24p is on the way out!

[lawriejaffa]

Yep interesting discussion despite all the personal remarks!

Being from PAL land we use 25p anyway (and most / if not many films here are shot on that form too.)

I like film for its organic visual colour quality, and the aesthetic representation of motion and cadence etc that comes with its frame rates.

Where I fail to see part of this discussion, is the proposed superiority of faster frame rates, when we can see already what that effect is like when playing actual films on plasma screens with the feature Jack describes.

I hardly see the point Este makes, as some kind of Spartacus like freedom call to escape the confinement of our film based traditions!

I don't think either, that digital folk are just trying to desperately mimic film, more than they are trying to capture what they percieve as its finest qualities - organic colours, motion, etc.

Faster framerates are more like televison, eventually one could suppose that we could even create a camera of such high tech design lol that it could capture the same resolution (and er instant frame rate) of the human eye?

Point is, film is an abstract form of capturing an image, with unique and attractive qualities that are not necessarily realistic. Hence we try to capture some of that with progressive cams, post software etc.

Its not a case of technology making that obsolete, but changing artistic tastes among audiences. Of which there is no forgone conclusion.

 

[Postmaster]

There are a lot more fabrics and fashion choices available since the 50's. Most people still wear bluejeans most of the time though.

Excelent point Daniel.

But maybe tomorrow someone will tell me that jeans are on the way out cause we can have pink Goretex tights because of artistc favour and customer demand.

(Sorry ESTEBEVERDE I couldn´t resist)

I´m not sure about SPR but i´m 99% sure they shot the fight scenes in Band of Brothers pretty cranked up. (and I don´t like it at all).

And yes, I think that this was a bad idea of Spielberg or Tom Hanks (who ever was responsible).

Even the wive (she has no idea of framerates) said

"I can´t say what it is, but somehow it feels and looks wrong"
(In the first palce she asked me if the DVD is corrupt)

Frank

 

[Ian-T]

Anyway I believe what your talking about is a stylistic choice and basically you don't agree with Spielbergs choice.

Sorry for going into shutter speeds (I knew it was not what we were talking about) itt's just when the poster exclaimed he did not like it I was just explaining what it was. But for the record....I loved those type of shots (at least they worked for me).

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I gave Ryan back to the rental store but if you got Band of Brothers, they did it while every fighting scene.

Frank

Cool.

Thanks Frank. :thumbsup:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Oh, that I agree with you, Este. The use of film will diminish; it already has. I mean, there are few filmmakers that now can shoot film. Some don't even know what it looks like, especially how to operate the cameras.

And the whole art form has changed. The 35mm film rules are mostly out the window. It started a long time ago, since the 60s really. Of course, 35mm filmmaking is still around. I think 99% of the theatrical feature films still use the industry standards of filmmaking, also known as Hollywood Films. Just about all foreign films have always been shot according to Hollywood.

Today, there is still a small group of digital producers who still shoot according to those rules, and from all I've heard the film schools all teach the Hollywood rules of filmmaking.

Personally, I'm fascinated by the innovations of the new movie makers. I really am. I'm trying to emulate them myself, and this is why I'm so excited about my new feature film Felliniesque Players. I could've never shot it with a 35mm camera. I was shot at night with available light most of the time; it's just impossible to do with celluloid.

And the rules of digital movie making? Well, there are no rules yet, but they are being developed, I'm sure. In fact, you are the first person who is attempting to establish a new rule -- sort of -- always shoot at a higher rate as long as there is a projector that will project it. Am I completely off? Well, it's sort of what I think you're trying to say when you say that 24p is on the way out!

Way out, man, way out. And there is nothing wrong with that

It's very cool that you have such a valuable and unique perspective.

I would love to hear more about what you think about all this especially specifics in ways that things are shot differently.

When I watch some older films I am particularly impressed with framing and lighting but what do I know. According to Noiz I am a 60 year old high school gamer! :beer:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I didn't know that there's something like that in Ryan, where are these points?

Remember that what we're talking about here is ramping up the projection\display too, not only shooting at higher speeds.

AFAIK, Ryan is 100 % 24fps with no ramping up [for display]. At least that's what my media player is telling me.

...)

I believe you are correct.

Some of the scenes have so much judder/shake it kills my eyes and brain.

...

We're yet to see something like this: A projection with variable framerate.

There's a chance that it will look like sh*t.

Well, you can do it on your computer. Try taking a few files that have different framerates for capture link them in a playlist and play them back natively without a gap.

That is a very good simulation.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Not to open the whole can of worms again but VBR MP3's have been around for quite awhile and they still are not reliably compatible. So I don't think the math is as easy as you think.

