24p is on the way out!

[Noiz2]

O.K. Noiz.

The first time you were condescending and "Set us Straight" I let it slide.

I am SO grateful. if you weren't spreading so much manure I wouldn't have to set you straight.

Now you are being excessively rude with you: "Sorry kid but that shows a very deep misunderstanding of how audio and film/video work together." Bull Sh!t.

Hmm, and that comes from your extensive experience in the field. Maybe your not a kid, that was a bit sharp, but your sounding like a high schooler. You made quite wrong assumptions about how and why things are done in a film work flow and then start telling everyone how it's going to change. It is abundantly clear that you have little or no experience with the post flow of a hollywood feature.

I submit to you we are talking about a new paradigm and a new timecode system.

Well first off these things are not clocked with timecode. Timecode is far too sloppy.

Not changing the sample rate. Merely the flags used on the "film" and audio so they can be synced in post.

What exactly do you think timecode is? It's whole job is to be constant counter for positional alignment. And sample rate is samples per second, you can't reclock it with out changing it.

To put it in it's simplest form, they could both be even be synced via a robust and reasonably accurate real time clock. It is a matter of fairly simple engineering.

This is not something that requires the accuracy of a strontium atomic clock

Well there you go again. It does require an EXTREMELY accurate and stable clock.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

well you seemed to need so real info.

...

Dude... I've already asked you to cool it with the "dickness". Why do you want to be rude and start trouble.

If you have something to say let your argument support itself.

The name calling and childishness is only going to cause trouble.

....

silent started with hand crank and the rates were all over the map. By the time sound killed it 19 was the standard rate in the US.

....

How about some references.

The hand cranking was indeed imprecise. They did have targets. But it was all over the map. Generally between 16-18 but still wild variation.


The first feature-length movie originally presented as a talkie was The Jazz Singer, released in October 1927. SHOT IN MULTIPLE FRAME RATES. PLAYED BACK AT 24P

....

For the reasons you say 24fps is "dead" money, the above is very unlikley to happen anytime soon ie 20 years. And there is very little reason for it to.

O.K. That is your opinion.

I respect it. But it is completely the opposite what will happen.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

How did we get 24p again!?!?!?!

How did we get 24p again!?!?!?!

Here, so everyone is on the same page and has at least a bit of historical info:


"In October 1927 The Jazz Singer had been premiered, and theatres were being wired for sound. The standard speed of sound films was 24 fps. It is interesting to discover how that speed was arrived at.

According to Stanley Watkins, head engineer for Western Electric, he and his team checked with the Warner Theatre for the average speed of projection in 1926. They were told 'between eighty and ninety feet per minute' in the big theatres- between 20 and 24 fps- and around 26 fps in the smaller theatres. They settled on 90 feet a minute (24 fps) as a reasonable compromise for the Vitaphone process.[2] The other sound systems began at slower speeds (Fox-Case's first tests were shot at 21 fps), but they, too, adopted 24 fps as standard in November 1926.

If Hollywood cameramen were still working rigidly at 16 fps, their work would have looked ludicrous in the public theatres. The fact that they were cranking the films slower than they were projected is borne out by The Jazz Singer. Al Jolson walks to the stage at a slightly accelerated pace, and when the Vitaphone section begins, he is filmed at 24 fps. Filmgoers often remarked that the early talkies seemed leaden-footed.

While filming Annapolis in 1928, cameraman Arthur Miller received a wire from the studio to crank at 24 fps. He did so, and everyone complained that the speed slowed everything down too much- it was particularly noticeable in a dress parade scene of midshipmen.

Walter Kerr, in his brilliant book 'The Silent Clowns,' puts forward his theory: silent films were photographed at 16 or 18 frames a second, but projected at a rate closer to sound speed. 'The result was not only faster than life, it was cleaner, less effortful, more dynamic.' Kerr illustrates his theory with a photograph of the instructions printed on the leader for the 1922 Down to the Sea in Ships: 'Operator: please run eleven minutes for 1,000 ft.'- or 24 fps, the speed of sound. I have projected the film, and found two or three sections too fast at that speed (although the remainder is satisfactory). But that was how audiences saw it at the time. Other, later films, such as The Winning of Barbara Worth, were shot at a speed so close to 24 fps that they are wrecked by being shown at 16 fps. I have even seen an occasional silent, such as The Blood Ship (1928) apparently designed to be projected at 26 fps, since sound speed is too slow for them. (Poverty Row producers like Columbia, who made The Blood Ship, ordered cameras to be cranked faster to fill their reels more economically!)

