My criterion is audience success. Commercial success usually follows.
And by "audience" it can also mean a jury of your peers at a film contest.
I mean, we all try to make films that don't suck, right?
Shooting in 48fps
- Thread starter plwells42
- Start date
My criterion is audience success. Commercial success usually follows.
And by "audience" it can also mean a jury of your peers at a film contest.
I mean, we all try to make films that don't suck, right?
^ This. Absolutely.
Don't underestimate Cameron. He's the one who created the 3D movie craze. Admittedly, the maturing technology has helped.
Who knows, in 5 years we may all be shooting in 3D. I wouldn't doubt that.
One final word from me ( you guys hope!).
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.
Now, my advice is, don't be too quick to shrug off emerging technologies and trends in our field.
I remember when Jurassic Park first came out, and its first use of CG animated dinosaurs, we were all amazed at what the technology could do. I remember reading about how, in the movie's pre-production days, one of the best stop-motion animators was called in to work on the film. When he was shown the first experimental shots of CG animation, his heart sank, because he knew the writing was on the wall, that his tried and true method of animation was no competition to this new technology.
Yerar ago, in the 90s and early 2000s, when I would browse the websites of cinematography, I was disillusioned to see what most of the cinematographers thought of us who worked in video. They called us "vidiots" and generally looked down upon our video technology - Beta SP in those days. They said video would never replace film, never! Hmm.
Now, fast forward to today, and how many of those guys do you think now work in HD video, with Alexas, Cine Altas and REDs? Who's the "vidiot" now, I wonder?
I used to think 2/3" cameras were the best, and nothing could replace them. But, I traded mine in for a 1/3" CMOS cam and I couldn't be happier. I may never go back to a large 2/3" cam.
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.
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.
Now, my advice is, don't be too quick to shrug off emerging technologies and trends in our field.
I remember when Jurassic Park first came out, and its first use of CG animated dinosaurs, we were all amazed at what the technology could do. I remember reading about how, in the movie's pre-production days, one of the best stop-motion animators was called in to work on the film. When he was shown the first experimental shots of CG animation, his heart sank, because he knew the writing was on the wall, that his tried and true method of animation was no competition to this new technology.
Yerar ago, in the 90s and early 2000s, when I would browse the websites of cinematography, I was disillusioned to see what most of the cinematographers thought of us who worked in video. They called us "vidiots" and generally looked down upon our video technology - Beta SP in those days. They said video would never replace film, never! Hmm.
Now, fast forward to today, and how many of those guys do you think now work in HD video, with Alexas, Cine Altas and REDs? Who's the "vidiot" now, I wonder?
I used to think 2/3" cameras were the best, and nothing could replace them. But, I traded mine in for a 1/3" CMOS cam and I couldn't be happier. I may never go back to a large 2/3" cam.
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.
Last edited:
Very well said. I'm not gonna declare all the protest to be fear mongering, but alot of it certainly is.
Searcher
Well-known member
Yes, and the sound quailty of CDs is so much better than vinyl... Or not! Vinyl is increasing in sales and many people consider the sound quality to be better.
Searcher
Well-known member
This is a really depressing thread.
HansSteinert
Well-known member
I don't think 24p will be obsolete for a while. 48p will be reserved for really high end productions for the next decade or so, almost like a luxury thing. Reason being, with 48p you've got double the render times, half the light, double the file sizes, double the roto work, and you need (theoretically) double the processing power to edit it. Is that worth the advantages of a higher framerate? If you've got a huge budget and you're making a movie with a lot of fast paced sequences, probably. For most of us? Not really.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Agreed. But whenever technology changes perception changes too and aesthetics follow. This is an ongoing, integrated, interdependent process. And it has influenced film-making and the perception of audiences since the Lumiere Brothers showed their "Arrive d'un train a La Ciotat" in 1895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cUEANKv964
These changes happen and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Do I like it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Black & white, hand cranked, silent "Nosferatu" by Murnau is in my view ten times more creepy and beautiful than the colour/ 24 fps/ sound version by Herzog.
It all comes down to how people in a given situation handle a technology. Unions and critics and artists howled when the moving picture became also the talkie. And yes, aesthetically it was a step back at times until cameras became small and moveable again.
