I don't know of any consumer device (TV or monitor) that is 24Hz.

I offer you to make simple experiment. Get any good note with HDMI, cable and decent software player and go to nearest large store. As this is really total bullshit.

I am closing this topic per request.

@Roberto,

Yes you do. You were arguing against me saying 24p is not enough for the illusion of motion. You then added provisos/exceptions of being gentle with the camera and not moving it fast. Which just proves it isn't fast enough for the illusion of motion. Because if it was, it would be fast enough for the illusion of motion.

That may sound circular, but you've already admitted to the fact it isn't fast enough for the illusion of motion by talking about the speed, and making exceptions and offering solutions (I wouldn't call it a solution).

@Roberto, no you were arguing against the fact that 24p isn't fast enough to sustain the illusion of motion. Stuttering happens even on low speed, but that is moot since the point is that 24p stutters.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

Do you know what afaik stands for? It stands for "as far as I know", so before you start being offensive, perhaps take that into I said "as far as I know", on top of which you need offer proof for your statement since you are calling it bullshit.

Because again, as far as I know, that only means it will accept a 24Hz signal, and not actually display it at 24Hz, because the refresh rate of the screen is not 24Hz.

I don't know of any consumer device (TV or monitor) that is 24Hz.

This would only work on a 120Hz, 240Hz television that accepts a native 24Hz signal (this is the only way to get 24Hz out of a bluray player, otherwise bluray player will send a different signal) and doubled up frames and did no interpolation.

@Athiril

As I keep saying, the answer to this, in 24p, is to make the pans blurrier. As I keep saying, faster fps is better for fast pans. We will get better action shots with 48fps!

@oscillian

Yes, I like this concept. Perhaps we'll see something like this - or we'll convert faster action a smarter way, like sprite objects in computer games.

In any case, the future looks bright. Naturally, the best of digital will win us all over by what it can do rather than just emulating film.

Or, just as has happened in the past, maybe processors and storage will get so fast & cheap that we'll just stay lazy & throw more terabytes at it, displaying even slow-moving clouds at 200 fps!

@Roberto You're making a good point, but I just wanted to address the slight variable in your example.

Keep in mind that if you are watching the movement of your hands in real life, the look is affected by the "refresh rate" of the light source used. Try moving it when illuminated by a light bulb plugged into a wall socket vs when illuminated by sunlight (or another continuous light source) and the rate at which you perceive any "blur" or "strobing" will change radically.

"we'd have noticed it 70 years ago" As I've said numerous times, film is played back through a projector and flashed multiple times. 24 fps (film) is not the same as 24p. 1/50th jerks if you play the footage back at the native frame rate with no in betweens.

@stonebat, actually modern TVs are higher than 48p, they interpolate frames for smooth motion from many source materials.

@Robert look at an actual 24p @ 24p. In digital you have the ability to simply play one frame consecutively after another, 24 fps isn't enough for the illusion of continuous motion, because it jerks around, even in slow smooth motion. Eg, like a tilt, everything stutters upwards instead of being one continuous smooth motion. Wiki entries don't suddenly stop this effect from occurring. "24" fps.. these figures were deemed back in the day when running through a projector. Not a digital projector or digital screen.

@sohus Kodak didn't 'go out of business' they filed chapter 11, not chapter 7, which is what one would think the way you are talking about, they're allowed to continue to trade under chapter 11, and have already done some reorganising, and digital is dead (for Kodak), one of the first things they did is discontinue all digital products, and can many digital printing section employees iirc.

Polaroid type film is still around you know.

The same argument has been used for still photography, but a sensor cannot match film, you have choices with film, there's more than enough detail in film, so that's kinda moot anyway. People use cost as a factor, bu even in still photography it is an irrelevant cost, such as doing landscape photography, it costs so many of your hours, and travelling to find locations, travelling back to said location costs money, printing and framing if you happen to make something good you're going to do with more than just stick online that 5 people may look at it costs a fair bit for that one frame, the cost becomes irrelevant in many cases compared to the cost of performing such photography.

Regards to having no advantages, colour negative film has accurate colour for one, the mask is variable in density with the dye density (self-masking) to offset and correct for colour cross-over, as there is no such thing as a perfect dye in the universe. Secondly you can retain a retarded amount of highlights, they do not clip or blow out, obviously you can get them too dense, but that is a long way off, even in a situation where your highlight areas are just starting to clip/peak, well-processed film will record more shadow detail at the same exposure, regardless of that you can overexpose several stops and those same highlights won't be clipped off.

