James Cameron on 24 fps cinema
- Thread starter HMR
- Start date
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Uh oh....the 24p thread resurrected? I have come to the conclusion that the debate isn't a debate at all....it's a choice, like any other setting/adjustment/style. For certain types of films I can see Cameron's point....and he typically makes those types of films. Big, 3D, larger than life MOVIES.
For other films, like character studies...Coen bros style, etc. 24P's cadence fits better IMO. I understand people liking the idea of 60P and 48P, but saying 24P is out dated is not true....
What would happen if Panasonic left 24P off it's next HVX/HMC/HPX....... Jan would have some splainin' to do.
We all like what we like, so just like any other choice - pick what you like and go with it - no reason to try and undermine someone else's choice in the process.
For other films, like character studies...Coen bros style, etc. 24P's cadence fits better IMO. I understand people liking the idea of 60P and 48P, but saying 24P is out dated is not true....
What would happen if Panasonic left 24P off it's next HVX/HMC/HPX....... Jan would have some splainin' to do.
We all like what we like, so just like any other choice - pick what you like and go with it - no reason to try and undermine someone else's choice in the process.
Snapper123
Well-known member
I'm not sure if it's a 24p, but with many cinema films, I hate the blur in pans - otherwise, everything looks great. For instance in The Tourist, there was a scene where the chatacter was touching various pieces of jewelry, with the camera panning to each piece one atva time, yet you couldn't make out a single detail of the beaitiful jewelry while the camera was in motion. It wasn't until tbe camera stopped that anything could really be seen in a sharp, clear way. Seems to happen in a bad way all the time with many films. Dunno if it's 24p, the theater, the shutter speed, or what, but it's something that always annoys me in high-detail shots...
muckman
Member
24p with a 1/48th shutter speed will always be the baseline standard for narrative film making as long as 35mm film is still king. And it is. If it wasn't for expense and practicality reasons I would much rather shoot anything on 16mm with good stock than use my GH1. It just "looks like a real movie" as my wife would say. And never discount your normal target-audiences tastes and perceptions 
Roger Ebert said he saw some footage shot at 48fps and he said it looked way better than film. Robert Rodriquez said once he saw what Lucas was doing with The Phantom Menace, that Digital was as good or better than film, yet people are still using film. Why hasn't film died yet?
Film won't die until the last generation of film DPs and directors die. As goulish as this sounds....they're the only ones still keeping it alive cause they're experts at it and why should they change when it works for them. The new generation of DPs and Directors will have never used film and ultimately will use whatever looks best. If that means 24 or 120fps. The only roadblock is, sometimes the highest tech doesn't become industry standard. Betamax was better than VHS and it died. HD DVD was better than Blu-Ray and it died.
I defenitely think 24p will start to go the wayside and it will eventually become a stylistic choice, like shooting in B&W. Another thing that could cause this to happen...video games. A lot of video games now run at 60fps. Kids are getting used to that movement and may gravitate to wards movies that resemble how their favorite video games.
Film won't die until the last generation of film DPs and directors die. As goulish as this sounds....they're the only ones still keeping it alive cause they're experts at it and why should they change when it works for them. The new generation of DPs and Directors will have never used film and ultimately will use whatever looks best. If that means 24 or 120fps. The only roadblock is, sometimes the highest tech doesn't become industry standard. Betamax was better than VHS and it died. HD DVD was better than Blu-Ray and it died.
I defenitely think 24p will start to go the wayside and it will eventually become a stylistic choice, like shooting in B&W. Another thing that could cause this to happen...video games. A lot of video games now run at 60fps. Kids are getting used to that movement and may gravitate to wards movies that resemble how their favorite video games.
woodcarver
Well-known member
There are certain projects that benefit from a higher frame rate (live, sports, 3D, etc). Otherwise, I hope people people view frame rate as a stylistic choice. I like 24 fps. A quick pan in 24 fps looks more like what I see when I turn my head quickly (what's the refresh rate of our synapses anyway?). I wouldn't say that 24 fps is objectively better.
What bothers me about Cameron's view is that he is coming close to saying that higher frame rates are objectively superior on aesthetic grounds as well as technical grounds.
We are finally getting to the point when someone without a lot of money can have access to many of the very basic tools that used to be the sole purview of larger budget productions. Control of depth of field, sharp images, tolerable aliasing, and the higher light sensitivity means we don't need giant lights. So of course, technology advances. Cameron loves his 3D. Great. So do I. It's fun. But technology should offer more artistic possibilities. I think Cameron thinks everyone should be trying to play his game (and who can deny he's pretty good at it). Those that aren't are just tip toeing up and down jack-ass alley.
What bothers me about Cameron's view is that he is coming close to saying that higher frame rates are objectively superior on aesthetic grounds as well as technical grounds.