Talking about comedies, Walter Kerr writes: 'Silent films chose, by control of the camera and through instructions to projectionists, to move at an unreal, stylised, in effect fantasised rate.' And he quotes as examples the last two silent Chaplins- both films designed to be shown at sound speed, but photographed at silent speed (whatever that was!). 'The least glance at Modern Times reveals instantly that all of Chaplin's work in the film... has been filmed at a rate that puts springs on his heels and makes unleashed jack-knives of his elbows. This is how the films looked when they were projected as their creators intended.'

One can only have sympathy for those who programme silent films. But sympathy evaporates as soon as one has to endure slow projection. It's bad enough to be deprived of the sound of the symphony orchestra (which accompanied all first-run films in the big theatres), but to be forced to watch the films in dead silence at an equally deadly pace is too much to ask of anyone. William Wellman's spectacular war film Wings (1927) moves at an exhilarating pace when projected at the speed at which it was shown originally- 24 fps- but it drags miserably when shown at 16. At one of its last major showings in Britain, a few years ago, the audience emerged complaining of its slowness. Their complaints were not aimed at the projectionist, for they thought it was an inherent fault of all silent films. Yet it had been shown at 16 fps- and had lasted nearly an hour longer than in 1927. That attitude shows no respect towards the films of the past. It does them a grave disservice.

'Ideally,' says David Gill, 'projectors should have variable speeds from at least 14 to 24 fps. There was no standard for the normal camera speed in the silent days, and for commercial reasons, the recommended projection speeds do not necessarily match the camera speed. We could recommend that most silents be shown at 24- but that means that silent film actors will always move in crisp, sharp movements- never smooth and languorous ones. This is fine for actors in comedies, war films and some Westerns. But it's sad for the others- especially the Great Lovers!'

Grateful thanks for invaluable help in the preparation of this article to David Gill, George Pratt, H.A.V. Bulleid, David Shepard, Karl Malkames, Kemp Niver.

[1] This was later achieved, of course, by the design of the shutter.

[2] One reason for world standards accepting 24 fps was that it permitted flickerless projection with a 2-blade shutter. (H.A.V. Bulleid)."



Kevin Brownlow, "Silent Films: What Was the Right Speed?," Sight and Sound, Summer, 1980, pages 164-167.

 

[Noiz2]

Dude... I've already asked you to cool it with the "dickness". Why do you want to be rude and start trouble.

Well not exactly, but point taken. You have my apology.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I am SO grateful. if you weren't spreading so much manure I wouldn't have to set you straight.

....

If you think I am wrong just pony up the facts with some type of objective references we can refer too. It's totally cool. we are just discussing.

....

Hmm, and that comes from your extensive experience in the field. Maybe your not a kid, that was a bit sharp, but your sounding like a high schooler. You made quite wrong assumptions about how and why things are done in a film work flow and then start telling everyone how it's going to change. It is abundantly clear that you have little or no experience with the post flow of a hollywood feature.

....

I made no wrong assumptions at all.

In fact, I have only scratched the surface and we can on ad infinitum.


It all will change. It has before and it most certainly will again. Sooner than later.


You are going on and on and on and on about today.


We get it. I am saying it will change.

It is stale and arbitrary and will indeed change.

...

Well first off these things are not clocked with timecode. Timecode is far too sloppy.

.....

1st I am talking about a computerized systems. Fully digital not mechanical or analog.

1. There is a real time clock.

2. There is a system clock.

I am saying that most certainly system clocks are accurate enough to use to sync any motion with any sound even if they vary during a give take. Even if they vary multiple times in that same take.


I even went further and said with even reasonably accurate real time clocks the same could be done.

The mathmatics is not that big of a deal either way.

......

What exactly do you think timecode is? It's whole job is to be constant counter for positional alignment. And sample rate is samples per second, you can't reclock it with out changing it.

.....

