24p is on the way out!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zak Forsman said:
what about the undisputed fact that 30p looks like ass? :)
Click to expand...


I don't think it necessarily does and we are not just talking 30p.



We are talking about acquisitions from time lapse to 1000p and playback from what ever the artist chooses and the public craves.


I am absolutely saying though that the default playback frame rate will be somewhere in the 30-60p range.
 
Postmaster said:
Why would anyone want to have higer framerates than 24 for feature films?

...
Click to expand...



Artistic Choice. Consumer Demand.



Postmaster said:
...

The last company that tried that was Showscan and underwent Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2002.

Now they use it only for motion rides - same with Maxivision.

....

Frank
Click to expand...


You are Comparing Apples to Ducks.


Just because the market wasn't ready then doesn't mean it's not poised now.

It most certainly is.




Postmaster said:
....

I never heard someon say in a theater

"meh, what lousy framerate, can´t barley watch that crap - Doom on my 5 year old PC can do more than 70fps"

...
Click to expand...


I have.

Same with resolution and jumpy mcjump jump 24p movement.





Postmaster said:
...

No, poeple shelling out big $$$ to build home theaters cause they are tired of the soap opera look on TVs.

...
Click to expand...


No. Actually it is the high price of movies. The crazy ass rowdies that go there and ruin the film. And believe it or not a bit of aversion to the whole exposure to terrorism B.S.


Also, people love cool new gadgets and want to feel in charge.


If you think that people are buying HDTV sets to rebel against soap opera and to embrace 24p you are smoking more than a crack pipe! :)



Postmaster said:
....

What the most folks overlook is:

1. They don´t show 24p at 24 Hz in theaters but at 48 Hz or 78 Hz.

2. 24 was taken becaus it was the lowest framerate possible to work with sound,
for the pictures 18 would have be enough if projected with a shutter at 36 Hz.

3. The reason why 24ish framerates are so plesant to the eye is the same why DOF is more pleasant.

It relates to the way we see. The eye can only see a small spot sharp, everything else is out of focus.

Same with FPS, the cones in our eye work in the neighborhood of 24 HZ - so it is a natural framerate for the eye.

....
Click to expand...

Good points for the most part.

I would ask you to argue with the scientist and engineers and the marketing departments who are pushing the astronomical number of large format 1080p 120hz HDTV sets on us.

They seem to have gotten your numbers all wrong. :2vrolijk_08:



Postmaster said:
....

Having said that, I want to second Zak and emphasize the undisputed fact that 30p looks like ass (not even mention 60p)

Frank
Click to expand...


For you this is most probably absolutely true.

Only you can speak to your personal taste.


I hope you have nothing but 24p at 48 Hz or 78 Hz in your personal future! :beer:
 
Postmaster said:
Why would anyone want to have higer framerates than 24 for feature films?

The last company that tried that was Showscan and underwent Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2002.
Now they use it only for motion rides - same with Maxivision.

I never heard someon say in a theater

"meh, what lousy framerate, can´t barley watch that crap - Doom on my 5 year old PC can do more than 70fps"

No, poeple shelling out big $$$ to build home theaters cause they are tired of the soap opera look on TVs.

What the most folks overlook is:

1. They don´t show 24p at 24 Hz in theaters but at 48 Hz or 78 Hz.

2. 24 was taken becaus it was the lowest framerate possible to work with sound,
for the pictures 18 would have be enough if projected with a shutter at 36 Hz.

3. The reason why 24ish framerates are so plesant to the eye is the same why DOF is more pleasant.
It relates to the way we see. The eye can only see a small spot sharp, everything else is out of focus.
Same with FPS, the cones in our eye work in the neighborhood of 24 HZ - so it is a natural framerate for the eye.

Having said that, I want to second Zak and emphasize the undisputed fact that 30p looks like ass (not even mention 60p)

Frank
Click to expand...



P.S. "All great truth begins with blasphemy!" :beer:
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
as we move to digital it's only a matter of programming and not physical optimization as was the case with the physical medium of film.
Click to expand...

Which completely explains why the introduction of digital video cameras so many years ago simply put 24p out of the picture and no digital video cameras offer such a frame rate. Oh.. wait... that's the exact opposite of what happened.

This thread is moronic and should be moved to the Cafe.
 
Why are there torchbearers for this subject ?

If you want to shoot 30p then do it but don't bemoan the beauty of the established standard of 24p.

It's the wheel Estebeverde.

Texanite is correct as is everyone else.

