I agree . Though I think some early testing showed the transition may be over 40fps. If you want to tell a fictional story then use a slow frame rate and any other image management you want to create an emotional response. If you want to convince viewers its real then use the highest resolution, frame rate and dynamic range you can provide. Yes I know there are lots of documentaries that were shot on film at 24fps or less when that was the only choice of course. For me an event or documentary should try and transport the viewer into the scene as close as possible, as if they were standing next to the camera person. Technology today provides both these options in the same camera so the choice becomes one of what impression do you want to make on the viewer. Is it real or a story.
Camera rumors for 2016?
- Thread starter Giriki
- Start date
I agree . Though I think some early testing showed the transition may be over 40fps. If you want to tell a fictional story then use a slow frame rate and any other image management you want to create an emotional response. If you want to convince viewers its real then use the highest resolution, frame rate and dynamic range you can provide. Yes I know there are lots of documentaries that were shot on film at 24fps or less when that was the only choice of course. For me an event or documentary should try and transport the viewer into the scene as close as possible, as if they were standing next to the camera person. Technology today provides both these options in the same camera so the choice becomes one of what impression do you want to make on the viewer. Is it real or a story.
According to Geoff Boyle, who was shilling for C300 MKII, it's because that's what everyone is used to. After all their years of experience - mostly with film, I assume - s35 is what they're comfortable with. And, left unspoken, was a hint that there's too much legacy glass laying around.
In a similar Newsshooter round table, the Zeiss rep was showing a bunch of full frames.
But, if you go back to what a home viewing technology was capable of, it always filled out to the highest technological tier economically possible. Forgetting the "individuals of high net worth" who could afford home movie theaters/screening rooms, a John Q Public was first ecstatic to receive a TV signal at home. And that was in 4:3 and B&W. Then color was introduced. Then the various line multipliers. Then Improved Definition. Then High Definition. Now 4K. The screen size kept increasing. My grandma had a 10" console with the screen covered by a cloth. My dad bought a 19" B&W set in the 1960's, then a 25" color in the mid-70's. In the 1990's, the rear projection big screens took off. Whatever it was, the consumer always moved up to the next available tier. Always.
And, going to higher resolution really doesn't mean the end to the "suspense of watching a movie". You can still vary angles, focus, lighting, filtering, movement, etc, etc. Much like shot framing changed with the move from 4:3 to Vista Vision or Panavision, something else will change as both the cameras and TV's take the next step.
combatentropy
Veteran
Count me as a another vote for 24 fps being not just a trained response, that it's nature not just nurture. There's something to stroboscopic motion. Take dance clubs that put in strobe lights. It makes motion look cooler, for lack of a better word. Until there's more research, that's the best I can say. However, the added coolness is unmistakable, unshakable, cross-cultural, and from birth.
groveChuck
U-matic Member
I don't know that this (24 fps effect) is knowable.
Perhaps it's Nature + Nurture, a combination of the 2...
The random chance of early slower frame rates, and it happens to resonate in the eye/optic nerve/brain in a certain sweet spot?
Perhaps it's Nature + Nurture, a combination of the 2...
The random chance of early slower frame rates, and it happens to resonate in the eye/optic nerve/brain in a certain sweet spot?
Because we're such shallow people?
We've had high frame rates ever since tv started broadcasting video. People grew up watching more high frame rate tv than 24fps movies. But most viewers have not asked that movies look more like their favorite tv show but instead they wanted their tv shows to look more like movies. 24fps is innately pleasing to the human eye just like the rule of thirds.
tv shows like walking dead are now shot at 24fps while movies have not started shooting 60i. It has nothing to do with learned preferences 24fps is just a higher quality look for narrative productions on any screen because of the physics of the human eye.
tv shows like walking dead are now shot at 24fps while movies have not started shooting 60i. It has nothing to do with learned preferences 24fps is just a higher quality look for narrative productions on any screen because of the physics of the human eye.
Last edited:
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Focus group. Shallow people. A little word play.
And the answers to your questions is, of course, is that sisters are doing it for themselves.
As to frame rate again - the current OTA and cable delivery system aren't really capable of 48/60/120. But, there was this bit on the "Simpsons" about the HD right at the time it began to proliferate in the US (can't find the clip quickly even if someone might have it).
As I recall, it kind of went like this.
