Not a good question!#$%^%
- Thread starter filmcruz
- Start date
Re: Not a good question!#$%^%
24 fps came about because it's the slowest framerate possible with good sound sync. This was done 70+ years ago.
As for the difference between it and 60i, that's well-covered elsewhere in the 90,000 posts in the forum. Do a search under "Technical" for starters.
But if you view 24p footage next to 60i footage, you'll see a night/day difference. If you love the film look, you'll never want to shoot 60i.
24 fps came about because it's the slowest framerate possible with good sound sync. This was done 70+ years ago.
As for the difference between it and 60i, that's well-covered elsewhere in the 90,000 posts in the forum. Do a search under "Technical" for starters.
But if you view 24p footage next to 60i footage, you'll see a night/day difference. If you love the film look, you'll never want to shoot 60i.
Re: Not a good question!#$%^%
I dont really have anything to add to David's comments just a little more elaboration of the history of 24P.
"Twenty-four fps is the traditional frame rate for professional motion picture film, with theatrical display at either 48 or 72 fps (with each film frame displayed two or three times to avoid flicker). As David said, the standard is actually a product of sound, not pictures. It originated in the late 1920s with the advent of sound for movies, as it was the lowest frame rate that could satisfactorily reproduce the new phenomenon of audio on the film's optical sound track. The fact that this higher frame rate made motion reproduction more accurate in the pictures themselves was just a coincidence.
The 24 fps rate has always been "good enough" for mainstream motion picture production. It is not a perfect system, as there are inherent undesirable optical effects, such as staccato judder on fast camera pans or horizontal movement and stuttering of the image. On the creative side, there has always been "the film look," as opposed to "the video look." Film gives a more subtle picture, mainly attributed to the low 24 frame rate. We all know the look and can tell the difference between film and video footage. "
I dont really have anything to add to David's comments just a little more elaboration of the history of 24P.
"Twenty-four fps is the traditional frame rate for professional motion picture film, with theatrical display at either 48 or 72 fps (with each film frame displayed two or three times to avoid flicker). As David said, the standard is actually a product of sound, not pictures. It originated in the late 1920s with the advent of sound for movies, as it was the lowest frame rate that could satisfactorily reproduce the new phenomenon of audio on the film's optical sound track. The fact that this higher frame rate made motion reproduction more accurate in the pictures themselves was just a coincidence.
The 24 fps rate has always been "good enough" for mainstream motion picture production. It is not a perfect system, as there are inherent undesirable optical effects, such as staccato judder on fast camera pans or horizontal movement and stuttering of the image. On the creative side, there has always been "the film look," as opposed to "the video look." Film gives a more subtle picture, mainly attributed to the low 24 frame rate. We all know the look and can tell the difference between film and video footage. "
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Not a good question!#$%^%
For clarification, theaters do not project 48 or 72 fps. They project 24 fps. They hold each frame in place and flash the frames repeatedly (two or three times) to smooth out the overall flicker effect, but only 24 frames run through the projector each second.
For clarification, theaters do not project 48 or 72 fps. They project 24 fps. They hold each frame in place and flash the frames repeatedly (two or three times) to smooth out the overall flicker effect, but only 24 frames run through the projector each second.
Re: Not a good question!#$%^%
The only system I know that runs at something other than 24 FPS is the system Roger Ebert was championing a few years back instead of digital projection. It run at 48 FPS and had significantly higher resolution than standard projection and would not merit a huge overhaul of equipment. I believe it was called MaxiVision.
The only system I know that runs at something other than 24 FPS is the system Roger Ebert was championing a few years back instead of digital projection. It run at 48 FPS and had significantly higher resolution than standard projection and would not merit a huge overhaul of equipment. I believe it was called MaxiVision.
Re: Not a good question!#$%^%
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1098179072;start=0#3 date=10/19/04 at 10:58:35]For clarification, theaters do not project 48 or 72 fps. They project 24 fps. They hold each frame in place and flash the frames repeatedly (two or three times) to smooth out the overall flicker effect, but only 24 frames run through the projector each second.[/quote]
Barry ...really thanks for this clarification. Addition to my knowledge.
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1098179072;start=0#3 date=10/19/04 at 10:58:35]For clarification, theaters do not project 48 or 72 fps. They project 24 fps. They hold each frame in place and flash the frames repeatedly (two or three times) to smooth out the overall flicker effect, but only 24 frames run through the projector each second.[/quote]
Barry ...really thanks for this clarification. Addition to my knowledge.