I am one who called people "vidiots" for more than twenty years and reacted to the idea of shooting electronic/digital like the devil towards holy water. But: Finally we have big sensor digital camera. And at least for me everything changed.
However we see it of feel about it: A change will happen if it makes sense.
Last edited:
The day the movies died
The day the movies died
I will be open minded and reserve my absolute condemnation of the higher frame rates until I've seen "The Hobbit". Maybe Jackson will make a convert out of me too. I seriously doubt it though.
I can understand the benefit of the higher frame rates (lower eye strain) for 3D movies, but there should be no reason whatsoever to make the move for 2D films. I have tremendous respect for Jackson and Cameron, but if they are successful in fostering a new era in higher frame rates then cinema, as I know and love it, is flatlining.
vanvideo, I won't go so far as to accuse you of having a hidden agenda in helping promote shooting in 48fps, but I simply can't wrap my head around how anyone can't see how superior the look and feel of a film shot at 24fps is. Plus, I do hope you are FAR off the mark in suggesting that everything will one day be shot in 3D.
The day the movies died
I will be open minded and reserve my absolute condemnation of the higher frame rates until I've seen "The Hobbit". Maybe Jackson will make a convert out of me too. I seriously doubt it though.
I can understand the benefit of the higher frame rates (lower eye strain) for 3D movies, but there should be no reason whatsoever to make the move for 2D films. I have tremendous respect for Jackson and Cameron, but if they are successful in fostering a new era in higher frame rates then cinema, as I know and love it, is flatlining.
vanvideo, I won't go so far as to accuse you of having a hidden agenda in helping promote shooting in 48fps, but I simply can't wrap my head around how anyone can't see how superior the look and feel of a film shot at 24fps is. Plus, I do hope you are FAR off the mark in suggesting that everything will one day be shot in 3D.
PaPa
Major Contributor
^^^^ What he said.
I'm quite certain that peter and his gang chose this not simply because of the added reality of more frames and fluidity, but really to help out the smoothfactor of 3D, especially when watching what will most likely be a very long film! Don't think it will be the new norm or anything.
I'm quite certain that peter and his gang chose this not simply because of the added reality of more frames and fluidity, but really to help out the smoothfactor of 3D, especially when watching what will most likely be a very long film! Don't think it will be the new norm or anything.
jburke14
Active member
24fps has been the standard for over 80 years. It isn't a trend like 3D. Let's not get that confused. 24p is embedded in our brains as 'right' and when we see that 30p we are taken out of the experience. To me 48fps will never look right. I am a cinema lover and having watched so many movies and will continue doing so, My eyes and mind won't suddenly change to accepting 48fps. Everytime I pop an old movie in I will be back in 24fps mode where cinema belongs. 48fps will be a trend. Like 3d.
Certain directors will be very anti-48fps. I see Christopher Nolan being totally against this, Spielberg probably too. Both film, old school purists that appreciate the history of cinema more than the fad that's popular this month.
That being said, I'm sure I will see The Hobbit opening weekend. I appreciate what Jackson did to LOTR. But it is sad that he feels he has to resort to 3D to sell it, because the trilogy wasn't in 3D and was perfectly fabulous. I hope there is a non-3D version for people like me who love the classic elements of cinema. Gone with the wind wasn't shot in 3D. The spectical was still there. And people still came. I just don't want our world to become, oh u have to shoot in 3D or 48fps for people to see your movie.
Certain directors will be very anti-48fps. I see Christopher Nolan being totally against this, Spielberg probably too. Both film, old school purists that appreciate the history of cinema more than the fad that's popular this month.
That being said, I'm sure I will see The Hobbit opening weekend. I appreciate what Jackson did to LOTR. But it is sad that he feels he has to resort to 3D to sell it, because the trilogy wasn't in 3D and was perfectly fabulous. I hope there is a non-3D version for people like me who love the classic elements of cinema. Gone with the wind wasn't shot in 3D. The spectical was still there. And people still came. I just don't want our world to become, oh u have to shoot in 3D or 48fps for people to see your movie.
Last edited:
DutchFX
Active member
Well said.
I agree totally. Coupled with that is the fact that realistically most of us will never see a 35mm print of our film projected on a large screen anyway. When that is done, the projector itself adds shutter.