...

Cool... can you please explain a bit more and expand on how they're not as reliably compatible so I can understand what you mean a bit more?

...

Later you person of mystery...

Of course my friend. It's always good to hear what you are thinking. :beer:

 

[dwcwiak]

As entertaining as this thread is, shadow puppets run at about 2fps and if this economy doesn't get better that's what we'll all be watching.

 

[filmman]

There are hundreds if not thousands of rules that have all been broken. Not in order of importance -- just a few...
1. Never allow a zoom lens on your set, let alone use it (one filmmaker broke an Angenieux 25-250mm zoom when he saw it in the package; it wasn't even on the camera) -- Spielberg still adheres to this as far as I know. ... Now they zoom in the middle of the shot and the editor says, "Cool!"
2. You never pan, not even when a posse runs past camera. Korazawa invented the way to break this rule and establish a new rule. When following riders on horseback in a medium long shot, you can truck alongside -- the frame appears stationary, with the background flitting by; it's considered a static shot, not a pan!
3. You can dolly, but you can't cut in the middle of the dolly shot. Hitchcock shot Rope as a way to break this rule. He put the camera on a dolly and tried to shoot 9 one-thousand-foot rolls without cutting. He only had one cut in one of the rolls. That's the whole 100 minute movie. The movie wasn't a success. It dragged ...

Just three rules that come to mind.

Some of the new techniques of digital that I like are:
1. To change go from a realistic portrayal of people into a dream sequence morphing the image in the middle of the shot. It would cost a fortune to do it with blue screen and optical printer. It's so easy in FCP for example. It can be easily set up in the camera and executed in the editing. You could try the effects in a laptop as you shoot.
2. You can shoot in the middle of the night, with starfields, the moon, reflections in a lake -- unlimited potential for creating magical shots for nothing.
3. You can set the camera filters anyway you like and create unique looks by experimenting right there on the set.

Just a few advantages of digital cameras and unlimited frame-rate possibilites.

It's suits my felliniesque style of filmmaking, especially the no-budget movies that I can do all day long.

But, understand, Este, given anything over $25,000 for a budget, I'll shoot 35mm and work along the lines of established cinematic art. Especially if I'm working with SAG actors and a screenplay written by a great writer (based on published novels, for example), then I have to follow what the distributors will pay for and exhibit.

Short ends are around 15 cents per foot, processing is 10 cents per foot. I can shoot 50,000 ft of 35mm film and develop all the negative for $12,500. I'm an experienced director; I do circled takes, so all I need is to print 20,000 ft at 19 cents per foot and I have my work print in 35mm. That's only another $3,800. I can have a 35mm movie that I can screen to the studio in interlock for under $17,000 (including magnetic sound stock).

But when I have no money and still want to shoot a movie -- I'm a filmmaker, the wheels are always churning -- I pick up my Z1 and go out into the night. LOL

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

if 24p is not the optimum aesthetic rate.....

....

- then why did indies shooting on video start shooting pal because it was closer to 24p? They could have shot 60 or 30.
.....

To be cool so they could look like their big brother counterparts in "real film". They are looking for legitimacy and to be taken serious. This is why they emulated the film look in every way possible. It is the same reason we use 35mm adapters.

....

- why was the indie video world revolutionized when the DVX came out with true 24p?
....

Same reason. To be cool so they could look like their big brother counterparts in "real film". They are looking for legitimacy and to be taken serious. This is why they emulated the film look in every way possible. It is the same reason we use 35mm adapters.

- why would they even bother engineering such a cam? Because they knew we wanted our video to look like 24p for narrative work, not 30 or 60.

....

Again. Same reason. To be cool so they could look like their big brother counterparts in "real film". They are looking for legitimacy and to be taken serious. This is why they emulated the film look in every way possible. It is the same reason we use 35mm adapters.

...

I saw this guy's gazillion dollar plasma that has an "automatic motion" feature which reinterprets your DVDs to 120 frames per second. It made everything look like sports. When people were crossing the set and the camera was panning with them all of the strobing in the background was gone. It looked really weird. Super clear. Not pleasing. Not like film. Not organic.

Why weren't we saying: "just give us cinelike gamma, 30 and 60 look better than 24"? Because they don't.....

In your opinion in this case.

There is nothing wrong with that.

...

So you say 24fps was arbitrarily chosen as the lowest frame rate that would sync with sound. OK. Fine. But we like it. Maybe if 60 fps was the lowest frame rate that could sync to sound we'd have all learned to love that. But just because we can do something now doesn't mean our tastes are going to change.

....

