Reason film stayed at 24fps?

F

FatBird19

Well-known member
Why is film still shot at 24fps? Why haven't they changed it to 48 or something? The only problem I can think of is bigger film rolls.
 
the reason it was that way in the first place hasd a lot to do with original audio synching in the first "Talkies." It only stayed that way as a kind of tradition in America, but in other countries ( namely japan) the rate has been altered and emphasis been put more on resolution and fluidity, rather than the dreamy-look of american cinema.
 
People are used to "judddery" motion of film for dramatic purposes. If 48fps was used, cinema would loose its distinctive motion and look "cheap" like video. It is just what people are used to. Maybe it has some physcological effect to, but I am unaware of any proof of that.
 
Just thinking about it, 24 fps was probably choosen (like many things 100 years ago) because it has many integer factors. Therefore it can easily be divided down into whole frames: 1/2 sec is 12 frames, 1/4 sec is 6 frames etc.

I am guessing, please correct me if anyone knows for sure.
 
Yeah, that's what I've heard/read......that 24 was the slowest speed at which images can replicate motion to the human eye/brain.
-Ryan
 
The human eye is purported to have a "shutter speed" of 1/40th of a second (read this in a photography book long, long ago). Some of the early Mitchell 35mm cameras had very stable movements with a 230-degree shutter angle, which translates to 1/40th of a second @ 24Fps. Maybe that's why this frame rate just "clicked" with the viewers -- it closely resembled what their eyes were conditioned to seeing in every day life.
 
The earlier systems ran slower than 24fps. A lot of cine cameras still did when they stop being produced. 18fps was pretty common, and of course used up less film.

"...By early 1895, the brothers had invented their own device combining camera with printer and projector and called it the Cinématographe. Patenting it on February 13th 1895, the Cinématographe was much smaller than Edison’s Kinetograph, was lightweight (around five kilograms), and was hand cranked. The Lumières used a film speed of 16 frames per second, much slower compared with Edison’s 48 fps - this meant that less film was used an also the clatter and grinding associated with Edison’s device was reduced..."

From this handy little site

24fps is noticeably better than 18fps, but I guess the "many factor reason" is why 24 was used instead of 22/23 or 25/26.
 
also i am pretty sure it had somethign to do with the PHENOMINAL cost of film back in the day. I am sure they would have used less if possible. to save money. probably why some 8mm cams run at 18Fps. to make a 15 foot roll last longer. but it really pushes the limits of whats aceptable as moving image.
 
Actually, 24fps had a lot to do with the introduction of sound. It was the lowest frame rate needed to support sound films, and before that most films were indeed slower (between 16-20fps, I'd say.) The cost of film was one issue, but not a huge one--after all, there were even experiments with 70mm film in the pre-sound era. The numbers of minutes that can be fit into one reel is another consideration.

There were a few attempts at other formats. Cinerama used four reels of 35mm film (3 for ultra-wide visuals, 1 for multi-channel sound) and was projected at 26fps, Todd-AO, at 65mm, ran at 30fps (and movies had to be shot TWICE with an additional cinemascope version shot at 24fps, making the cost even more absurd.) Compatibility is really the main issue. Look has something to do with it, though, since a 65mm 60fps standard failed quite badly due not only to cost but the fact that it looked too "real."
 
Policar said:
Look has something to do with it, though, since a 65mm 60fps standard failed quite badly due not only to cost but the fact that it looked too "real."
Click to expand...

Is that the thing they were looking at back in the 70s? John Dykstra doing it? Foggy memory here...but there was an article in American Film way back when about it...the realism of it and all.

And I always wondered if 50fps would look "real" to Europeans...
 
FatBird19 said:
Why is film still shot at 24fps? Why haven't they changed it to 48 or something? The only problem I can think of is bigger film rolls.
Click to expand...
The reason it stayed at 24fps is because every projector in the world runs at 24fps. It's a worldwide standard. Every city in every country on every continent on the globe has at least one 35mm projector, and every one of them runs at 24fps.

