28 days later

Re: 28 days later

[quote author=tihs link=board=XL2;num=1100723274;start=30#39 date=11/21/04 at 22:19:35]

Believe me, they do - because it's the producers who produce them dont want to be left behind on something that has become a technical NORM....
[/quote]


Just to make sure that a failure of the program wont be blamed on that he was technically so backward that he didnt know that anything that's not 24fps will not make that magical effect on the viewers ;)
 
Re: 28 days later

Okay, this is starting to veer off into the classic film vs. video argument about "it's lighting" -- "no, it's dof", etc.

24P is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for the "film look".  But to understand this you have to separate out the Film Look from the Movie Look.

Movies look like MOVIES because of all that goes into them: lighting, art direction, sound design, all those things.

Film looks like film because of the integral tangible properties of the medium: the 24 discrete tangible frames per second, grain, film gamma, etc.

The "film look" has nothing to do with lighting or shallow DOF or whatever.  You can shoot film in the daytime, at full wide angle, at f/16, everything in focus from 1' to infinity, and it'll still look like film.  You can shoot 60i video with hyper-shallow DOF (watch sports like tennis or baseball, they do this all the time) and it'll look like video.

There have been miles and miles of home movies shot on 8mm film that look nothing like a "movie", but look everything like film (because it IS film).

The vast majority of movies are shot on film, or on video trying to emulate the look of film.  The vast majority of television dramas and sitcoms are shot on either film or on 24P video.  No primetime dramatic television show is shot on 60i video (that I can think of)*.  60i video is used for news, live broadcasts, award shows, and talk shows.

24P is used extensively by moviemakers and high-end television production, and it's used because it implies a higher production value.

I've done side-by-side comparisons ad nauseum.  Do a split-screen, and I guarantee you that 100% of the people watching it will notice a difference, and if you're showing drama-style footage, those people will express a preference for the 24P footage vs. the 60i footage.

*actually, I can think of two instances where primetime drama series shot on 60i video instead of film or 24P video. An episode of E.R. that was broadcast live, and an episode of The West Wing where a documentary crew followed C.J. Cregg around. Everyone across America noticed the difference. (may be a slight exaggeration, but not much)
 
Re: 28 days later

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=XL2;num=1100723274;start=30#41 date=11/21/04 at 22:27:53]to understand this you have to separate out the Film Look from the Movie Look.[/quote]
Powerful statement Barry!. Can probably answer 100's of questions on this board.

Sometimes we tend to blend or confuse the two.
 
Re: 28 days later

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=XL2;num=1100723274;start=30#41 date=11/21/04 at 22:27:53]
24P is used extensively by moviemakers and high-end television production, and it's used because it implies a higher production value.

[/quote]


Barry, that's what I'm trying to say - it's technicians only who think that 24p is better, but what about all those people who watch the footage. They just dont know anything about framerate etc.

And what if the 24fps would'nt have been adopted as a standard?

Do you think in that case whatever framerate would've been adopted would've become a dramatic frame rate standard!!

My whole point of this thing is that we just follow the social phenomenon with blinders on our eyes.
 
Re: 28 days later

it's technicians only who think that 24p is better, but what about all those people who watch the footage. They just dont know anything about framerate etc.
Click to expand...
Well, no, that's where we disagree. People have been conditioned, over the last 100 years, to associate the 24P cadence with "movies", and movies have always had higher production value than any other form of production.

Especially when people started making "movies" on camcorders. The look is very different, and I do insist that anybody can tell the difference.

Try split-screening the footage. Shoot the same scene with two DVX's, one in 24P mode and one in 60i mode, and split the screen. 100% of your audience will be able to tell that they look different, and if you ask them which one they prefer, I'm certain the vast majority will point to the 24P footage.

And what if the 24fps would'nt have been adopted as a standard?
Click to expand...
Well, now that's a question open for debate. As has been well documented, 24P was chosen because it's about the slowest frame rate that worked to provide clean audio (the silent film frame rate was actually 16fps for a while, then bumped to 18fps).

So some people argue that 24P is antiquated, lower tech, lower resolution, etc. Which the filmmakers respond with by saying "So what?" Movies have 100 years of equity behind them, instilling in the audience that THIS is what a movie should look like... so whether it's technically inferior or not, it is what people associate with the look and feel of a movie.

