Can 25fps look like film?

J

Johno1

New member
Hi Guys,

I'm interested in getting peoples opinions about 25fps and whether a sufficient film look can be achieved with it or not, whether or not there are any known films out there that have been shot in 25fps. I'm thinking of making a film in two versions, one with a high frame rate look for realism but I want to be able to convert it down to a lower frame rate to be able to have another version of it that has a traditional film look as well. I'm thinking of a 50fps version and a 25fps version. As far as I'm aware 50fps can't be converted down to the standard 24fps and look the same as if it had actually been shot in it, but it could be converted down to 25fps which is why I want to get peoples views about it. If anyone has any input that they would like to share with me about this I'd be most grateful.

Thanks.

Johno.
 
Well, historically, all film shot for TV in the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) was shot at 25fps, and when cinema releases were screened on TV they were shown at 25fps as well. I'm not aware of anyone thinking the "look" of 25fps was different to the look of 24fps, the main implications were that cinema films didn't last quite as long on TV as in the cinema, and the pitch of the sound changed somewhat.

When "made for TV" films shot in the UK get shown in a 60Hz country it's the opposite. They are likely originated at 25fps and screened at 24fps, so last a little longer.

If you live in a 50Hz mains frequency country, then absolutely yes to shooting 50p and making a 25p version if you want a "film-look". The other fact to consider may be mains flicker from lighting. Shoot with a 25/50fps frame rate and it's not a worry - work 60/24 and it may be.
 
Playing 50fps footage at 25fps (not slowed down, just losing every other frame) will not automagically give you a "film look". Keep in mind the shutter angle tends to affect the look as well, so if you keep it 180 degrees you'll have a 1/100th shutter on your 50p shots which will still have that 1/100th look when played as 25p. Try shooting some movement at 25fps and 1/100th shutter speed. How "filmic" does it look? That's what you're going to have to contend with if you just shoot it all at 50fps. Maybe that'll be fine for your purposes, but it's one more thing to keep in mind.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Try shooting some movement at 25fps and 1/100th shutter speed. How "filmic" does it look? That's what you're going to have to contend with if you just shoot it all at 50fps.
Click to expand...
I was assuming Johno1 was not simply going to drop alternate frames, but do something more along the lines of merging pairs of frames?

It's quite true it won't look identical to being originally shot as true 25p, but should be a step up from simply dropping alternate frames? That's a limitation of wanting two framerate versions off a single master. Point is that if that is what is desired, then shooting 50p and deriving 25p from it (and not 24p) is probably as good as it will get. (Certainly where the mains frequency is 50Hz.)
 
Although 24fps is standard for 35mm film, it's not the only rate at which film was shot. Frame rates varied from 16fps (std 8mm) to 30 fps for Todd AO 70mm, and when projected it still looked like film. The best explanation for the "magic film look", for those who can or claim see it at all, is a result of the sub-liminal strobe effect when film is projected. It's a psycho-biological reaction resulting from brain-wave interaction. Above around more than 30 fps the effect is lost, (e.g "The Hobbit"). Obtaining 24 or 25 fps from footage shot at 50p, how you do it, dropping every second frame or merging frames doesn't matter, you'll still have to reverse telecine and project your footage to get a film look. At current video refresh rates original footage dynamic range, shutter speeds and frame rates largely are immaterial - to date there's no way to replicate the "film look" when viewing on video.
 
Last edited:
Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit series at 48fps, and as far as I know he just dropped alternate frames to make the 24fps version. He used a shutter of 270 degrees, which gave him a shutter speed of 1/64. That's a little faster than the 1/48 that is standard for 24p, and a little slower than the 1/96 you'd expect for 48p. So he chose a shutter speed right in the middle, and it was generally suitable for both versions. I saw both versions in the theater, and there's no doubt that the 48fps version was extremely "video-ish", but the 24fps version looked totally filmic. Vastly better than the 48fps version.

As such, I think a simple frame drop can work fine, and using a 270-degree shutter you'd preserve your options for post, as to whether you wanted to show it at 50fps, or at 25fps, or incorporate 50fps footage into your 25fps sequences. Yes, it's more traditional to use a 180-degree shutter, but it's not outlandish to use something longer.
 
There's some 2014 World Cup footage on YouTube in 720 50p and it looks a lot crisper, yet more video'ish, than a standard 24/25p stuff. FWIW, many folks hated the 48p "Hobbit" because it was "too realistic" to them. But maybe other projects could work just fine in the same 48p.
 
harddrive said:
I was assuming Johno1 was not simply going to drop alternate frames, but do something more along the lines of merging pairs of frames?

It's quite true it won't look identical to being originally shot as true 25p, but should be a step up from simply dropping alternate frames? That's a limitation of wanting two framerate versions off a single master. Point is that if that is what is desired, then shooting 50p and deriving 25p from it (and not 24p) is probably as good as it will get. (Certainly where the mains frequency is 50Hz.)
Click to expand...

Fair amount of guessing across these replies... you have issues of motion blur, dropping or merging frames, etc...

The only sensible way to do this (my .02 anyway) is test test test, and view it how your final audience will, whether that's a 480 youtube window or an imax screen.

It's all moot of the story doesn't grab you though.
 
I do wish more cameras offered a 48fps option since it would be fun to experiment with this with the safety net of being able to cut it down to 24fps.
 
Barry_Green said:
Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit series at 48fps, and as far as I know he just dropped alternate frames to make the 24fps version. He used a shutter of 270 degrees, which gave him a shutter speed of 1/64. That's a little faster than the 1/48 that is standard for 24p, and a little slower than the 1/96 you'd expect for 48p. So he chose a shutter speed right in the middle, and it was generally suitable for both versions. I saw both versions in the theater, and there's no doubt that the 48fps version was extremely "video-ish", but the 24fps version looked totally filmic. Vastly better than the 48fps version.

As such, I think a simple frame drop can work fine, and using a 270-degree shutter you'd preserve your options for post, as to whether you wanted to show it at 50fps, or at 25fps, or incorporate 50fps footage into your 25fps sequences. Yes, it's more traditional to use a 180-degree shutter, but it's not outlandish to use something longer.
Click to expand...

This (of course).

Plus a word of caution: you're likely to get flicker unless you stick to lights that work well on that "unconventional" shutter speed.
 
DLD said:
There's some 2014 World Cup footage on YouTube in 720 50p and it looks a lot crisper, yet more video'ish, than a standard 24/25p stuff. FWIW, many folks hated the 48p "Hobbit" because it was "too realistic" to them. But maybe other projects could work just fine in the same 48p.
Click to expand...

This gets to the point actually, in that the frame rate is another tool that can help or hurt the viewer's experience. For watching sports like the World Cup, the video look is fine if I can see the play better. For a movie about the World Cup it would take me out of the movie if the emotional scenes look like an old TV soap opera. The Hobbit missed the mark because it was supposed to be a fantasy and having it look "too real" had people judging their belief in it instead of being immersed in the story. I recognize that Peter Jackson was trying to create a truly immersive environment, but it just didn't fit with the material. Suspension of disbelief is important in fiction, but not so much when catching the weekend soccer match. Similarly, this is why I'm not so fired up on 4k for movies. It's great for sports, but resolution alone doesn't add much to most stories.
 
The truth is no one here has a clue how your experiment will turn out. Barry Green makes good points about the 48/24 versions of the Hobbit, but the best advice I've seen here is test, test, test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top