Could 60p become the new Cinematic "Feel"?

D

Darkdeity9194

Active member
I know that many would automatically tell me to only use 60p for slow-motion and to save 24p for the true cinematic "feel", but I've done some research regarding filming at 60p and found out about Douglas Trumbull, the man who invented 60 fps which lead to me finding out that a group of scientist were able to prove that a human can become more attached to a film the higher the frame rate was up to 72fps. Wouldn't that mean that filming at 60fps would create better attachment and a truer cinematic "feel"?
 
I would like to see something shot on film, at 48/60/120 whatever everyone is harping on right now, just to see what it looks like.

I'm no cinephile, but there is something about 24fps. It just feels right. When I walk by all the new TV's boasting 60/120/240hz I get weirded out. It doesn't look right. It's not fluid, it seems like I'm watching TV in slightly fast forward. It actually bugs the crap out of me.
 
djbobbyrhodes said:
I would like to see something shot on film, at 48/60/120 whatever everyone is harping on right now, just to see what it looks like.

I'm no cinephile, but there is something about 24fps. It just feels right. When I walk by all the new TV's boasting 60/120/240hz I get weirded out. It doesn't look right. It's not fluid, it seems like I'm watching TV in slightly fast forward. It actually bugs the crap out of me.
Click to expand...

Well from what I've also read on that, the algorithm of tv's forcing 24p to conforim to 60/120/240ghz to smooth out the picture create the gooey feeling because 60ghz mode is not divisible by 24 and causes the frame skips. 120/240 look somewhat better, but it's still not the same to some people. I think the problem is that because older generations have grown up with only watching movies in 24p, people became "use" to it and it became a favorite. The younger generations (myself included) have a chance to adjust to 60p and my hope is that these faster frame rates work. I'm tired of seeing 24p with so much motion blur. It really detracts from the film and makes it slightly difficult to pay attention. Take "The Source Code" for example, it was my first 4K film I watched in 24p and I was blown away by the clarity and the fact they didn't throw a ton of motion blur like other movies. It kept my attention from beginning to end and I loved it. This would also be a chance for 3D to be a viable option.
 
Darkdeity9194 said:
Well from what I've also read on that, the algorithm of tv's forcing 24p to conforim to 60/120/240ghz to smooth out the picture create the gooey feeling because 60ghz mode is not divisible by 24 and causes the frame skips. 120/240 look somewhat better, but it's still not the same to some people. I think the problem is that because older generations have grown up with only watching movies in 24p, people became "use" to it and it became a favorite. The younger generations (myself included) have a chance to adjust to 60p and my hope is that these faster frame rates work. I'm tired of seeing 24p with so much motion blur. It really detracts from the film and makes it slightly difficult to pay attention. Take "The Source Code" for example, it was my first 4K film I watched in 24p and I was blown away by the clarity and the fact they didn't throw a ton of motion blur like other movies. It kept my attention from beginning to end and I loved it. This would also be a chance for 3D to be a viable option.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of this generation against that generation, the industry decide the format, not the viewers. 24fps has been the standard for almost a century because it cost less in film stock, require less lighting, doesn't require expensive high speed mechanisms, and is more than sufficient to create flicker fusion. I suspect it will stay the standard in the digital age for similar reasons, especially the last one.
 
At Showscan a long time ago I had the privilege to do research on 65mm shot at 60fps as well transferred to video tape. My interest there was research on high temporal rate formats and their affect on the brain and how it altered the perceptions of narrative films. At least when projected 70mm on screen, it was mind blowing- like a pristine grainless window. It was beautiful.

The issue was, it felt like what I can describe today as High-K digital at 60P. However when Showscan material was moved over to videotape those 60 frames fit perfectly on every field of the 60i. Resulting material looked and felt like watching video originated material, with the exception that it had better highlight handling,dynamic range etc than any video camera could do at the time. It didn't work on narrative material from the position of someone that is accustom to the feel of 24fps.

I Did research on 48fps and it felt like PAL/50. The one I did like was Iwerks at 30fps; and at only 6 more frames over 24 per second, unlike the 36 frames per second more if shot at 60fps it felt pretty much like 24. Especially if compared to 60fps material. I just don't think people will want their narrative films to feel like 60P soap operas. However, women seem to love it at least in day time tv. Who knows where this will lead? I know that I passed this road so long ago doing extensive research on narrative at 60fps shot on 65mm film that I know what to expect and how to use it. At this point it doesn't get better shooting at 65mm at 60fps, and yet it still felt live. All the non industry subjects I did tests on answered long surveys noticed the difference, however couldn't explain why, just that they always preferred 24fps and 30fps material. I do believe that if it were 60fps 100+ years ago out the door, we wouldn't care, however that is not an option that we were offered in the life of cinema we have been exposed to.


Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/PappasArts
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
 
Last edited:
chon said:
24fps has been the standard for almost a century because it cost less in film stock, require less lighting, doesn't require expensive high speed mechanisms, and is more than sufficient to create flicker fusion.
Click to expand...

The myth that won't die. The move to 24fps was actually a move up in film speed -- it used more film, required faster mechanisms, etc. And it was done to support audio tracks on the film -- anything slower than 24fps wouldn't give decent audio. Many of the old silent films were shot at 18fps. Just sayin'.
 
Bruce Watson said:
The myth that won't die. The move to 24fps was actually a move up in film speed -- it used more film, required faster mechanisms, etc. And it was done to support audio tracks on the film -- anything slower than 24fps wouldn't give decent audio. Many of the old silent films were shot at 18fps. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of that, what's your point? What myth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top