We are finally getting to the point when someone without a lot of money can have access to many of the very basic tools that used to be the sole purview of larger budget productions. Control of depth of field, sharp images, tolerable aliasing, and the higher light sensitivity means we don't need giant lights. So of course, technology advances. Cameron loves his 3D. Great. So do I. It's fun. But technology should offer more artistic possibilities. I think Cameron thinks everyone should be trying to play his game (and who can deny he's pretty good at it). Those that aren't are just tip toeing up and down jack-ass alley.
Blackout
Veteran
Your aunts and uncles might like the home movies look in video mode cause it looks live and they want that look for the babies first steps.... even Cameron acknowledges that a lot of filmmakers are NOT going to like it. I don't want my movies looking like live news footage. If the industry goes to 48fps, I will still shoot in 24p and just double every frame and stick my tongue out at Cameron.
48p & 60p have there place in digitally projecting live events such as concerts, sporting events and such where the LIVE & in 3D look may be cool. I personally find all of the 'realism' to make a period piece look awful. It looks so realistic that the costumes look very much like.. well... costumes. This works in plays.. it doesn't work well in films. We closed this thread down before cause everyone went crazy so I will shut up now, but I once again say to go through Citizen Kane or Star Trek II the Wrath of Kahn or even Cameron's own Terminator II on one of those truemotion sets that brings the frame rate up to 60fps by 'tweening' the frames and laugh when you see a multi million dollar movie look like a home video. Sometimes going forwards is going backwards.
PS: I am not an ancient DP who is about to die, nor am I an 11 year old, I am the new breed, I am not a boy, but not an old man.. I am... a moy... a manboy.
- Blackout
48p & 60p have there place in digitally projecting live events such as concerts, sporting events and such where the LIVE & in 3D look may be cool. I personally find all of the 'realism' to make a period piece look awful. It looks so realistic that the costumes look very much like.. well... costumes. This works in plays.. it doesn't work well in films. We closed this thread down before cause everyone went crazy so I will shut up now, but I once again say to go through Citizen Kane or Star Trek II the Wrath of Kahn or even Cameron's own Terminator II on one of those truemotion sets that brings the frame rate up to 60fps by 'tweening' the frames and laugh when you see a multi million dollar movie look like a home video. Sometimes going forwards is going backwards.
PS: I am not an ancient DP who is about to die, nor am I an 11 year old, I am the new breed, I am not a boy, but not an old man.. I am... a moy... a manboy.
- Blackout
Last edited:
djbobbyrhodes
Well-known member
Cameron's poor roto-artists...
8string
Well-known member
+124p with a 1/48th shutter speed will always be the baseline standard for narrative film making as long as 35mm film is still king. And it is. If it wasn't for expense and practicality reasons I would much rather shoot anything on 16mm with good stock than use my GH1. It just "looks like a real movie" as my wife would say. And never discount your normal target-audiences tastes and perceptions
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I think 48p and 60p have just as much chance of becoming the norm as does 3D for every movie.
Showing somebody something shot in 24p and then showing it to them as 60p is always going to make them say 60p looks better. It's like asking somebody if they would prefer a $10.00 bill or a $100.00 bill. If you compare side by side people will typically pick the higher frame rate. That is just human nature. The point here is do they need it? In my opinion the answer is no. Just like they don't need 8k or higher resolution. Cinema works very well the way it is now and very few people walk out of a theater saying they wish the frame rate was higher.
As a visual effects artist I say moving beyond 24p is insane. What would happen is that people would have to cut corners and make bad visual effects look even worse. I would rather see well rendered and composited scenes in 24p then crappy sloppy shots in 60p.
As for video games you must have high frame rates because they are void of any type of motion blur. Video and film do not suffer from this so we cannot say film and video should be 60p because people are used to videogames at 60p. That is an apple and orange comparison.
Finally how exactly does Cameron plan on delivering these movies to the masses? Apple devices support 30p tops. Blu-ray only supports 60p in 720p mode. Personally I have no problem with a 720p Blu-ray but I think that would be a hard sell to the masses that have been brain washed about how much better 1080p is then 720p. Would a DVD release be 60i? Good god I hope not. For the love of God we are trying to get rid of interlaced video. How on earth are we going to distribute 48p? Nothing I know of other then computer playback will support that. Who knows maybe HD-DVD can make a come back as the 48p and 60p 1080p format.
Showing somebody something shot in 24p and then showing it to them as 60p is always going to make them say 60p looks better. It's like asking somebody if they would prefer a $10.00 bill or a $100.00 bill. If you compare side by side people will typically pick the higher frame rate. That is just human nature. The point here is do they need it? In my opinion the answer is no. Just like they don't need 8k or higher resolution. Cinema works very well the way it is now and very few people walk out of a theater saying they wish the frame rate was higher.
As a visual effects artist I say moving beyond 24p is insane. What would happen is that people would have to cut corners and make bad visual effects look even worse. I would rather see well rendered and composited scenes in 24p then crappy sloppy shots in 60p.
As for video games you must have high frame rates because they are void of any type of motion blur. Video and film do not suffer from this so we cannot say film and video should be 60p because people are used to videogames at 60p. That is an apple and orange comparison.