30p and higher looks like shi*. Have fun with it but good luck getting people to accept it.
 
i was having fun, too. got thrown in my face. meh. i'll just slow everything that's 30fps to 24fps. works for "reverie." HA!

technology always offers more something for less $. you tell the average joe they can get 30fps for the same cost as 24fps and they think it's a bargain. they won't notice or even care about the difference watching their kid's soccer game on their 60" HDTV (even though they still don't subscribe to the few HD channels and still think they're watching HDTV - it says HD on the front of the thing). average joe consumer didn't think twice about why the aspect ratios changed during their IMAX viewing of "The Dark Knight," they just went, "oooh, big picture." Average Joe consumer doesn't notice the difference between the pre-show theatre crap where you can clearly see the pixels on the screen and the actual film being shown, they just think "oooh, digital presentation" - average joe consumer is prett much just feeding off the hype. If you were to promote an exclusive showing of "Citizen Kane" and promise a restored, digitally enhanced director's new cut bells and whistles 896K 5600mhz optimally charged version, then show the film in its original version from an archived print that hasn't been touched and was shown on film and in mono, they'd walk out saying how wonderful it was "they" were able to "enhance" and old film, unaware they saw a subprime version of the film. average joe consumer is stupid. watch people looking to buy a tv at any major electronics store. we (the ones who appreciate film as art) are those major retailers worst customers. they think they can pull the usual number-swap schpiel they pull on average joe consumer on us and it doesn't work. i spent three hours looking for the right TV and drove the salesman nuts. are we the ones the "studios" are worried about? no. but we are the ones who, like van gogh or scorsese or da vinci or mozart who will define what "FILM" is. average joe consumer thinks "sunset tan" is entertainment. we know otherwise. is it profitable? maybe not.

but i think, 50 years from now, there will be a chapter in film studies books, the ones that talk about the film movements like "french new wave" and "german expressionism," will have one about the indies of the '90s (maybe they already do) and the digital indie resurgence of the late '00s. zak will be mentioned. who else will? are we gonna step up and embrace this the way truly talented people embraced 8mm or 16mm and make something that moves people? or are we gonna whine about frame rates and rolling shutters? tell your story and let the medium be damned. 24p 30p who gives a sh!t. stop whining and make something memorable.

yes, 30fps looks like ass. but if you tell me a compelling story, the audience member in me won't care. i read subtitles and overcome the language barrier. i'll pay $40+ for a hard-to-find DVD if they story or filmmaker is intriguing. and average joe consumer will, too. look at "the bliar witch project" or "open water" or "28 days later" - all bad technology, but the story made it succeed and made it make $$$. hollywood can't tell stories anymore, hence all the damn remakes.

sorry. had to vent.
this is where i wish i had zak's whimsy.
 
Couple of things. 30P and higher has a look of realism. Personally, I like movies because they take me into a different world and at 30p or higher, it's too realistic and I don't like it. Another thing to consider is there is still an issue with framerate on delivery to home TV's. At 60P that's over 2x the bandwidth needed for delivery. In broadcast/cable/satellite that means taking the HD picture and compressing the crap out of it. These providers only have so much space to put alot of content through and if they have to fit 50%+ more frames on each channel, the picture will only look even crappier than it already dones. Even on Blu-Ray that means you've got less space to put extras.

Matthew
 
Let's just throw away films AND theater.... books are where it's at! The "theater of the mind"!!!! Frame rates are based on reading speed and intelligence of reader.
 
Why does anyone shoot black and white? We have the color and color is better right? It's all personal choice. The average joe consumer can tell when something is being shot at 24 and 30p...sometimes. The most I have heard is that cinema has a feel that most tv doesn't. But as mentioned before, cinema isn't supposed to be real, it's story telling. What if all painting was landscapes and realistic portraits? What a lame world that would be.

It's late, there was tequilla, had to chime in.
 
I have 35mm movies. When I first switched over to FCP, I had my first movie telecined. It was about 3 years ago. I thought my movie was going to stay as 24 fps, but then when I got on user groups I was told my movie was 23.98 fps. I didn't like it, but then the worst of it was that because I had telecined the movie to DVCAM, I ended up with 29.97 fps. I was told not to worry about it.

Ok, tell me what's going on, what shall I telecine my 35mm movie as now?
 
I have feeling that 24p will outlive most of us. Something new might be the standard, like in the future when robots make movies and they are all shot on IMAX 3D from their iphones, but for now I think 24p will be with us for sometime.

Technology is always said to kill or uproot some old standard, but some standards extend beyond their technical boundaries and affect they way we feel about cinema.

Remember when we they said we where all never going to the movies again when we got our VHS or BETA players at home. well that did not happen. Part of the romance of this art form is going to a theater, watching it on a big screen at 24 fps. There will always be something newer and better. It does not mean we will embrace it as consumers just because its newer and better. The allure of tradition and nostalgia often extends beyond the simple fact that something is scientifically superior.

How many cans of NEW COKE did you drink this week?
 
filmman said:
I have 35mm movies. When I first switched over to FCP, I had my first movie telecined. It was about 3 years ago. I thought my movie was going to stay as 24 fps, but then when I got on user groups I was told my movie was 23.98 fps. I didn't like it, but then the worst of it was that because I had telecined the movie to DVCAM, I ended up with 29.97 fps. I was told not to worry about it.

Ok, tell me what's going on, what shall I telecine my 35mm movie as now?
Click to expand...

Unless you want it for HD, 2k or 4k you don't have to do anything. Telecine a film to a 29.97 timeline and a 2:3 pulldown is created. If for any reason you need to lose the pulldown, a simple thing to do, you'll have a digital file which is exactly 24fps. All standard video is shown at 60 fields per second. Pulldowns are based on 12 groups of 5 frames consisting of two interlaced fields. 12 is a common denominator of both 24 and 60. Fields from different frames are combined to make up the extra frames necessary to make a 24fps movie run with a 24fps cadence when shown at 29.97fps. The frames consisting of the combined fields are called the pulldown.

