Shooting in 48fps

[Batutta]

No one is doing that, and frankly, I get tired of hearing it. The point isn't being against technology or change; it's about aesthetics. Everyone knows what faster frame rates look like. People don't prefer to stick with 24 fps because the technology never allowed them to move past it -- that technology has been there for many decades now -- it's because 24 fps has a look that most people simply prefer, even with the choice of something else.

The only caveat is that there's been no cost effective way to do higher frame rates for cinemas until digital capture and projection came along. Everyone who had seen showscan and maxivision were been blown away by it. It was just too expensive because of the doubling of film and print costs. I get the reluctance and preference for 24 fps. But most people haven't really seen 48fps footage shot with quality 35mm lenses, excellent film style lighting, and professional color grading, so people saying it will look like a soap opera is equally ignorant. It might, I haven't seen it in action, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. And like Jackson and his crew, I may come to prefer the look, who knows?

 

[David Jimerson]

I wish you'd have quoted the other part of my post:

If you like to shoot in 24fps, that's cool. You're the ones who decide on the technical details of your film projects. I would never dare presume to tell you what is best for your films. I hope I don't give that impression. If so, I don't mean to.

You can't call people small-minded and then simply add on "but hey, if it's what you like, that's cool."

No one is saying that Jackson shouldn't try this. No one is saying that the technology to do it shouldn't be developed. All anyone's saying is that 24 fps works for an aesthetic reason, and it's not because we simply don't know any other way.

 

[blackcat]

The only caveat is that there's been no cost effective way to do higher frame rates for cinemas until digital capture and projection came along. Everyone who had seen showscan and maxivision were been blown away by it. It was just too expensive because of the doubling of film and print costs. I get the reluctance and preference for 24 fps. But most people haven't really seen 48fps footage shot with quality 35mm lenses, excellent film style lighting, and professional color grading, so people saying it will look like a soap opera is equally ignorant. It might, I haven't seen it in action, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. And like Jackson and his crew, I may come to prefer the look, who knows?

It won't look like 60i or a soap opera, but it is still a new toy. Though as David said, the technology isn't exactly new. Playing with new toys makes more sense for certain genres of film than others. How else will they fill the movie theaters? The theaters keep dwindling in attendance due to online delivery.

 

[David Jimerson]

But most people haven't really seen 48fps footage shot with quality 35mm lenses, excellent film style lighting, and professional color grading, so people saying it will look like a soap opera is equally ignorant.

I've seen 50 fps with all of that, and it does. Now, it's true that many "soap operas" are shot with 3-camera lighting, but even looking at that -- I've noticed that a number of American soap operas are now shot at 30p or even 24p, and even with the same kinds of lighting, they look a darn sight more cinematic than with 60i/p. The motion makes a considerable difference.

The whole point of a faster frame rate is to change the motion to a more "natural" and "real" look, and that's exactly what makes it look like "reality" or "live" video. 'Coz, well, that's why you're doing it.

 

[Batutta]

I've seen 50 fps with all of that, and it does.

The whole point of a faster frame rate is to change the motion to a more "natural" and "real" look, and that's exactly what makes it look like "reality" or "live" video. 'Coz, well, that's why you're doing it.

Really? It looks just like Days of Our Lives? And I don't mean in just one aspect. Frankly I never thought video looked like reality.

 

[blackcat]

I've seen 50 fps with all of that, and it does.

The whole point of a faster frame rate is to change the motion to a more "natural" and "real" look, and that's exactly what makes it look like "reality" or "live" video. 'Coz, well, that's why you're doing it.

It will change the motion blur for sure, but there are other factors at play, like the color and gamma, lighting, and composition. Soap operas go for generic television lighting and traditionally analogue video-like colors.

That said, I also plan on shooting with 24 fps for the motion blur. A lot would have to change in the digital cinema world for me to want to shoot in 48 fps right now.

 

[David Jimerson]

I made a slight edit to my post you guys might want to check out.

It's not really the frame rate which gives you a specific motion blur -- it's the shutter speed relative to the frame rate. You can have the same apparent level of blur in most any frame rate (theoretically).

 

[Batutta]

It will change the motion blur for sure,

I wouldn't be so sure. No film camera was ever capable of a 1/24 shutter. 1/48 was the standard because of the mechanical 180 degree shutter. Since digital cameras don't use a mechanical shutter, a 48fps camera can still do a 1/48 shutter.

 

[David Jimerson]

Frankly I never thought video looked like reality.

It looks moreso than 24 fps film or video. But whether or not it looks 100% like reality, it looks a certain way which is more "live" or "real" and increasing the frame rate moves you closer to that way.

 

[AGMedia]

If Hollywood moves over to the video look -- the video guys no longer need to bother with emulating a film look.

It's shocking that Jackson doesn't have a clue about the origin of 24 frames per second.

Part of the survival plan for movie theatres is that they'll be able to project live events, and this means commercial projectors will need the ability to project different frame rates (including interlaced) -- and this is very, very different from mechanical film projectors. For content creators/producers -- this opens up a new degree of freedom. Meaning, you can project 60fps in a theatre to show your action/horror movie, OR you can project 24fps to show your romantic love story. In other words -- it's not one or the other, it's not "the death of" anything. Digital projectors means more options for you -- the creator/producer.

 

[David Jimerson]

That's all fine. It's just this grating idea that cinematic film is shot in 24 fps just because filmmakers are too stubborn to move away from it and are too closed-minded to see it any other way.

Frame rates in moving pictures are not unlike time signatures in music.

You wouldn't have a 4/4 waltz. You wouldn't have a driving rock anthem in 6/8. Perhaps there are one-off examples of both, but if there are, they are very, very few. Composers don't choose those time signatures because they're stuck in the past or simply because they're the way it's always been done; they choose them because they work best for the particular thing they're doing.

