24p is on the way out!

[J.R. Hudson]

Maybe ...................... Jim is a genius and a pioneer any many areas of technology, film related and not film related ...

But what is 48fps going to look like ? I can't stand 30p and the thought of 48fps isn't appealing at all.

This talk of judder during pans and strobing is a mystery too me. When done right (according to ASC guidleines, for example) it is a non issue.

48fps ?

That's way to close to the gastly 60

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

....


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.



....

Shhhh.... don't tell red, or all the intermediaries, and please please please don't tell Hollywood since they are looking to spend upwards of $1,000,000,000 update all of their theaters for DIGITAL EXHIBITION.


Shhhh... it's a secret.


But hey, I concede you are the most brilliant man on the Earth.... So, how are they going to stuff all of that film into the digital projectors?????


Careful not to look on the front end either.

They guys at RED and other Engineering Houses are making FANTASTIC DIGITAL acquisition products.

I guess your right and they are going to go from digital acquisition, to film intermediate, to digital intermediate, to film out and stuff the film in the magic hole in the Digital Projectors they are spending $1,000,000,000 on.


Good Call Champ!:beer:

....

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.


.....

Ummm..... yeah.....


You are arguing one side in one paragraph and the absolute polar opposite in the next.

At least stick with one position per post.


Analog... going bye bye.

Digital... here to stay in big force.

Specifically - Acquisition, Post, and Exhibition.


I'm glad you have not seen any change in that for years and years and years.


I kinda though that the DVX sorta changed a lot of that. Maybe you have heard of it?

....

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

..../QUOTE]

You keep saying that over and over and over and over again.


It is soooo simple.


When you record sound now during overcrank what do you do?

Are you telling me you can only record sound when someone is shooting at 24p??????

Are you saying that cameras who can overcrank and have variable frame rates cannot record sound unless they are shooting 24p!?!?!?!


You are not making any sense.

NONE.



How can you say you are Mr. Sound expert if you don't understand how this works?

....


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.


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.



Nothing you have said so far reflects that knowledge.




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.


....

Pure Flaming.

Argue the points with facts and knock of your insults.



QUOTE=Noiz2;1423366]....

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.

.....

WOW... so, you are going to argue against my point with support for it and flaming me while you are at it?

Seriously?


You have already said your recording device uses purely digital technology.

You have already conceded it is a computer.


Now, we are talking about the camera being a computer too.

NOT AN ANALOG OPTICAL MECHANICAL DEVICE.


A digital camera.

A digital recorder.


They both are computers, they both have system clocks (they really have more but as you are so easily confused I am trying to keep is simple for you.) They also have real time clocks.



What I am saying, and what is certainly to be done is that there will be a standard where Digital Cameras and Digital Recorders can play nicely together at any FRAME RATE (That's the Camera not the Sound) and that the FRAME RATES can change on the fly.


It is simply a matter of mathmatics.


It's not that big of a deal.


You keep saying we need new physics but it's merely the physics and computer systems we have now.


Don't you understand that we already Jam multiple cameras now.

All we are talking about is a new alogorythm that can change syncing on the fly.



The 1/100th of a second is how much drift at any moment we can tolerate. Are you saying that is not good enough?


That is less than .025 frames over a given shoot is not accurate enough?



But, the point is really moot as much more accurate systems are well within reach as processing power and clocking advance.





First you are arguing things are the same and have been and won't change, then you are saying well audio is done with computers now etc.



You are not telling us how you are going to stop Digital acquisition, post, and Exhibition.


Furthermore you are not telling us how you are going to make everyone adhere to 24p when they will have the freedom to shoot whatever they like since in a completely digital system.

 

[Ian-T]

@J.R. Hudson

Trust me.. I asked those same questions when I first read this article.

I'm no expert but would there be a difference in the picture if a cam could "capture" that number of frames in a second still using a 180 degree shutter (which I believe would be 1/96...right?) but still "deliver" it as 24p? I assume it would still behave the way Jim wants it to. But watching it in 48 fps....I don't know about that.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

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.

That is a very very excellent point.


What I am saying is that the change will occur for two reasons.


1st it will be used as a marketing ploy. IE - It's bigger and better and you can only get it at the theater! (at first anyway) This will be a marketing gimmick just like larger aspect ratios and larger formats were when television came about and took over market share from cinema.


2nd There will be those who use higher framerates to their artistic advantage. They will come up with something they like and we love. There is much more to the image than pure frame rate.