It's simply coding to match two or more events recorded separately when recompiled or recomposed at a latter time.


I know what sample rate is.

It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Set it to whatever you like. 44.1, 48, 96 kHz, or whatever you heart desires and your equipment supports. Enjoy!


We are talking about timecode embedded in the sound recording and the "film" or visual recording so they be synced in post.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU SHOOT 1 FRAME A SECOND OR 10,000 OR IF YOU SWITCH RANDOMLY INBETWEEN.


Doesn't matter.


The timecode can be and will be the same.


It will be based on a system clock or even a farily accurate real time clock. +/- 1/100 of a sec or so.

...

Well there you go again. It does require an EXTREMELY accurate and stable clock.

Extremely!?!?


Come on....

Use specifics.

What margin of error???


A strontium atomic clock is +/- one second per 200 million years!

Are you suggesting we need that kind of accuracy?


Modern networks keep synced within 1/100 of a second.

I am arguing that is more than enough and is overkill.

.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Well not exactly, but point taken. You have my apology.

Fair enough.


Now, let's get on with the discussion.

I know you are very knowledgeable and that you have a great deal of experience.

We are talking about what is possible and what current technology is capable of.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

What's a bizarre notion to me is that J.R. Hudson is more religious about his 24fps than anyone I know is religious about Jesus even, hahaha. I mean my god man, it's not magical, it's the absolute minimum frame count that looks decent, there's nothing to idealize or make magical. In the future hopefully we have the maximum number of frames possible so that the realism and perfection of the medium can be realized. There's no reason to insist upon always having the absolute minimum and then on top of that idealizing it, haha.

Great video games have like, what, 200fps?! Nobody would tolerate 24fps, it would look like crap. The more frames, the more realistic motion you can achieve.

I am in love with 24p (fps) as much as Spielberg and Tarantino love 35mm. But to me, it is magical. It is pure temporal visual suspension. Any other framerate for me is unacceptable for narrative (and doc and music videos) filmmaking.

I can care less what frame rates become available but am not sure what exactly you would be shooting in these frame rates. I for one, have no desire to sit through a film shot in 60p.

Yeah... but here's the thing.


I am saying J.R. Hudson will indeed be able to shoot and display his work in 24p no problem.


It just will not be the dominate frame rate due to consumer demand and artistic choice.


I am totally cool with his love affair with 24p and want nothing more than for him to be able to keep it.


It's all good.


Time just marches on.

What will be the dominate frame rate though ? Are we talking about filmmaking or ......................... ?


Can you imagine Schindler's or Apocalypse or Jaws or Pulp or Psycho or Goodfellas shot in anything but 24fps ? This is where you're losing me. What exactly would you have shot these in ? 30 p ? 60p ?

 

[J.R. Hudson]

And wait a minute

You ask Spielberg or Scorsese or any master of the trade what they would prefer and they'd say 24fps .. I'd bet on that.

Aghhhhhhhhhhhhh

Not getting the desire to have your stuff look like crap visually. We are talking about theatrical narrative features, right ?

Or are we talking about the Superbowl ?

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I am in love with 24p (fps) as much as Spielberg and Tarantino love 35mm. But to me, it is magical. It is pure temporal visual suspension. Any other framerate for me is unacceptable for narrative (and doc and music videos) filmmaking.

I can care less what frame rates become available but am not sure what exactly you would be shooting in these frame rates. I for one, have no desire to sit through a film shot in 60p.




What will be the dominate frame rate though ? Are we talking about filmmaking or ......................... ?


Can you imagine Schindler's or Apocalypse or Jaws or Pulp or Psycho or Goodfellas shot in anything but 24fps ? This is where you're losing me. What exactly would you have shot these in ? 30 p ? 60p ?

Honestly I don't know.

Of course we are talking acquisition and exhibition.

They need not be the same.

With that said, transitionally I think people will shoot and exhibit at 30p and eventually settle around 60p.

I don't know why those exact framerates per se only that 30p is a close intermediary and will be accessible quickly to the masses.

I would imagine that in this decade we will regularly see 120p.


One thing that's important to remember is that the all 24p is not equal.

For the sake of argument, let's say we capture and exhibit in true 24p.

We will shoot a scene twice the exact same way with the same lighting, blocking, action, etc.