I shoot at 4k for a lot of work now and in particular for scope format, 2.39:1 instead of the slightly less wide cinemascope, 2.35:1, so in the digital world I'm good for anything and for theatres which still rely on 35mm prints I just need to do a filmout and make prints. Distribution of a 35mm film as prints costs about a grand per print including the shipping, which is the same price as a Red Ray player which can show a 4k movie at 4k, 2k, or even HD. It depends on the digital projector's capability.
 
nice post Rubbersquare

Open Water and 28 Days Later visually just suffer; but the stories are so well told, they work wonderfully

Other films with less than substantial visuals are ONCE and PIECES OF APRIL; great films IMO
 
I have always thought 24p looks great when we're chosen that, better than the 30 fps we were getting on older digital cameras.

That being said, I don't agree that 24p is just "the" professional look and there's no reason ever to have more frames. Go back in history (and I come from a film history / film criticism background, with much more knowledge of that than production) and you realize the only reason they chose 24 fps as the standard is because it was the absolute lowest number of frames you could use and maintain continuity of motion. So to me, that kind of makes it hilarious that people act like 24 frames per second is some amazing artistic decision and they are real artists for only shooting that way, when in fact it was all accounting departments that made this decision, not artists. So yeah it's an artistic decision NOW, but it wasn't then and didn't start out because it was somehow the best and ultimate way to shoot.

I think in the future you'll be able to get a hyper-realistic look with the resolution and projection of something like the RED on a 4K projector (or the Epic, whatever) and a higher frame rate, simply because it will look more realistic, more akin to what the human eye would see. But the issue is it really comes down to artistic choices -- your film may really benefit with this super realistic look that is borderline scary because of just how realistic it looks, and it may make viewers even more engaged and uncomfortable by serious subject matters because it'll feel more like reality and less like a movie. BUT you may be making a fantasy film or a fairy tale movie where you don't want that look at all, and having it would destroy some of your storytelling. So it really is one of those issues that will depend a lot on the look you're going for.

While I say that, however, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the die-hard film buffs who think that film is a stylistic or artistic decision. It isn't. You can duplicate that look easily with any high-end digital camera, whether it's the F950, an older camera now, the RED One, the Viper, the Origin, etc. It's not some unique thing you can only capture by shooting onto film stock. You can get that same look just by the lenses you use, the way you light, post effects used, color correction, etc. I don't believe the medium you shoot on, digital versus film, is an artistic decision anymore. It's a practical one only. If you have the funds you may prefer to shoot on 35mm still, and if you've worked that way in the past it may make the most sense to you because you're familiar with it. But if you're like me and have never loaded film into a film camera, don't like film, think it's awkward and cumbersome and old, then you're going to want the best digital camera you can get so you can achieve whatever look you want without having to screw around with that antiquated acquisition format.

Frame rate, however, is still a stylistic choice, it's not a digital versus film thing.
 
Hey guys, what about this James Cameron comment:
Cinema is not truth 24 times a second, it is lies 24 times a second.

I think that he gives a sh.. about 24p. He films in 3D for heaven's sake!

Whatever works, dude, whatever works.
 
Texanite said:
Which completely explains why the introduction of digital video cameras so many years ago simply put 24p out of the picture and no digital video cameras offer such a frame rate. Oh.. wait... that's the exact opposite of what happened.

This thread is moronic and should be moved to the Cafe.
Click to expand...

The only thing moronic about this thread is your comments.


You logic belies your utter lack of knowledge.

You are ignorant of the fact that the majority of exhibitors still have film projectors that are optimized for 24 frames a second. This is only changing now.

Also, as sweet as it is to think your 24p camcorder is the be all and end all. Here to fore they have not really been what Hollywood was looking for.

But I like your spunk! :beer:
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Why are there torchbearers for this subject ?

If you want to shoot 30p then do it but don't bemoan the beauty of the established standard of 24p.

It's the wheel Estebeverde.

Texanite is correct as is everyone else.

30p and higher looks like shi*. Have fun with it but good luck getting people to accept it.
Click to expand...


It so cute you are adamant and defensive that 24p is G-d and there are no others.


It really doesn't matter.

I am actually not so much the torchbearers so much as the harbinger of things to come.

I am merely bringing you the news.


The average joe doesn't give a damn about the specs.

They want what looks nice.

That's all.

There will most certainly be 30p+ productions that hit the mark.

People will be eating it up.

In fact, if anything.

The marketing Machine that is Hollywood will be boasting:

NOW SHOWING IN 4K at 120 Frames Per Second!



It's all about moving forward and higher frame rates are in everyones future.
 
I love each and everyone of you.


Film from now until eternity in 24p.

It's O.K.


But what I'm saying is there is monumental change coming of tectonic scale and it will be in the form of higher resolution, greater dynamic range, a broader palate of colors, and much much higher frame rates.


All the Same.


Peace and Pie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top