Great points DREWjoseph82!

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

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.


...

That's cool.

That's really my fault for not being clearer.


Simply.

We are moving to a completely digital system.

Digital In.

Digital Process.

Digital Out.


This will give us a mind boggling combination of choices.


We will not have to worry about the larger margin of error that is inherent in mechanical systems.

....


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.

-
....

I said the stale standard because it is. Don't get me wrong. It works the majority of the time.

All I'm saying is there is something brewing on the horizon. To many it will be better.

...

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

Not that I'm aware of.

-
....

No. Not that I am aware of either. I would almost bet most would be on the Give Me 24p or Give Me Blindness! Bandwagon.

I do absolute agree with you that there will be those that always shoot in 24p. Always.


What I am saying is that there will be tremendous choice and some will grab the ring and make magic with it.


Rodriguez would actually be one I would put my money on as he was so quick to go digital in the first place and seems somewhat format agnostic. (Granted he seems Sony obsessed.)

...


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 ?

Yep.

I'm just saying.



I don't think Spielberg is broke but we have Lucas.

I don't think Lucas is broke but we have Rodriguez.

I don't think Rodriguez is broke but we have ....


Know what I mean?


It's all about choice and artistic expression. Someone is surely to grab the ring and make magic with so much mojo you might even at least view the trailer.


Thanks so much for your excellent points!

It's really cool to get your viewpoint and insight! :beer:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Noiz2]

I was going to respond but we had a power glitch and poof. But it did bring me to the conclusion that it was pointless. So I leave this thread to you and your fantasies.
We agree on two things.
Digital acquisition will come to dominate. and Digital distribution to theatres will happen.
Unlike you I will admit these are my opinions, but also unlike you I do work in the industry and have worked on a number of large hollywood features and know something about how Hollywood makes films so it's not based solely on my wishful thinking.

one minor point. THe DVX100 has never been used for a major feature film and probably never will be. Good camera but not good enough and now out dated. I supervised the first feature film shot on the DVX100 so I have heard of it.

 

[filmman]

I'm holding on to my Arri 2c and Cinemonta 6-plate and Magnasync-Moviola recorder-dubber. I telecine the edited movie and do the sound on Soundtrack Pro. Then I transfer the mix to 35mm mag and syncronize to the picture. I can make 35mm release prints as many as necessary, and digital masters from a low-con print for the new "emerging" technologies. Ten years from now -- if I'm still alive I'll consider digital acuisition at 23.98 fps or whatever is popular at the time. Thanks for the info. Wasn't Al Jolson great in that silly make-up? LOL

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I was going to respond but we had a power glitch and poof. But it did bring me to the conclusion that it was pointless. So I leave this thread to you and your fantasies.

....

Yes. Please do.

I...

We agree on two things.
Digital acquisition will come to dominate. and Digital distribution to theatres will happen.

...

I say that the whole process will be digital.

Acquisition, Distribution, and Exhibition.

...

Unlike you I will admit these are my opinions, but also unlike you I do work in the industry and have worked on a number of large hollywood features and know something about how Hollywood makes films so it's not based solely on my wishful thinking.

...

You don't know me.

You don't know jack about me.

I could be anybody.

I will let my arguments stand.

They are strong on their own.

Even you are now readily embracing my premise that "Film" is turning Digital from start to finish.



You are saying that you don't think that the standard will change from 24p.

O.K. I appreciate and respect that. That is totally cool and whether you are right or I am right in the end it's still O.K. if you thought that.


What's not O.K. is to hoist argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad verecundiam, etc etc and expect someone to swallow it hook line and sinker.


I am totally O.K. if you disagree with me. It is cool. It is O.K. with me even if you end up being right. But it's not O.K. to flame and insult ad nauseum.

....

one minor point. THe DVX100 has never been used for a major feature film and probably never will be. Good camera but not good enough and now out dated.....

!?!?!?! I understand the DVX100 hasn't been used on a major big budget Hollywood narrative. Never said it was.

But it deos represent change.

It is not film and it has been used and was the beginning of the empowerment of independent film makers.

....

I supervised the first feature film shot on the DVX100 so I have heard of it.

!?!?!? So you do realize that it has made an impact and is an early example of the changing tide you accepted above. You are now agreeing we are going full steam ahead digital?




Have a great night.

Enjoy a good dinner and some nice wine if you like.