The one thing we will change is exposure so we will have one image sharper one with blur.

Within reason, I would venture a guess that the one with blur would be more pleasing to you and more filmic to most.


My point is, there are other things at play besides frame rates.


I think we will find some very interesting and creative combinations that give us fantastic images.


It's still early and just starting but what a fantastic time to be alive! :beer:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

And wait a minute

You ask Spielberg or Scorsese or any master of the trade what they would prefer and they'd say 24fps .. I'd bet on that.

Aghhhhhhhhhhhhh

Not getting the desire to have your stuff look like crap visually. We are talking about theatrical narrative features, right ?

Or are we talking about the Superbowl ?

Narrative features and the Superbowl.

I think the Superbowl will always be shot with the highest frame rates, resolution, and dynamic range possible. They will also want sharpness in terms of a very very deep depth of field and in the frame. They will want "higher ASA" so to speak to eliminate any "motion blur" so it is the super sharpest as well.

It will make soap operas look like hand cranked works of cinematic art!


But, despite this, narrative film makers (music videos and some docs) will not be hot on the sharpness at all. They will want blur. They most probably will not want the strobbing and flickering either though of traditional 24p.

I think there will be beautiful images though that you will fall in love with.


This same argument was made when color was coming around.


There are many valid points on all sides and there is an aesthetic that we gave up to have color.

We still have beautiful black and whites (Schiendler's List) as artistic choices.

And as an aside, I actually do love the black and white aesthetic of Citizen Kane et all.

 

[Postmaster]

o
The first feature-length movie originally presented as a talkie was The Jazz Singer, released in October 1927.

Just for the record:

First feature length sound movie was the nearly three-hour-long Don Juan by Warner Bros. August 6, 1926.

Then "The Better 'Ole", in October 1926.

May 1927 "They're Coming to Get Me" by Fox

September 1927, "Sunrise", by acclaimed German director F. W. Murnau


End of film history lesson.



One of our major problems today is the display.

A while ago movies where shot in 24 for theaters and played back in 25 (25 over 50i - at least here in PAL land) at TV, what worked out great and nobody ever complained.

Then there comes HD and TFT/Computer and Plasmas.

Now everything is a compromise cause you never know where poeple watch your work on.

Here in Europe the TV-Standard for HD delivery is 1080i/25.
The only displays that can show that (TFT/Plasmas), are not able to show interlaced.
So they deinterlace (and throw half of the horizontal resolution away - no mater what codec or chip).

Line based CRT monitors are the best possible display today, and if you ever saw 1080i on a $75000 Sony studio class 1 reference CRT monitor you know what HD could be, if we wouldn´t have those crapy cheap flat displays. It´s like day and night.

I would go so far and say, if you haven´t seen HD on such a monitor, you haven´t seen HD at all.

The reason is the slow soft dimming of the lines (phosphor) meets the slow reaction of our eyes/brain.

It´s smooth and creamy it sharp as hell - even on 24P pans - much smoother as in theaters, no judder at all. No need for framedubbling 100 or 120 Hz tricks - or any other MamboJambo - just perfect.

But the industry keeps us away from that experiance, and marketing departments try to talk us in to tose chap looking, big flat shiny monsters.

The traditional idea of using slowly dimming lines, offset at 50hz (coresponding to a 48 Hz shutter in cinema - but smoother as in cinema because of the phosphorescence or afterglow) is perfect for the human perception and comes very natural because of the waveform character. Much like the valve tubes in high en audio equipment are more rich and pleasant to the ear.

Any flat panel is binary, with square wave charakter - as it knows only light on or light off - comes unnaturaly, square and harsh and that´s what the pictures look like.

Getting back on topic, 24P on a HD CTR is a judder free wonderfull and rich experiance, where is no need for soap opera framerates.

Frank

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Just for the record:

First feature length sound movie was the nearly three-hour-long Don Juan by Warner Bros. August 6, 1926.

Then "The Better 'Ole", in October 1926.

May 1927 "They're Coming to Get Me" by Fox

September 1927, "Sunrise", by acclaimed German director F. W. Murnau


End of film history lesson.

...

Frank.