Regardless, you do not need technical superiority as a reason when it satisifies all ends when it leaves nothing to be desired for the job at hand.

Depreciation of a high-end digital camera is quite high and rental prices reflect this. (cost - residual value) / Years of useful life). You have to make it work for you.

On the other hand - I don't know if anyone else has noticed - our GH.x series cameras' value to us suddenly increased as soon as Vitaliy hacked them, and continue to do so with every new setting developed.

Breaking old depreciation rules, rolling with the punches. We really are living in fascinating times.

@smsjr Digital acquisition is the preferred format for digital effects. It cuts-in and does supers better with computer-generated images. These days, the RED shoots the virtual explosions, film camera does the rest of the movie. Every camera gets a credit, like the Best Boy. Even if it's only 30 seconds.

@Roberto, Sheesh, sorry about that, brain fade, yeah, the Variety article said digitial had reached the tipping point and that more features are now shot with digital.

I am not against film, not at all. I love the look of film. But times are changing. We are in a singularity with Moore's law and each cycle is going faster. So innovation and technological advances go faster and faster. One big break through in sensor design and film doesn't hold any advantages anymore. So the big breakthroughs won't take 90 years again or so (from analog film to digital). What happened to Polaroid?

And how can Kodak produce film when it goes out of business? Please enlighten me.

@sohus incorrect, film is the profitable part of Kodak, their digital cameras were all discontinued, and printing is only being hold onto because Antonio Perez is a printing guy from HP obsessed with it and won't let it go, and suspicions are losses in that area were shifted into other unprofitable areas.

Kodak continues to make film because it is profitable, it's not profitable enough to support a much larger part of the company failing hard (everything else bar film), it is only profitable enough to support it's own division, the rest of the bloat of Kodak was much bigger than the film division. Every other part of Kodak bar film has been dragging Kodak into a hole.

Even without knowing, simple logic alone should tell you the "film is dead" argument is a tired old dead-horse flogging exercise that is simply, quite stupid. If film is apparently dead with very little being bought and used, then it logically is a tiny part of the company, therefore cannot possibly be the cause of Kodak's financial troubles, if on the other hand it's profitable (and therefore demand to keep it in production) whether or not it's small or large part of the company, it still cannot be contributing to Kodak's financial troubles, and can only be lessening their troubles as a profitable division.

Given that Kodak has financial troubles and discontinued other stuff bar film, the logical conclusion is while profitable, there is significantly much more loss going on from the rest of the company minus film than profit gained from the film division.

Film could not support the ailing dead digital technology, as far as Kodak goes, digital is what is dead, and is completely discontinued.

Chemistry is made by Champion, not Kodak, so chemistry doesn't even come under Kodak. Look at Agfa, Agfa is "gone", yet Agfa actually continue to make their film for still use, and is still used today.

Film is not dead, and is going to be around for a long time, the "film is dead" championeers have been at it for a very long time now, and have continuously been wrong.

5201 also recently received an update into 5203, so that 50D joins Vision3 line up. They even started bringing out ECN-2 colour neg into 8mm format recently since people are getting it scanned rather than projecting E-6 8mm. I could never even have imagined even in god damn 8mm there are enough people apparently using it to justify new film brought out and packaged for that format for it in 2011.

Even stills have new stuff brought out, originally with Ektar, then Portra 400, then Portra 160, I never used Kodak for colour neg before these films, now I do instead of using Fuji for colour neg.

The people who come in an assess what needs to be changed basically cut their E-6 line in stills format, (chemistry for it is doing well as E-6 is in enough demand), as every slide shooter is obsessed with Fujichrome, and Kodak's share market in that respect vs Fujifilm has been absolutely terrible.

@sohus The "Film Is Dead!!1111!1" ship has already sailed without you several years ago, yet it (film) remains much to the dismay of some people who for some reason like to see something destroyed and buried in a twist of reverse-progress.

@Roberto 18 fps isn't enough, 24 fps isn't enough. Trickery is used to play 24 fps as motion rather than individual pictures, 24 fps played as 24 fps appears as individual images and has motion artefacts.