Have a fanstatic sleep.

and

May you wake with the Sun Shining Warmly on you! :beer:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I'm holding on to my Arri 2c and Cinemonta 6-plate and Magnasync-Moviola recorder-dubber. I telecine the edited movie and do the sound on Soundtrack Pro. Then I transfer the mix to 35mm mag and syncronize to the picture. I can make 35mm release prints as many as necessary, and digital masters from a low-con print for the new "emerging" technologies. Ten years from now -- if I'm still alive I'll consider digital acuisition at 23.98 fps or whatever is popular at the time. Thanks for the info. Wasn't Al Jolson great in that silly make-up? LOL

A++++++++!

No doubt you can make some greatness with that stuff filmman!


Power to the People and Al Jolson! :thumbsup:

 

[Mattykins]

Can someone just shut this thing down? All this has become is a personal attack fest.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

It will just come up in other threads as it always seems to do from time to time.

I think the best course of action if just for everyone to remain civil and argue their point and not just with the other person.


There is no reason to kill the thread just because there is disagreement with the premise.

 

[Mattykins]

It's not a disagreement. You attack people for stating an opinion. They in turn retort. And such begins a vicious cycle.

24P isn't on the way out. Just as film isn't on the way out.

Digital cinema still has a whole bunch of issues. Repo: The genetic Opera was shot on two Genesis systems. The producer, who I've met with several times, went digital because it would save money. The cameras crashed from time to time holding production.

I've shot with the Red camera. It crashes from time to time due to internal faults. Playback isn't a possibility.

Real world experience. Digital cinema still has issues. Theaters still play back 24P regardless of what it was shot on. Thus, 48FPS slows down the motion because the originating frame rate was faster than the projected frame rate.

It's math. The digital switch isn't going to happen because theaters can't afford to switch to digital. Want to know why? Paramount Decree got rid of block booking an slaughtered monopolies, but the theaters now have to pay huge amounts for rentals. Until digital cinema takes over fully. 24 will still be in. Since every film production originates at 24 unless they are trying to under or overcrank projectors will still push out 24FPS.

It isn't going to happen. As simple as that. People try to remain civil. Mods have cleared the thread up - but you have to egg people on and push things to the limits.

 

[Noiz2]

Read the post I did agree with you. Think about it if films are digitally distributed to theatres then of course they are going to be exhibited digitally.

Your right I don't know "jack" about you. Except I know you don't work in film post because you would not be saying things that don't make sense. You don't understand who sound is recorded or the technical needs of that recording. You don't know that much about film work flow for a big budget film. And you seem to have some deep misunderstandings about what drives the industry. I assume from the above that you don't work in the industry but you could be a projectionist somewhere or an intern. I figure your probably in your twenties, have made some "films" (not meant to be condescending just trying to separate video "films" from films made with decent budgets (10-30 mil +)). You are hot to "change the world" but haven't lived in it or worked in it long enough to actually know what you are talking about. I could be off base but I bet not by far. I was there, I don't think badly of you for pushing it but I encourage you to do more research so you can push for the right changes.

The DVX100 didn't make a dent on the film industry. It made a big dent on the no-budget indi film community. Other than industrials there are probably only a hand full of "films" made with it that produced any profit for the producers. Maybe a doc or two. It was a great replacement for 16mm cameras for students.

Have a nice night.
SK

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

It's not a disagreement. You attack people for stating an opinion. They in turn retort. And such begins a vicious cycle.

...

Come on.

You personally have a problem with me. You blew up and got called on it and now you are bitter.


But, let's stick to the issues.

...

24P isn't on the way out. Just as film isn't on the way out.

...

I say they most certainly are.


1. DIGITAL CAPTURE

3. DIGITAL INTERMEDIARY

3. DIGITAL EXHIBITION


24p will follow once the technology is nothing more than a choice that is seamless in capture, editing, and exhibition.

...

Digital cinema still has a whole bunch of issues. Repo: The genetic Opera was shot on two Genesis systems. The producer, who I've met with several times, went digital because it would save money. The cameras crashed from time to time holding production.

I've shot with the Red camera. It crashes from time to time due to internal faults. Playback isn't a possibility.

A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter

Yes, like all things there are times when devices fail. Same with film. Perhaps in your experience digital cameras currently fail more than emulsion film.

Perhaps they fail more often over all. But your Call to Perfection is fallacy as well.

