Shooting in 48fps

blackcat said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem for cinemas and distributors was also that with 30 fps they'd have bigger rolls of film to transport. Just make the calculation what that would mean for a major distributor in increased load he has to pay for. For producers it meant more film stock to buy. 24 p all the time was only a compromise between how to achieve seemingly fluid movements for the human eyes with 24 p and a two shutter projector and the costs of shooting and transporting material.

24 p was a compromise that has become, over the years, an aesthetic convention. Fine. We can stick to it but we don't need to. People who shoot digital and still want film-look should care more about having a big sensor cam, the appropriate lighting, the right lenses and a very good grading (we added a tiny bit of "grain" to our last movies to make them appear more film-like).

There is one thing I for my part really hate to see going away and that is the actual look of material from a 16 or 35 mm negative. There are a lot of structural differences in the way the material reacts and then shines if you see your first print.

Having said this: It's a moment of sheer beauty one in most cases only shares with his DoP and the guys in the lab. Mass prints of a movie look distinctively worse. At least in my experience. Everything a question of overcoming the problems of delivery in film making - and that's where digital kicks in by preserving that better (at least in theory).

For people who really want to have "film look" there is only one solution in the end: Shoot film.
 
tipota said:
For people who really want to have "film look" there is only one solution in the end: Shoot film.
Click to expand...

I would absolutely love to! I plan to shoot film just as soon as I have a big enough budget ;) Until then, I will be happy with the AF100. The anticipation of getting my hands on it and starting production is killing me. Killing me!!! *cough - hack - wheeze* Ok, maybe it's all this Iraqi dust.
 
tipota said:
24 p was a compromise that has become, over the years, an aesthetic convention. Fine. We can stick to it but we don't need to. People who shoot digital and still want film-look should care more about having a big sensor cam, the appropriate lighting, the right lenses and a very good grading (we added a tiny bit of "grain" to our last movies to make them appear more film-like).
Click to expand...

I am with you. I am not unnecessarily pro 24 fps. Digital video is a medium for me, not an end. If it starts to make sense to shoot in 48 fps, I will do it. I just find the topic funny, because indie filmmakers wanted the look of 24 fps so badly. However, I am definitely glad to be done with interlaced video. I am not a fan. There aren't the bandwidth problems anymore that justified interlaced video.

We might be one of the last generation of filmmakers who get to work in film. Film will stick around for a while, but it seems like it will be more of an expensive novelty than a convention.

All of this does bring up the question: Should digital cinema try to be like film?
 
I think this is a direct result of digital vs film. 24fps shot and played back on film at a theatre does not look like 24fps shot and shown digitally. The digital 24fps looks a lot more stark and juddery. So all of the digital cinema stuff looks like it needs to come with a new standard along with it to get the thumbs up from the big boys...or they would be happy with 24p.

I see Blu-rays at retails stores on the 240Hz TVs and I think it looks like interlaced material. Makes one wonder and possibly throw your hands in the air.
 
Yeah...I don't know if I have the energy to type my opinin on this again.

But here goes....
1. Jackson and Cameron both make certain types of films - Epic, effects laden, action heavy, and they are both in love with 3D. They also live in a creative bubble....meaning it seems like they think everybody wants to make these types of films. News Flash - Not everybody does.
2. For these types of films, higher frame rates make sense and I'm sure it will look great on the big screen - They know what they're doing.
3. That being said....for character studies, dialogue driven films, and slower paced dramas that place more of an emphasis on beautiful lighting and carefully crafted camera moves - 24P is still the king of the world - it's more akin to photography - letting the images sink in. 48 or 60 in these types of films makes no sense at all. and for anyone to suggest that EVERYTHING shot at 48
will look better is fooling themselves as much as the people saying 48/60 have no place.
It's like anything else. Color grading, type of camera, which lens to use. Do what's right for the project - not what is technologically possible.
 
I think that with 3D, 48 frames per second is mandatory if you want to avoid headaches. Yet there are still cinematographers that say give me 24 fps or give me death and 3D is not an exception for them and then they wonder why 3D took so long for it to take off in popularity.

48 fps does not look anything like 60i interlace because interlace looks like crap.

I think for people that want to preserve the 24 fps film look a good compromise would be to shoot the drama scenes at 24 fps and the action scenes at 48 fps. This would preserve the film look and it would prevent the action footage from falling apart.
 
Can some one point me to a link with info to the technology that projects (plays back) at 48fps or any intention to develop this technology for cinemas.

I am curious whether this thread is confusing shooting at 48fps with playback at 48fps .
 
vanvideo said:
A good storyline has nothing at all to do with 24P.
Click to expand...

A "good storyline" has nothing to do with a lot of things which happen in cinema. A "good storyline" is a "good storyline."

If that's all you think you need, then I invite you to shoot everything with a VHS camcorder and overhead office fluorescent lighting. After all, a "good storyline" has nothing to do with that, either.

Seriously, if that's all you want -- read a book. The "storylines" are almost always better. But a film is more, much more, than just a "storyline."

You may personally not like the look of 24p, but the vast majority do, as been proven over and over and over every time someone got into their heads that they were going to change the standard framerate to something faster. Hardly anyone wants their movies to look like reality TV or soap operas or home movies. Hardly anyone. Not the makers, not the watchers.

Perhaps you do. Perhaps even Peter Jackson likes it that way. But that's just you. And Peter Jackson. That's not the audience at large, that's not filmmakers at large, and that's not the way it's ever gone down no matter who's tried it.
 
starcentral said:
These people seriously have too much time on their hands....
Click to expand...