Do you think in that case whatever framerate would've been adopted would've become a dramatic frame rate standard!!
Click to expand...
Oh, most certainly. Had the original sound movies been shot at 19fps, then we'd all be trying to get 19p from our camcorders today. But it isn't. Someone made a decision, a long time ago, that 24fps was to be used for movies. Since that decision, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on making movies and on watching them. It's ingrained. It's part of our collective culture. And it's not going away anytime soon.
 
Re: 28 days later

it's technicians only who think that 24p is better, but what about all those people who watch the footage. They just dont know anything about framerate etc.
Click to expand...
Well, no, that's where we disagree 180 degrees. 60P is obviously far superior to 24P for motion rendition, much more accurate, more detail... I'm sure technicians would love to be able to use it. But audiences, that's a different story. People have been conditioned, over the last 100 years, to associate the 24P cadence with "movies", and movies have always had higher production value than any other form of production.

Especially when people started making "movies" on camcorders. The look is very different, and I do insist that anybody can tell the difference.

Try split-screening the footage. Shoot the same scene with two DVX's, one in 24P mode and one in 60i mode, and split the screen. 100% of your audience will be able to tell that they look different, and if you ask them which one they prefer, I'm certain the vast majority will point to the 24P footage.

And what if the 24fps would'nt have been adopted as a standard?
Click to expand...
Well, now that's a question open for debate. As has been well documented, 24P was chosen because it's about the slowest frame rate that worked to provide clean audio (the silent film frame rate was actually 16fps for a while, then bumped to 18fps).

So some people argue that 24P is antiquated, lower tech, lower resolution, etc. Which the filmmakers respond with by saying "So what?" Movies have 100 years of equity behind them, instilling in the audience that THIS is what a movie should look like... so whether it's technically inferior or not, it is what people associate with the look and feel of a movie.

Do you think in that case whatever framerate would've been adopted would've become a dramatic frame rate standard!!
Click to expand...
Oh, most certainly. Had the original sound movies been shot at 19fps, then we'd all be trying to get 19p from our camcorders today. But it isn't. Someone made a decision, a long time ago, that 24fps was to be used for movies. Since that decision, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on making movies and on watching them. It's ingrained. It's part of our collective culture. And it's not going away anytime soon.
 
Re: 28 days later

Interestingly, a 48fps standard was introduced (it's not doing so well) which was super-high quality and brilliantly designed to conserve film stock. Roger Ebert was blown away by it, and he's as used to 24fps as anyone.

Still, I agree that the aesthetic of 24p is a real advantage in telling a dramatic story. I've shown 24p verus 60i to "normal people" (my family mostly) and they can tell the difference the vast majority of the time and almost always prefer 24p.
 
Re: 28 days later

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=XL2;num=1100723274;start=45#46 date=11/21/04 at 22:52:38]


Try split-screening the footage. Shoot the same scene with two DVX's, one in 24P mode and one in 60i mode, and split the screen. 100% of your audience will be able to tell that they look different, and if you ask them which one they prefer, I'm certain the vast majority will point to the 24P footage.

[/quote]

Barry, this is where I disagree - why show them same scenes to judge which is better. Why not show them the dramatic footage of different scenes with both 30fps and 24fps. This is where they will choose what is better based on lighting/interest/direction etc...This is the point where they just wont even think that 24fps looks better or 30fps. They will only judge on the interest in scene in this case[provided these both are shot in good way].
 
Re: 28 days later

Well... because it's simple scientific procedure... because if you're trying to isolate whether the 24P or the 60i is making a difference, then you make that be the only variable in your scenario.

If you show them the same scene, split-screen, and they prefer the 24P, then logically it should follow that if you were going to do some big dramatic scene, you'll get a better response from it if you shot it in 24P (all other things being equal). If all other things are not equal, then you've lost control of the experiment and you can't draw a definitive conclusion.
 
Re: 28 days later

[quote author=Policar link=board=XL2;num=1100723274;start=45#47 date=11/21/04 at 23:01:02]Interestingly, a 48fps standard was introduced (it's not doing so well) which was super-high quality and brilliantly designed to conserve film stock. Roger Ebert was blown away by it, and he's as used to 24fps as anyone.

