Shooting in 48fps

real life has no fps, so when they say it's more "lifelike" that's BS... just like it is BS when they tell you 3D is more "immersive", which it is not (it just makes the movie look like a pop-up book).

Thus far, TRON: Legacy is the only movie that I felt legitimatly benefited from 3D as part of the storytelling due to how they used it both technically (fairly subtle most of the time) and artistically (distinguishing real world from The Grid).
 
Andrew J. Allsbury said:
Personally I never understood people's irrational attachment to 24 frames per second. 24p became a standard because it was less expensive for film. Just as current roads in the US are a still built to a set width based on the size of a carriage drawn by two horses. lol. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Because 24 fps looks pleasing to the human eye. Also, the eye is used to heavy motion blur, so I don't get the argument of more fps to avoid motion blur.
 
I have nothing against improvement or technology but it need a contribution for cinema at least and I first have to see if it's is one , so if higer framerate would be a huge improvement and it still looks like filmfeel to watch go ahead, but if it looks like video, then we allready have 60i for television shoot, so no thanks.
60i was created especialy for sports events and fast pans etc... so you can shoot on that if you want no blur in fast moves.
 
Last edited:
DutchFX said:
What's next, Charlie Rose in 3D??
Click to expand...

ROTFL... that actually made me laugh. How about CNN footage live from the battlefield... now in 3D! It's ridiculous. As far as the post from vanvideo, I won't be taking Peter Jackson's word on it. He's only pushing it because he thinks it makes the "3D" look better.
 
DutchFX said:
Because 24 fps looks pleasing to the human eye. Also, the eye is used to heavy motion blur, so I don't get the argument of more fps to avoid motion blur.
Click to expand...

Many things look pleasing to the human eye, sticking to only 24 or 30fps because of tradition is dumb. A cinematographer should have access to a wide range of tools to ply their craft, even if they break from convention.

A high frame rate alone is not going to make or break any production - how someone uses it along with the other production element will.
 
Kindredmachine said:
As far as the post from vanvideo, I won't be taking Peter Jackson's word on it. He's only pushing it because he thinks it makes the "3D" look better.
Click to expand...

How is that an argument? Do you think anyone thought he was pushing it because he thinks it makes 3D look worse?

Given that pretty much no one here has seen 3D at 48fps, then YES...I would much rather take Peter Jackson's word for it.

My biggest complaint with 3D so far has been how painfully obvious the low framerate is.
 
3D is already tough enough to ingest. Why strain the eyes more with strobey 24fps in three dimensions? I pretty sure that P Jackson and J Cameron kinda know what they are doing, and why. Between the 2, just how successful are they?
Embrace change, cause if the audience likes it, those two mentioned above will be shaken things up....DEAL..
 
Andrew J. Allsbury said:
Personally I never understood people's irrational attachment to 24 frames per second. 24p became a standard because it was less expensive for film. Just as current roads in the US are a still built to a set width based on the size of a carriage drawn by two horses. lol. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is too much mumbo-jumbo-talk about the magical 24fps. A "cinematic look" has much more to do with composition, sensor size/focal length, lighting and grading.
 
dustylense said:
Embrace change, cause if the audience likes it, those two mentioned above will be shaken things up....DEAL..
Click to expand...
Sure thing, but 30p/49/60 frame rates have been around for a while, so not exactly something innovating. Do you really want movies to look like English & Australian soap operas? Sure, if the audience likes it, we're all gonna go for it, but 'the audience' also likes Michael Bay's films. Does that mean every director should drop storyline because the audience will overrun the box office anyway? And wasn't everybody so happy with the DVX because it could shoot 24p?
 
Last edited:
tipota said:
Exactly. There is too much mumbo-jumbo-talk about the magical 24fps. A "cinematic look" has much more to do with composition, sensor size/focal length, lighting and grading.
Click to expand...
Maybe so -- but having seen plenty of examples of the exact same thing being shot in both 60i and 24p, I can say that 24p definitely makes a huge contribution to making something look more like what we expect a flim to look like. All other things being equal (equal lighting and grading and same cinematography and lenses, but the only thing changed being the frame rate) 24p is a noticeable and big change from 60i/60p.
 