 

[vanvideo]

You can't call people small-minded and then simply add on "but hey, if it's what you like, that's cool."

No one is saying that Jackson shouldn't try this. No one is saying that the technology to do it shouldn't be developed. All anyone's saying is that 24 fps works for an aesthetic reason, and it's not because we simply don't know any other way.

I never called anyone "small minded!!" Now you're putting words in my mouth - insulting words at that. How dare you!
Now you owe ME an apology.

 

[David Jimerson]

I never called anyone "small minded!!" Now you're putting words in my mouth - insulting words at that. How dare you!
Now you owe ME an apology.

You did not use those exact words, but yes, you did:

. . .

Now, my advice is, don't be too quick to shrug off emerging technologies and trends in our field.

. . . .

My point is, just because things have been done a certain way in our industry for a long time doesn't mean it will stay that way. Be prepared to embrace change, or you might get left behind.

That is absolutely how it comes across.

I don't want to belabor this any further, really, but there's a difference between changing tools to achieve a certain thing, and the thing itself. If you want to bring ferocious animals to life, the technology for doing so has changed and improved and no one does much stop-action anymore. But the frame rate isn't a type of technology, it's actually the ferocious animal you're trying to bring to life. The "change" you're referencing here is the frame rate, not the tool to achieve it. You change the frame rate, you change the animal itself. You get a Stegosaurus instead of a T. Rex. Which is fine if you like the Stegosaurus, but for many things, the T. Rex is the appropriate animal, and the Stegosaurus won't do, no matter what tools you use to bring either one to life.

 

[androbot2084]

Years ago Doug Trumbull proved that movie audiences prefer 30 frames per second for the drama and 60 frames per second for fast action. So he invented Showscan which projects 65mm film at 30 to 60 frames per second. Yet Trumballs critics insisted without even looking at the footage that it looked like a cheesy soap opera. This would be impossible because all the drama footage was projected at 30 frames per second. As for the action footage that was projected at 60 fps and since when does a soap opera include action footage? And critics of Doug Trumble claimed that his 65mm film projectors looked like 480i interlaced video? I think the cinematographers were just looking for excuses for not purchasing 65 mm film.

 

[KMR]

Meaning, you can project 60fps in a theatre to show your action/horror movie, OR you can project 24fps to show your romantic love story. In other words -- it's not one or the other, it's not "the death of" anything. Digital projectors means more options for you -- the creator/producer.

Eek! It also means more options for projectionists to screw it up. I really, really hate seeing things projected in the wrong aspect ratio at film festivals (not incredibly uncommon, unfortunately). Just imagine sometime in the near future going to see a 2-hour movie and having it show at double speed and lasting just an hour and sounding like Alvin and the Chipmunks, or having it show at half speed and lasting 4 hours and sounding like Ellen Degeneres speaking whale in Finding Nemo...

 

[blackcat]

I wouldn't be so sure. No film camera was ever capable of a 1/24 shutter. 1/48 was the standard because of the mechanical 180 degree shutter. Since digital cameras don't use a mechanical shutter, a 48fps camera can still do a 1/48 shutter.

That would mean using a different frame rate and breaking the 180 degree shutter convention. Most big production digital video is still shot with the 180 degree shutter, except for occasional special effects.

Shooting 48 fps with a 1/48 shutter, would also exhibit a different motion blur from 24 fps using the 180 degree shutter.

 

[pulpfiction007]

You know what - it should not be 24 fps VS 48/60 fps. It should be 24fps OR 48/60 fps

We should always choose what's apprpriate for the film being made and trust what our eyes tell us. Both have their place for different types of films and the content should always lead the way to the right choice. Sci Fi, Animation, 3D, and Action might well benefit greatly from higher rates. Just like Character Studies, Drama, and other dialogue driven styles benefit from the "life as a dream" cadence of 24fps.
I agree with David Jimerson that it gets old hearing that 24fps is only chosen because it's "what we're used to" and I'm sure the "48/60 fps will look like video/soap operas" gets old to others.
I sincerely believe both 24fps and higher rates will exist together as simple choices that we don't pay that much mind to.... just like with the options we have available to us now. We just test a bit and decide which way to go.

 

[vanvideo]

Very well, David. I will not get into a pissing contest with you, you're a moderator.
You think I insulted you and others on this forum. You give examples, but in my opinion, you still do not make your point. Apparently you are offended, none the less. My opinons may be strong on the matter, but I do not feel they are insulting.
We obviously have different opinions on the matter, but I will say I never meant to insult anyone, and I still maintain I did not. I believe in the integrity of this open forum, and personal insults should not be tolerated.

I've had enough of this subject matter.
Unfortunately, I feel there is no constructive exchange of opinion and dialogue in this thread. It seems offering an idea that differs from an established norm is attacked, and the person doing so is accused of hurling insults.

I invite the owner/ operator and other moderators of this forum to read my posts and judge if I resorted to insults, as I am so accused by one moderator. I will abide by that decision.

 

[Shooter]

wouldn't be so sure. No film camera was ever capable of a 1/24 shutter. 1/48 was the standard because of the mechanical 180 degree shutter.

The shutter angle is not measured in fractions of a second. It is measured in degrees. ( and the shutter angle in combination with the fps determines the exposure in fractions of a second)

There are plenty of film cameras with variable degree shutters and it is easy to achieve an exposure of 1/24th of a second should one wish to.

 

[blackcat]

The shutter angle is not measured in fractions of a second. It is measured in degrees. ( and the shutter angle in combination with the fps determines the exposure in fractions of a second)

There are plenty of film cameras with variable degree shutters and it is easy to achieve an exposure of 1/24th of a second should one wish to.

This.