits as opposed to landscape.
The decision to make a film at 24 fps is an aesthetic one which has it's own implications and impressions on the viewer.
There is a big difference between what is best for creative production and what is good advancement of technology. Faster FPS is a great development of video, but video innately causes people to feel differently when viewing something. Fine and desired for home movies, sports events, local news because we've all been conditioned that video implies that level of "reality".
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
add 24fps support...hopefully firmware could take care of this. it can do 30fps, so wouldn't it be feasible to do 24? come on now...valentine's day present?
bingo.
24fps shooting and full manual control over video.
call me a n00b but
why would you want to lose 6 fps's ??
why do you want 24fps?
Are you going to be transferring to film?
24fps is a film standard. it can mean the difference in a cinematic look/feel and a made for tv movie look/feel
This is absolutely the feature it needs. If this could shoot 24p and include more manual control while shooting video then this sucker would be nearly unstoppable. From all the motion tests and reviews, this is the one area where it's just lacking. 30fps is just not filmic. Way to take 1080p on serious glass and a 35mm film back and make the motion look like video.
Here's to a firmware update in '09?
If the sole difference between "looking like film" and "looking like video" is that the video has 25% better temporal resolution, then I'll take video every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Wanting something to be worse so you can pat yourself on the back about how it hearkens back to Howard Hawks is not something I can get into.
the only other frame rate you need is 25fps and that is only if your shooting under fluorescent light that has a 50 hertz flicker as for the looks like film argument your going to edit on a PC or mac and the finished product will end up on DVD Bluray or the web played on monitors with refresh rates in multiples of 30 so 24fps at the source just makes encoding more difficult. I'm willing to bet that in a blind test between the two the percentage of people who could tell the difference would be tiny.
@whynotthe....
Then similarly strip away the ability to convert photos to black and white,
or take photos with different types of lenses,
or take photos portraits as opposed to landscape.
The decision to make a film at 24 fps is an aesthetic one which has it's own implications and impressions on the viewer.
There is a big difference between what is best for creative production and what is good advancement of technology. Faster FPS is a great development of video, but video innately causes people to feel differently when viewing something. Fine and desired for home movies, sports events, local news because we've all been conditioned that video implies that level of "reality".
tldr; 24fps looks guud dood.