I dare everyone to shoot all their work in 48 fps from now on, see how your clients will like it!
;-)
 
Barry_Green said:
All other things being equal (equal lighting and grading and same cinematography and lenses, but the only thing changed being the frame rate) 24p is a noticeable and big change from 60i/60p.
Click to expand...

Okay, I am in uncharted waters here because I can not say how that looks on a cinema screen, but: We have shot some sequences of my last TV-movie in 50 fps because we did not know in advance how we would handle the shots - use them as slo-mo or let them run in 25 fps - and we could not see real big differences in the material.

Yes, there is a certain loss of motion blur (opening the shutter a bit more helps though). I am sceptical if that in itself would be such a big difference in the end. And I doubt very much that people want to achieve the look of "Coronation Street" in a movie that costs hundreds of millions of $. I still think that the other factors are more important but am happy if anybody directs me to information and proof to the opposite.
 
Barry_Green said:
Maybe so -- but having seen plenty of examples of the exact same thing being shot in both 60i and 24p, I can say that 24p definitely makes a huge contribution to making something look more like what we expect a flim to look like. All other things being equal (equal lighting and grading and same cinematography and lenses, but the only thing changed being the frame rate) 24p is a noticeable and big change from 60i/60p.
Click to expand...

Maybe those expectations of what a film is supposed to look like will now change. Perhaps soon, 48fps and 60fps will become the norm. Then, that will be the new standard of what constitutes a "filmic" look.
 
DutchFX said:
Sure thing, but 30p/49/60 frame rates have been around for a while, so not exactly something innovating. Do you really want movies to look like English & Australian soap operas? Sure, if the audience likes it, we're all gonna go for it, but 'the audience' also likes Michael Bay's films. Does that mean every director should drop storyline because the audience will overrun the box office anyway? And wasn't everybody so happy with the DVX because it could shoot 24p?
Click to expand...

Yes, the audience is the intended user of the film. Of course I'll make it more interesting to them. Michael Bay films, as much as they can suck, aslo make a boatload of money. I'd be really happy if I had a share of the profits from Transformers 2, even if it did suck eggs. It made a big profit because audiences went to see it. I guess they liked it.
A good storyline has nothing at all to do with 24P.
The DVX was a big hit because it could shoot 24P. I never bought one, as 24P has never had much appeal to me. If it does to you, that's cool.
Now, maybe the next big camera will be a hit because it can shoot 48P. We'll see. I do know many have been clamoring for a true 1080/60P camera (thank you, FS100).
 
DutchFX said:
I dare everyone to shoot all their work in 48 fps from now on, see how your clients will like it!
;-)
Click to expand...

I don't even know how to shoot in 48fps. Is that the same as 48P? I'll try it if I can.
Aren't the present camera standards 60i, 30P, 24P?
 
DutchFX said:
That's not my point. My point is: what the audience likes is not always best.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Don't underestimate your audience; without them, your film isn't seen by anyone.
Why do we make films in the first place? So we can sit in the dark, alone, and watch them by ourselves? And what good is that?
No, we make films with the hopes of finding an audience that likes and appreciates them as much as we do. The audience is always the last and greatest critic of our films. They are the ones who decide if our vision is a success, not us.
If you shoot a film and pat yourself on the back and claim it's a great film, but your audience doesn't like it, who has final say? Likewise, if you make a film which you admit is not your best effort, but the audience eats it up, would you consider that a successful film? (I didn't say great film; Transformers 2 comes to mind).
We may not always like what the audience does, but we sure hope we make films that appeal to most of them. They will decide which film is "best," not us.

Audiences also dictate trends. 3D is big now because the viewing public is willing to pay more to experience 3D films. We may not be so enamored with 3D, but the paying public is. And, as usual, they will have the final say.
 
Once Cameron and Jackson succeed in breaking the ice on commercial use of 48p, I expect the camcorder manufacturers will quickly make a trend out of it. What's not to like about another marketing opportunity to double one of the numbers on the spec sheet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top