If you change the frame rate, all of a sudden you produce a product that's not compatible with any playback devices anywhere (hello, Canon XL H1 anyone?) So the frame rate is set and it's not going to change, regardless of how much "better" it could look. MaxiVision's been trying to raise funds to implement a new projector standard for years now, and as far as I know they haven't made any progress yet... http://www.maxivision48.com

Changing the film frame rate is like asking "why do cars still run on gasoline?" Yes there are other fuels, but -- come on, would any reasonable customer buy a corn-oil-fueled car, when there are hundreds of thousands of gasoline stations in the country? Heck, people in the US won't even buy diesel cars, and there's a diesel station in every city! So gasoline it is. And the only progress in alternative fuels so far is hybrid cars which, oddly enough, are fueled exactly like gas cars. Propane, natural gas, and other alternative fuels are still an extraordinarily tiny niche (sort of like digital projectors in theaters today -- yes, there are somewhere around 100 digital projection screens in America, but there's something like 40,000 film projector screens in the US.

And all those 40,000 screens run at 24fps.

Now, someday someone will come up with a workable plan for installing digital projectors, and that may change things. I think Technicolor was supposed to have come up with a new financing plan where they're paying out of pocket for the projectors, and then charging the theaters a print rental charge just like they'd have paid if they were receiving a film print, and using that rental charge to finance the projector.
http://www.techweb.com/article/printableArticleSrc.jhtml?articleID=173601798

Innovative plans like that may start installation of a meaningful base of digital projectors, and digital projectors will not be chained to the 24fps playback rate like film projectors are. But that's only relevant to the US, and international/global markets are massive, and if a producer decides to shoot their film at, say, 43 frames per second, they won't be able to make a 24fps film print of that, so it will rule out distribution anywhere other than in US digital theaters. That's bad business planning, so don't expect to see it.

24fps will be with us for decades to come.
 
Both Cinerama and Todd-AO were very successful before they were phased out and they were non-standard frame rates projected with non-standard projectors, so it's not as simple as all that. Certainly 35mm will be 24fps for "decades to come" but with digital projection (and the possible reintroduction of sporting events, etc. being televised live at movie theaters in consideration), I wouldn't bank on the frame rate remaining for all theatrical exhibition for too long. It'll be interesting to see which 3D system is chosen (assuming one is, but it's looking more and more likely) since it seems some of them run at different frame rates (and certainly all of them will reshape cinematography massively, since current cinematography is all about adding depth to a 2D plane.)
 
I think some things should never change...but thats just me....sometimes too much change is bad.
Films in like the past like..wat...70+ years have been made in 24p? And all of a sudden...jus because there's a new technology that can project different frame rates, one of the biggest industries in the world shouldn't have to change to it....maybe a few of its individuals might...but a good majority wont.
I think it would be dumb in a way to change the standard frame rates in cinema because it would jus cause a lot more problems with conversions and stuff like that...and it costs alot more too.
Something things are best left alone the way they are.
 
Barry_Green said:
The reason it stayed at 24fps is because every projector in the world runs at 24fps. It's a worldwide standard. Every city in every country on every continent on the globe has at least one 35mm projector, and every one of them runs at 24fps.
Click to expand...

You mean all current projectors are physically incapable of running anything but 24fps?
 
I mean the lowest common denominator that can be counted on is 24fps. Every 35mm projector will do 24fps. Will they do other speeds? Maybe. Depends on the projector. But the one thing you can count on is that it will run at, and will support, 24fps.

http://www.vikascorporation.com/cntnt/prjkinoton-fp50.shtml
That one supports 24fps and 25fps. I don't know how many theater projectors may be able to handle other frame rates, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't support any other frame rates.
 
I run projectors at work sometimes at 30-35fps. That's the fast forward button on them. Most of the time the image is really jumpy and the focus goes in an out. Kinoton projectors will do about 40fps before the intermittent disengages and the picture becomes a blur. Those projectors are what they use on the dubbing stages when they want to look at film. They can also push film through the gate at about 20ft/sec. They are also electronicly driven projectors.

Once digital cinema becomes more avalible people could change the frame rates a little but not much. Most of the projectors I've seen are only ment to run at a certain frame rate. But I'm sure they can be tricked out to some degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top