24 vs 48 and why not 60fps? The new cinema world

I

Inprogress

Well-known member
What are your thoughts about 48fps? If it is "better" why not just skip 48 and go straight to 60fps?
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Why not 50 fps and sync up with much of the world's power grid frequency...
Click to expand...

Because (and you of all people know this) that made sense in the early days of analog TV when the power line was the most stable frequency reference available in an economical analog circuit, but since the development of cheap crystal oscillators and later, all-digital systems, matching the local AC power has become pretty much irrelevant in designing video systems today. The technology now allows frame rates to be chosen based on how they look to the audience and how efficiently they work in production. I tend to like 30 fps as a good general compromise, but if somebody else decided the optimum rate for their project was 42.7, it's at least in theory possible to design a system that supports it, regardless of what's coming out of the wall in a particular locality. One thing that has disappointed me about the HD/digital TV revolution is that we never managed to completely put a stake in the heart of the different "NTSC/PAL" (although those terms are obsolete now) frame standards and agree on one universal worldwide set of supported rates.

I look forward to a day when all the major parameters of the recording (frame rate, image pixel dimensions, color depth) are completely adjustable variables that are encoded as metadata in the file, and the shooter has the freedom to choose the best combination for any particular project or situation.

- Greg
 
Greg Smith said:
Because (and you of all people know this) that made sense in the early days of analog TV when the power line was the most stable frequency reference available in an economical analog circuit, but since the development of cheap crystal oscillators and later, all-digital systems, matching the local AC power has become pretty much irrelevant in designing video systems today. The technology now allows frame rates to be chosen based on how they look to the audience and how efficiently they work in production. I tend to like 30 fps as a good general compromise, but if somebody else decided the optimum rate for their project was 42.7, it's at least in theory possible to design a system that supports it, regardless of what's coming out of the wall in a particular locality. One thing that has disappointed me about the HD/digital TV revolution is that we never managed to completely put a stake in the heart of the different "NTSC/PAL" (although those terms are obsolete now) frame standards and agree on one universal worldwide set of supported rates.

I look forward to a day when all the major parameters of the recording (frame rate, image pixel dimensions, color depth) are completely adjustable variables that are encoded as metadata in the file, and the shooter has the freedom to choose the best combination for any particular project or situation.

- Greg
Click to expand...

Of course... the only thing I can think of at the moment is the flicker form lights powered by one or the other frequency, which still does have some significance.

But I think such things as 23.976/25/29.97 are going to be around for a very long time.
 
I would rather see the phasing out of the 1000/1001 formula and true up the 60 hz frame rates to even decimals.
 
I think James Cameron believes that film is dead so there is no need for backward compatibility for 24 frames per second film projection. Since broadcasting is 60 frames per second it makes sense for digital theatrical projection to be also 60 frames per second. The film look can be achieved by shooting at 30 frames per second using 2:2 pulldown or 24 frames per second using 3:2 pulldown. Film buffs that insist on true 24 fps can use digital projection at 120 frames per second using 5:5 pulldown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top