What is wrong with making a film interlaced?

the_fusionist

the_fusionist

Well-known member
I think if you shoot 30fps properly it is more engaging than film. The 24fps effect that is used is to create an illusion. I don't think I like it. Imagine all those great movies we like in real time. Why do you guys like 24fps so much?
 
Last edited:
I think 24P is a personal choice based on aesthetic. Personally I can't stand the way that 60i looks for narrative story telling. To me it feels cheap and looks like a soap opera. I am interested to know your feelings on why interlace is more engaging than film.
Note to future posters, please keep this civil, no need to bash or force opinions, I think this could be a very informative discussion.
 
24p is used to create an illusion?

24p is used to do what film does: 24 frames per second.

30p (or 60i, which gets blended down to 30) is closer to what television gives you normally.

If you're a TV person, 30/60 might look more "normal".
 
I meant to say 30fps not interlaced, which I do not mind either. I think that progressive might take away some of the jittering effect but 24fps is simply too unrealistic.

I am watching Porky's Revenge right now on INHD and I can't help but feel that the movie would engage me more if it was in 30fps. You feel more connected to the characters; they are more life like. Imagine how much more powerful Goodfellas and Heat would be if it was in 30fps.

Two Brothers was partially shot in 30fps and I felt such a relief watching those parts. I know that Miami Vice utilized this technique, which I can't wait to see on DVD. I didn't really like it in the Cruise/Foxx movie about the assasin and the taxi driver because I thought it could have been done better.

I watch Discovery HD and can't help but think that if movies looked like this I would be more enaged. Sometimes it is not done well but that is only because a cameraman is walking around and not using an A.S.C. cinematographer. Otherwise I love it.
 
Last edited:
GenJerDan said:
24p is used to create an illusion?
Click to expand...
24fps is utilized to create the effect of grandeur, unrealistic, and perceived greatness. It creates an illusion in your mind. It does not seem like it is reality, hence the illusion.

Stupid movies appear profound in 24fps. Think about all of those retarded 80's movies that so many loved. If I saw people like those in real life I would laugh until my lungs exploded. It might have also appeared that way to me then because I was not aware as I am today. But the 24fps effect sure made the characters seem powerful.

Platoon is on HDnet now and I can't help but think it would have been better in 30fps.
 
Last edited:
We see people get shot in movies all the time and we don't even blink. Imagine how powerful that same scene would be in a more realistic frame rate.

24fps distances the viewer from the film, psychologically.
 
the_fusionist said:
We see people get shot in movies all the time and we don't even blink. Imagine how powerful that same scene would be in a more realistic frame rate.

24fps distances the viewer from the film, psychologically.
Click to expand...

I´m not sure what your point is.
Let´s see it the other way around: would the news become more filmic or unrealistic if shot progressive?
I agree, the framerate and motion rendering does affect our perception of moving images.
Since the VX1000 there where a lot of interlaced shot movies made, dogma95 movies probably the best known ones, would they suffer from being shot progressive?
Of course they used the news look to "create the illusion" of authenticity - and many followed in that.
But wasn´t it more the acting, directing or story that captivated us?
Your talking about "retarded 80s movies" only making some impact because they where shot progressive, I would rather point out they where shot on film - maybe this even contributed more to make them look BIG...?
My 2c: a bad movie is a bad movie is a bad movie.
I suppose your watching your DVDs on an older 4:3 TV set like mine?
All my friends with their superduper 16:9 digital filter enhancement natural motion TVs actually "enjoy" what you are looking for: progressive shot movies digitally re-rendered to give a "natural" viewing experience.
Gladiator looking like SuperBowl, Bullitt looking like the 24h from LeMans.
If Picasso only had painted more "natural" I could finally understand what he wanted to express with his work...
 
I find is quite funny that when motion picture was invented the lowest acceptable frame rate had to be accepted as a standard, 24 fps. Now, even though we have higher rates available which makes movement more natural (and interlacing helps also) some paople still prefer tha ancient 24 fps. I certainly does not look more authentic (meaning life-like), but more like a old standard movie. If jerky movement is an ideal, why not shoot 16p or 18p?