Finally how exactly does Cameron plan on delivering these movies to the masses? Apple devices support 30p tops. Blu-ray only supports 60p in 720p mode. Personally I have no problem with a 720p Blu-ray but I think that would be a hard sell to the masses that have been brain washed about how much better 1080p is then 720p. Would a DVD release be 60i? Good god I hope not. For the love of God we are trying to get rid of interlaced video. How on earth are we going to distribute 48p? Nothing I know of other then computer playback will support that. Who knows maybe HD-DVD can make a come back as the 48p and 60p 1080p format.
maranfilms
Veteran
I agree with much of your post, I think for the most part, people are creatures of habit. People usually dont want change, even when they complain and say they do. Im willing to bet that if people pay ten dollars to go see a movie, and it's different looking than what their used too, they will complain, and say the movie doesn't look right for some reason. 24 frames per second is, and always will be. At least on my films it will.
Ben_B
Veteran
A friend of mine with not a huge amount of knowledge on filmmaking made one of the most compelling arguments for 24p that I've ever heard and he and I built off it and came up with this:
Start with the old persistence of vision argument, 24p is just enough information to get the illusion of motion, as the afterimage of the previous image is replaced by a new one at basically the same rate it fades. Now, think of it with this analogy: shallow DOF. Shallow DOF gives you less information than deep DOF, just like 24p is less information than 60p...but we love shallow DOF because it allows us to throw out unneeded information, the background detail. 24p throws out all that unneeded information. I can probably articulate this better but I think some of you will get what I mean. You don't NEED to see those extra frames any more than you NEED to see background detail in a closeup...and in some cases (certain types of scenes) it can make it WORSE just like having that extra information (stuff in focus) is worse when it means a telephone pole is going be sticking out of the actor's head, or if there are random trees blowing in the wind.
Start with the old persistence of vision argument, 24p is just enough information to get the illusion of motion, as the afterimage of the previous image is replaced by a new one at basically the same rate it fades. Now, think of it with this analogy: shallow DOF. Shallow DOF gives you less information than deep DOF, just like 24p is less information than 60p...but we love shallow DOF because it allows us to throw out unneeded information, the background detail. 24p throws out all that unneeded information. I can probably articulate this better but I think some of you will get what I mean. You don't NEED to see those extra frames any more than you NEED to see background detail in a closeup...and in some cases (certain types of scenes) it can make it WORSE just like having that extra information (stuff in focus) is worse when it means a telephone pole is going be sticking out of the actor's head, or if there are random trees blowing in the wind.
maranfilms
Veteran
Makes complete sense to me. I agree with what your saying. Some even argue that movies should have a different look than reality, this is part of what makes movies magical. 24 frames is every bit a part of the cimematic experience as 12.00 popcorn and five dollar soda :0
The economy will decide for you. 24p and DOF was here because it was the cheapest way to shoot decent movie at a time when more picture per seconds means bigger and more expensive film rolls.
today you can flip a switch and choose to shoot 24p,25p,30p,50i,50i, 50p,60p and even faster with the same camera. And with computer editing and projectors in digital theater, you know that will not be a problem.
Human mind is very conservative and considers that what has worked for years is the best , even if there is obviously something better available.
In 10 years, we will all watch movies and TV at 60fps and everybody will find that totally obvious and natural.
the same with 4/3 and 16/9 format.
But as usual , there will always be some guy shooting on super8 black and white and tell you "that" is the real stuff.
today you can flip a switch and choose to shoot 24p,25p,30p,50i,50i, 50p,60p and even faster with the same camera. And with computer editing and projectors in digital theater, you know that will not be a problem.
Human mind is very conservative and considers that what has worked for years is the best , even if there is obviously something better available.
In 10 years, we will all watch movies and TV at 60fps and everybody will find that totally obvious and natural.
the same with 4/3 and 16/9 format.
But as usual , there will always be some guy shooting on super8 black and white and tell you "that" is the real stuff.
kgimedia
Well-known member
I know this is a Panasonic loving site, but he gets his money from Panasonic not Sony.
muckman
Member
For me the whole "24p traditional film look" serves a very important need. I have found that it is extremely hard to get anyone to take no-budget / micro-budget movies seriously. And by "anyone" I mean the average person that would spend their money on it (your audience!). Anything that stands out from what they expect a "real" movie to look like instantly labels the work "cheesy", "homemade" etc. and they disengage from the story. I have seen it myself many times. The techniques you use should never take the audience out of the story. With our neat little HDSLR toys we can shoot something for very little money that comes very close to looking like a big-budget film with the proper techniques. At least this doesn't raise "bad movie flags" to the audience right off the bat.
Cameron can be cutting edge and I'm all for it. People will see his movies no matter what. For guys like us we need all the help we can get.
Cameron can be cutting edge and I'm all for it. People will see his movies no matter what. For guys like us we need all the help we can get.