Still, I agree that the aesthetic of 24p is a real advantage in telling a dramatic story. I've shown 24p verus 60i to "normal people" (my family mostly) and they can tell the difference the vast majority of the time and almost always prefer 24p.[/quote]

Try it on the person who dosnt know anything about 24fps or 30fps. And dont tell him anything about 24 or 30 before and just let him judge what's the difference between 2 scenes shot in 24 and 30.
 
Re: 28 days later

[quote author=tihs link=board=XL2;num=1100723274;start=30#44 date=11/21/04 at 22:43:06]
Barry, that's what I'm trying to say - it's technicians only who think that 24p is better, but what about all those people who watch the footage. They just dont know anything about framerate etc.[/quote]

Well of course the 'average viewer' doesn't know anything about filmrate and the technical side. Why would they? But as Barry mentioned above, they will notice and prefer 24fps/24p over 60i if given the 'tasters test'. I don't need to know the techincal wonders of MONO -vs- STEREO but I'll take the THX SOURROUND SOUND anyday.

And what if the 24fps would'nt have been adopted as a standard? Do you think in that case whatever framerate would've been adopted would've become a dramatic frame rate standard!!
Click to expand...

For whatever reason it has and that's that. You might as well say the standard could be SLOMOTION; it just doesnt apply in this conversation. What if? What if? What if?

My whole point of this thing is that we just follow the social phenomenon with blinders on our eyes.
Click to expand...

Social phenomenon? since when did 24fps become a social phenomenon?
 
Re: 28 days later

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=XL2;num=1100723274;start=45#49 date=11/21/04 at 23:06:26]Well... because it's simple scientific procedure... because if you're trying to isolate whether the 24P or the 60i is making a difference, then you make that be the only variable in your scenario.

If you show them the same scene, split-screen, and they prefer the 24P, then logically it should follow that if you were going to do some big dramatic scene, you'll get a better response from it if you shot it in 24P (all other things being equal). If all other things are not equal, then you've lost control of the experiment and you can't draw a definitive conclusion.[/quote]


I think we can argue about this for eternity and still disagree ;D.

Maybe because I do not believe in comparisions and just think that if it can influence you emotionally, you've done it...

Thanks for the nice discussion, Barry.
 
Re: 28 days later

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=XL2;num=1100723274;start=45#51 date=11/21/04 at 23:09:49]


Social phenomenon? since when did 24fps become a social phenomenon?


[/quote]


Since the time everybody wanted to have 24p ;)
 
Re: 28 days later

Aw yes. The clever ' ;) ' icon to seal the deal.

A nice discussion it was. (Insert straight faced emoticon)
 
Re: 28 days later

just realized that this was a 28 days later post. and we're messing it up.

but i had an odd question.

we sorta can guess that 60fps can look like what we know as VIDEO look except it's on film so it would look hypnotically beautiful i bet. but really smooth. right? never seen it so i woudn't know.
and human perception really ends around 60fps...

now if you shoot an ultra slow motion scene at 300fps(on film for now) and play it back to 24fps for regular viewing to see it as intended slow motion- it's essentially, at the same time, preserving the film-look to the slow motion where otherwise it wouldn't have had film-look(24fps) on it's own played back at 300 frames per second(it's native shooting speed). As it would mean that it really loses that many frames when it comes back to 24fps.. and that it's really an illusion that it's ultra high speed many frames per second but you're really watching a 24fps playback.
I really don't know what im trying to get at but if i saw 300 frames per second in normal speed then i would see something of ultra smooth -familiar to real-life (60i or 60fps)look?
but at that point in time, you can't argue whether it looks like video or film or anything we know...because it's meant to be played back in 24fps.(or recorded to 24fps) am i wrong on that technicality?
and that's where it all crashes.

now, this new standard.. is it 48fps trying to become the new 24fps? then that should be shooting at 48fps and playing it back at 48fps. not play back 48fps on 24fps- cuz that's pointless.
from guessing what 60i looks like I think i can guess it's smoother than film-look but not smooth enough to look realistic like news footage 60i.

ok. it's late....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top