This all is 100% correct. But, I wouldn't bet that someone will come up with something more fantastic to the mass palate than we have now.

...

There are a lot more fabrics and fashion choices available since the 50's. Most people still wear bluejeans most of the time though.

Yes... the 1850s!

But, that is just along the lines that I'm saying.

Film is the analog to Jeans.

24p
30p
48p
60p
etc...

are the styles.


Jeans have changed styles many times since then and no one lost an eye or anything.

 

[karapetkov]

Well, you can do it on your computer. Try taking a few files that have different framerates for capture link them in a playlist and play them back natively without a gap.

That is a very good simulation.

Yes, I know, I have done it. But I think the real test is projection on a big screen...

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Yep interesting discussion despite all the personal remarks!

Being from PAL land we use 25p anyway (and most / if not many films here are shot on that form too.)

I like film for its organic visual colour quality, and the aesthetic representation of motion and cadence etc that comes with its frame rates.

Where I fail to see part of this discussion, is the proposed superiority of faster frame rates, when we can see already what that effect is like when playing actual films on plasma screens with the feature Jack describes.

I hardly see the point Este makes, as some kind of Spartacus like freedom call to escape the confinement of our film based traditions!

I don't think either, that digital folk are just trying to desperately mimic film, more than they are trying to capture what they percieve as its finest qualities - organic colours, motion, etc.

Faster framerates are more like televison, eventually one could suppose that we could even create a camera of such high tech design lol that it could capture the same resolution (and er instant frame rate) of the human eye?

Point is, film is an abstract form of capturing an image, with unique and attractive qualities that are not necessarily realistic. Hence we try to capture some of that with progressive cams, post software etc.

Its not a case of technology making that obsolete, but changing artistic tastes among audiences. Of which there is no forgone conclusion.

Good Points!

If you read my post carefully I say over and over again that it is a combination of things including a faster frame rate that will give a great new MOJO.

What that formula will be is what time will tell. :thumbsup:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

...

But maybe tomorrow someone will tell me that jeans are on the way out cause we can have pink Goretex tights because of artistc favour and customer demand.

(Sorry ESTEBEVERDE I couldn´t resist)

...

Now worries Frank.

I'm confident either way you go you would look good in them! :laugh:


Just Play'n!

 

[Noiz2]

Cool... can you please explain a bit more and expand on how they're not as reliably compatible so I can understand what you mean a bit more?

Well they just don't play correctly on many players both software based and hardware based , well actually this still software. If you want to send someone an MP3 and it needs to play correctly you have to use fixed bit rate. It sort of begs the question if all these people creating these various playback devices (software) can't get it together after how many years? to set a standard that they all actually adhere to how are you going to get everyone to play back variable frame rate video? That is of course assuming that you could make your scheme work.

The only real standard that has stuck that I can think of is the width of 35mm film and frame rate of playback. In sound MIDI is about the only one I can think of. There still isn't universal agreement on how an XLR connector is wired. And if anything computers are worse. You know all those connections that start with RSxxx like the "standard" serial port on many devices. RS stands for "recommended Standard", ie nobody could agree on what went on what pin so there is no standard. I have a whole book around here somewhere on how to figure out how your RS232 port is wired to you can make up a custom adapter to connect to your other RS232 devices.

My point is that even if one wanted to do what your proposing, arguable - obviously.
And you could physically make it work, also arguable.
I don't think you could get enough consensus to actually implement it.

The only reason we have stereo today (in theatres) is because someone else (other than theatres and studios) fronted the money and held out a BIG carrot (you could not show Starwars 4 with out upgrading) AND the system was 100% backward compatible. And mono and stereo are the only universal standards for 35mm film and they aren't really universal since there are a number of noise reduction options.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

There are hundreds if not thousands of rules that have all been broken. Not in order of importance -- just a few...
1. Never allow a zoom lens on your set, let alone use it (one filmmaker broke an Angenieux 25-250mm zoom when he saw it in the package; it wasn't even on the camera) -- Spielberg still adheres to this as far as I know. ... Now they zoom in the middle of the shot and the editor says, "Cool!"
2. You never pan, not even when a posse runs past camera. Korazawa invented the way to break this rule and establish a new rule. When following riders on horseback in a medium long shot, you can truck alongside -- the frame appears stationary, with the background flitting by; it's considered a static shot, not a pan!
3. You can dolly, but you can't cut in the middle of the dolly shot. Hitchcock shot Rope as a way to break this rule. He put the camera on a dolly and tried to shoot 9 one-thousand-foot rolls without cutting. He only had one cut in one of the rolls. That's the whole 100 minute movie. The movie wasn't a success. It dragged ...