If you look at the overall equation there are filmmakers who shoot digital and find it the best overall solution for them.

I am arguing that this is trending more and more to where complete digital production is the norm and not the exception.

Theaters going digital is a huge deal and a big impetus.

...

Real world experience. Digital cinema still has issues.

....

Digital Cinema does still have issues. Just as film has issues. Digital is more economical now and in the long run. I have shown you time and time again that the big studios are going digital whether you personally like it or not.

I did not write any of these stories.

3. DIGITAL EXHIBITION

...

Real world experience. Digital cinema still has issues. Theaters still play back 24P regardless of what it was shot on. Thus, 48FPS slows down the motion because the originating frame rate was faster than the projected frame rate.

....

A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter

This is entirely irrelevant.

My argument is not that this very second Theaters are going to start playback material shot and edited for 24p back at 30p or 48p or anything of that nature.

Your example of shooting 48fps and then playing back at 24fps for slow motion an editing decision. It is a creative decision.

I am saying that once the mechanical systems are gone (this is happening now 3. DIGITAL EXHIBITION) there will be a huge range of choices for filmmakers to take advantage of. There is no barrier of 24fps only for a digital work flow.

...

It's math. The digital switch isn't going to happen because theaters can't afford to switch to digital. Want to know why? Paramount Decree got rid of block booking an slaughtered monopolies, but the theaters now have to pay huge amounts for rentals. Until digital cinema takes over fully.

...

You are first saying it wont happen and then you are saying until it happens.

Here are my sources saying DIGITAL EXHIBITION is happening now.

Sorry I am not following your logic and that the theaters are going digital anyway.

...

Until digital cinema takes over fully. 24 will still be in. Since every film production originates at 24 unless they are trying to under or overcrank projectors will still push out 24FPS.

....

This is actually the foundation for my premise. This is what I have said over and over and over again.

Namely:


Theaters are indeed going digital now and this will eliminate the need to exhibit strictly in 24p. There will be huge freedom of frame rate exhibition and that will allow filmmakers to choose many other frame rates other 24p.


Here is an article where James Cameron is arguing that capture and exhibition in frame rates other than 24p are desirable and very doable.

...

It isn't going to happen. As simple as that.

....

I've provided ample ample ample evidence that it is happening as we speak.

Please provide counter evidence so that we may consider your point that it is not.

...

Mods have cleared the thread up - but you have to egg people on and push things to the limits.

Yes they erased flaming and I edited my retorts to tone it down a bit.


If my position that I am arguing eggs people on so be it.

They are responsible for being civil and to their actions.

Just because someone doesn't like me saying that 24p is dying and on the way out doesn't mean that it is OK to flame bait.



I eagerly await your supporting information that shows theaters aren't going digital and that 24p is a hard standard that will not go away and change either.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Read the post I did agree with you. Think about it if films are digitally distributed to theatres then of course they are going to be exhibited digitally.

Your right I don't know "jack" about you. Except I know you don't work in film post because you would not be saying things that don't make sense. You don't understand who sound is recorded or the technical needs of that recording. You don't know that much about film work flow for a big budget film. And you seem to have some deep misunderstandings about what drives the industry. I assume from the above that you don't work in the industry but you could be a projectionist somewhere or an intern. I figure your probably in your twenties, have made some "films" (not meant to be condescending just trying to separate video "films" from films made with decent budgets (10-30 mil +)). You are hot to "change the world" but haven't lived in it or worked in it long enough to actually know what you are talking about. I could be off base but I bet not by far. I was there, I don't think badly of you for pushing it but I encourage you to do more research so you can push for the right changes.

The DVX100 didn't make a dent on the film industry. It made a big dent on the no-budget indi film community. Other than industrials there are probably only a hand full of "films" made with it that produced any profit for the producers. Maybe a doc or two. It was a great replacement for 16mm cameras for students.

Have a nice night.
SK

I love you.

You are sooo far off it isn't even funny.

Have a great night SK.

 

[Mattykins]

Do you know how many cameras I've had fail on me when shooting film? On the dozens upon dozens of film productions I've been associated with I've had two errors. One with a bolex that was incorrectly loaded and then dropped. The film bunched up and basically filled the camera.

The second error was with an Aaton LTR, we couldn't get the magazine loaded as it was built backwards. When we moved the core load over we had a bit of sag in the load. It made a funky noise.

