4K Blu-ray is 96 times the resolution of VHS

[ahalpert]

If we’re being honest there is nothing intrinsically better with 24fps. We have grown up with 24 for cinema and 30 for tv. We might be at the point where kids growing up today will no longer have that association.

Dunno...I have multiple producers in different areas who are not techies and have no dog in the fight but they're adamant about 24fps based on seeing it both ways. Maybe it's because they grew up with it but I really doubt it.

 

[Peter C.]

Dunno...I have multiple producers in different areas who are not techies and have no dog in the fight but they're adamant about 24fps based on seeing it both ways. Maybe it's because they grew up with it but I really doubt it.

Yeah but they have the same association and history of watching cinema. I think once a cultural convention is set there no point trying to fight it. Like the US and UK drive on opposite sides of the road. Is one side better than the other?

24 was chosen back in the day for economic reasons. It was lowest frame rate that still would be perceived as fluid motion to the human eye. We then grew accustomed to it. Film is still expensive so it makes no sense to use 48 when people are happy with 24. Now with digital cameras the cost factor has eliminated but our perception of 24 has remained.

Similar arguments have been made about photography that the grain in film is more appealing or analog records are better than digital. There is always going to be an element of nostalgia that colors our perception.

 

[roxics]

Yeah but they have the same association and history of watching cinema. I think once a cultural convention is set there no point trying to fight it. Like the US and UK drive on opposite sides of the road. Is one side better than the other?

24 was chosen back in the day for economic reasons. It was lowest frame rate that still would be perceived as fluid motion to the human eye. We then grew accustomed to it. Film is still expensive so it makes no sense to use 48 when people are happy with 24. Now with digital cameras the cost factor has eliminated but our perception of 24 has remained.

Similar arguments have been made about photography that the grain in film is more appealing or analog records are better than digital. There is always going to be an element of nostalgia that colors our perception.

But there are other qualities at play. It may have started as a means of cost, but it also has a perceptual difference. If it didn't, why would we even be talking about higher frame rates? They look different.
Certainly both can work. I don't think it's an automatic improvement of movies by jumping to a higher than 24fps frame rate. And there are people that add grain to digital as well, because of the texture and perceptual sharpness it adds. And the fact that vinyl records have taken off again, shows that certain characteristics can be desired over absolute technical cleanliness.

If anything movies are illusions, almost dream-like in some ways. The idea that they should be absolutely real looking maybe doesn't fit. Maybe it does. Depends on the movie.
I'm not completely against HFR, but it does add a completely different look. Like I said with the The Hobbit "epic stage play." Which was cool, because I also like stage plays, but I don't want every movie to look like a stage play, I want most to have that greater suspension of disbelief that is a characteristic of 24fps.

 

[DLD]

HFR looks like video. If you like that daytime soap look, then you can get it at 48-60 fps. I don't mind the soap look ... when I am watching soaps.

 

[jmone]

In this day an age, most content will be watched on screens running much higher frame rates than 24fps (50/59.95/60/75/120 etc), so you also have the artefacts introduced by the Pull Down Pattern. I'd agree that it can only be conditioning if you think the result of using a 3/2 Pulldown pattern to move traditional Film to NTSC frame rates looks good. Living in a PAL country, the NTSC pulldown judder can be really noticeable but those living in NTSC countries report not noticing it at all.

From what I can see, it is an area that needs more experimentation by recognised filmmakers. If they shot at HFR, then they would have better options of downscaling the temporal resolution to suit the targeted display format and/or desired creative intent. On a HFR timeline, you could then keep the temporal resolution high for fast pans, actions scenes etc, and drop it for a more "traditional" film look for other more static scenes if you wanted. Good on Ang Lee for playing with this..... but from my perspective there is still a lot to do to make it work. I agree with the following perception of Gemini Man on some scenes (eg when he is preparing for the shot on the train).

The smoothness and clarity of the image doesn’t make us feel like we’re sitting in a room with the characters from Gemini Man, it makes us feel like we’re suddenly sitting on the set with the actors from Gemini Man, watching them struggle through their lines.

I also got parts where I fell into the hyper realism of the "uncanny valley" that pulled me out of the film.

Anyway, If you have not seen Gemini Man at HFR/HDR it is well worth organising a viewing if you have the right equipment. It is fascinating to see what is possible and what still needs to be done.