Your record is broken my friend. Careful or you might loose your teaching credentials:

"Warners' first Vitaphone release, Don Juan, was a silent film accompanied by music and sound effects. The studio took the Vitaphone process one step farther in its 1927 adaptation of the Samson Raphaelson Broadway hit The Jazz Singer, incorporating vocal musical numbers in what was essentially a non-talking film."


There were sound films before and even sync sound films but The Jazz Singer is indeed credited as the first talkie with synchronized dialogue sequences.

Lesson Corrected.



If you don't like that, do some research write a book.

...

One of our major problems today is the display.

A while ago movies where shot in 24 for theaters and played back in 25 (25 over 50i - at least here in PAL land) at TV, what worked out great and nobody ever complained.

Then there comes HD and TFT/Computer and Plasmas.

Now everything is a compromise cause you never know where poeple watch your work on.

Here in Europe the TV-Standard for HD delivery is 1080i/25.
The only displays that can show that (TFT/Plasmas), are not able to show interlaced.
So they deinterlace (and throw half of the horizontal resolution away - no mater what codec or chip).

Line based CRT monitors are the best possible display today, and if you ever saw 1080i on a $75000 Sony studio class 1 reference CRT monitor you know what HD could be, if we wouldn´t have those crapy cheap flat displays. It´s like day and night.

I would go so far and say, if you haven´t seen HD on such a monitor, you haven´t seen HD at all.

The reason is the slow soft dimming of the lines (phosphor) meets the slow reaction of our eyes/brain.

It´s smooth and creamy it sharp as hell - even on 24P pans - much smoother as in theaters, no judder at all. No need for framedubbling 100 or 120 Hz tricks - or any other MamboJambo - just perfect.

But the industry keeps us away from that experiance, and marketing departments try to talk us in to tose chap looking, big flat shiny monsters.

The traditional idea of using slowly dimming lines, offset at 50hz (coresponding to a 48 Hz shutter in cinema - but smoother as in cinema because of the phosphorescence or afterglow) is perfect for the human perception and comes very natural because of the waveform character. Much like the valve tubes in high en audio equipment are more rich and pleasant to the ear.

Any flat panel is binary, with square wave charakter - as it knows only light on or light off - comes unnaturaly, square and harsh and that´s what the pictures look like.

Getting back on topic, 24P on a HD CTR is a judder free wonderfull and rich experiance, where is no need for soap opera framerates.

Frank

I will say I am a big fan of CRT and particularly of Sony HD CRT.

That we are in agreement with.


However, the environmental cost in terms of construction, transportation, operation, and disposal are too great.


We can only hope for OLED or another technology to start getting close to the CRT capabilities.


Rest assured that will happen as well.


I think the upside of all of this is there will be a global standard so content can be shot and distributed anyplace, anytime, and anywhere without much fuss or manipulation.


Cheers to you all the same Frank. :beer:

 

[MichaelP]

Also, the 40-60 foot screen in the theater is progressive - light reflecting on a flat screen. It is not an interlace display. So at the very least the signal needs to be progressive to eliminate field blending and motion artifacts of interlace sources or different progressive frames recorder to different interlace formats.

Actually most devices used by consumers are progressive or going progressive: mobile, laptop, plasmas, LCD, rear and front projection.



Michael

 

[filmman]

Hey, Noiz, you said: "So yes. And unless your shooting film your not sooting 30 but 29.97."

Do you mean that the cameras that are shooting 24p are really shooting 29.97?

I know, this is just so I understand. Do you mean that the display is going to be 29.97 regardless of in what frame-rate a movie is shot?

Also, I'm assuming you're talking about certain common types of monitors and/or screen, right?

Please help me, I'm close to understanding this mess.

You see, this whole discussion here is now purely academic. None of these projections of technology need happen. In fact they can't all happen. The standards of the future will be determined according to practical requirements -- probably by the bean counters or even by Wall Street. LOL There has to be a "bailout" for this frame-rate discussion.

Just to throw in something I don't hear anybody talking about is the Arriflex D20 which shoots 24 fps digital with a rotating shutter, like film! Is this something related?