Just three rules that come to mind.

Some of the new techniques of digital that I like are:
1. To change go from a realistic portrayal of people into a dream sequence morphing the image in the middle of the shot. It would cost a fortune to do it with blue screen and optical printer. It's so easy in FCP for example. It can be easily set up in the camera and executed in the editing. You could try the effects in a laptop as you shoot.
2. You can shoot in the middle of the night, with starfields, the moon, reflections in a lake -- unlimited potential for creating magical shots for nothing.
3. You can set the camera filters anyway you like and create unique looks by experimenting right there on the set.

Just a few advantages of digital cameras and unlimited frame-rate possibilites.

It's suits my felliniesque style of filmmaking, especially the no-budget movies that I can do all day long.

But, understand, Este, given anything over $25,000 for a budget, I'll shoot 35mm and work along the lines of established cinematic art. Especially if I'm working with SAG actors and a screenplay written by a great writer (based on published novels, for example), then I have to follow what the distributors will pay for and exhibit.

Short ends are around 15 cents per foot, processing is 10 cents per foot. I can shoot 50,000 ft of 35mm film and develop all the negative for $12,500. I'm an experienced director; I do circled takes, so all I need is to print 20,000 ft at 19 cents per foot and I have my work print in 35mm. That's only another $3,800. I can have a 35mm movie that I can screen to the studio in interlock for under $17,000 (including magnetic sound stock).

But when I have no money and still want to shoot a movie -- I'm a filmmaker, the wheels are always churning -- I pick up my Z1 and go out into the night. LOL

Awesome!!!!!

I would love to see your films especially your Feliniesque one!

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Well they just don't play correctly on many players both software based and hardware based , well actually this still software. If you want to send someone an MP3 and it needs to play correctly you have to use fixed bit rate. It sort of begs the question if all these people creating these various playback devices (software) can't get it together after how many years? to set a standard that they all actually adhere to how are you going to get everyone to play back variable frame rate video? That is of course assuming that you could make your scheme work.

The only real standard that has stuck that I can think of is the width of 35mm film and frame rate of playback. In sound MIDI is about the only one I can think of. There still isn't universal agreement on how an XLR connector is wired. And if anything computers are worse. You know all those connections that start with RSxxx like the "standard" serial port on many devices. RS stands for "recommended Standard", ie nobody could agree on what went on what pin so there is no standard. I have a whole book around here somewhere on how to figure out how your RS232 port is wired to you can make up a custom adapter to connect to your other RS232 devices.

My point is that even if one wanted to do what your proposing, arguable - obviously.
And you could physically make it work, also arguable.
I don't think you could get enough consensus to actually implement it.

The only reason we have stereo today (in theatres) is because someone else (other than theatres and studios) fronted the money and held out a BIG carrot (you could not show Starwars 4 with out upgrading) AND the system was 100% backward compatible. And mono and stereo are the only universal standards for 35mm film and they aren't really universal since there are a number of noise reduction options.

Great Post!

And I especially 100% Absolutely Agree with you on the Standardization.

The only way that I think the marketing part would work is if someone like RED developed it to work with their cameras.


If it made a big enough splash the others would follow albeit with what would most probably be proprietary standards.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Yes, I know, I have done it. But I think the real test is projection on a big screen...

Yep.

 

[Noiz2]

To be cool so they could look like their big brother counterparts in "real film". They are looking for legitimacy and to be taken serious. This is why they emulated the film look in every way possible. It is the same reason we use 35mm adapters.

I don't think that is totally true. Hollywood has had a number of chances to change frame rates and actually has done some experimentation and has not made the switch. 70mm and iMax required all new cameras and projectors so there was no particular reason to stay with the status quo.
I do think your partially correct though. "Surround" sound for you no budget epic is all the rage now even though is a rather stupid idea and actually hurts your sound track since your spending very limited time and money on something pointless rather than creating a good track. The surround fad is very driven by marketing departments as the new wizbang must have feature for the box cover.

 

[TimurCivan]

Now with digital, that is not so much the case so the choice will become almost purely aesthetic.

Yes thats exactly the point... 24p is an aesthetic choice.....

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Yes thats exactly the point... 24p is an aesthetic choice.....

Right.... and what I am saying is that their will be a time and place where a combination of Framerate, Exposure, DOF, Color Timing, ect... that is so fantastic it surpasses what we currently love.

A completely digital workflow from start to exhibition makes this much much easier to do.

I submit to you it will happen in the next 3-5 years and will be so moving and dramatic that it will displace the current combinations that are made using 24p.