Digital intermediate is something completely and utterly different from digital originals. With Kodak's release of Vision 3 stock, there is few reasons to go digital aside from cost factors. Which is why Repo was shot on a Genesis. Since a 400 foot core only goes for 11 and one half minutes.

I wasn't called out. I have no idea what you are talking about. Why would I be bitter?

But that is aside the point. Yes, is digital exhibition happening? You bet. In major venues. Most small houses can't afford the rental, and they certainly can't afford the digital projectors. Ask anyone who owns a theater. They have to work very hard to even get the reel in. The transfer costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. With ticket prices rising and people not going to theaters as often - how do you expect people to transfer?

I don't have a fallacy for perfection. Digital cinema cameras don't give you the latitude of film. Digital fails whereas film has a graceful failure. Look at a curve sheet for the technical specs on a film stock. There is no clipping. You can almost always pull information from the film stock. Film allows you to have a larger colour spectrum.

I am not a film diehard. I work with the camera that gets the job done. Film is excellent for some projects. But if I was shooting on the streets at night - I would use an F23. Since I don't like the way Vision 3 renders in zero-light.

Digital has its inherent issues as well. Especially with a film out. Costs are upwards of 450 per minute for a transfer from HD to Film.

There is one film to have been shot RED only in the major budget arena. RED still has massive workflow issues. The Genesis has issues as well. I have had this talk with a great many of producers and directors. Those in the indie work go and generate on an F900. For him it was more economical.

Repo was shot digitally because they had longer takes. Much to the dismay of the director. And yeah - it had issues. It wasn't a cost reason for them. See how much it costs to rent an F23 for a day and compare it to an Aaton XTR prod. Do a cost analysis and check yourself.

The DVX didn't faze the professional industry at all. The HVX is making strides in ENG recording. Not in high end film production. Those that point to cloverfield are wrong in every aspect. I've fought that since the day Cloverfield came out. The HVX shot the party and a few of the flashbacks. The rest of the film was shot with the F23 and Vipercam. Both cost nearly 500,000 to get operable.

Kodak wouldn't be releasing different stocks if they weren't getting interested parties. Film in photo is dying out. Film in cinema is not.

Even the indie films out there doing well originate on film. Not because of frame rates but because of exhibition. HD isn't a godsend. Look at television originating in HD. There are a huge amount of issues - not in the deliverable but on set. Talk to a costume designer, talk to a set designer or dresser. See what they say.

Film gets its look not only because of the 24 frames a second but because of the look which cannot, contrary to popular believe be mimicked digitally. Each progressive frame is, itself a different image. The silver-halide crystals in the stock are slightly different per frame. Projected these move and make that much desired 'film' look.

There is more to it than framerates. Digital cinema is an option - but it won't be the only one. Talk to someone who works in the industry and ask them if they think film is dead. You will get a much different answer than someone in the indie world.

I've wasted enough of my time. And I hope someone shuts this thread and you down. Since you have said nothing of substance.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Matt.

All I can say is that you are on the DVX user forum arguing that it wasn't an important camera.


I understand you don't think digital acquisition is a big deal or will be the dominant tool for acquisition in the near future.


Maybe we could just start a thread over at RED and see if Peter Jackson or Steven Soderbergh has anything to say about the horrible horrible horrible digital cinema cameras Shot on Red.

 

[filmman]

Good stuff. I would've never found out all these facts about the "emerging technologies" if it weren't for Este's enthusiasm for higher frame rates

I recently contacted a major chain to see what would be the cost of showing my new feature Felliniesque Players. I found out that only two of the 16 theaters in the complex were set up with digital projectors and that the waiting line was huge for them.

From my perspective as a filmmaker with all the 35mm production equipment necessary to produce 35mm movies, it makes little sense to shoot digital; except in cases where I want to experiment to a great extent. Such was the case with Felliniesque Players. I wanted to use unknown talent and create a movie based on my imagination, a movie that doesn't rely on a standard screenplay or a dramatic structure -- a dreamlike reality and a reality made up of dreams set to song and music.

To my amazement I ended up with a movie that I consider the best I've made in decades. It could be that I've also gone nuts, but I don't want to discuss that, in case the moderators close down this thread. LOL

 

[Noiz2]

I love you.

You are sooo far off it isn't even funny.

Have a great night SK.

OK your in your 60's never touched a camera and learned trolling from your grandson.
;~)
Cheers
SK