They have too much money on their hands. What they are doing is fairly logical for producing high budget action films in 3D. That would help them them produce the 3D stereoscope. It would also make sense for scenes where they want to efficiently pull a cleaner key. This all also helps market their expensive movies. We are all talking about the supposedly new revelation that a higher frame rate has less motion blur.
 
Shooter said:
Can some one point me to a link with info to the technology that projects (plays back) at 48fps or any intention to develop this technology for cinemas.

I am curious whether this thread is confusing shooting at 48fps with playback at 48fps .
Click to expand...

Cameron and Jackson have both stated that theaters are already preparing for the exhibition of a 48FPS project.

That's one reason why I'm excited, it should trickle down to consumer electronics. When it does, that means video game developers can shoot for higher FPS games and companies like Pixar can exhibit features at 48FPS... it sounds dreamy, to me!
 
Shooter said:
I am curious whether this thread is confusing shooting at 48fps with playback at 48fps .
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at the James Cameron one yet. That youtube link with Douglas Trumball shows them shooting at 120 fps. They say that most of what they shoot will appear to have the motion blur of 24fps, and then they are going to rotoscope certain high action scenes to appear to have the motion blur of 48 or 60 fps within a 24 fps timeline.
 
vanvideo said:
Now, my advice is, don't be too quick to shrug off emerging technologies and trends in our field.
Click to expand...

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.

To suggest that anyone who thinks so is some kind of slave to the past, or worse yet, simply doesn't know any better, is deeply insulting. You have a preference, and that's fine, but don't suggest that those who don't share it are somehow developmentally challenged, ignorant of why 24 fps was chosen, or fear change. That gets very tiring, very quickly.
 
blackcat said:
I haven't looked at the James Cameron one yet. That youtube link with Douglas Trumball shows them shooting at 120 fps. They say that most of what they shoot will appear to have the motion blur of 24fps, and then they are going to rotoscope certain high action scenes to appear to have the motion blur of 48 or 60 fps within a 24 fps timeline.
Click to expand...

Do you know where that link is? I haven't seen it yet.
 
blackcat said:
We might be one of the last generation of filmmakers who get to work in film. Film will stick around for a while, but it seems like it will be more of an expensive novelty than a convention.

All of this does bring up the question: Should digital cinema try to be like film?
Click to expand...

No.
Digital cinema should be its own medium. It has its own look and "texture," and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It should never be made into what it isn't. Film certainly has its own beautiful look. But to me, so does HD cinema video. I don't consider one superior to the other. Well, actually, I do consider video superior as far as ease of use and cost effectiveness.
I have never tried to make any of my productions look "film-like." I always tried to make them look as good as possible - that was my only criteria.
Video shot at 24P has never made me think it looks like film. It looks like what it is - video shot at 24P. I never confused the two media.
If you're on this site, you probably work in video, digital cinema, call it what you will. If you prefer the look of 24P, by all means, go for it. I've shot a lot of productions in 24P myself (usualy at the director's request), but they still look like HD video to me, not film.

I've been catching heck with my opinions on 24 vs 48/60, but I am open to anything that will enhance the HD production experience. If I were given a big budget to make a major motion picture (ha!), I would absolutely use the latest and greatest digital cinema cameras. And if 48fps looks the best, then I would use that.
And, I guarantee you, the average moviegoer can't tell the difference between film or video, and couldn't care less if they knew. Do you honestly think audiences are going to stay away from Pirates of the Caribbean 4 because it's shot with RED cameras? Do you think they're going to run screaming out of the theaters because The Hobbit will be in 48fps?
 
David Jimerson said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is logical that James Cameron, and his peers, would make a big deal about this. These sorts of action films are all about toys and technology. I am not really trying to make a judgement about films like Avatar. Simply, most people that I know who went to the theater were looking for a demonstration of fancy 3D technology.

48 fps and 60 fps will still look different from 60i, and I still plan to shoot my stuff at 24 fps.

I personally hope that 3D stays in the world of movies that show off technology. I don't think it looks good enough for me to worry about dealing with the footage in post. The one factor in my favor is that 3D without glasses requires an optimal seating area, which does not allow for a packed cinema. There is nothing new about that technology; the soviets were doing it. I suppose someone might come out with a new technology for 3D without glasses at some point.
 
Last edited:
David Jimerson said:
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.

To suggest that anyone who thinks so is some kind of slave to the past, or worse yet, simply doesn't know any better, is deeply insulting. You have a preference, and that's fine, but don't suggest that those who don't share it are somehow developmentally challenged, ignorant of why 24 fps was chosen, or fear change. That gets very tiring, very quickly.
Click to expand...

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.

I never said anyone was developmentally challenged or ignorant - not even close. How you got that from my post is beyond me. I think you read too much into my posts. I also never said anyone had to use 48fps to get the most out of their productions - never.
But if you felt I did insult you, I certainly apologise.

I find this whole subject a fascinating discussion. There are obviously strong opinions one way or the other. There's no right or wrong, as it is a professional and artistic decision left up to each individual filmaker (or his producer). So, I will re-iterate what I've stated in this thread before - if you like 24fps, then by all means, go for it!
I do not, however, understand those who say they don't like it, yet they've never even seen it. How can you possibly know? How?? Will you at least watch a 48fps film before passing judgement?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top