I bet that in the (fairly distant) future everything is shot at 72fps or something and people refuse to watch old movies (unless they are artificially converted to a higher standard) because they give a headache...

Did you know that when the ancient Sumerians invented clay as building material, they still made their new houses look like they were made from bundles of reeds. It took some time before somebody realized a house could look different.
 
60 fps (Discovery HD) looks like someone's handicam (no offense to DHD guys who do a fantastic job, but it's the frame rate).

24 fps looks dramatic.

When watching a drama, I'd rather it look dramatic.

Everyone has their preference, of course.

But the technology has existed to make faster frame rates possible and practical for movies for quite some time now, and no one has wanted to switch.

Where can I get more info on "Miami Vice"? It doesn't make sense that some of it is 30 fps while the rest of it is 24 fps, because the entire thing must be displayed at a uniform frame rate -- and in a movie theater, it'll be 24 fps. And 30 fps material can't be converted to 24 fps with much success.
 
I too enjoy 24p looking motion cadence. I think that when I want my content to look real, as though I'm looking out my window at the real world (i.e. news), then I want 60i. This is a fast rate and displays most everything that is happening.

24p leaves more visual gaps along the timeline, obviously. But these longer gaps provide more power for our imagination.

One photo can emote the strongest feelings. Mostly due to the fact that it conveys an idea and lets our imagination run away with it.

24p is opposite in that it's 'jittery' look leaves out spaces in time, providing more space for our imagination.

60i leaves no room for imagination, thus more realistic but less emotional.
 
Imagine that you were looking at people through a plastic bag, would that not make you less emotionally connected? That is what 24fps does, except I'm not refering to the visual distance only, but also the movements. HD provides more realistic images, and 30fps provides more realistic motion. If you shoot the movie well, coupled with sound effects and other aspects of film making, I think you have a modern masterpiece in you hands.

I was debating which camera I would buy and I came to the conclusion that if I shoot my movie well, I am willing to do it at 30fps.

24fps takes away the jittering and that is one reason it is used; it makes the movements smooth. I think 30p will have this same effect but will have to be handled more carefully.

I'm going to buy one of those $1,200 HD camcorders, if I can't acquire a FX-1 for $2,500 or under, and I'm making it. We'll see what happens.

I'll check out Dogma again.

And by the way I have a 16:9 HDTV, two in fact. How do you think I watch Discovery HD, HDnet, and INHD?

In Miami Vice You will notice that the motion switches from time to time and the same with the other movie Foxx did with Cruise, as well as in Two Brothers.
 
Last edited:
I like 24p and use it but I'm also definitely a fan of 30p. I've even shot some narrative stuff in 30p just because of the unique feel. There's a time for both really.
 
the_fusionist said:
Imagine that you were looking at people through a plastic bag, would that not make you less emotionally connected? That is what 24fps does, except I'm not refering to the visual distance only, but also the movements
Click to expand...

The way I think of it is that film is exactly that - a "film" over the image, over reality, a way to distinguish from what is real life and what is filmic. The difference in the way motion is rendered, in the way color and contrast works, in the way the depth of field and focus can be used to draw our attention to this or that specific element. Even (or especially) in movies that have a realistic aesthetic, we sense the difference from our own world, even if we feel a strong connection to the characters and their situations.

Video, on the other hand, in Latin literally means "I see." This is more complicated now since we have 24p video - but in the case of 60i, there is really no removal from the image itself. What you see is what you get, as far as motion is concerned (the vast differences in exposure latitude between our eye and the camera is another matter).

It is somewhat of a paradox that we seem to feel closer to what is more distant (film) than what matches our vision more precisely (60i video), but it doesn't necessarily have to be an absolute. There is already a wealth of material shot explicity as video art with video presentation in mind, and I think it's an interesting area...
 
Last edited:
Might as well get rid of the music and lighting too, eh? All natural does not neccesarily give the greatest emotional impact.
 
So you must think live music isn't better than your CD's. Read what I wrote before you make such a baseless comment.
 
Whats the big visual difference between 30P and 60i? 30P still has a slight frame jitter to it right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top