So, those of us who like the film look, but don't anticipate a major distributor knocking on our door, will shoot 24fps. I have been herding a film I shot on HDV/24p with a Canon HV40 around some film festivals. Two weeks ago at San Luis Obispo it screened in BluRay with an excellent projector in a terrific theater - The Palm - several of the filmmakers there asked if it was shot in super16. It looked damn good.
I want higher frame rates for regular viewing. There's a world of possibilities that opens up when our theater and home displays can do 24+ frames.
Choose the application appropriately.
And, nobody declared the death of twenty-four frames per second. These guys just want theaters to be able to have the tech available so they can make their work look better to a paying audience. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not going to change the entire world to 48FPS only.
Choose the application appropriately.
And, nobody declared the death of twenty-four frames per second. These guys just want theaters to be able to have the tech available so they can make their work look better to a paying audience. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not going to change the entire world to 48FPS only.
No agenda here, my friend. Cameron and Jackson aren't paying me a stipend to voice my opinions. And it's not like I'm selling 48fps cameras. :cheesy:
I don't see the superiority of 24fps. Nope. I don't wish to be shackled by that frame rate. I honestly think it's an anachronism, an echo from the days of film. Yes, I believe film's days are numbered, as well. :shocked:
I see more programming coming in 3D, more cable channels. I see 3D growing, not decreasing. Accept the inevitable.
Why, one day those darn talkies might catch on!
While I'm on-board for the shift for more framerates and the advantages for different narrative content, the 3D thing was not pioneered by James Cameron and is as about as old as James Cameron himself.
I don't think 3D will remain here for more than a few more years, and I feel that the execs know this already and are preparing the next pushy gimmick, which is probably exhibiting in 4K.
3D has its cycle similar to how genre's have their life cycle: it'll die then come back again in another decade, but this time has holographic entertainment.
Anyone concerned about 3D, higher frame rates, etc should probably step back and look at the entire picture. It's just opening up doors for more creative options, but certainly not closing the door on tried and true.
I don't think 3D will remain here for more than a few more years, and I feel that the execs know this already and are preparing the next pushy gimmick, which is probably exhibiting in 4K.
3D has its cycle similar to how genre's have their life cycle: it'll die then come back again in another decade, but this time has holographic entertainment.
Anyone concerned about 3D, higher frame rates, etc should probably step back and look at the entire picture. It's just opening up doors for more creative options, but certainly not closing the door on tried and true.
Standards change. We are witnessing the birth of digital cinema right now, all around us. Most all of the TV dramas shot in the US have gone digital. Who would have predicted that 10 years ago? Many feature films are doing the same.
3D is becoming more popular. Is it a fad? a trend? Who can say? We won't know for many years. And for those who say they do know, well, you have no more insight than I do. And I have no idea what will come next. Be honest, neither do you.
And now, we have 48fps. Some are already claiming they won't like it, yet how can you make such a statement when there aren't any 48fps movies out there? Can you at least withhold judgement until you've seen such a film? I certainly will. Heck, I may hate it. We'll see.
These are interesting times, gentlemen. Relax, enjoy the ride.
48p could turn out to be a good, working comprise that unifies the fragmented film, NTSC, and PAL worlds, and hopefully banishes the interlaced 59.94i curse as well. As a backward-compatible container for legacy 24p films, 48p would deliver uncorrupted image quality with no telecine artifacts. On the PAL side, 48p is close enough to 50p to offer a conformable upgrade to the current 25p broadcast standard. And for existing NTSC 60i video, conversion to 48p would produce clean, progressive footage without significant loss of image quality.
One thing that should NOT BE TOLERATED, however, is any attempt to produce 47.952p video streams telecined to fit a 59.94i container...
One thing that should NOT BE TOLERATED, however, is any attempt to produce 47.952p video streams telecined to fit a 59.94i container...
If the industry and/or independent filmmakers switch over to 48 fps, I will laugh a lot. Independent filmmakers wanted 24 fps so badly! I have a documentary theory book that talks about some parts of the industry wanting to switch over to 30 fps some time back. I want to say that it was in the 1970s. According to the book anyways, after some tests with audiences, more people preferred 30 fps. The switch never happened, because movie theaters didn't want to replace their projectors.