Another question I have for all of you is: I'm shooting with a Sony Z1 (for my experimental projects only) and, so I don't really have to worry about this whole 24 fps and 24p discussion, right? If I'm going to see the movie in 29.97 anyway, why bother with any other cameras? Furthermore, I'm editing in FCP 5.04 and a G5 and therefore I can export whatever frame rate I want with Compressor, etc.

Is my thinking wrong about all this? Thanks for your help.

 

[Noiz2]

If you think I am wrong just pony up the facts with some type of objective references we can refer too. It's totally cool. we are just discussing.

With all due respect you have brought up no facts to support your arguments just your opinions, based as far as I can tell on no practical experience. OK I get it we are talking about the future, but the future comes from the present and nothing today supports your projection in any way so give us some examples.

I made no wrong assumptions at all.

In fact, I have only scratched the surface and we can on ad infinitum.

Well I'm glad to see those hard facts.....

It all will change. It has before and it most certainly will again. Sooner than later.

What exactly? The basic film in use to day is the same as it was when films started. The substrate changed to a less flammable one but 99% of films are still shot on 35mm film. The biggest change has been in sound and postproduction work flow, but even that hasn't changed much except the tools. Films still come with optical tracks.

You are going on and on and on and on about today.


We get it. I am saying it will change.

It is stale and arbitrary and will indeed change.

Now see this just reflects a video game orientation. I'm going to take a guess and say you REALLY liked "300". It looked like a video game and had pretty nonexistent acting.
I here you saying change I just don't see any reasons that support that claim.

1st I am talking about a computerized systems. Fully digital not mechanical or analog.

as opposed to what exactly? On the sound end it is all digital and has been (with a few vary rare exceptions) for years. All current recorders are computers, most dedicated in a box but they are all computers. There is nothing mechanical outside of the harddrive. Nobody has used physical sync since interlock projectors. Time code is a digital signal, even when it was recorded on analog media.

1. There is a real time clock.

2. There is a system clock.

I am saying that most certainly system clocks are accurate enough to use to sync any motion with any sound even if they vary during a give take. Even if they vary multiple times in that same take.

You haven't explained how you plan to change the speed with out changing the speed.

I even went further and said with even reasonably accurate real time clocks the same could be done.

wrong. Well excuse me in this "future" where nothing is based on anything we know now then who knows?

The mathmatics is not that big of a deal either way.

I think that would come as a bit of a shock to the industry. Have you gone to AES and let them know that they can save money by dumping all there engineers.

It's simply coding to match two or more events recorded separately when recompiled or recomposed at a latter time.

I won't argue. I'm waiting with great anticipation of this system your coming up with. Since so simple I'm sure you can show us a prototype in the next week or two.

I know what sample rate is.

Nothing you have said so far reflects that knowledge.

We are talking about timecode embedded in the sound recording and the "film" or visual recording so they be synced in post.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU SHOOT 1 FRAME A SECOND OR 10,000 OR IF YOU SWITCH RANDOMLY INBETWEEN.


Doesn't matter.

You keep saying that but just repeating it doesn't make it so. You have yet to say how changing speed doesn't change speed.

It will be based on a system clock or even a farily accurate real time clock. +/- 1/100 of a sec or so.

well at 48k sample rate your clock at the very least needs to go that speed and that is, say it with me, 1/48,000 of a second. Sort of leaves that 1/100 of a sec in the dust. In practical terms a good clock is considerably faster. My sync clock runs at 256X so that would be 1/12,288,000 of a second.
Converter clocks are measured for jitter in ppm. A good clock will vary only a few tick,s per million.

it's not quite your Strontium clock but a heck of a lot more accurate than anything your talking about. And I'm talking today, not in this futuristic world where physics no longer applies.

Extremely!?!?

Come on....

Use specifics.

What margin of error???


A strontium atomic clock is +/- one second per 200 million years!

Are you suggesting we need that kind of accuracy?

see above

Modern networks keep synced within 1/100 of a second.

I am arguing that is more than enough and is overkill.

do some research. It's no where close.

 

[Noiz2]

Hey, Noiz, you said: "So yes. And unless your shooting film your not sooting 30 but 29.97."

Do you mean that the cameras that are shooting 24p are really shooting 29.97?

I know, this is just so I understand. Do you mean that the display is going to be 29.97 regardless of in what frame-rate a movie is shot?