------------------------------------------
POV, through the camera lens on Krusty. He looks like ... well, Krusty.
Station Manager (OS) : Great news, Krusty. From now on, the fans of our program will be able to watch it in fabulous high definition.
A quick click. Continuing with the camera POV, we see letters SD in the bottom right corner switch to HD. Immediately, Krusty looks much older and much uglier, wrinkles, warts and all.
Krusty : Oi, gevalt!
-------------------------------------------
Which makes me think that people who are against most of the technological advances are the same people who have to work with this new technology. This was also true with the transition from film to digital. The old is so well learned and comfy. The new is too new. We want our old slippers, dognabit. The new leather shoes are yet to be broken in.
I don't have a problem with resolution. If the industry moves to 24K cameras and Netflix insists that everything is shot in at least 48K, I'll happily do it. I'll just have to filter the **** out of the image so it ends up being more like 4K. And then there's motion blur and all that kind of stuff so in the end it's back to 2K or thereabouts. And all the other technological advancements in the industry are fine with me, too, apart from increasing the frame rates. I'm excited about Lytro, for example.
Here's some reading about the whole "24fps is dreamy cinema and 60fps is wildlife porn because biology" stuff:
http://accidentalscientist.com/2014...e-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2016030...e-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html (if the link above doesn't work)
There's loads more if you search for them.
Here's some reading about the whole "24fps is dreamy cinema and 60fps is wildlife porn because biology" stuff:
http://accidentalscientist.com/2014...e-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2016030...e-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html (if the link above doesn't work)
There's loads more if you search for them.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
The idea that there is only about a one or two stop aperture difference between sensor sizes is not true. It's more like six or seven stops, and this does not address the compression over space differential. There is a lot bigger difference.
Second, there is a LOT of research into the perceptual differences in the ways that humans accept visual information when presented at different resolutions, both spatial and temporal. Y'all can talk anecdotally about it as much as you like, but you might be interested in reading up on some of the quantifiable research. Some of the most interesting has to do with infants and how they visually perceive, and I find quite fascinating the work with pre-industrial tribes who have not been previously exposed to electronic or mechanical forms of visual entertainment.
I still maintain that most of what we consider to be "more cinematic" or "more visually pleasing" to in fact be tropes that are associated with the technical limitations of media to which we have previously been exposed.
Second, there is a LOT of research into the perceptual differences in the ways that humans accept visual information when presented at different resolutions, both spatial and temporal. Y'all can talk anecdotally about it as much as you like, but you might be interested in reading up on some of the quantifiable research. Some of the most interesting has to do with infants and how they visually perceive, and I find quite fascinating the work with pre-industrial tribes who have not been previously exposed to electronic or mechanical forms of visual entertainment.
I still maintain that most of what we consider to be "more cinematic" or "more visually pleasing" to in fact be tropes that are associated with the technical limitations of media to which we have previously been exposed.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
BTW, has anyone ever watched the alternative versions of Oklahoma! on TCM? They often will show the film back-to-back in the two formats it was produced, 24fps CinemaScope and 30fps Todd-AO (the production shot alternate takes with each camera). It's amazing how -- oh, let's just call it "video" -- the Todd-AO image can appear if you let your brain think that way.
Any links?
combatentropy
Veteran
S35's crop factor compared to full frame is 1.52. So a full-frame sensor behind a 50mm lens at f/5.6 will look identical to a S35 sensor with a 33mm lens at f/3.7.
- http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/310.html
- http://petapixel.com/2014/03/28/concise-explanation-crop-factor-affects-focal-length-aperture/
- http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/crop-factor.htm
The flattening of the subject actually depends only on the distance of the camera to the subject. A full-frame sensor behind a 50mm lens at f/5.6, 10 feet from the subject, will look identical to a S35 sensor with a 33mm lens at f/3.7, 10 feet from the subject.
Last edited:
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I suggest that you try it. I believe that you will find more of a difference than you expect.
Bassman2003
Veteran
This can be easily seen with stills. So hopefully one of you guys have a bunch of different sensor sizes and a mannequin laying around for a quick demonstration!
this makes no sense to me because most people under 30 grew up exposed primarily to 60i TV programs. But after 30 years of "exposure" most don't find it more pleasing than new TV shows like breaking g bad and walking dead shot at 24p.