Also, I'm assuming you're talking about certain common types of monitors and/or screen, right?

Film (actual 35mm film) is shot and projected at 24 frames per second. I'm only talking about the US and NTSC here. Film can be shot at different frame rates but in you movie theatre it is going to be played back at 24 FPS.

Back in black and white TV days, video was recorded and played at 30 frames per second. It had to do with the screen design and bandwidth etc but it was 30 and that works well for film transfered to video. That is important because most non "live" shows were shot on film. 24 goes into 30 evenly if you double a few frames. Then color came in and because of a big legal battle the bad guy won and we ended up with 29.97. The bad guy sold TV's and didn't want to loose brand loyalty by obsoleting the entire user-base and color need more space to broadcast. NTSC is a cheat. They slowed down the frame rate slightly so they could fit the color info in and the analog TV's of the day had pretty soft sync so they didn't really notice that the signal was a bit off and B&W TV's could see color broadcasts. Since then video monitors in the US and other NTSC areas work at 29.97. The catch is that all those films transfered to video were now slow. Not a big deal IF the sound was sent and slowed down at the same time. Big deal if your working in audio post and all the recordings on the set are playing full speed and your film (transfered to video) is playing slow.
Anyway back to your question.
Until recently video was all shot at 29.97 everything is cool. But people wanted the 24 frame look of film. There are a few camcorders (maybe only one?) that shoots a true 24 frame video, but you need software that will support that to edit it and the flow is the same as if you shot on film, not something video people are used to, ie you have to do a pull down to 29.97. To make it easier almost all "24p" camcorders actually shoot at 23.98 and do an on the fly frame addition to create a 29.97 frame rate DV stream. You can remove the extra frames if you want to edit at 23.98, there are reasons that you might want to do that. But you can also leave it as a 29.97 stream. This way everything has stayed at "video speed" and your on set recordings sync to your footage.

I haven't worked with HD much so I'm not sure if any of this changes in an all HD flow, but until some form of HD delivery exists on a large scale it probably doesn't matter much since everything is going to get down converted to SD.

The other little catch with the above is that if your 24p video got picked up for a film release you have to speed everything up to film speed.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

With all due respect you have brought up no facts to support your arguments just your opinions, based as far as I can tell on no practical experience. OK I get it we are talking about the future, but the future comes from the present and nothing today supports your projection in any way so give us some examples.

...

Come on man.

Read the whole thread.

There are links to nearly everything.



The bottom line and biggest two are:

1. Hollywood wants to change it's exhibition scheme to purely digital.

2. Digital acquisition is on a meteoric rise.


These two allow a tremendous amount of flexibility in capture and exhibition.


To gain a competitive advantage, and for artistic choice, many and eventually most will abandon the stale 24p.

 

[DREWjoseph82]

Ive read this entire thread...took a while. But it just sounds like you (ESTEBEVERDE) are saying that they will absolutely change from 24 frames to something higher because they can.

What I fail to see is how you have the insight to see what other people will be doing in the future when they have the choice to stick with 24 frames, which you have said they would. I mean how do you know? Is this a big secret you are in on?

Anyways, that what I was thinking the whole time.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

This subject is like talking about TIME TRAVEL

One day, maybe ....

But with no current concrete facts or methods.

I don't know ESTE

NOt following the why's and what if's.

To gain a competitive advantage, and for artistic choice, many and eventually most will abandon the stale 24p.

The stale standard ? Who will do this ? You're the only one talking about here.

Who is pursuing this idelology ? Are there websites or groups doing this NOW ? Who is looking at 24p (fps) as stale or unnaceptable ?

This is news to me.

-

Is Spielberg, Lucas, Rodriguez, Tarantino, Scorsese or whomever gunning for change form the 24fps cadence ?

Not that I'm aware of.

-

You can shoot whatever you want and distro to your hearts desire, but I don;t suspect the standard changing.

It aint broke, you know ?

 

[Ian-T]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned in this thread or if it is even relavent...but wasn't it James Cameron who recently stated that his desire is for the industry to push 48 fps instead of 24fps? Matter of fact here is an excerpt of what he said from THIS article:

"Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all."

He makes some valid points for moving away from 24p which would help Estebeverde's argument. Read the article.